Quote

I thought it was "wrong" for them to get other Landmark people to do business with them? Something to do with integrity?

This only applies to people in leadership, it does not apply to most participants. however if this person is doing ILP then yes it would be considered an integrity issue.

Quote

I thought it was "wrong" for them to get other Landmark people to do business with them? Something to do with integrity?

Oh, I've never heard of this. Landmark doesn't help people to become more moral or to have more of what the majority of people consider to be "integrity." To a Landmarker, "integrity" basically boils down to being sure you attend all your Landmark seminars, and that no matter what you do, you do it "in integrity"...it has nothing to do with morality or anything like that.

In fact, a Landmarker told me "you're always and in all ways in integrity" is the basic recombobulated Landmark definition of "integrity." In other words, no matter what you do, you're "in integrity," because being "in integrity" just means being, period. If you murder someone, you're "in integrity." If you rape someone, you're "in integrity." If you molest little children, you're "in integrity." Why would they teach that? Well, because their leader was/is a philanderer, tax cheat, wife abuser, and "cult" leader. He assigns "integrity" a new meaning to make his history palatable to his followers.

Quote

That's just like my Landmark friend!

Yup. Once they have you in a hypnotic state, they "coach" you to believe that everything that good that happens is because of Landmark, but everything bad that happens is your fault, because you "create reality." Very, very sad.

Hi Glam,

The person who defined integrity to you has not got the landmark definition at all. "Integrity is being your word. doing what you said you would do at the time you said you would do it. It is also obeying the law"

All staff and senior landmark leaders have integrity files where we had to "clean up" out integrity. This was a tedious nasty event that was pushed every time the centre was not doing well (i.e. not registering enough people) it was always said that the reason the centre was not doing well was because someones integrity was out.

This whole process is designed to push the guilt factor. Then you work harder and do what they want even more so you are in integrity

Sonnie

Hi Sonnie Dee,

Thanks for your post. Of course you'd know more about Landmark's definition of "integrity" than I would. But it does strike me that people who've been through Landmark's training all seem to have slightly different definitions or interpretations of the word, and one person tried to explain to me the different "levels" of integrity, of which I believe there were four.

But to be sure I was understanding the definition correctly, I specifically asked whether murderers, rapists, etc., would be considered "in integrity," and I got back the (angry) answer that yes, you are always and in all ways in integrity...whole, complete....no matter what you do, you've made the decision to do it in the moment, so you are in integrity with yourself in the moment.

I don't find it at all surprising that the meaning changes or grows the longer you stay with Landmark, and that the word "integrity" is used to induce guilt. Not surprising at all. Also not surprising that graduates are blamed when they get the definition "wrong..." since the definition is so ephemeral, it's one more way it can be used to make people feel guilty or stupid for "not getting it" or "interpreting it incorrectly."


Glam :?

You are right Glam,

Landmark has lots of interpretations of one word and this leads to a lot of confusion and eventually guilt because someone is thinking of the wrong one.

I guess if you take the definition of "if its right for you you are in integrity" then someone would never be out of integrity... dang wish I had this definition earlier would have loved to shove that one up my bosses nose when yet another conversation about "intergrity started"

It is interesting to read what others have been told and compare it to what I know and understand about landmark. It opens ones eyes to just how manipulative they can be.

In Chinese word, one word means a lot.

For instance, the word "yong" means the following from my dictionary:

1) linear & 2) continuous

Whenever a word is attached to "yong", the meaning of "yong" would then be explained by either (1) or (2). Here are several phrases started with "yong":

a. forever
b. long day
c. soul immortality
d. mourn (for the dead)
e. home sick
f. continuing

Chinese words are formed by combining partial characters so we need to know index characters in order to find our words in a dictionary. After we find the word, we can see different phrases that start with the word. Then we choose the most proper phrase according to our situations. Like choosing one phrase from (a, b, c, d, e, f) if one decides to use “yong” in a sentence.

Normally a index characters defines the characteristic of the word. Like "water" for instance, any word with index character "water" attached means that the word contains fluid characteristic, such as ocean, river, swim, oil, steam ...etc.

I think LGAT may try the same language forming method by attaching its unique index character to participants’ vocabularies. So rather than turning off participants’ reasoning, LGAT instead changes their reasoning into abstract meaning through the addition of unique index characters. The whole reasoning section would become abstract.

For example, if I create an index character which has “ambiguity” characteristic and attach this index character to all the words in a dictionary, then I would have a new dictionary with every word contains “ambiguity” characteristic.

One may need to remove such index character to recover the reality. This is just a thought of mine.

Hsuchi

read a book recently called [i:bf6a98b887]est: Making Life Work[/i:bf6a98b887] by Robert Hargrove.
the forum leader says that you do not do anything as long as you act ethically (or did he phrase it "in ethics"?), the reverse of which means that if you can do something that makes it ethical.

Quote
sonnie_dee
Hi Glam,

The person who defined integrity to you has not got the landmark definition at all. "Integrity is being your word. doing what you said you would do at the time you said you would do it. It is also obeying the law"

All staff and senior landmark leaders have integrity files where we had to "clean up" out integrity. This was a tedious nasty event that was pushed every time the centre was not doing well (i.e. not registering enough people) it was always said that the reason the centre was not doing well was because someones integrity was out.

This whole process is designed to push the guilt factor. Then you work harder and do what they want even more so you are in integrity

Sonnie

Hi Sonnie.

This sounds so much like scientology that it makes me wonder if Landmarkers have "gone back to ~source~ " to make sure they have control over people. Even the jargon is the same; i.e. calling it "out integrity."


Ellen

Quote

This sounds so much like scientology that it makes me wonder if Landmarkers have "gone back to ~source~ " to make sure they have control over people. Even the jargon is the same; i.e. calling it "out integrity

That is scary. Landmark pushes the "we are not religous". Until I came to this site I didn't even know the links it had with scientology. If I had known the links prior to doing the Landmark Forum I would never have participated given my beliefs.

Quote
sonnie_dee
You are right Glam,

Landmark has lots of interpretations of one word and this leads to a lot of confusion and eventually guilt because someone is thinking of the wrong one.

I guess if you take the definition of "if its right for you you are in integrity" then someone would never be out of integrity... dang wish I had this definition earlier would have loved to shove that one up my bosses nose when yet another conversation about "intergrity started"

It is interesting to read what others have been told and compare it to what I know and understand about landmark. It opens ones eyes to just how manipulative they can be.

Did you ever ask your boss about _his_ integrity? That would've been interesting!