Return to: Landmark Forum: Rants and Raves
I am about to do the Forum here in L.A. I am sure that many people "lurking" through this Newsgroup have some of the same questions and concerns that I have, and so I would like to do a sort of "before and after" set of postings.
I was introduced to the Forum by somebody who I have an immense amount of respect for. His exact words, in describing the Forum, were, "...the most profound experience of my life." Normally I avoid any sort of "self-improvement" type dynamics like the plague, especially if it involves large groups of people. The only reason I even went to the introduction was becuase of the respect I have for the person who brought me. However, ten minutes into the group discussion, I decided I would do it. My initial reasons for going were actually rather academic.
I am a Philosophy major in college, and most of the key phrases being used by the discussion leader ("coach?") were setting off so many bells of recognition in my head that I had a hard time concentrating on what some of the other people were saying. Supposedly you are not supposed to go into this type of thing with any preconceptions, but for me that's simply impossible. After thinking of the structure of the discussion leader's conversation, and looking at some of the posts here and other places,
the following is what I basically think the structure of the Forum is.
If it is overly academic, I apologize in advance. Much of this is to help me get my own thoughts in an organized form.
1. There is a concentrated effort to bring participants to the Socratic realization that wisdom lies in knowing precisely that you are ignorant (an asshole?). Beginning to look at what we "don't know that we don't know". Also beginning to see that we don't know the future the way we think we do, and stop letting our supposed knowledge of ourselves and others limit the possiblities of our next moment.
2. A concentrated effort to bring up those events in the past which give the current tint to the glasses through which we see, so that we might cease seeing the world through that particular tint. Along with that is a sort of Wittgensteinian process of making clear distinctions about the internal dialogue we use in dealing with reality, so that we see any problems without categorical fuzziness.
3. Throughout all of this, I think there will also be an effort to keep participants in one of what Heidegger called the "ground moods" which open us up to the possibility of authentically be-ing, mostly "dread" and "boredom." This is helped along by the length of the days and the intensity of the past experiences that are brought up.
4. As these ground moods are achieved, and some of the participants' mechanisms for the preservation of identity (defined as what we thought we knew about ourselves) begin to slip, a new "language game" is given around which the internal dialogue can be rebuilt. I guess the use of this new language game is to be in a constant state of being "clear" of catagorical fuzziness and presumptions about what it means to be, as a human be-ing. Instead, the world is seen as a potential through which we define what is actual for us here and now. (a reversal of the traditional Western stance on actuality and potential= the potential now defines the actual.)
5. Throughout all of this I expect there will be a heavily pragmatic insistence on the "plastic" nature of the views being discussed (Try it on and see if it works.) Which is helpful in overcoming resistance to ideas that change the other idea-constructs we have built ourselves around.
1. Every prospect wore a different colored name tag than people who had gone through some portion of the Landmark series. There are a lot of good, practical reasons for this, but it also helps to foster an initiated/uninitiated, us/them mentality.
2. Forumspeak. A new set of precise words is not in itself a bad thing (all sciences depend on them for clarity.) However, a constant reenforcment of a self-referencing language system makes any perspective OUTSIDE of Landmark's difficult to attain, especially if many hours are used in volunteer work with others who use the same language.
3. Too much agreement among Landmark participants. Maybe this is just a personal quirk, but I ditrust anything that seems to quell disagreement to such a radical extent. Even in this Newsgroup, the disagreements are usually (among those who have participated) not about the fundamentals.
4. The insistence on "Try it on..." gives way too easily to the participant ceasing to be critical in a healthy way in regards to what is being given.
5. Agressive phone contact. I have been contacted so many times since registering that I am growing irritated. Of course I have doubts about the whole thing, as I should. It seems the phone contact is to help work through those doubts, when in reality it just reinforces them.
Overall, though, I have found LEC to be quite open, and am looking forward to the experience. I think any talk about "cult" is over played, our society wants us to bow before outward change and progress, yet anything which threatens to change the individual is seen with distrust.
I really wish we would get over this damn cowardliness.