Quote
The Shadow

Quote
Maxui
Not really into being beaten.... physically anyway

this speaks volumes, Maxui: and I must say I am not surprised. YOUR OWN "inference" here is that while you are not "into" being beaten physically, therefore you are saying that you are not adverse to be beaten emotionally/psychologically.

Do i really need to explain this to you?

Christ sake man read the comment in the context of the conversation.

really.

Maxui.... in the context of the convesation then... I also have a number for a VERY expensive specialist in non-physical domination... just dial 555-Sha-dow... :lol:

*waits to be woo-hoo'ed* :)

Question lady wrote:

Quote

It's another example of taking a perfectly good word - 'Responsibility" and twisting it to mean something else entirely. From their definition, the word that comes to mind isn't 'responsibility' but rather 'God-like omnipotence'....It's a partial truth. I think it's good to ask 'How did i create this in my life?" as long as you distinguish what was within your control from what wasn't.

Thanks question lady - how come the un-brainwashed people around here always see things so clearly? :P

The article "Pathology as personal growth" - based on a lifestpring study - has some comments on this:

Quote

Although there was often an element of truth in the trainer's arguments, the extensive use of all-or-nothing categories, absolutist logic and magical thinking distorted what would other-wise have been reasonable points. Ideas were not presented as problematic beliefs which were open to scrutiny but as transcendent truth--"natural knowing." The critical eye of the participant wits turned away from tile content of the training and toward him/herself. its the source of all knowledge

[b:007c69a3c5]Infantile omnipotence and identification with the leader[/b:007c69a3c5]

After participating in a variety of regressive exercises, Participants came increasingly to identify with the trainer and to share his power during the third and fourth days of training. Shifting from the emphasis upon submission and trust, the trainer suggested that we were totally responsible for all events, in our lives--"100 percent accountable"--including the selection of our parents. An exercise designed to illustrate the theme of "taking full responsibility" involved the use of pairs. Partners were to tell each other of an occasion when each had been victimized. Several people told stories about having been beaten by a parent as a child. We were then instructed to retell the story from a position of 100 percent accountability--in other words, how we "set things up to be that way."

This exercise transformed the infantile helplessness which participants had experienced earlier into infantile omnipotence. Many participants reported feelings of elation and expansiveness following this exercise. The level of insight gained was akin to the reasoning of a small child who has not yet cognitively overcome an egocentric view of the world--the conviction that all events emanate from the self. The subjective experience of liberation which accompanied this exercise seemed to stem from the sense of omnipotent control generated among the participants. The group was particularly vulnerable to this type of primitive reasoning because of the effects of the earlier training. The lowering of inhibitions, the extensive structuring of the environment and the undermining of critical thought combined to elicit archaic defenses such as omnipotence.

Forgot the link for "Pathology as personal growth":

[www.culteducation.com]

Okay Maxui, sorry, no more bad infantile humour from me, I promise.

May I ask, who recruited you into Insight? Was it a friend or family member? Also, did you ever assist / staff?

Hi Sane Again,

555-Sha-dow? :lol:

regards,'
'shad'

Shad, get those boots on! And don't forget my commission... :wink:

While we're on the subject of "being at cause", the opposite of that (and only other option in the lgat paradigm) is "going into effect".

"Going into effect" means that you react automatically to the world around you, like a machine or a computer, based on your "programming" which is based on past experience. When you are "at cause" you are supposed to be living in the present moment and creating a new experience, rather than living in the past and 'giving away your power' to others by allowing them to 'push your buttons' to get a reaction.

The only way to escape your programming and be truly at cause is by continuously clearing and / or releasing the past and past emotions.

Question lady, I think this is the underlying principle that The Sedona Method is [i:99d4e3e832]probably[/i:99d4e3e832] also based on or derived from. It stems from Scientology by the way, where L. Ron Hubbard invented the concepts of "at cause", "going into effect", "the reactive mind" and "becoming (a) clear".

Quest teaches that negative emotions from old programming (old may be as new as ten minutes ago) should be released through controlled physical processes, or cleared through telling a person (or an empty chair) what does and does not work for you (about life, the person, whatever).

I think the concept of going into effect contributes to people in lgats lacking compassion because when someone shows a negative emotion (eg feeling hurt by something you've said) then it is interpreted as that person "going into effect" and something to be dismissed because its just old programming, the other person's sh*t that they should clear rather than making it your problem. Obviously its very selective and open to interpretation when a person may choose to be "at cause" for creating pain in another person that they are in relationship with, and choosing to see it as the other person's sh*t caused by them going into effect.

Rswinters, did Klemmer use the phrase "going into effect" or did they have another word for it? Also, what word did they have for the Landmark concept of a "racket"? Quest called this "playing games", they didn't really have a simple word.

Maxui, did you use the same concepts at Insight?

Quote
SaneAgain
Rswinters, did Klemmer use the phrase "going into effect" or did they have another word for it?...

Not the same phrase was used in Klemmer. I can't remember the exact phase used. "At Cause" was definitely used in the context being discussed on how LGAT's view what being at cause is.

The "Victim vs Responsible" view point that is being shared here and how LGAT's view these two ways a person chooses to be if totally Klemmer as well.

I found myself reading these current posts and feeling like I was hearing someone discuss their experience of Klemmer philosophy.

It is scary. There really is not much difference with Klemmer and other LGAT's out there.

Quote
"SaneAgain"
Shad, get those boots on! And don't forget my commission... :wink:

:lol: okey, dokey SaneAgain, :wink:
'shad'