Hi Cruisader,
You have raised some interesting points that can be viewed from both the big picture and selectively.
I am not aware of how much you have read up on the Landmark techniques. These techniques, (the process they use rather than the Technology imparted), are both psychological and hypnotic. This is why so much of the philosophy and "Tech" sticks.
I can see that you have come along way already.
From the big picture, the points you have raised are based largely on Phenominology/Existentialism. This is a Humanistic philosophy that argues:
1. The only thing I know for certain is that I, (my mind) exists.
2. The only reality is my own expereince. Anything outside of this reality is only speculative.
3. Everything outside of my reality is objectified, (Landmark goes a step further by proclaim that the subject, (you), is also objectified).
4. Every thing/object/event etc can be deconstructed
5. No object/event/person has intrinsic meaning
6. As I am the only reality I can be certain of, I can give meaning to objects/persons/events by re-constructing or re-contectualising.
The litmus test for the relivence of a philosophy is:
Is it reality based?
Does it contain essential truth?
Does it provide dignity to all existance?
Your points:
Quote
- it is valuable to feel an importance to be open and honest.
Openness and honesty are good virtues when practiced with charity/compassion. Timing is most important when disclosing as is the senitivities of the recipient. The tension involved in being open and honest is illuminated when reflecting on where the need to be open and honest comes from. Is it out of a self-less need for dignity and respect for the other or does it stem from a selfish need to "clear" or purify oneself?
Quote
- it works to know that I give meaning to everything, I have a choice here to look at things positively (i.e. a new beginning instead of what a mess)
This is a big one and at the extreme end of Existentialism. As to the first part, "I give meaning to everything"
* This implies that before you existed, existance had no meaning;
* This implies that everything you do not know about has no meaning or is objectified;
* This implies that when you die, existence reverts back to having no meaning;
* This implies that you give meaning to me;
* This implies that I give meaning to you;
* If this is the case, what happens if my meaning for you and your meaning for yourself conflict? Which reality is truth. Which reality is a lie.
* if this is the case, there is no truth so as Werner would say, "What's so"
* if you give meaning to everything then all science and truth is just opinion until you say "It is" because "I am".
The second part:
"I have a choice here to look at things positively"
As a note: Landmark distinctions: Decison is based on analysis. Choice is being unaffected by external information, events etc.
This implies that my choice, (without engaging my reason and logic), is to be "positive". I Choose to be positive or I choose to give postive meaning to something/someone.
This argument falls apart when the Nigerian refugee can't fed his familiy due to civil war, drought and famine.
*Did he choose to be in this position;
* Did he cause the famine/civil war/drought.
* Will his "lie" to reframe his circumstances as positive put food in his mouth?
* Does this lie deny the intrinsic meaning of his country's plight that what has/is happening is bad?
* Is the Nigerian in denial because he views his situation as negative or is he in denial that he gives new meaning to his situation that it is positive?
Being positive denies what is negative. If there is no negative, there is no positive. If there is no positive or negative, there is no meaning. So I create meaning that the Nigerian's hunger pains do not exist.
Quote
- it is valuable to want to be my word
This is a trap many Landmarkians find themselves in. The basis of this "value" is to prevent "enrollees" from backing out of their application to do further courses.
* Actions speak louder than words;
* Outside of Landmark - When we give our word, we hopefully do so after thinking about what we are saying. We do so in good faith based on what we know at the time;
* Inside Landmark - we give our word as choice, no resoning or logic underpinning it. As the Landmark philosophy does not work outside of the centre, Our word does not follow through in action. There was no rational basis for the "word"
Note: Werner's concept of:
"you are your word"
and
"I am possibility"; evolving through further distinctions of "I am at cause" to finally "I am" has biblical roots. G-d in the bible states: "I am" and "I am the word".
This fits existentailly to "I create meaning to everything". In effect, "I am God".
Incidentailly this is why Landmark philosophy does not fit with Jewish and Christian doctrine.
Quote
- it is worthwhile to be aware of 'rackets' that give me some payoff of being right but cost me something else
* The basis of this is the whole cultic reality is the demand for purity. The need to "clear" oneself of "rackets". My LGAT called these "yukberries". How cleansed do we have to be? Is it not a greater value to be selfless.
* "Being right" is given a negative value by Landmark. Landmark also denies the existence of right or wrong. It might be that at times you are right and are upholding a principle, (I do not mean taking a stand). Does this mean you are running a racket. The hide of anyone or Landmark to suggest that you are running a racket because you believe you are right.
* Also interesting is the "creator" focus - "give me some payoff" and "cost me something else" What about the affects of our actions on others?
Quote
- it seems like a good thing to share my 'possibilities' with others in way that they are touched
* Why not just tell people your plans. In a way to be "touched", (moved and inspired), suggests colouring information through "acting", not telling the truth.
Quote
- the 'act' concept can be useful sometimes (being aware of what I/others automatically start doing when pushed)
* In principle, yes, but what if there is nothing wrong with our automatic responses.
Quote
Do I still need some deprogramming or what?
You have asked so I will answer.
* You are aware of the intent of Landmark and that is good;
* However, you seem to have doubts one way or the other.
* You also explain things in Landmark terms - this is hard to arrest on your own.
* Understanding the Landmark philosophy rather than just using the "tech" will gain your freedom again to decide.
* Good Counselling may speed up your progress.
I truely wish you all the best!
Oz