Hope & Boz:

Disappeared! Sorry. My story is that the holidays have been a busy time!

I have been interested in Boz' replies - although I'm unclear on whether the Forum was overall (or completely) a positive or negative experience for you Boz. . . Call me dense, but one the one hand you've commented that you had a pretty serious breakdown due in part to the Forum, and on the other hand you've noted that your group leader's presentation was compelling (albeit mind-numbing). Would you discourage someone from doing the Forum or warn them with your own experience. Did you get anything out of it that you have put to use in your life? I'm interested.

Certainly there were aspects of the Forum that were thought-provoking, and which may have subsequently contributed to my life on some level. There was nothing in it, however, that I could not have "gotten" through independent study.

Landmark education draws from a great many different philosophies, religions and "technologies". Some aspects of them were already known and accepted by me, others were not. At this point I feel no need to reject any idea or point of view -- whether previously held in mind by me or not -- simply because they are contained in the Forum's "curriculum". On the other hand, I now recognize that I am always free to accept or reject any or all of it -- including what you "get" for all your money and time: "Life is empty and meaningless -- and it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless".

I mean, hey, the very fact that *that* seems profound to anyone, on the level of being an epiphany, is a real good indication that the Forum -- temporarilly, one hopes -- renders at least some portion of the brain as pure mush.

In the final anaysis, there is one statement from you that sums up the major problem I have with the Forum: "Some folks spend their lives living in and around Landmark Education." Yes, and they actively *encourage* that kind of crazy dependence. The organization thrives on it, in fact. There is a strong element of thought reform (mind control) at work in the way that they twist logic and rework language to enforce that sense of total dependence on their system, their network -- and convince people that it is a form of freedom and self-mastery. Landmark Education is, for all intents and purposes, a cult.

In the past, I've rejected both evangelical and mainstream Christianity, but still believe that the Golden Rule is a wonderful thing. Similarly, while I've totally rejected the Forum as a whole stystem of thought that guides my life, I don't discount every single element contained in it.

Do I recommend it to others, however?

No -- absolutely not!

- Boz

Hey Katydid!

Glad you returned and Happy New Year.

Call ME dense, but I don't see where you see that I got a lot out of the Forum.

Hope

I am very pleased to see such an educational site here Rick Ross -

My specific background comes from having worked extensively within a trauma-counselling firm - I am aware of the very real dangers of large group confrontational mind reform - such as those by EST and the Forum -

- often conducted by charismatic individuals without proper education and/or professional qualifications. The large group hypnosis/mind reform undertaken as part of the Forums curriculum ("imagine if the person next to you wants to harm you") should only be conducted by training psychological professionals - as is strongly recommended in various medical legislation and codes of practice in Australia.

I will say it again - if the doctrine and curriculum of these groups was indeed flawless - it would sell itself without the aid of these potentially dangerous techniques.

International medical and psychology authorities have all at some time expressed "dire concern" over these mass thought reform groups like the Forum.

Aside from all this (ironically) - I was a teenage Forum graduate - I developed common depressive symptoms after re-emergence into society - and I have come to educate myself as to the techniques employed and the (very) shady history of this organisation.

To encapsulate them within the definition of a “cult” is merely a question of semantics – the fact is they share many, many attributes in conduct – that are expressed within more definable cults.

I am relieved I can communicate and share my experiences with you people.

Cheers,

Pauly.

My therapist specializes in working with severely traumatized people--he is an expert on dissociative disorders--PTSD, the spectrum of dissociative reactions, even multiple personality disorder. His philosophy is to create a safe but boundaried environment so that people can slow down, feel safe, and their stuff surface on its own schedule--like a midwife who assists a mother through the natural rhythm of childbirth vs someone who induces labor. He has found that when people work their stuff through at their own pace, they experience the insights and progress as their own--it comes from within. He doesnt come across to them like a big hero. He's simply there to support the health already within them and coax it forth.

The problem with using crisis to promote breakthrough is that 1) it empowers the person who induces the crisis, and disempowers the person being subjected to it. 2) It is a dangerous approach to use on someone who has been traumatized--and many of us do not know that we have been traumatized. It is also much, much harder to integrate crisis-induced breakthroughs into your day to day life. ITs the same problem that persons encountered who used psychedelic drugs to seek spiritual experiences: after the drug wore off, they had a very hard, sometimes impossible time integrating their psychedelic breakthroughs into every day life.

Finally using a crisis to promote breakthrough can knock a person so badly off kilter that they may be disabled, temporarily or permanently.

(RE: don't need crisis to induce change) and that my friend - is one of the underpinning principals of Rational Emotive Therapy (RET). In fact - I noted that there were several elements of the Forum that actually drawn upon elements of RET (amongst many other sources they plagiarised) in the sense that RET is very self empowering but from a rational long term standpoint.

For example:

Forum would have you believe that you are solely responsible for your reaction to a traumatic experience - such as a parental beating - and that you should "get it" and immediately stop being so self centred, selfish etc etc etc (I think you all know the drill).

RET would acknowledge first and foremost the traumatic events that have occurred were terrible but approach it from a gentler context of - you can overcome this by practicing gradual proven behaviour modification techniques. It is in my professional opinion one of the most effective (broadly speaking) and exciting fields of psychology.

This is a very brief description and comparison I realise - but I hope it illustrates the point that Fast Food convenience cannot apply to psychoanalysis and personality review.

Paul.

Thank you Corboy and Pauly. This is very useful info for me. My doctor, a naturopath, though we spent about 2 yrs together, spent very little time on talking about the actual trauma. In fact, once I reluctantly stated what had happened, he decided to visit the scene of the crime. With his schedule, it was postponed a couple times, so I had 3 months to "look forward" to it. Then it was rather anticlimatic - nothing really came up. But, we had NO follow up. My physical and emotional health did not change, so I began to feel like a failure. This is when the doctor asked me to work for him and I thought maybe if I heard him speak enough, I would "get it."

I had been too sick to go to Landmark the yr prior, so it was a full yr later that I went. Having had it drilled into my head that I was solely responsible for having the physical conditions as a result of being totally responsible for my reaction to trauma at age 17, I sat in LF and saw one person after another blasted for "blaming" others for their job woes, relationship problems, etc. I didn't get up and speak, but did talk a lot with the volunteers.

The use of alleged "zen" by both doctor and Landmark is further confusing. My doc used the example of the Tibetan monk whose village residents were slaughtered yet he forgave his murderers. After 911, the doc used this example to ask what the US did to bring on the attacks. The doc, probably being a sociopath with a contempt for weakness, turned the concept of forgiveness into a responsibility issue. By the time I got to Landmark, it was pretty much impressed on me that ALL my health problems were my fault, and even all the things I liked about myself were shallow attempts to look good. What a suprise that that was the first topic at Landmark - that people only act to look good.

The topic of being present came up in Landmark as well as with the doc (mindful meditation), however, with the doc, in an effort to apply this principle, I used it as a method of suppression for a while, ignoring the confusion I was starting to feel under his care. I saw other participants do "unreasonable" things - like quit their jobs and move to Colorado with no place to live - because they were no longer going to listent to those voices that are always present. People were going to work and telling their bossses about "their rackets" and taking "responsibility" and then coming back panicked the info wasn't received very well. And then the Landmark people would ask with an air of accusation, "why should they respond the way you wanted them to?"

In all his supposed wisdom, the doc missed two major physiological problems because he was so focused on his own agenda. Landmark apparently works on the same principle - that health problems are a matter of some underlying "story" that we haven't taken responsibility for, so we suffer the consequences. Funny how a nutritionist basically cured my "underlying story" in about 2 weeks.

He took no responsibility, Landmark at least paid me a refund but did not want to discuss anything with me, yet both preach about personal responsibility for EVERYTHING. I think both this doctor and Landmark have figured out a convenient and lucrative way to gain narcissistic supply.

This web site had a very concise explanation of RET.

[www.threeminutetherapy.com]

Perhaps I'm still pretty defensive at this point, but I see how abusive and controlling people can use these techniques a lot better than people searching for answers can. I CAN see value in the information, but Landmark NOR my doctor provided enough instruction, nor compassion, in teaching how to use these techniques. They were used to blame me and participants for weaknesses.

I've read a few chapters of the book being sold on the above mentioned web site and it has helped me to clearly see what both Landmark and my doctor were up to. While I don't believe the people who developed RET intended to use the technique to cure people of illnesses, when I think of the exercise of disappearing a headache and the request to not take medication during the Forum, I can only conclude that the Landmark truly believes illness is a racket. I have researched the education of naturopaths at the 4 and 5 year graduate schools and there psych training is minimal, so I don't believe my doctor had any training in RET. He admitted to participating in ALL the Landmark programs, however, at a lecture he gave.

How Landmark can say they do not practice psychology is beyond belief. When I read what RET is all about, it is EXACTLY what Landmark is trying to carry out. Yet, the problem for participants is that there will always be a kernel of truth to what is being said, which will give Landmark some credibility and perhaps cause participants enough self-doubt to keep wanting more.

The similarities with what happened with my doc are tremendous. The worse I felt, the more I blamed myself and kept going (after the "love bombing"). And the RET info has helped me see exactly where the bait-and-switch happened with the change in "therapy" with focusing on symptom control with supplements to switching over to a psycho-emotional focus. Wow.

the key thing is whether the use of psychology is conducted honestly or deceitfully, whether it is in the best interest of the client, and whether there is accountability to something objective that is outside of the client practitioner relationship--eg laws, a standard of care that a group of practitioners have arrived at by consensus, professional codes of ethics, etc.

The problem with maverick practitioners and cults is that they are accountable to nobody but themselves and they make up the rules to suit themselves. Then when they get bored or greedy and change the rules, they dont bother to tell us. And they do not encourge outside practitioners to test their work scientifically to see if it is effective.

Genuine science and genuine therapy are always collaborative--never based on someone's emotional and social monopoly.