Briggs has experienced the TOTAL defeat of Landmark on this board.
NOT ONE PERSON FROM LANDMARK has been able to defend Landmark AT ALL. So Briggs slips into Ad Hominem and name calling, and attempting to discredit those with valuable opinions.

Why?
Because the ideas put forward by those who are critical of Landmark are totally devastating for Landmark.
There is no defense for a simple con-job.
The more they try to defend it, the deeper the hole they dig.

Coz

Hopefully... if anyone is at the stage of kind of not being happy in Landmark, then maybe if some of these discussions raise some doubts in their minds, enough for them to feel free enough to break away from Landmark, then that is a good thing.

When you are feeling (subconsciously) bored, stale and trapped, when Landmark just isn't the wonderful panacea that you thought it was, when you can see that Landmark can never be "the answer" yet you still find yourself a part of it... then maybe these kind of discussions can offer a new kind of thrill... maybe they can hint at the excitement, the "possibilities", of your own freedom to just completely walk away from Landmark.

If someone thinks that Landmark leaders are some kind of futuristic uber beings, transformed into infinite human transformational power or something... well ok. If that is what they think... that is what they think. But if you can see some holes in Landmark's teachings, then you can start to see that they are fallible, or, more accurately, that their insight into the human condition is somewhat shallow.

If people stick with Landmark just out of fear, either of "Landmark globo comm", or of the group that they experienced and internalized, then that is just sad. If they are afraid that they will self-destruct without landmark, then that is sad, too. I mean, it is a double edged sword... maybe, possibly that type of training can "fix" some life problems by creating change, but then you are trapped into what you changed into. You need to stay aligned with Landmark at that point in order to sustain your new "changed" self, at least in your own view. Seeing Landmark's limitations and recognizing your own freedom to just walk away from it, I think, is the best outcome, and is maybe, after all, just one of those life lessons that has to be learned from experience.


"You've been told many times before
Messiahs pointed to the door,
no one had the guts to leave the temple.
I'm free. I'm free.
And freedom
tastes
of reality"

from "I'm Free", a song in the rock opera "Tommy", by The Who

Tricky,

It's a simple question.
An answer might be:
1. When I aligned all colors on the Rubiks cubes at the age 4 and everyone made a fuss over it.
2. When I easily got straight A's on my report card while other s were struggling.
3. When I wrote my first program in c++ without reading the book.

Why I asked the question:
You're obviously bright.
You're appear confident with your intelligence.
Your extrapolations, while not always on the mark, are, at least, thoughtful.
You wanted to know how it works.


Your first response: "Well, to answer your question, I don't think there was any specific moment."
Without stating it directly, is an acknowledgement that you do consider yourself bright. This is not a slight or strike in any way, shape or form. Just an acknowledgement of reality.

If you are familiar with physics, you might note that matter is broken up into particles which are broken up into waves which are broken up into particles, etc...

Process("Awareness is gradual, not absolute") is waves, events are particles...
Processes are broken up into events which are made of processes which are made of events, etc.....

While you may say that the realization was gradual(process), there events that made up the process.

I was asking for the event that turned on the light.
(If the moment is too personal, feel free to PM it to me)

If you want to converse with me about how it works and what LEC uses on people, don't be flippant or a snot. I get enough of that from posters like Briggs, who wouldn't know his @nus from a hole in the ground. One of the things you'll find among LEC grads is they might have learned about "Rackets" but they don't know when they're running them.

When you're ready...

Guy

Quote
tricky
Guy,

Sorry, I just don't know how to answer that question honestly, and meaningfully. I was *very* hopeful that somehow that this was all leading somewhere. Then now, it seems like every question I ask is answered with a riddle, like you either don't know or don't want to tell me how this teaching is woven into the LEC conditioning process.

NEXT

To All,

I just quickly wanted to raise two points concerning what Briggs stated:
QUOTE:
"It's just that I find that people who've done Landmark and criticize it actually have something to say, but those who've never done Landmark and yet are so opinionated have just nothing useful to offer"

1. One does not need to participate in LE to know its teachings and psychological dangers. For example, mental health workers and medical professionals don't need to inject heroin in order to warn the public of its dangers and treat patients/clients.

2. There are mental health workers in at least the USA and Australia that devote their professional and ethical time assisting former LE Grads in putting their life back in order. They don't need to "enrol" in the Forum to help former Grads.

It is a nonsense to suggest a person needs to do LE courses in order to be qualified to talk on the subject. It is more apt to consider that people who witness the behaviour of LE Grads are more knowledgeable about the psychological effects, not to mention the experience of mental health workers. LE Grads have an LE induced blind spot - they often cannot see how people outside LE view them.

Oz

Guy,

I really do want to see where this is all leading. So, I'll play along. [and btw, I can see the interesting-ness of the question]

Ok, when I was in second grade, I stayed after class and talked to the teacher about hamsters, after he had taught us about them. He told me I was really smart, and then I kind of realized for the first time that I was relating to him on a different level, that I could understand things on a different level. And then it kind of hit me that "wow, I'm smart".

Alright, so there it is.

What happened to this thread? :-)

Can anyone enlighten me as to Guy's point?