Some people seem born to lead others to the promised land. The world of devotees beat a path to their doors, seeking inspiration, even salvation in some cases. Werner Erhard is one of these lucky guys. Ridicule these charismatic gurus if you will, but their devotees are standing in line to be helped, to have their egos boosted, to be given some direction and purpose, and to be given the confidence to believe in themselves, or just to be reminded of their potential. The motivators of the world fill a great need, for most of us flounder around aimlessly, work jobs we don't love all that much, get into relationships we aren't all that happy with, work with people we don't quite know how to deal with, etc. Every once in a while we need a boost, a jump start, a kick in the pants, some inspiration. We need someone to remind us that we are important, and could be doing a lot better in a thousand and one ways, if only we could get motivated. In short, we need help.
The resilience of charismatic motivators like former used car salesman John Paul Rosenberg, aka Werner Erhard, L. Ron Hubbard or a or a Frederick Lenz should be admired. However much damage they may have done, their self-confidence and success make them awesome. We should look at such people and wonder. How do they do it? How can they continue to pass off eclectic packages of philosphical and psychological pablum? How can a guy like Erhard survive scathing attacks in the press that he is a child abuser or worse, and emerge again to preach the same old gospel in a new wineskin? He denies he ever abused his wife or children, by the way. He also denies that he has left the country to escape the IRS. He is not on the run from his family or the courts but from Scientology hit men. He believes there is a contract out on his life, initiated by the leaders of Scientology. He and others also believe that Scientologists initiated all the scandals regarding Erhard, in acts of vengeance for his allegedly stealing their methods and passing them off as his own in est.
How did est ever get so popular? And how has Erhard managed to salvage a hodgepodge of philosophical bits and pieces culled from the carcasses of existential philosophy, various kinds of New Age psychotherapies, hypnotism, Zen Buddhism, Freud, Maslow, L. Ron Hubbard, Hinduism, Dale Carnegie, Norman Vincent Peale, P.T. Barnum, and anything else that his intuition told him would work?
In 1971, he launched est [Erhard Seminar Training], billed basically as a self-help program. Est lasted for almost 15 years before Erhard repackaged it as the Landmark Forum for a new generation of hipper cats. What did Erhard promise those who would shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars for his programs? He promised he would "blow their minds" and raise them to a new level of consciousness. In short, he would make them special. He would first tell them that their problem was that they needed to have their consciouness "rewired" and his program would do the rewiring. Once they got their consciousness on straight, life would be good. They would be powerful, confident, successful. Nothing could stand in their way and deprive them of all those opportunities in life they had heretofore been denied because of bad programming or wiring. Through est they would be born again! Halleluliah! All their problems were in their mind; just rewire the mind, i.e., have their personalities deconstructed, and all would be ok.
The actual details of Erhard's "teachings" are of no more interest than the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard or Frederick Lenz. They are a hodgepodge of philosophy and psychology that could never withstand critical scrutiny. Still, est and scientology can point to many "successes." They can demonstrate that their programs "work." They can bring forth to testify in their behalf hundreds, if not thousands, of satisfied customers. And some of these customers are famous! John Denver, John Travolta, Yoko Ono, Cher, Valerie Harper...some of the great minds of our day! Well, I won't deny that for many people their lives were better after they got involved in est or scientology. Those of us who have been trained to study philosophy or psychology, who have a deep sense of the nature of speculation and empirical research, recognize immediately the pseudoscientific nature of programs such as est or dianetics. We know that testimonials are not empirical evidence validating a self-help program. We know that an awful lot of post hoc reasoning goes on by both gurus and their followers. We know that many of these people do not really have better lives after their programs, they just feel better about whatever life they have. We know there is little or no research done by the promoters of these programs to (a) test causal claims that might establish some degree of effectiveness to their methods; (b) establish clear criteria for what counts as "successful" therapy; (c) keep records of "failures" or those who feel ripped off by the program.
In any case, the content of the message, while often containing nuggets of wisdom culled from great minds, is secondary. What is primary is the messenger and the way the message is delivered. The messenger must be believable. He must appear sincere. He must exude confidence. He must know how to use his voice and body to get his message across. He must be a master of communication skills. He must have wit and humor. He must be a raconteur.
It is the emotive content of the message that is most important. The message must make the participants feel good about themselves, relieve them of some burden or anxiety, give them confidence in themselves, help them bury their self-pity and self-loathing, overcome their guilt at this or that failure in their personal or professional lives. The message must be positive, elevating, confidence-building; it must be convincing, too. You can do it. You are somebody. But it is not enough to fill the participants with self-confidence or relieve them of their responsibility for what they perceive as failures in their lives; it is not enough to get them to accept themselves and the rest of the universe as it is. It is not enough to fill them with great philosophical notions so vague that they can interpret them any way they feel like without feeling uncomfortable. Give them a few nuggets, of course. Everything is. You are what you are, not what you are not. Nothing needs to be different than it is. But the emotive content must resonate, vibrate, hum, retract, pulsate. You've got to take everybody for a ride, an up and down, in and out, ride. They must be scolded after they are filled with gratitude for how good you have made them feel about themselves. They want to please you, because you offer them hope. You offer them happiness. You offer them a new life. So, you can scold them now. You can tell them that they are assholes, though you do not have to use that word on every audience, only on the ones you really have contempt for. You can tell them that it is their fault their lives are as they are, that their relationships are not as they want them to be, that they are not as happy or successful as they want to be. You can tell them that it is their responsibility to do something about it. You can tell them you love them and want to help them and you can feel the gratitude as they become more receptive to your message that they take responsibility for who they are and what they do. They will want to quit being passive. They will want to take charge of their lives. They will want to throw off their self-loathing and self-pity. They will want to have your power. They will want to please you. They will feel confident they can do it. And, by god, many of them will do it. They will leave your presence all charged up and ready to take on the world. They will leave running on all sixteen cylinders. You have tuned them up. They are turbocharged. You have empowered them.
The Landmark Forum is Werner Erhard. His holdings were transferred to a corporation called Landmark which offers seminars and classes similar to those offered by est. One significant change seems to be the method of instruction. In est, the method was often abusive, profane, demeaning, and authoritarian. The Forum is apparently just as authoritarian but not as profane or abusive. Both aim at creating disciples who are dependent on the program, who will keep signing up for more and more classes for more and more money. The goal is always something very grand and very vague. The programs are hailed as "original, innovative and effective." They "allow participants to produce extraordinary and even miraculous results, and provide a useful, practical new freedom which brings a quality of effectiveness and plan to one's everday life." Landmark is dedicated to "empowering people in generating unlimited possibilities and making a difference. Our work provides limitless opportunities for growth and development for individuals, relationships, families, communities, businesses, institutions and society as a whole." They are "successful" and "internationally recognized." They are " committed to generating extraordinary communication --powerful listening and committed speaking that results in self-expression and fulfillment." Landmark is "exciting, challenging and enjoyable." "Well being, self-expression, accountability and integrity are the tenets upon which we stand. This stand leads to our extraordinary customer, assistant and employee satisfaction." And, of course, Landmark Forum wants to help you fulfill all your human potential, your "capacity to create, generate, invent and design from nothing." [Landmark Education Charter] As I said, very grand and very vague.
Why do so many people find eclectic, pablum-laced philosophy and psychology attractive? And why do so many feel they have benefited from programs such as Erhard's? I think the answer to the first question is that the pablum is satisfying. Either people feel they can understand it and that makes them special because the rest of the world doesn't get it. Or people don't understand it, but they are happy to belong to a group where their leader understands it, and they have enough faith in their leader that they believe his esoteric wisdom is worth seeking and waiting for. Someday they will understand, but even if they don't, their lives are the better for it. They belong to a group which will help them succeed in life.
The second question is more difficult. I think many people are satisfied with est or scientology or similar schemes because the programs have given them direction and focus. Any rudder will do when your ship is rudderless. On the other hand, I think many people are satisfied with est or scientology or similar schemes because the programs have forced them to be more self-conscious. They've forced them to think and examine their lives, something most people don't do on an ordinary Tuesday. Any time a rational person reflects on his or her life, or on some of the bigger issues in life, it feels good or it puts things in perspective. Either way, it is satisfying. The pity is that the same kind of growth and satisfaction could often come from taking an introductory class in philosophy. The same kind of questioning, of guided and forced reflection, of perspective molding, of focusing and directing of one's life, of belonging to a group, can emerge in a good philospophy class. Of course, not all introductory philosophy classes are going to be very inspiring, and as costs rise, it will probably soon be no longer the case that a college course is cheaper than one or a series of self-help seminars. So, perhaps the real pity is that self-help seminars aren't cheaper or free.
On the other hand, perhaps many seek and feel rewarded by self-help programs because they are seeking any edge they can get in this life. Of course, what you find may exist only in your mind. But no matter. You are content. The promise of empowerment is not lost on many souls seeking help at the feet of charismatic gurus. The idea that most of us don't live up to our potential, that most of our brain power is untapped, that there is a secret formula for tapping into all that reserve genius, that Werner or Frederick or L. Ron has the formula and will share it with you....for a price. There is always a price. Usually, the price is mere money and the loss can be recovered. But sometimes, the cost is your life, mental or physical. Most people who are harmed by these self-help programs will probably not be permanently damaged, but some will be and some already have been deeply harmed. [Abstracts of Articles in Psychological Journals concerning est and The Forum] Those who are not harmed, but feel that est has given them the power and self-esteem they lacked are the better for it, I must admit. Some of the good feeling and carryover in behavior may be long-lasting, but more than likely it will be temporary, like the rush that follows an inspirational meeting.
Of course, many of those who feel est has made their lives much better may be deceiving themselves. Their lives are not better, and may even be worse, but they feel better about themselves. They feel they belong to the right in-group. They feel they have reached great new heights of understanding. But they may be deluded. They may really understand nothing of importance or value. They may have mastered some jargon. Of course, this danger is not unique to self-help seminars. Unfortunately, sometimes that is all that happens when one takes an intro philosophy class, too. But the philosophy class probably didn't cost that much to take, and it is unlikely the teacher promised to change your life forever. Still, I suppose that is what we teachers of such coureses hope will happen. At worst, however, we expect a number of our students to find us annoying or boring, but essentially harmless.
Teachers, of course, sometimes need motivators, too. And we also have our gurus whom we turn to for inspiration, jump starts, ego boosts. Over the past twenty years I have attended several motivational seminars led by national leaders in the field of education. There seems to be a similarity between these and the New Age motivators such as Erhardt. They are entertaining and often inspiring. However, when what they have actually said is analyzed carefully, they usually lack substance. (One exception is Tony Robbins, who seems to have come a long way from the days of real estate and firewalking. I saw him on the Larry King show (Aug. 19, 1996) where he analyzed the communication skills of Dole and Clinton. I found his comments on successful communicators to be excellent, it old hat. The way he communicates is brilliant. He exudes trust and "congruence," to use one of his favorite words. And what he has to say rings true. I can see why those who attend his seminars speak so glowingly of Robbins.)
When I think of motivators, I think of something I read long ago about the perfect political speech being one which everyone agrees with but which says virtually nothing controversial, i.e., virtually nothing of substance at all. I even remember Sen. Everet Dirkson of Illinois as being put forth as a good example of someone who could go on for hours, inspiring all with his speeches, even though, when scrutinized, they said virtually nothing. Some people inspire by their style, their self-confidence, their charisma, rather than through any profound substance. J.F.K. had this effect on many people. So did Muhammed Ali.
I have found it is a valuable experience to go to these seminars, even though the message is likely to be old wine in a new bottle and unlikely to stand up to close scrutiny. Three things seem to happen at these motivational seminars: the leader's enthusiasm is contagious and inspirational; people are brought together in a common cause bigger than any of them individually; and they force each of us to reflect on one of the more important aspects of our existence. In my case, the meetings bring together teachers whose common goal is providing the best instruction possible for our students. The seminars remind each of us of our commitment, of the difficulties we face and of the triumphs we can achieve. It also forces us to reflect on our role as teachers, to remind ourselves of our goals and rethink the methods we have been using to achieve those goals. We may disagree with just about everything the seminar leader has to say, but still we walk away feeling refreshed and renewed, and re-committed to teaching. Of course, some of us try to apply in a rote and imitative way exactly what others claim will lead to the success in the classroom we have all been striving for. But even then, what really matters, I think, is not the specific model one follows, but the spirit of commitment one exhibits to one's students and the authentic nature of that commitment.
Maybe the same is true of the disciples of Erhard, Hubbard, Robbins and Lenz. Maybe these are just different paths to the same destination: renewal of the self and actualization of one's potential.
reader comments
19 Jun 1996
With a friend inviting me to consider the Amway "opportunity," I was searching the web for info and discovered your wonderful site. My personal views towards some of your topics are a bit more charitable than your own . . . but maybe I'm just gullible! And having grown up with unfaced emotional problems and an unhappy, defeatist family life, I've always been a sucker for self-help, positive thinking, etc., kinds of stuff.
Having been heavily involved in est and The Forum in the early 80s, then very disillusioned when all the dirt came out about Erhard, I enjoyed looking through your collection on Werner, etc. I remember spending a good bit of money to go to a video seminar on "love" he did in 84 or so. Much of it focused on family, spouses, etc. Werner was always big on "acknowledging" people, and as I remember at the end of this seminar he did a big heartfelt acknowledgement of the people who made his wonderful life possible, including his staff and all the assisitants and seminar participants. Not once did he mention anyone in his own family, after spending an evening talking about love and family. This struck me at the time as VERY strange and dissonant to the content of his remarks, and I left feeling something was not right....
In the article on Werner Erhard, you seem to find it difficult to understand the phenomenon of people such as him, Tony Robbins, etc., making such a splash when what they are doing is repackaging ideas of others. Of course, Werner was not very direct about acknowledging the sources of his ideas (as the Scientology people sure pointed out) and tended to repackage them in his own style, although he did make a lot of direct references to Zen. Robbins, on the other hand, has made a fortune and given a great boost to the NLP industry by being very direct about the fact that the bulk of his material is straight NLP, and that most everything else is "modeled" from someone else. When I first read one of Tony's books after seeing his infomercial (I'm to cheap to spend that much for tapes), I was amazed that all the material was so openly and directly derivative.
While reading your article on Erhard, it struck me that the key distinction in understanding the phenomenon is that Erhard, Robbins, et. al. were/are "trainers" rather than original thinkers. They have that ability to convince and inspire action, to affect the emotions of the audience. No one really cares if what they are saying is original. As a matter of fact, if it is something basic to human nature that is being discussed, perhaps the less original the better.
I have a few Tony Robbins tapes, and I often think that in some ways they have had more impact on me than my private therapy. I also have a couple of tapes on NLP (which I can't get into no matter who is teaching it), which are incredibly boring (read in a monotone) yet say much the same thing as Robbins's tapes. As a matter of fact, I think my NLP tapes are better organized and more concise. But Tony's are more effective, since they are presented much better.
When I was a teenager, I was an amateur magician. In magic they have a saying, "It's not what you do; it's how you do it." The success of a magician comes from the showmanship, from the presentation, not so much from the originality of his or her tricks.
I'm a cellist and a college music professor; I'm a very good cello teacher. The content of what I say to students is quite consistent with most of what any competent teacher would say. I have my own personal perspective, to be sure, but my value to my students lies in my skill as a coach and trainer, not in new ways to play the cello. And of course no one cares that great cellists such as Yo-Yo Ma and Mstislav Rostropovich are not significant composers; it is their ability to bring the works (ideas) of others to life for an audience which has made them the superstars they are. So too with superstar personal-development trainers.
I'm sure you understand this distinction already. Yet many of us in academia and other intellectually-focused cultures sometimes forget how many people have a different perspective. And the whole illiteracy of our society is so pervasive that I often wonder why our civilization has yet to collapse. Perhaps another reason for the Erhard, Robbins, etc., phenomena is that many (maybe most) of their trainees have never even heard of Hill, Peale, Scientology, Mind Control, NLP or whatever. If they have heard the name, they don't know anything of the content. So no matter how unoriginal the content, it is new to many of the people taking the seminar....
I cannot deny that there is a contagious quality to the positive atmosphere around Amway (or est or Tony Robbins), no doubt about it, which I find attractive and which is a useful counterbalance to my depressive and self-doubting side.
Here's an example: I'm a workaholic, obsessive kind of guy. As much as I love my kids, it is really hard for me to extricate myself from whatever I'm mentally involved with and focus on them (they are 7 and 4). The Amway rally I went to had a LOT of inspring talk from the super-successful "diamond" distributor about all the time he gets to spend with his children. Something about it reached inside me and brought the loving father to the fore. The next day, which was Father's Day, I was able to truly focus on and enjoy being with my kids in manner which is for me very unusual. Without a doubt, that day was one of the best days of my life.
So while I doubt I'll become an Amway distributor, I wouldn't mind going to more of those rallys. They are indeed rather like evangelistic meetings. But unlike many of the churches I have played in as a musician, there was no gay bashing, no anti-semitism, no right-wing politics, no fear mongering, and no bad theology. Well, with all that talk about "the system," maybe there was some bad theology.
Thanks again for your site.
Eric Edberg
reply: Thank you for your insightful comments.
17 Aug 1996
Some time ago I read an article you wrote on Werner Erhard and The Forum which
was linked to Linda Chase's "Landmark: Rants and Raves" page. Recently I
scanned your article again and noticed that you made several adjustments to it,
including a new ending. I appreciate the revisions you made; I think they make
the article more even handed.
On the other hand, the revised article still contains a lot of insinuations that are neither facts nor conclusions from facts - just negative points of view which the reader is presumeably supposed to accept because you write well or because you're an ordained practicing Professor. I would expect a committed skeptic such as yourself to stick to the higher ground of argumentation, not insinuation.
reply: I used to stay on the higher ground until I was ordained. After that I got bloated and pompous and started to sink.
I found this paragraph most telling:
I think many people are satisfied with est or scientology or similar schemes because the programs have given them direction and focus ... Any time a rational person reflects on his or her life, or on some of the bigger issues in life, it feels good or it puts things in perspective ... **The pity is that the same kind of growth and satisfaction could come from taking an introductory class in philosophy at your local community college.** The same kind of questioning, of guided and forced reflection, of perspective molding, of focusing and directing of one's life, of belonging to a group, can emerge in a good philosophy class.
What I don't get is, why "the pity" if someone gets something out of a Landmark course versus a community college course? What do you care whether people get whatever they get, in a philosophy class at a community college, or in a self-improvement course from a private company?
IMO university philosophy courses are largely devoted to having the student identify and understand the doctrines of specific, historical philosophers. Any attention to "guided and forced reflection, perspective molding, focusing and directing of one's life, belonging to a group" is at best ancillary and, more likely, entirely accidental. If I wanted *those* things, I would be *foolish* to seek them at the university. Likewise, if I wanted to analyze academic philosophy, I would be foolish to pursue that at Landmark.
I took one philosophy course in college and one in graduate school. In my college philosophy course, for the final exam we outlined from memory the arguments of John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty" and the arguments of David Hume in "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding." I wouldn't say I could reproduce that information today, but the course was quite valuable, influencing my thinking in the areas of politics and religion to a considerable degree. In grad school I took a course which was designed to give us the background to read medieval Jewish philosophers, so we spent several weeks on Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, and then several of the key Jewish philosophers: Saadya, Halevi, Maimonides. Naturally the cultural distance between the ancients and our group of students was considerable, and although I experienced a certain intellectual pleasure at learning the derivation of certain concepts, I can't say that the course impacted my life tremendously.
When I completed the Forum, the next day there was a blood drive at my school. I had always wanted to give blood, and believed in giving blood, but could never overcome my fear of giving blood. The day after I finished the Forum weekend, I went down to the donation center, my fear and I, and I gave blood. The Forum did not make my fear go away, but offered me a choice in how I would relate to the reality of fear.
Several months later I completed the Landmark Self-Expression and Leadership Course, and as my project in that program, I started an ensemble which plays Jewish traditional music, and we gave three concerts before the three-month course was over. The ensemble still exists now, two years later. In fact, when I sign off from writing this message, I'm going to lay down some MIDI rhythm tracks to hold us steady in the studio on Sunday.
My point is that the fruits of my courses at Landmark have stayed with me a lot longer than those philosophy courses. What I had to learn to produce those results was a good deal more practical than those better-than-average university philosophy courses. The investment of time and money was just about equal for the "Landmark Curriculum for Living" versus those university courses.
Now if you teach college philosophy courses in which people produce those sorts of results, more power to you. But I doubt that a community college would even *tolerate your attempting* to produce those sorts of results. You would be asking more of the students than is implied in the teacher-student relationship. You would be a teacher in the tradition of Socrates, and could only expect (if not the censure of society or a prescription for hemlock) that a negative article about you should appear in "The Skeptic's Dictionary."
[btw]The Forum cost me $290 and 30-45 hours (I wasn't counting). For that investment, it was a good value.
Joshua Moss
Hebrew Union College
reply: Thanks to your comments I've rewritten the passage in question. Pass the hemlock, please.
30 Aug 1996
If only I had looked it up on the Net before attending!!! I really
enjoyed the info you have provided. I was starting to feel quite
manipulated but now I just laugh out loud the irony of attending. On
the postitive side, I was not just looking for self help. I also attended
the Forum just to be unavailable for a guy I'd like to date (you know, a
little dating mind game). And it worked - he missed me! ha. Too bad I had
to sit through the BS to accomplish that.
Thanks again for the info - I'll share it with my friends before they
fall too far into the dependency trap.
A.J.L.
24 Sep 96
What I would ask is would you be so kind as to place a notice at the top of your article
saying that you have not actually completed the Landmark forum.
reply: I would hope it is obvious from what I wrote that I have not attended any of Erhard's seminars. Anyway, if it makes you feel better, I'll admit it.
I ask this so that others who may read your work get the accurate understanding that your comments are NOT from actual experience, and rather your comments are those derived from listening to other people's experiences. I would ask that you accurately represent yourself and your comments when expressing such a strong opinion about something that you have not experienced first hand, especially the Landmark Forum.
reply: Now, let me get this straight. You want me to tell everybody that my comments are not from actual experience so that everybody will know that I have not actually experienced Landmark forum? Is that it? Well, ok. If it makes you feel better. By the way I've never been to a palm reader or a naturopath, either. And I've never been to an astrologer. Nor have I been in Scientology. Finally, I've never been a government guinea pig for a mind control experiment and I've never been abducted by aliens. Oh, I almost forgot, I was never abused my parents and I had a happy childhood.
The Landmark Forum is by far the most effective personal development program I have ever done, and it is nothing like you describe. A simple example, Landmark does not HELP anyone. In fact the word help is for all practical purposes 'banned' from the Landmark vocabulary. Landmark 'assists' people, and there is a world of difference. The type of people who do Landmark don't need anyone's help. I am a good example of that.
reply: I can see you don't need help, just assistance. Because that is what you asked from me....assistance. You wanted me to assist you in notifying the world that I am not now, never have been and, if the gods are willing, never will be attending Landmark Forum. I don't like the word 'help', either. It's a weasel word, like 'virtually' and 'up to'. You know, like I am virtually error free up to 20% of the time.
I look forward to reading your Landmark comments with the notice that you have not actually
done the class.
Thanks
Peter Nolan, Australia
reply: Think nothing of it, Peter. Glad to be of assistance.
27 Oct 1996
I was very active in est throughout the 80's. It was very
positive experience for me. I was convinced that est was, in fact,
new age religion- high-tech religion for a high-tech age (though I'm
sure you know that est did not consider itself a religious
organization).
I do take issue with your statements that to become a spiritual leader all one must do is exude confidence, make people feel better about themselves, etc. although the last, feeling good about one's self, will certainly follow any successful spiritual pursuit. In short, you claim that the content of the course is secondary to the emotive content. I disagree. The courses were filled with draw-dropping wisdom. Courses dealt with issues such as integrity, the content was extremely challenging (hardly easy feel-good), and rang of Eternal Truth. I can say that, because I, like all people, was created in God's image, and we do respond to Truth.
I cannot answer for the accusations currently pending against Werner. It appears there is some damaging evidence. Before jumping to conclusions, I would wait for a full hearing.
Richard Maset
reply: Let's hope you get it! However, I don't think I said that all a spiritual leader must do is exude confidence and make people feel better about themselves. Many spiritual leaders make people feel as if they were the scum of the universe. Perhaps this is so their followers will feel gratitude that anyone would love such worthless refuse.
20 Nov 1996 "As a graduate of the Landmark Forum (over 2 years ago) and one who started studying philosophy at university over 20 years ago, I enjoyed your critique. For one who has not experienced the Forum first hand, your comments appeared to me well reasoned and balanced - if, inevitably, inaccurate.
The forum is many things to many people - I found it offered a paradigm shift - a view on my own existence which I had not previously experienced - and that this new view has proved a lot of fun. As such, it was exceptional value for money.
I agree with you that many folks just love a guru. I would not characterise Landmark as a cult organisation, yet many of the folks who are involved have a "cult mindset." The sort of mindset that when a leader says "There is no THE ANSWER", they go away and end up thinking "I have it - THE ANSWER is 'There is no THE ANSWER'" - kinda misses the point, but is a very human experience.
You can check out my own comments on Landmark, if you wish.
Cheers
Ted Howard
New Zealand
further reading
alt.support.ex-cult: Subject: Werner Erhard, est, and the Landmark Forum
Landmark Forum : Rants and Raves
Werner Erhard Flees in the Wake of Tax Liens and Child Abuse Allegations
News Articles on Werner Erhard
Abstracts of Articles in Psychological Journals concerning est and The Forum
The Battle for Your Mind by Dick Sutphen
Read this one with your critical thinker's crap detector gear in full working order. There is some interesting stuff here, along with some scary undocumented claims.
Pressman, Steven. Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard From est to Exile, (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993).