Even though I now hate the Landmark organisation for being manipulative in turning everybody into their unpaid work and sales force and not taking responsibility for possible casualties I still think most of the Landmark 'distinctions' are OK as long as you don't start using them religiously all the time and lose touch with reality (like I did) and think anything is possible.

For me:
- it is valuable to feel an importance to be open and honest.
- 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)
- it is valuable to want to be my word
- it is worthwhile to be aware of 'rackets' that give me some payoff of being right but cost me something else
- it seems like a good thing to share my 'possibilities' with others in way that they are touched
- the 'act' concept can be useful sometimes (being aware of what I/others automatically start doing when pushed)

What I hate is the chocolate/vanilla choice thing though. It made me into an impulsive bad decision maker...

I think most of the evil is in how these concepts are used to get you to do things you don't really want to do.

Do I still need some deprogramming or what?

Sounds like you have some sorting out to do.

Nothing is all bad.

Maybe you should seek counseling with a licensed professional through a social service agency in your area.

You said ‘What I hate is the chocolate/vanilla choice thing though. It made me into an impulsive bad decision maker.’

I’m not surprised – and it is not your fault. That exercise isn’t about ‘deciding’ or ‘choosing’ or ‘letting go’.

We learn throughout our lives, from teaching and the things that happen to us or we do to others, that decisions should be made on understanding, knowledge and our own experience of the world, yet you are asked – or rather told - to give up all of these when the question is asked ‘which do you choose, chocolate or vanilla?’ And two hundred other people are getting impatient for your answer if you don’t give it and applaud you when you do.

Without a context, a question can be meaningless. The real objective of this Forum exercise isn’t to get you to choose one or the other. It is to get you to give up your rational decision-making process.

So no wonder your decision-making processes afterwards are a bit skewed!

When she came back from the Forum my wife tried this one on me as though it was an exciting new way of approaching a decision. The phrasing of her questions was interesting – read the bits in capitals (maybe not verbatim but pretty much what was said).

‘Which do you choose, chocolate or vanilla?’
‘That’s a meaningless question.’
‘DON’T THINK ABOUT IT. Which do you choose?’
‘Chocolate or vanilla what? Shakes? Sauce? Ice cream?’
‘STOP THINKING ABOUT IT. Which do you choose?’
‘Chocolate or vanilla what to go with what?’
‘YOU ARE THINKING TOO MUCH. Which do you choose?
‘I can’t choose without a context because the question is meaningless.’
‘LET GO, STOP THINKING. Which do you choose?’

After about twenty minutes of the same stuff, she gave up, declaring me uncoachable. I’m not sure I could have resisted so hard to give an answer in a Forum room with an increasingly impatient audience, especially if I had not eaten or slept too well during the previous day or two.

A lot of what you say in the ‘for me’ part of your post I couldn’t argue with, and if the Forum got you thinking about those things, then great. People do this (well or badly, consciously or not – and often without trying to construct a world around these abstracts) as part of themselves and their interaction with the rest of the world – and the world accepts them as what they are.

Hope this helps.

and remember, your landmark belief system is based
on lies, nothingness and hypnosis. if u insist that its a good thing
that is up to u. it is not reality based.

keep that in mind as u replay what landmark has done to
u in your mind.

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

You said ‘What I hate is the chocolate/vanilla choice thing though. It made me into an impulsive bad decision maker.’

I’m not surprised – and it is not your fault. That exercise isn’t about ‘deciding’ or ‘choosing’ or ‘letting go’. It is about making you give up your logical thought processes and past experience.

We learn throughout our lives, from teaching and the things that happen to us or we do to others, that decisions should be made on understanding, knowledge and our own experience of the world, yet you are asked – or rather told - to give up all of these when that question is asked ‘which do you choose, chocolate or vanilla?’ And two hundred other people are getting impatient for your answer if you don’t give it and applaud you when you do.

Without a context, a question can be meaningless. The real objective of this Forum exercise isn’t to get you to choose one or the other. It is to get you to surrender your rational decision-making process. You know the question is meaningless, but you answer it. It’s rude not to. So who is in charge?

So no wonder your decision-making processes afterwards are a bit skewed!

When she came back from the Forum my wife tried this one on me as though it was an exciting new way of approaching a decision. The phrasing of her questions was interesting – read the bits in capitals (maybe not verbatim but pretty much what was said).

‘Which do you choose, chocolate or vanilla?’
‘That’s a meaningless question.’
‘DON’T THINK ABOUT IT. Which do you choose?’
‘Chocolate or vanilla what? Shakes? Sauce? Ice cream?’
‘STOP THINKING ABOUT IT. Which do you choose?’
‘Chocolate or vanilla what to go with what?’
‘YOU ARE THINKING TOO MUCH. Which do you choose?
‘I can’t choose without a context because the question is meaningless.’
‘LET GO, STOP THINKING. Which do you choose?’

After about twenty minutes of the same stuff, she gave up, declaring me uncoachable. I’m not sure I could have resisted so hard to give an answer in a Forum room with an increasingly impatient audience, especially if I had not eaten or slept too well during the previous day or two.

A lot of what you say in the ‘for me’ part of your post I couldn’t argue with, and if the Forum got you thinking about those things, then great. People do this (well or badly, consciously or not – and usually without trying to construct their whole world around these abstracts) as part of themselves and their interaction with the rest of the world – and the world accepts them as what they are.

Hope this helps.

Hi Oz,

Thanks for your extensive reply. I agree with most of what you're saying.

Let me first of all say that the 'distinctions' I mentioned seem helpful to *me*. I do not believe they are absolute truth at all. I don't see them as rules that must always be applied by everybody or look at them in a philosophical way.

- Being more open and not cover stuff up is good for me. Of course it's important to be aware of the person on the receving end.

- It really helped become less depressed to realize that I can choose what way to look at things. Basically it helped me stop thinking negatively about all the stuff that has happened in the last year which has impacted work/realtionships/living situation and made me slide into depression since I snapped out of Landmark in April 2004. Being aware that I am (to some extent) in control of the way I look at things helps me think more positively which at this moment in my life is very good for me. I am fully aware that I don't want to apply this to the extent that I begin to deny reality.

These first two are the ones that I find really valuable. The others I don't really use. But I think they could possibly be useful.

I think the most important thing is to not look at these things too religously and rigid and see it as the truth. Just stuff that can be helpful at times.

I am aware of the processes I was subjected to. And that I was programmed. I am seeing a counseler for my depression. But he is not a deprogrammer. Maybe it's worth looking into. Does anyone know anyone near Amsterdam, the Netherlands?

I would be very interested to hear how others have gone about deprogramming themselves!!

What Landmark stuff did you have to really unlearn?
What Landmark stuff do you find useful when not twisted and used too religiously?

You might find the following recovery information helpful.

[www.culteducation.com]

Sort through the material and see what you think has relevance concerning your situation and circumstances.

Also see [www.culteducation.com]

You might find the coercive persuasion techniques discussed interesting. There have been repeated allegations that mass marathon training or large group awareness programs use such techniques.

Note the following article, which identifies key issues regarding mass marathon training.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Woody had some comments about the 'chocolate/vanilla exercise'

Quote

That exercise isn’t about ‘deciding’ or ‘choosing’ or ‘letting go’.

We learn throughout our lives, from teaching and the things that happen to us or we do to others, that decisions should be made on understanding, knowledge and our own experience of the world, yet you are asked – or rather told - to give up all of these when the question is asked ‘which do you choose, chocolate or vanilla?’ And two hundred other people are getting impatient for your answer if you don’t give it and applaud you when you do.

Without a context, a question can be meaningless. The real objective of this Forum exercise isn’t to get you to choose one or the other. It is to get you to give up your rational decision-making process.

Here is something from Mortimer J. Adler:

[radicalacademy.com]

Quote

Those who say that there is no disputing about tastes usually mean more than they say. In my judgment they are wrong not in what they say but in what they mean. They start from the fact that people differ in taste, in what they like and dislike, and conclude that that is all there is to it. They conclude, in other words, that in talking about works of art or things of beauty, the only opinions which people can express must take the familiar form of "I don't know whether it's beautiful or not, but I know what I like."

This conclusion makes beauty entirely subjective or, as the saying goes, entirely a matter of individual taste. People sometimes take the same position about truth and goodness. The truth, they say, is merely what seems true to me. The good is merely what I regard as desirableThey thus reduce truth and goodness to matters of taste about which there can be no argument.

Let me illustrate the mistake they make. If a man says to you, "That object looks red to me," you would be foolish to argue with him about how it looks. The fact that it looks gray to you has no bearing on how it looks to him. Nevertheless, you may be able to show him that he is deceived by the reddish glow from a light shining on the object and that, in fact, the object is gray, not red. [i:2e98bba7d8]Even after you have proved this to him by physical tests, the object may still look red to him, but he will be able to recognize the difference between the appearance and the reality.[/i:2e98bba7d8]

This simple illustration shows that while there is no point in arguing about how things look, there is good reason to argue about what things are. Similarly, if a person insists upon telling you what he likes or dislikes in works of art, he is expressing purely subjective opinions which cannot be disputed. But good critics try to express objective judgments about the excellences or defects of a work itself. They are talking about the object, not about themselves.

I think the choice thing is a really smart trick to make people sign up for the next course.

You are tricked into thinking it's cool to make choices and uncool to make decisions. Whenever you come up with a reason why you wouldn't want to sign up you realize you're making a decision and basing yourself upon reason.

They also promote being unreasonable explicitely. As in: Could you be unreasonable and invite even more people to your home intro?

The choice thing is presented at the end of the Forum when everybody is already very tired and in a weird hypnotic state that they'll buy anything...

It really messed me up. How can people be so irrisponsibe and evil. I really don't understand that...