Yes, Landmark is a cult, and no it's not. The simple fact is, if you want to relate to Lanmark as a cult, the room is definitely there to do so. The same is true, however, of almost any group. I've met Christians who relate to their church in such a manner that I would call them cult members, I am involved in martial arts, and I've seen some students relate to our *sifu* the way one would relate to a cult leader. I've even seen many psychology majors relate to Freudian theory as if they were true believers in a cult, My personal take on Landmark, and its effect on the people who were in my Forum, is that it was very empowering for most of them. However, I did see a few who I truly thought were damaged by the experience. Those were the ones who approached Landmark as a panacea for their problems. Most of the problems I had with the Forum were not in the ideas or techniques of the Forum itself, but rather with the way people related to it. If they came in looking for psychotherapy, that is exactly what they got, whether Landmark intended that or not. That in itself is not a bad thing, but I wonder how some of those people will deal with their issues after leaving the Forum. For many, I think they will grow dependent on the Forum for their sense of health and self-worth. I already saw that beginning to happen with some of the participants, although they would have probably developed that relationship of dependence on something else, if not Landmark. Ninety percent of what I heard in the Forum was the philosophies of Heidegger and Wittgenstein, given a very real application in looking at what we experience. The Forum is powerful, and it is no surprise, given that it is based on two ways of seeing that are arguably the most formative of the twentieth century. I would also like to say that our Forum leader had a deeper understanding of Heidegger than any professor I have had, or anybody I have read. Actually, one of the aspects that bothered me is that they did _not_ say they had drawn on some of those thinkers. Just a personal quirk, but I would have liked to have seen at least a public tip of the hat by the Forum leader to a couple of those thinkers, just out of respect. Also, I was engaged in the particular methodologies of the philosophers' ideas that are present in the Forum long before I ever took it. Carefully crafted? Maybe. Definitely over-simplified, and yes, even twisted in some areas. Yet the Forum is meant to demonstrate some applications of those ideas, not to be explanations and histories of them, or even a polemic defending their truth. As such, presenting the full context of the ideas isn't necessary. > [It's more subtle than that. How about Education metaphors, coach and sports > metaphors, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela. > > Not that such symbol use is especially sublte. effective, but not all that > sublte. Or did you notice it?] Caught it, was somewhat turned off by it. Still doesn't make whatever is connected with the positive image invalid. Yeah, that was the point of my post a while ago, that some of the tactics used would make an old school used car salesman blush. And I said in one of my first posts that I didn't go to the final night of the Forum because I disliked sales meetings and pep rallies. This does not mean, however, that I will not recommend the Forum to some who I think will get something of value out of it. I don't expect a commission for that however. The Scientology connection really bothers me, but when I look at what's being discussed in the Forum, there's something of value in it, no matter where it supposedly originated. It must be proven not only that such techniques are used, but also that they have been used effectively in such a manner that I am no longer capable of "objective observation." As a matter of fact, I think that some manipulation _does_ occur, or at least some of it can be validly seen that way. This does not, however, prove anything one way or the other about whether or not I or anybody else is a victim of such manipulation. I didn't find anything misleading about the introduction that I went to, except for one thing: that the "testimonials" or whatever you want to call them were not as spontaneous as they appeared to be, but that was easy to see by some of the wording people used. This does not mean that they are not genuine, however, or untrue. I would like to voice some concerns about what I saw in the introduction- 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. I also got the distinct feeling of Landmarkians trying to please those in upper positions of the hierarchy. Although "pressure" is just a perception, in situations like this the perception is the reality. If a structure is set up which reads "pressure" to a potential enrollee, then that perception will determine their response, and if they see their own response as a "giving in", then the work of the Forum will be much harder to approach openly. (i.e. waffling on the commitment given in the situation, which further phone calls attempt to overcome, which is read as further pressure, etc, etc.) It seems that in many cases, such participants start, not with a committment to see what is possible through the work, but from a position of what they see as their own weakness in being unable to resist the "pressure," not exactly an open ground for seeing things clearly. Many of these will start from such a weak postion that they will not stand up at the beginning, feeling too embarrassed. I said in an earlier post that I saw many who I thought would grow dependent on LEC for their own sense-of self worth, even though self responsibility is emphasized over and over again in the Forum. I think those who take the Forum under these conditions are the most likely to become so attached. This is not really a complaint, but an observation and a question, "is there some other way?" Another question I have, is why should I be committed to someone else doing the Forum? I can honestly say that I enjoy sharing what I have gained out of the Forum with many, and have shared also what I think they could get out of it. Okay. So they decide to come or they don't, they enroll or they don't. Certainly I see some who I think could gain from taking it, and some for whom I think it would be unhealthy. I am committed to opening possiblilites in others, but I don't see why these possibilities have to include the Forum. Even if I think it would be beneficial, my commitment is to them and my love for them, and all the possiblilites I see for people are inherent. What I mean is, the Forum may teach an especially effective method for seeing things clearly, and opening up possibilities through this, but it is not an answer in itself. There is no reason why anybody must take the Forum for these possibilities to open up, and so my commitment to letting them see these possibilities does not necessarily include the Forum. I will say this, though. This discussion has led me to one decision, at least. Considering that some people's experiences seem so vastly different than my own, I probably will not recommend the courses to some people that I know until I have gone through at least the Advanced Course, to see if perhaps _there_ the experiences are as drastic as others have claimed.