Bakkagirl wrote:
"With regard to the technologies and messages, I am wondering, specifically, whether the est/Landmark/Tony Robbins message related to 'victimhood', i.e. there are no victims (childhood sexual abuse, political terrorism, Acts of God), may translate in certain minds to "there are no crimes", or that crimes of a sexual or other nature (financial) can be rationalized according to some cosmic/karmic formula."
I have seen that thinking a lot in New Age circles, and among some of the people I knew at Landmark. It goes along with "not making somebody 'wrong.'" If said by a person approaching it from a metaphysical standpoint, they will say that nobody can do anything to you without your consent; that you agreed to it on the etheric level, possibly even before you were born; that it was some sort of a soul agreement or "contract." They are quite hypocritical about it, though. For all of their admonitions against "making someone wrong," if you happen to be the victim, they are very quick to "make you wrong" if you consider retaliation.
For those who don't approach it from that angle, there are other angles. For one thing, there is their vague consent form. I have come to the conclusion that they take that as consent to do anything to you, even though that was not your intent. It seems that, as far as they're concerned, as long as you did not specifically forbid a particular action on their part, they consider themselves as having consent to carry it out. They will also extract vaguely-worded verbal permissions, on the spot, and what you get is not what you understood yourself to be consenting to. They will also use coercive influence in obtaining consent, and if you give them an inch, they will take the proverbial mile. They pretend to not understand the word "STOP."
They take it to absurd lengths, with no regard for the law. If you complain, they will act as if you gave them permission, or as if it was a misunderstanding, (even though they know perfectly well that no one in their right mind would actually agree to what they've done). All the while, they stress over and over that you, and only you, are responsible for your own well-being.
As to "no crimes," I can say that, in the past few years, if someone stole something from the shop I was working in, most of the people I was working with would not say that they "stole" it, but would say that they "took" it, as if they hadn't just committed a crime. I saw the same kind of euphemisms in the Landmark people.
"With regard to the technologies and messages, I am wondering, specifically, whether the est/Landmark/Tony Robbins message related to 'victimhood', i.e. there are no victims (childhood sexual abuse, political terrorism, Acts of God), may translate in certain minds to "there are no crimes", or that crimes of a sexual or other nature (financial) can be rationalized according to some cosmic/karmic formula."
I have seen that thinking a lot in New Age circles, and among some of the people I knew at Landmark. It goes along with "not making somebody 'wrong.'" If said by a person approaching it from a metaphysical standpoint, they will say that nobody can do anything to you without your consent; that you agreed to it on the etheric level, possibly even before you were born; that it was some sort of a soul agreement or "contract." They are quite hypocritical about it, though. For all of their admonitions against "making someone wrong," if you happen to be the victim, they are very quick to "make you wrong" if you consider retaliation.
For those who don't approach it from that angle, there are other angles. For one thing, there is their vague consent form. I have come to the conclusion that they take that as consent to do anything to you, even though that was not your intent. It seems that, as far as they're concerned, as long as you did not specifically forbid a particular action on their part, they consider themselves as having consent to carry it out. They will also extract vaguely-worded verbal permissions, on the spot, and what you get is not what you understood yourself to be consenting to. They will also use coercive influence in obtaining consent, and if you give them an inch, they will take the proverbial mile. They pretend to not understand the word "STOP."
They take it to absurd lengths, with no regard for the law. If you complain, they will act as if you gave them permission, or as if it was a misunderstanding, (even though they know perfectly well that no one in their right mind would actually agree to what they've done). All the while, they stress over and over that you, and only you, are responsible for your own well-being.
As to "no crimes," I can say that, in the past few years, if someone stole something from the shop I was working in, most of the people I was working with would not say that they "stole" it, but would say that they "took" it, as if they hadn't just committed a crime. I saw the same kind of euphemisms in the Landmark people.