corboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In response to Gloria~
>
> "They made me feel bad for being disturbed by
> their seminar."
Yes, corboy, I believe that what followed was one of my replies, ("Yes, they will say that you are "too confronted" and can't handle it, ...").
To elaborate a little further, the implication is that the participant is not honest enough to face him/herself, or to admit their own flaws either to themself or others. Another "possibility" for interpretation is that the participant has reacted to "new" information or interpretations of reality, and is too close-minded to even consider it. And here, I will digress, a little:
I was very open-minded - willing to listen to just about any point of view. But, when i am presented with the argument that a five-year-old who has been molested cannot be considered a "victim," i can very quickly reject it. Landmark adherents state that they only want you to be open-minded and listen, but in reality, they want acceptance of all they present. No matter how many times they repeat "This is not the truth," they will push it as such until you behave as if it is.
I didn't - and i said so. That's how I got into trouble.
Back to the original point: this is just another example of their projection, or "flipping the script." They accuse the participants of being dishonest or manipulative, when everything they do is infused with dishonesty, manipulation. and inauthenticity.
As is so often the case, there may be a grain of truth for them to latch onto. They use our minor inauthenticities against us, and exploit them to no end:
You went to an introduction; invited by a friend. Your friend was obviously very invested that you got something out of it, so you say that you did, (even if you felt that you wasted your time). It's inauthentic, but we all do that. We are trained socially from a very young age. They know that we will do that, and that becomes the first hook...
Yes, I was inauthentic; "Well, yeah, sure, i can see how this has great value, blah, blah, blah..." But you have to look at intent. It was my intent to not hurt my friend's feelings. It was important to her. My inauthenticity was relatively benign.
Contrast that with the intent of Landmark. From where i sit, it appears that all they want is to talk people out of their mental health and psychological sovereignty, (not to mention their money, if they have any). That so-called "popping" is nothing but the breaking of your will. It's nothing new. I'm sure it's been happening in POW camps all over the world since the beginning of time.
-------------------------------------------------------
> In response to Gloria~
>
> "They made me feel bad for being disturbed by
> their seminar."
Yes, corboy, I believe that what followed was one of my replies, ("Yes, they will say that you are "too confronted" and can't handle it, ...").
To elaborate a little further, the implication is that the participant is not honest enough to face him/herself, or to admit their own flaws either to themself or others. Another "possibility" for interpretation is that the participant has reacted to "new" information or interpretations of reality, and is too close-minded to even consider it. And here, I will digress, a little:
I was very open-minded - willing to listen to just about any point of view. But, when i am presented with the argument that a five-year-old who has been molested cannot be considered a "victim," i can very quickly reject it. Landmark adherents state that they only want you to be open-minded and listen, but in reality, they want acceptance of all they present. No matter how many times they repeat "This is not the truth," they will push it as such until you behave as if it is.
I didn't - and i said so. That's how I got into trouble.
Back to the original point: this is just another example of their projection, or "flipping the script." They accuse the participants of being dishonest or manipulative, when everything they do is infused with dishonesty, manipulation. and inauthenticity.
As is so often the case, there may be a grain of truth for them to latch onto. They use our minor inauthenticities against us, and exploit them to no end:
You went to an introduction; invited by a friend. Your friend was obviously very invested that you got something out of it, so you say that you did, (even if you felt that you wasted your time). It's inauthentic, but we all do that. We are trained socially from a very young age. They know that we will do that, and that becomes the first hook...
Yes, I was inauthentic; "Well, yeah, sure, i can see how this has great value, blah, blah, blah..." But you have to look at intent. It was my intent to not hurt my friend's feelings. It was important to her. My inauthenticity was relatively benign.
Contrast that with the intent of Landmark. From where i sit, it appears that all they want is to talk people out of their mental health and psychological sovereignty, (not to mention their money, if they have any). That so-called "popping" is nothing but the breaking of your will. It's nothing new. I'm sure it's been happening in POW camps all over the world since the beginning of time.