Ginge wrote:


"My wife says I have not changed, a friend who has done the Forum says I am more approachable, am not as moody, and more in touch with my emotions"

This may come off as sexist but as a man I was never a big fan of being "in touch with my emotions." The emphasis on sharing and being open made me uneasy. I found that striving to be "more open" did not serve me and in fact got me in trouble emotionally.

I liked the Est Training itself. But once you "get it" what else is there? I always used that line when folks talked about doing more advanced courses. I knew I "got it" so why spend more time and money?

A good line I still remember from the Est Training was,

" There are no hidden meanings, all that mystical stuff is just what's so."

I guess I never felt conned because I wouldn't buy into the "more is better" philosophy. But a lot of friends I new became addicted to this stuff. Some people are just more open to suggestion, I guess.

You wrote:

>>This may come off as sexist but as a man I was never a big fan of being "in touch with my emotions.">>>


The Landmark programs are designed to play on your emotions. Male, female, or neutered, it is emotion that drives and motivates people. If you don't understand the dynamic, or are emotionally "illiterate," you can be manipulated or driven by someone else, which is Landmark's intent, so I doubt that they give any real sort of education on the emotional content of thought, say.



>>The emphasis on sharing and being open made me uneasy.>>>


Perhaps you sensed that the testimonies were play-acted, forced, or contrived and/or that the people getting up to speak were shills.


>>I found that striving to be "more open" did not serve me and in fact got me in trouble emotionally.>>>


As it certainly can. Who needs a bunch of people emoting all over the place when we have a business to conduct, crops to get in, or a war to fight. Or a poker game to play. But look at it from Landmark's perspective. They get to harvest information which they can use against you. The ideal Landmark candidate is someone who is a bit immature, unaware of basic psychology, or unschooled in the importance of emotional intelligence and when to keep his emotions to himself.



>>I liked the Est Training itself. But once you "get it" what else is there?>>>


What did you "get?"



>>I always used that line when folks talked about doing more advanced courses. I knew I "got it" so why spend more time and money?

A good line I still remember from the Est Training was,

" There are no hidden meanings, all that mystical stuff is just what's so.">>>



What mystical stuff? Were they still using scientology "time lines," or past lives regression when you took the est training? Were you aware that part of the program was from scientology or that Werner Erhard was using and "E-Meter" on his staff?





>>I guess I never felt conned because I wouldn't buy into the "more is better" philosophy. But a lot of friends I new became addicted to this stuff. Some people are just more open to suggestion, I guess. >>>


A lot? How many, or what percentage, do you think?



Ellen

I agree with some of your points made in response to my comments. I will clarify what I meant on some of the comments and answer your questions below.

In response to my statement below---

>>The emphasis on sharing and being open made me uneasy.>>>

Ellen queried---

"Perhaps you sensed that the testimonies were play-acted, forced, or contrived and/or that the people getting up to speak were shills"

I actually was talking about my personal reluctance to share my feelings. And I simpy did not do so. Although some of the women I new through Est would try to pry there way in.

Certainly some of it seemed forced but most seemed genuine. I was young and not that cynical. I found I had much in common with some of the "sharers." Although some were clearly addicted to the microphone. Maybe they didn't get enough attention as children. Maybe i'm just being judgemental.

I said---
>>I liked the Est Training itself. But once you "get it" what else is there?>>>


Ellen asked--
What did you "get?"

I liken it to getting a joke or the Tinman "getting" his heart. Of course he had it all along. So the joke is there is nothing to get. But, although this will infuriate you and a few others here, I did learn some valuable things from Est. Can you learn these things elsewhere in life? OF COURSE!

I said---
A good line I still remember from the Est Training was,

" There are no hidden meanings, all that mystical stuff is just what's so.">>>

Ellen asked---

"What mystical stuff? Were they still using scientology "time lines," or past lives regression when you took the est training? Were you aware that part of the program was from scientology or that Werner Erhard was using and "E-Meter" on his staff? "


I have no idea what a Scientology "time line" is. No past live regressions were done in my Est Training, thank God! Werner was using E-meters? That's hysterical. I met someone who said he "owned" an E-meter but he had to leave it at the (Scientology Center??? ) $3,000 for a glorified ohm meter you couldn't take home. Did Werner steal his?

About the mystical stuff, the point was there isn't anything mystical about the world, just what's so. The flip side of what's so is so what! I used that when people would talk about the latest, greatest, awareness expanding seminar. I just didn't need to spend more money to "get" what's so! Not that this is or ever was a belief of mine.


I said---
>>I found that striving to be "more open" did not serve me and in fact got me in trouble emotionally.>>>


Ellen responded,

"As it certainly can. Who needs a bunch of people emoting all over the place when we have a business to conduct, crops to get in, or a war to fight. Or a poker game to play. But look at it from Landmark's perspective. They get to harvest information which they can use against you. The ideal Landmark candidate is someone who is a bit immature, unaware of basic psychology, or unschooled in the importance of emotional intelligence and when to keep his emotions to himself."

I agree with most of what you say here. But most of the people I met were well educated professionals. That doesn't preclude them from being immature on certain levels.

Pehaps those that got sucked up into it were filling some emotional void. Most people I knew kept it in perspective. I would say a few went completely overboard. And I was there to throw them a life preserver and pull then back to "reality." After all, what are friends for?

A subscriber to the name of WizardofOz responded to my private message response to Escappedintact. I presume these 2 people are one in the same.

The challenge put to me was to post his message on this board as so I have below. Frankly, I don't understand why he asked me to do it and why he suggested I did not have the courage to do it. Must be some MEME running somewhere in his unconscious mind from 20 years past in Est.

Here it is: BTW: I do not agree with what he has written.

Oz :)
QUOTE>>
"I read Kopp's article, now for the second time. If you are telling me Kopp's educational background is Landmark, isn't that damning him with faint praise?

My question was what advanced degree in Social Sciences does he have to qualify him as an expert. I have a similar exposure to room setup, white or yellow nametags, straight rows of chairs etc....

His conclusion seems to be based on his own dependency of Landmark. He claimed that good things happened to him through his participation in Landmark but that he believed a dependency was developed on the programs to continue producing these results. He also concluded it was a haven for the "disinherited" seeking power they could not find elsewhere. I would agree that for some this is true. The "seminar junkies", as I like to refer to them, were seeking some power that alluded them. And it sounds like he fit this category himself. But that wasn't true for me. I did not spend an additional dime after the Est Training. And I am not among the ranks of the "disinherited."

Here is a direct quote from Kopp's paper;

The Produced Social Space

The impact of the multitudes of incremental moments of the manipulation of space, the harnessing of resistance only to effect its dissipation, delivers the result: attunement to the values LE professes. These values include: “being extraordinary,” “saying yes to life,” “being powerful and effective in the face of any circumstance,” “being courageously willing to take risks,” “openly expressing love and appreciation,” “generously giving up resentments and urges to dominate or manipulate others,” etc. By the Sunday night of the LF, the production of

Being extraordinary!
Saying yes to life!
being powerful in the face of any circumstances!
“being courageously willing to take risks,”
“openly expressing love and appreciation,”
“generously giving up resentments and urges to dominate or manipulate others,”

Wow, positively sinister!
I can't believe I fell for this!

And all this from the simple arrangement of social space. I think someone should win a Nobel Prize for coming up with this.

Of course, the results people experience has nothing to do with chair arrangements or neatly organized yellow or white nametags.

As the group America once sang,

"Oz didn't give nothin' to the Tin Man, that he didn't already have"


Now show some courage and post this for others to decide. If you think you have a strong argument you shouldn't fear dissenting views, should you?"
ENDQUOTE

Please don't post for others.

If someone's post is not approved, it's not approved.

In this case, as anyone can see, this Landmark devotee offers the same old repetitive and boring verbiage.

The tired refrain, "that wasn't true for me."

People like this don't post here to exchange ideas or discuss anything.

This individual is simply attempting to defend Landmark and hopes to muddle the message board as much as possible.

Landmarkers consistently trot out these bits of "evidence," these examples of ordinary or common-sense motivational, psychological, therapeutic, feel-good, "warm-up" stuff and mistake these bits of decorative fluff for Landmark program "content."

For escaped and all the other "grads" who consider themselves too smart or too clever to be suckered by the Landmark scam, consider this:

The fact that you, and others like you, continue to haul out these minor bits of content is evidence to many of us that you are more "under the influence" than you think. You propose these bits of program that seem legitimate or normal somehow indicate the soundness of the package and excuse or are indicative of the whole. And further, that anyone who uses this "content" to salve neurotic needs have themselves distorted the programs becasue they, themselves are disturbed and not capable or suitable candidates for "extraordinariness."


If I were to go out fishing I surely wouldn't throw out a nasty-looking barbed stainless-steel hook. I'd put some tasty morsel on the end of it. Lucky you if you managed to snag the bait without getting your lip bruised, cheek cut, or tongue slashed. Some little birdie tells me you're not quite that clever.


Ellen

The most radical thing you can do is outside research on RR.com and other websites, so you can identify the box at a very safe distance and stay out of it. But if an LGAT graduate insists that you can only benefit by not being told beforehand how the process will work--thats what makes it hard to stay out of these boxes.

((A personal hunch/reflection: And it means that if you're ever thinking of doing a training seminar, you want to know whether the leader is a man or woman who can function competantly and gracefully in all areas of life--not someone who can only function in a scripted, manipulative social setting. Look for people who have been successful in ordinary human environments and who have not been working exclusively in and for LGATs.

Someone who can only function inside an LGAT setting may have difficulty teaching you skills that are transferable to a non-LGAT environment. ))

Most LGAT graduates would probably not be validated for behaving like LGAT trainers in the outside world. Their attempts to engage in LGAT leader behavior in a LGAT settings is likely to be experienced by others as rampant aggression, being disrespectful, bad manners, etc.

The aggressive graduate/wannabe trainer would perhaps encounter painful social costs/consequences because he or she lacks the means to dominate social interactions as an LGAT trainer does.

You can get by as a Prima Donna onstage, but not in real life.

As humans we hate to imagine that we are in a neurological state of readiness that can be manipulated to give predictable feelings of power and ecstacy--but it appears that that we are.

And these feelings are so marvellous that we hate being told, 'Feeling powerful isnt the same as [i:ba030480f3]being [/i:ba030480f3]powerful in your day to day life. You still have a boss and co-workers.'

[i:ba030480f3]Feeling [/i:ba030480f3]powerful is not the same as [i:ba030480f3]being [/i:ba030480f3]powerful.

Drew Kopp puts it in more elaborate terms. I have condensed portions of his argument. You can read the entire thing from page 37 to 39 if you go here

[www.u.arizona.edu]

(Kopp's quote)

Conclusion : a Faustian Bargain

In revealing these formerly invisible bodies, the volunteers, as the source of the arrangement of space in the Landmark Forum, the Course Leader confirms that the material conditions and the means to manipulate those conditions are the primary constituents to the production of social space in each participant’s life.

The enthymemic message is clear: LE possesses the means, it provides the techniques and the technology to manipulate and master the material conditions, and thus the social spaces of life.

Participants become aware of the gap that exists between their conceptual intentions and the actual results they produce in life; [i:ba030480f3]controlling the material space is equivalent to owning the means of the production of social space.[/i:ba030480f3] (

'The LF, in its material space, demonstrates this to most participants, especially those who have experienced for themselves the sometimes exhilarating production of social space, breakthrough results, thanks to the LF....

This begs a further question concerning the values (e.g., “being extraordinary,” etc.) the material arrangement of space attunes participants to by the end of the course. The core to each of these values is power and [i:ba030480f3]owning the means of production is a clear material expression of ownership of power. [/i:ba030480f3]Landmark banks on the fact that all people lack power in some area of their lives and thus, desire to possess power. The majority of Landmark’s customers, I claim, are the disinherited—those somehow separated from ownership of the means of the production of social space; their conceptual intentions do not match the social spaces they desire to inhabit.

([i:ba030480f3]In other words, subjects do not own the means of power needed to create and script social spaces and social interactions. This means that unlike the Forum Leader, the graduates will return to an outside world where they do not own the means of power, and will thus suffer painful consequences when they emulate the Forum Leader in settings that will not validate such behavior--and will very likely punish it[/i:ba030480f3]--Corboy)

…..But to own Landmark’s technology, [i:ba030480f3]one must practice the manipulation of the spaces required for the “technology” to effect transformation.[/i:ba030480f3]

A Faustian bargain results: continue to participate, and you will continue to be the master of your fate…

[i:ba030480f3]The (LEC)technology is indispensable; it becomes more important than the freedom and power in life it promises to grant its possessor[/i:ba030480f3].

I would contend that this is [b:ba030480f3]a fundamental inauthenticity of Landmark Education[/b:ba030480f3], to use its own term to describe this dynamic and Landmark’s lack of transparency of its operation.

***Landmark Education, in the form of any and all of its representatives, pretends to their customers, that participants can acquire this technology, its consequent powers, and then drop the tools that granted these powers at any given time in the future. For instance, the Course Leader, at the very end of the LF, will say, “I take it all back,” claiming that everything said in the course possesses absolutely nothing to believe in.

Yet, this is said against a background of materially enforced re-conceptualizations that have inscribed participants into [i:ba030480f3]a social space the existence of which is completely tied up with continuing to participate with Landmark Education[/i:ba030480f3].

Thus, Landmark’s technology compels participants to inscribe themselves further into more extensive and elaborate social spaces the organization offers participants to inhabit.

This is the Faustian relationship with Mephistopheles, wherein desires are granted, [i:ba030480f3]but only if the means used are promoted endlessly, [u:ba030480f3]ultimately gaining importance over the participant’s original aims[/u:ba030480f3][/i:ba030480f3].

(Moderator note:)Kopp concludes, probably ironically, as he is no longer involved with Landmark:

Long live the institution.

(End of quote)

Ellen wrote:

"The fact that you, and others like you, continue to haul out these minor bits of content is evidence to many of us that you are more "under the influence" than you think. You propose these bits of program that seem legitimate or normal somehow indicate the soundness of the package and excuse or are indicative of the whole. And further, that anyone who uses this "content" to salve neurotic needs have themselves distorted the programs becasue they, themselves are disturbed and not capable or suitable candidates for "extraordinariness."


That was what Kopp wrote about Landmark's attempt at "thought-reform."
I was simply responding to Corboy's assertion that Kopp's article was damning to Landmark. Kopp states he got these results in his life, hence his continued participation for a number of years.

I wasn't dependent on Landmark/Est for my well-being. But I agree with Kopp, some were or thought they were dependent on it. I liken it to people who are new religious converts, they think they have "the truth." I didn't buy that but I still liked some of the positive things that Kopp listed in his article.

But let's not paint everyone with the same brush, shall we? Judge not, lest ye be judged!

Corboy was saying......

((And it means that if you're ever thinking of doing a training seminar, you want to know whether the leader is a man or woman who can function competantly and gracefully in all areas of life--not someone who can only function in a scripted, manipulative social setting. Look for people who have been successful in ordinary human environments and who have not been working exclusively in and for LGATs. Because someone who can only function inside an LGAT setting will have difficulty teaching you skills that are transferable to a non-LGAT environment. ))

Thanks for the tip. If the "leader" has experience as a Medical Doctor and was in charge of Cancer Research Laborotories at an esteemed hospital with Ivy League affiliation, would that pass your litmus test?

I await your response.

This thread is a discussion of issues and concerns relating to Large Group Awareness Trainings and Human Potential Seminars.

We are not set up to discuss situations like the one you've described. A health-care related website would be more appropriate.