Quote
AlexShalman
I have never met Werner Erhard, nor have I looked at much information about him. I'm here to comment on the paper attached in this thread.

So about the paper. I actually do like the theory as it is presented. It's all about separating words, and giving them a clear definition or distinction. I think as human beings, having a clear sense of what something means is imperative. Reality as we know it, (up/down, red/yellow, apple/banana, man/woman) is all made from language. It's a good idea to understand it to the best of our abilities.

[...]

[...]we do not have a firm definition for not only the words that we use, but for our goals, so instead of getting exactly what we want, we pretend that what we have is what we want. Not to say that I am not a firm believer that happiness can be obtained by taking pleasure in what we want, but sometimes what is making us unhappy can easily be changed by changing the context in which we live.

So back to the paper in question. What's wrong with him defining integrity as 'honoring your word'? I believe that we would all have much more self-respect if we honored our word all the time. For example, I am going to eat healthy, cut out junk food, and lose 10 pounds in 6 weeks, can be a very powerful statement. It can have power if our word means something, aka if we have integrity. On the other hand, how many of us, including myself, have made a New Years resolution that didn't hold? That is because New Years resolutions do not have any power behind them. Why? Because we lack integrity, as it is defined in the paper.

It takes constant work to build up discipline, which I look at as upholding our word, but when we're the type of people that do what we say we do we can count on ourselves, and others can too.

That's just the way I see Werner Erhard's theory of integrity. I could be wrong, I often am, what do you think? I'd love to hear your responses =)

I get them impression that you are either very young, didn't have parents or didn't have good parents, were home-schooled, perhaps missed several years of grammar school, grew up in some non-Western country, or English isn't your mother tongue.

Please don't let these charlatans be the ones to educate you. They are con-artists.


Ellen

Quote
AlexShalman

So about the paper. I actually do like the theory as it is presented. It's all about separating words, and giving them a clear definition or distinction. I think as human beings, having a clear sense of what something means is imperative. Reality as we know it, (up/down, red/yellow, apple/banana, man/woman) is all made from language. It's a good idea to understand it to the best of our abilities.

You cannot get "clear definitions or distinctions" from a cult. They distort and manipulate words for their own purposes. L. Ron Hubbard had to print his own dictionary and much of Landmark is based on his "definitions."

And I advise you to rethink what you've written above. Language and words do not "make" reality. At best they are representations, sign posts, symbols, approximations, and/or abstractions. Both Werner Erhard and L. Ron Hubbard were attempting to control their followers by forcing them to think and believe in certain restricted and confined ways. They both sought ways to keep their "slaves" or foot-soldiers as dependable, predictable, malleable, and obedient (~coachable~) as possible -- in other words, programmed. (Cults aren't unique in this attempt. Many businesses, organisations, industries, agencies, or other groups attempt the same conformity or alignment. Cults take it to an extreme and target a deeper psychological level.)


Ellen

PWL:

I'll tell ya what Werner did to me.

He created an organization that made it acceptable, even desirable, to brainwash me, as a child, with the same methods used to brainwash adults.

[various snarky comments about making people wrong and taking responsibility considered and left unwritten]

h_r,

I'm sorry to hear that you had a negative experience that you attribute to Werner.

What do you mean that you were "brainwashed" as a child? Your parents allowed you to take courses with which organization?

What do you mean by "brainwashing"? Please be specific about what you mean.

Could it be that the harm that you perceive that was done to you was done by your parents and that they are the ones responsible?

Look I know nothing about your situation. Please explain in detail with as many facts as you care to share.

Thanks very much h_r.

All the best to you.

Peter

Ellen, the distinctions distinguished in Werner's work are the backbone of the work. Without those distinctions it would be a pointless cult as is claimed by many. Only with the distinctions it ceases to be a cult and is a very valuable contribution to humanity. I can attest that what I learned from Werner's work is to a large part centered around what I consider to be important distinctions.

I don't think it's fair to compare Werner's work to that of Scientology. I for one would never go near that evil organization. I have no interest in any churches of any kind for that matter as they are about dogma and installing belief systems. If Werner's work was about dogma of any kind I'd have left the very first night and not attended ever again.

Please Ellen do tell us your experiences with Werner or his work through EST or Landmark or since. I'd like to gain insight into your negative views - if it's fair to categorize your views as negative that is. Upon what basis do you make the aggressive claims that you do?

All the best,

Peter

It was Ellen's statement "Hard to believe the chutzpah, the arrogance, the sheer outright gall of these clowns thinking their idiot "theories" deserve to be written and printed in some legitimizing format. I'm amazed they weren't laughed off the stage." that seems to be venomous.

As for your statement about responsibility I really don't get what you are getting at. It's seems to be a lame attempt at a cynical joke on your part which is fine you are entitled to your opinion no matter how cynical it is.

There is only so far someone can 'take responsibly' for someone else. Even then each person is responsible for their own actions and words. At least that is my understanding. It takes two to dance after all.

I don't know why this didn't get posted the first time... I'm new here so sorry if it shows up twice... if postings get rejected am I notified?


Zorro: Now who has a fervent hatred here Pwl? Pwl, Have you ever met Bush?

No I've never met Bush and would not like to. I don't "hate" him. To me he is a dangerous global war criminal who should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. He has ordered the murders of innocent people by ordering the invasion of Iraq. We all saw him do this on television. Bush has murdered people. Not attempted to transform peoples lives through dialog. Quite an approach he choose: force.

Werner on the other hand from my first hand experience works with people to solve their problems first hand. I gained tremendously from the workshops and courses I took from EST and Landmark Education. The focus was on integrity and authenticity and how can one bring that to one's life even when there is no basis for trust as in the case in many people's lives in the real world. How do you breakthrough other's perceptions of you and get at being authentic with integrity.

Dialog vs. Force & Murder to solve problems. I choose Dialog every time.

Zorro: Take a look at yourself and your statement and you will understand why we do not like Werner Erhardt. In a few short months the Bush administration will be in the history books and he will be replaced by someone else and a new chapter will begin. Hardly the same as Werner who just won't freaking go away and keeps spreading his dogma world wide through Landmark Education and the Vantos Group.

From what I know Werner is not involved in the Landmark Education company any longer and it shows to some degree. Their courses are a bit more watered down for my tastes. I preferred the more intense versions. However, the new ones are also highly effective.

I don't know anything about the Vantos Group so I can't speak to that.

Ellena: LOL. They're still doing the slave-labor thing, only trying to sell it to other pyramid builders or top-heavy corporations that need to keep the workers busy, hard-working, unquestioning, obedient, and stupid.

Ok that's quite a strong view point. Why the nastiness? Did someone annoy you?

Yes some do not like the way that people volunteer and assist with the various programs. That is their right do do so isn't it though? It is still a free country isn't it? Haven't you ever volunteered anywhere? Don't people volunteer for many different groups in and about your community? Or with other organizations? Personally I've not volunteered for them in many decades and have no plans on doing that since I've got too much going on in my own life. At one time I did volunteer a bit and for the most part it was rewarding as well. It is said by others "ask not what your [community] can do for you but what you can do for your [community]". The Landmark Forum is a unique program - from my own personal experiences of it - that brings people together for an experience that we need more of: communication that works to solve issues by examining ourselves, our relationships, and our commitments plus the games that we as people play in life.

I'm fine examining myself in the mirror so to speak.

Ellena: Wow. In the words of another inveterate Landmark debunker: "Have you taken responsibility for how 'us people' show up for you?"

I must have missed that part of the course I suppose. ;--)

It seems that the nature of this web site is flawed. I'm new here having just discovered this site with THIS thread of discussion. I've not even had time to read and digest the papers referenced yet.

Look, at lot of the materials in the EST course and in the Landmark Education don't make a lot of sense out of context. That's fine by me as it makes sense within the context of the course. What's important to realize is that those notions are simply there to facility the dialog and for the most part they are extraneous.

Now this is simply my view point and could be out to lunch since I've never lead a forum or any of their other courses and have not been trained to do so. However, as I mentioned before, I was privileged to have chosen to attend the course where Werner and a few others taught the large group of other forum leaders into the new shorter three day format from the four day format.

To me, one of the interesting things was the design of the forum and the problems that they faced as forum leaders. One of those problems is that people tend to want to believe, people have a tendency to want to be followers, people want to believe. This is a serious problem for a group that does not want to put in any new beliefs. They spend a good part of the first day making sure people are clear that the Forum is NOT a new belief system as that would not work to facilitate people learning to think. In fact I've been in the room when people have chosen to leave at a couple of points during the first day when given the opportunity to do so at these points in the opening pre-dialog.

Some people want a new belief system to replace their old one. It doesn't seem to work to produce the kinds of results that the Landmark Forum can deliver.

From my perspective the forum is about learning to think for oneself in the area of how you are being in your life with others and with yourself. It is a short course in the practical nature of ontology, the being of human beings. The course attempts, and maybe for some it fails to accomplish it, to have people engage in an ontological dialog about how they are being in their lives and how those ways of being impact their relationships, and most importantly if there is anything that they can do about the way that they are being that can or could possibly alter the situations in their lives. Bottom line is that this dialog works as a method of improving lives.

Sure there is criticism, most of it doesn't make sense to me as my own experience over many courses was very positive. I never had any of the negative experiences that I've read some people claim to have had. I've never seen any criticism that could be proven that would stop me from participating in another course. I've not participated in any of their programs for a couple of years now, and currently have no plans to. When I want their kind of coaching in how I'm being in the world I'll seek it out again and hire them as a coach.

People like Werner have a skill of dialog that is of a qualitative different nature which can assist people in altering their lives for the better. If anything we need that kind of approach to solving international problems.

Unfortunately we are stuck with simpletons leading countries who reach for the guns instead of attempting to solve and de-escalate problems with dialog. These simpletons could be the death of us all as they also have their fingers on the largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction the world has ever known. Bush and Cheney could sure use some quality time looking to see how they have been being in the world and how their way of being and their orders and their actions have caused the deaths of untold numbers (untold since the numbers are unknown and all over the map).

One dead innocent is too many for me, but then I guess I'm a caring person who prefers people solve problems verbally rather than with force.

I would not have continued to attend EST courses and later Landmark Education courses if I felt that they were "programming me". If they were installing belief systems I'd have left. As a free thinker I am very sensitive to others attempting to install their beliefs in me. It comes from my background as an atheist living in a christian home and being bombarded for decades with christian propaganda and dogma. I developed the skills to detect and to subvert others attempts to get me to not think for myself. I learned new valuable skills in self reflection from the work that Werner started, and for that I am grateful to him and his company of people, and of the legacy he left for others to carry on in Landmark Education.

I am a satisfied customer of EST and Landmark Education. Did I blindly attend giving them money at every chance? NO. Did I donate each week on a proscribed day? NO! Did I ever donate? NO. I paid for courses that I wanted to attend. Do they bother me about attending courses? NO. Did anyone ever berate me? NO. Did I ever feel like I was in a cult? NO. I did feel that way when I was in church though! Did I ever attend a course that I didn't want to? NO. Did I get annoyed with "sales pitches" about courses? Sure, who doesn't? But others courses have much more aggressive sales methods than EST or Landmark have ever used. I have attended a few other courses so I do have that perspective. In fact some are much more successful in having people enrol in courses.

Part of the issue facing Landmark Education is that people can't just sign up for their course, they need to have informed consent so that people know what they are getting into. Why is that important? Because without people knowing the commitment they need to bring it won't work. How do I know? Again from my own experiences as a participant. Also from attending the course I mentioned where the design was splayed open during the breaks of an actual Forum. One of the criteria that people are required to meet in order to attend is that they do so for themselves, not a loved one, not for a parent who wants to make them better, not for anyone else, but for themselves, otherwise it's pointless and a waste of everybodies time.

There is a saying, what you put into something will determine what you get out of the experience. That seems to be true of Werner's work and his legacy, the Landmark Forum.

I look forward to reading the slides, however I'm very cognizant of the fact that reading the slides will likely be a hollow understanding when compared with the experience one would have being in a room commitedly engaged with Werner and the others in the inquiry of those distinctions, what ever they are. That would be something.

Elena: "Oversimplifying somewhat, "honoring your word", as we define it, means you either keep your word, or as soon as you know that you will not, you say that you will not be keeping your word to those who were counting on your word and clean up any mess you caused by not keeping your word. By "keeping your word" we mean doing what you said you would do and by the time you said you would do it."

Yes, that sounds exactly what I've heard Werner say many times on that topic. That is very close to the legal definition of keeping your word and agreements that we have in modern society. What do you find wrong with that? What would you say about keeping your word?

Yes, Alex Shalman, your understanding of keeping your word is on target with what I think - from my experience - that Werner is talking about.

Alex: "It takes constant work to build up discipline, which I look at as upholding our word, but when we're the type of people that do what we say we do we can count on ourselves, and others can too."

One can think of the Landmark Forum (and Werner's other work) as coaching in keeping your word. To get their you need to get how you are being with yourself and with others in your life. If you are being "easy" with your word then you'll get the results that go along with that. If you are being X and X isn't being effective and you are unawere of how you are being X it is hard to develop beyond that. It's important to recognize how you are being or to open to having someone else tell you - and we all have friends, colleges and family that tell us constantly how we're being if you listen for it. (Not to mention strangers).

Back to real life.

Wow, Ellen you seem to have a very negative view of Werner and his work. Again I ask how do you come to such a view?

Yes, I have a negative view of Bush and Cheney. They have caused much destruction around the world killing many innocent people in the process and lying to the world about why they did it. Do I hate them? Not really. I don't think that their political solutions were the best direction to take - revenge never is. In fact it's just the same old revenge cycle trap that humans fall into when provoked. How many others will now look to the way the USA behaved and decide that their doing the same back to the USA or to others is legitimate or their only solution rather than dialog? How much longer will the cycle of mass murder by states and motivated individuals continue?

I for one choose to stop the cycle with my votes, with my voice, and with choices for life - dialog is part of that process, an essential part. I choose to NOT be a member of the CULT OF DEATH that people like Bush, Cheney, Bin Laden are members of. I choose LIFE for all humans out of my integrity, out of my ethics and morals. I choose life because it is the way forward that works for all human beings.

I'm open to any questions by any of you on any aspect of my experiences with EST or Landmark Education. As I said I'm a satisfied customer having taken many of their courses, I was never an employee, and I only assisted minimally and I never pressured anyone into taking their courses as that makes no sense, for like an intensive sport, you have to commit to doing it.

Quote

I get them impression that you are either very young, didn't have parents or didn't have good parents, were home-schooled, perhaps missed several years of grammar school, grew up in some non-Western country, or English isn't your mother tongue.

Please don't let these charlatans be the ones to educate you. They are con-artists.

Thanks. I appreciate your genuine attempt at sizing me up. If you google my name you will get a more exact representation. You might find that you are correct about me being young, I am 23 years old. I moved to American when I was nearly 7, and I consider myself as American as the next guy. I have two great parents, one of whom is a Dentist, and the other a business man. I was not home school, in fact I attended public schools, Rutgers University, and just received my masters in Biomedical Science from UMDNJ. I have no problem speaking about myself in public, and while I might not use the very best grammar in the whole world, I consider myself pretty proficient in English.

I don't consider myself as letting anyone educate me. I consider that I am very proactive and open minded in my education. I read often, I write often, I attend different seminars to learn more about myself, life, and learn new skills. Toastmasters International for example, which is a pretty neat group to enhance public speaking skills. Although I haven't searched 'toastmasters' on this rickross site, so there may very well be an opinion about that as well.

Quote

You cannot get "clear definitions or distinctions" from a cult. They distort and manipulate words for their own purposes. L. Ron Hubbard had to print his own dictionary and much of Landmark is based on his "definitions."

And I advise you to rethink what you've written above. Language and words do not "make" reality. At best they are representations, sign posts, symbols, approximations, and/or abstractions. Both Werner Erhard and L. Ron Hubbard were attempting to control their followers by forcing them to think and believe in certain restricted and confined ways. They both sought ways to keep their "slaves" or foot-soldiers as dependable, predictable, malleable, and obedient (~coachable~) as possible -- in other words, programmed. (Cults aren't unique in this attempt. Many businesses, organisations, industries, agencies, or other groups attempt the same conformity or alignment. Cults take it to an extreme and target a deeper psychological level.)

I haven't read the whole history of Werner Erhard and Ron Hubbard, so I don't know what you are referring to. I won't pretend that I do. However, I have personal experiences with Landmark Education, because I have completed the course, and I definitely would not classify them as a cult. People are making Landmark to be too huge of a deal. I mean, they are a big deal, but essentially they are just an education company. I have seen first hand how Landmark graduates were able to put together meaningless pieces of their life, get in touch with loved ones, admit that they were being jerks, instead of blaming others (which I'm admittedly assuming that translated into them cleaning up relationships in their life).

I do not believe that Landmark totally changes people. Essentially I do not believe that a person can be bad, just full of bad experiences over a life time, but that's just my belief in the good of people. The point is, if a person lacking a connection with their inner virtues, or morality, goes into Landmark, Landmark isn't going to magically make this person a model citizen. There is no magic. They may learn some cool definitions of what 'integrity' is, what an 'act' is, and start to believe that they are capable of achieving all their dreams (also known as possibilities), but it doesn't guarantee that they'll use these definitions for good.

The intention of Landmark, from where I stand, is to cause what they call 'transformation' in people. Which is a way to let go of the negative aspects of the past, create a really awesome fulfilling future, and to live today as if you are living into that future. Many people have created a huge future for themselves during Landmarks self-expression and leadership program. One example that I think is really cool is someone decided to take a stance to end gang violence among teenagers in a Detroit city (or suburb) outside of Chicago. They had landmark volunteer coaches, who were part of this program, helping this person accomplish this goal. The person went on to get signatures from both gang leaders on a peace treaty, and hand in their weapons. This person became a leading expert in the United States on gang violence and now makes a career out of providing this service for the government. I'd say that was a nice little project, wouldn't you?

pwl:

"Werner's work"?

Are you serious?

Erhard (aka Jack Rosenberg) didn't come up with anything original.

He relied heavily upon Heidegger and Scientology for his idiosyncratic composite philosophy.

Didn't you know that?

Either you have not done any meaningful research about est and Erhard or you have chosen to ignore the well-documented facts.

Erhard was seen by some as a "cult leader" and others as a "con man."

Essentially, only those that became convinced through his courses honor and esteem the man.

He became rich selling his philosophy through courses, which hurt many people. And that is amply demonstrated through the deeply troubled history of est/Landmark, e.g. complaints, personal injury lawsuits, bad press, etc.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Later Erhard sold his privately owned company (est) and now it's his run by his brother and sister as Landmark Education.

Landmark Education left France after it was exposed on national television as a "cult" that used and manipulated people for profit.

See [www.cultnews.com]

The legacy of Werner Erhard is strewn with breakdowns, broken families and contempt, including a few ex-wives and estranged family over the years.

Very sorry story. Erhard prospered financially at the expense of others.

A "racket" to say the least in my opinion.

Not a positive legacy to say the least.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2008 05:44AM by rrmoderator.

Wow, I kind of wonder at the vehement defense of Werner/est/Landmark going on here all of a sudden. Would it be possible that these folks are trolls?

I would ask that all of our beliefs and opinions are treated with the respect they deserve.

And please know, gentlemen, that there are probably a lot of people on this board who feel like Landmark/Werner/est has a very very dark side. I'm one of them. And because my experience is my experience (which I won't get into for fear of reprisal and because I value my privacy), you can know that there is nothing you can say that will change my view of Werner/est/Landmark into a positive one. I read these boards for support and to know that I am not alone.