DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this blog are my personal views, and are not the views of Landmark. Brand and product names are trademarks, or registered trademarks, of their respective owners. Refer to this site's Terms of Use for further details.

Landmark Education Glossary

Table of Contents

• Preface
• Special Notes
• INTRO-Terminology
• Glossary
• FAQ

Preface

This page is a companion piece for my original 3-part special write-up revisiting my attendance of The Landmark Forum (in 1995) originally published to this blog in 2009: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. I regularly get asked questions about word meanings and terminology from readers of that 3-part write-up, even fielding a few questions from FX's team behind "The Americans". Those conversations led to this rough Glossary coming together. I really have nothing new to add about my original Landmark write-ups that hasn't already been said, and I speak with no authority on this topic: just my own personal, unbiased and vivid memory of my experience of The Landmark Forum.

The terms, phrases, and definitions below are a modified fork of this site: Landmartian Glossary - Wiki University—a Landmark Graduate-created page no longer maintained and not endorsed by Landmark Worldwide.

IMPORTANT NOTE: terms and definitions on this page are my own personal work product (merging afforementioned resources with my own understanding of the material) and are not reviewed or approved by Landmark Worldwide.

Special Notes

Special Note: The intended audience for this page is limited to Landmark Forum Graduates seeking a refresher, and non-biased/academic researchers. The information on this page does not contain medical advice, nor is it intended in any therapeutic use or context. If you visited this page because you are considering participating in The Landmark Forum, I would ask you to proceed directly to FAQ item #9 instead and skip the Glossary. Breezing the terms on this page to "learn the Forum" is pure folly—and would only be a confusing word salad (see FAQ item #1 and #9). This Glossary is not intended for use (or citations) by people with axes (or rackets lol 😂) to grind with Landmark Worldwide. The only points-of-view expressed here are focused on the terms and concepts themselves (or usage of terms)—without judgment. If revisiting these terms or Landmark Syllabus material is triggering or upsetting for anyone, and this page's intention is to not interfere with anyone's healing post-LF.

For my personal analysis, read my original articles* about my brief experience in the 1990s with Landmark. This Glossary is not about analysis, and instead contains personal interpretations of parts of The Landmark Forum's "technology" ( sourced from my 30 year-old notes and the above-referenced Wiki University). Nothing more. See the Disclaimer.

Personal Side Note: I am of course familiar with the published criticisms of Landmark as an LGAT, how their training leverages NLP, etc. I discuss Landmark criticisms in my 3-part blog series (a mini-memoir of sorts). This page is not about validating critics or fans of Landmark: it's purpose is for Graduates or researchers revisiting the terminology in an unbiased setting. See the Disclaimer.

The terms, phrases, and definitions below are a modified fork of the original Landmartian Glossary - Wiki University, a Landmark Graduate-created page no longer maintained. That material and this page are not endorsed by Landmark Worldwide, and no authorship or ownership—to any material in this unofficial Glossary—is claimed in any way! See the Disclaimer.

INTRODUCTION - A Word on Terminology

Every discipline has its own language that borrows general terms and provides their own specific, distinct concepts or meanings. We usually call such terms "jargon" or a "term of art". For example, in physics the words "force", "work", and "power" are all given specific meanings for mathematical modeling to work consistently. So while "work" means force through a distance in physics, the common term of "work" means applying effort for the layman. To a physicist, however, pressing as hard as you can against a wall and not moving it = no work; but to a layman listening to the physicist: it was possibly a lot of useless "work"! So every discipline has its own language or terms of art: and so it is with Landmark and why this page exists. The Landmark Forum's 3-day (and one evening) course borrows words from common language, and gives specific concepts to those words in order to communicate new ideas. Every NLP system and LGAT has "terms of art", and this page sets out to help give some understanding and context to Landmark Forum terms.

Sometimes there is confusion with commonly-defined Terms as-used by Landmark Worldwide. For example: the term "enrollment" is officially defined as "enrolling others in a possibility" (so that they are "moved, touched, or inspired" by any breakthroughs you share etc...). It technically has no relationship to registering (signing-up) new attendees for The Landmark Forum; however, people often confuse their term of "enrolling" with that very activity—and given the hard-sell of Tuesday night seminars, that would be understandable!

So terminology in this informal (and unoffical) Glossary should be taken as a plastic, moldable, thing -- because The Forum is all about language as something that is used generatively. For some people (maybe English majors?) that might be a bridge-too-far, and I get it!

Feel free to send in any definitions (or corrections) if you see something here that needs adjusment, amending, or adding! If you are a representative of Landmark you are absolutely welcome to contact me anytime; however, please have read my Disclaimer, the final FAQ entry on this page, and this site's Terms of Use prior to any contact! 😉

Terms and Definitions here are Landmark Grad-written and not endorsed or approved by Landmark Worldwide. At all (Disclaimer). This resource is intended to briefly cover the Ontology employed by Forum Leaders during the 3-day (and one evening) Landmark Forum seminar (and by Landmark Forum graduates in the community). This page does not propose (or state) that any definition is the "correct" meaning of any Landmark terminology. At all. Terms or phrases with "™" or "®" are trademarked or registered properties of Landmark Worldwide, and are referenced from previously public literature, and only referenced from my own recollection. All rights to these terms belong to Landmark Education and Landmark Worldwide, and no authorship or ownership is claimed in any way. See the Disclaimer for more information.

IMPORTANT NOTE: These definitions are my own personal work product and have not been reviewed or approved by Landmark Worldwide.

Unofficial Glossary / Definitions

• Act. An Act is an inauthentic way of being that someone takes on-often automatically-to navigate social situations or personal insecurities. You can act in ways that "make yourself look good"; or (motivated by being right) a manner you take on for yourself in furtherance of your own desired self-image or as part of your strong suit. People Act in accordance to different Contexts, Example: we have a professional "face", or Act, that we project at our job. Two further examples: someone might adopt a “tough guy” stance to conceal fear or insecurity, or a “people-pleaser” persona to manage anxiety or avoid conflict. You may like to show up for others as an extroverted or outgoing person, but if you're always feeling a need to prove it...it's simply an Act.
Landmark advocates acknowledging where you’re being inauthentic as a first-step to becoming aware of your "Act", and owning it: “I realize I’m acting like everything’s under control, but truthfully I’m anxious.” This is a step in your journey of ultimately learning how to "drop your Act" (covered more deeply in the Advanced Course). "Dropping the “Act” means letting others see what’s real, even if it’s uncomfortable or unpolished. Landmark constantly ties authenticity to “integrity”—having your words, actions, and inner states align. When you spot the “Act,” the practice is to "step into integrity" by speaking candidly or taking actions that reflect what’s really so.
• Advanced Course. The next immediate course after The Landmark Forum* (which now appears to have become a selection of courses you can choose from when I last looked). When I attended The Landmark Forum, the next course was fixed as you needed to complete the Advanced Course as part of what Landmark called the "Curriculum for Living." I never attended any Landmark courses beyond the original 3-day Landmark Forum
• Aliveness. A sense of being fully aware, fully present and fully yourself. It is a state of being that Landmark Forum wants to help you to create for yourself.
• Already always listening.™ Undistinguished pre-existing interpretations that shape, color, and influence the way people experience their relationships with other people, circumstances, and even themselves. It is a kind of listening where our preconceived notions are present and coloring what another person is saying. AAL is the application of interpretation, and the recognition that we are always applying some sort of interpretation to our sensory input. AAL can also show-up as that "little voice in your head" finishing other peoples' sentences (the voice of your imagination), or narrating what you are seeing...a live-analysis complete with baked-in and on-the-fly interpretations and stories.
Any listening where we are constantly creating (even unconsciously) meaning runs counter to truly being present, and limits our possibilities and communication. Only by recognizing whenever you're doing this, and changing your Listening, can you break out of Already Always Listening, Story, and Racket™ cycles. AAL is one of THE major concepts in Landmark, and learning to see and manage it is one of the primary goals in The Landmark Forum.
• At Cause (also expressed as "BE Cause"). Taking responsibility for how you experience and respond to events, believing you can generate new possibilities rather than being limited by old stories or external constraints. “At Cause” is the stance of recognizing your agency and power to interpret, respond, and create new possibilities in the face of virtually any circumstance. “Cause” = You create your experience. Landmark wants you to work to always be At Cause -- also expressed as "BE Cause" (fully being the "Cause in the matter" of your life). See also At Effect.
• At Choice. In Landmark terminology, “at choice” broadly means you are consciously choosing your actions or perspectives rather than feeling forced, compelled, or constrained by circumstances. To be at choice means you fully "get" the distinction between Choosing vs. Deciding, and can be in the stance of recognizing that you can choose your perspective or actions. When you are at choice, you are able to be at cause and unaffected by circumstances. And when you are in the mode of “choosing,” you are effectively “at choice.” See At Cause prior to this term, and At Effect in the following term.
• At Effect. Feeling that you are at the mercy of (or “victimized by”) external events, other people’s decisions, or your own past stories and beliefs. Another usage may be "at the effect of some circumstance": to be a victim of circumstances (or even dependent upon an ongoing circumstance for success). “At Effect” is the stance of seeing life as happening to you where your thoughts, feelings, and outcomes are determined by external forces. “Effect”= You are responding automatically to external triggers (or forces). See also At Cause.
• Authenticity. (also expressed as "Authentic" or "Inauthentic"). In the Landmark Forum’s context, “Authenticity” refers to a way of being in which you are fully aligned with what is so—in other words, telling the truth about your current experience (thoughts, feelings, and circumstances) without hiding, pretending, or being driven by concerns about “looking good” or “being right.” One is being authentic when one is being consistent with how they portray themselves to be, with others and themselves. People who are authentic are more direct, and offer absolute candor, in their internal dialogue and also expressing themselves with others. Landmark wants you to see that being authentic about your "inauthenticities" is a powerful path to authenticity as a way of being.
Being inauthentic makes you experience a loss of power, loss of freedom, or loss of self-expression. Landmark wants you to "be straight with yourself" about the impact of your inauthentic way of being and acting. Consider the impact of going through life continually having to pretend it is one way, when in fact it is not. In areas of your life where you lack power, freedom, or self-expression, Landmark asks: "what can I acknowledge about how I am being that it is inauthentic?"
• Being (often expressed as a "way of being"). In Landmark the phrase “way of being” (or simply “being”) describes the overall stance or presence a person brings to any situation. It’s not just a single behavior or attitude, but rather a combination of:
• Mindset and Emotions: The beliefs, assumptions, or emotional tone you hold.
• Body Language and Tone: How you carry yourself physically, speak, and gesture.
• Underlying Commitments: The intentions or priorities (often unspoken) that shape how you engage with others and respond to events.
Rather than focusing solely on behaviors, Landmark asserts that how you show up—your manner of “being”—underlies the results you get. In The Forum, participants discover that much of their “way of being” is automatic and shaped by past experiences. People operate as if they have no choice about how they are being, acting, or showing-up in certain given situations. And Transformation arises when you distinguish (or “notice”) those default ways of being—and realize you can choose new ways that serve your commitments or possibilities. Landmark activities (exercises and coaching) aim to help you consciously “create” a way of being—e.g., being bold, being generous, being unstoppable—instead of defaulting to what’s comfortable or habitual.
A key aspect of shifting one’s way of being is to do so authentically (in alignment with your truth) and with integrity (aligned with your word).
• Blind Spot. In Landmark "blind spots” highlight the idea that much of what shapes our behavior, attitudes, and outcomes lies outside our conscious awareness. A “blind spot” can be something you don’t see about yourself or your situation—even though it may be obvious to others or strongly influences your actions. By bringing these “unknown unknowns” (“blind spots”) into the light, we can gain new freedom to choose responses and generate possibilities that previously weren’t visible.
Blind spots often form from past experiences, cultural conditioning, or childhood coping strategies that go unquestioned. Because you don’t see a blind spot, you can’t address or shift it. This can lead to recurring breakdowns or frustrating outcomes you can’t explain or fix.
The key is to see a blind spot without making yourself “wrong.” It’s about empowerment, not self-blame. Recognizing a blind spot is an opportunity to choose a new interpretation or behavior. See also "You Don't Know, What You Don't Know".
• Breakdown. A breakdown happens when some possibility, intention or commitment is frustrated, stopped or thwarted. When things don't go as expected or intended, or when you don't do as you said you would -- "not keeping your word" (also known as a loss of integrity), a breakdown has occured. In Landmark Breakdowns are viewed as opportunities to apply what you learned to re-commit, get complete, and restore integrity.
• Breakthrough. Freeing yourself from some limitation that allows you to achieve immediate and permanent leaps in performance and quality of life. Breakthroughs lead to abandoning old habits, and embracing a new way of being; looking at things from a different perspective, getting a new understanding of life. Sometimes described as when "the light bulb clicks on in your head" and you "get it". Breakthroughs are one of the first results building towards Transformation.
• Cause. See At Cause
• Change. (versus Transformation). Change begins with a something that is made different in distance (from here to there), or in time (from now to then) or in form (for example, from a square to a circle). An aspect of the nature of change is that change causes the persistence of the something being changed. Change is a gradual, continual shift. Transformation, on the other hand, is a discrete jump: a caterpillar transforms into a moth or butterfly, but the metamorphosis that happens in the cocoon is change. Improvement and evolution are in the world of change. Transformation, unlike Change, is about something entirely new and different: a creation. So Change = a+1 , Transformation = before was A, now is B.
• Choosing vs. Deciding. In Landmark Choosing vs. Deciding is a distinction that highlights two fundamentally different ways of approaching an action or commitment. While both involve selecting one option over another, “deciding” is framed as a response to constraints and worries, whereas “choosing” is a generative act of creation that stems from freedom and ownership.
In language, "Deciding" is a somewhat destructive word, related to other "*cide" words like "suicide", "insecticide", "genocide", and many others. "*cide" words like Decide are the result of applying reason to eliminate alternatives: effectively killing other options or possibilities until a single thing is left...and that becomes the decision. Choosing, on the other hand, is about making a choice purely for the sake of choosing, not applying reason, not applying logic, and not removing or disqualifying (killing) the other choices.
Choices don't run out in life, only your decisions make you run out of choices. At the bottom of every decision is either fundamental choice or fundamental reason: "I choose to believe ..." or "I choose to trust ..." --but adding "... because" makes it a reason. By using reason, instead, (a decision) you absolve yourself from responsibility for the choice: a bad outcome or failure becomes the fault of the reason or the reasoning process. Choice, though, demands responsibility for making the choice. Landmark's core message is about being at cause in life, rather than being at effect of circumstances. Thus Landmark's methods and philosophy is you should nearly always choose—and avoid deciding when possible. See also At Choice and At Effect.
• Clearing. A "space" created in your head for something to exist, positive or negative (thoughts or interpretations, etc). The most common analogy is of a field, and removing the stones and stumps and whatever obstacles are there in the field, that interfere with the functioning of the field: whether to grow something, or to play a game, or something else. The abstraction in this case is a mental construct in which possibilities can be placed, or created. The clearing is like a vacuum, and can draw things towards it. If the thing in the clearing is "I'm no good" then it draws things that supports that attitude. You are then a clearing for "I'm no good". If you want the possibility of contribution to the world to be in your clearing, to draw those flavors of possibilitiess and opportunities, then you would need to remove the "I'm no good" thing from your clearing.
A variation of this term gets used in the phrases to "get clear" on something, or to "clear this issue" by discussing it with someone. Not quite a direct analog to auditing, but has a little similarity.
• Complete. When one is complete with any aspect of their past, outstanding complaint, or other issue—past has no constraint on who one is being or how they are acting in the present. In communication, being complete is one left with no lingering resentments, regrets or "unfinished business".
• Context. Context is your occurring world; the total of how the world around you, and the people and things in it (either in totality, or in a given situation), and how they show up for you. Nearly all context in which humans live is created. As a "meaning-making machine", it forms the setting and the background of your story and you tend to take actions based upon it in response. And you take it for granted and don't even realize: the one thing about your occurring world—is that you miss that "reality" unfolding for you is...context. For example, for a fish, water is a major part of his context. A fish has no appreciation of water, it's just there: his life consists of dealing with it all the time, he 'swims in it'—but no other fish has ever been out of water for any length of time, to come back to tell him that "out of water" exists...or what it's like. So the fish doesn't know anything but water, and so nothing else is possible to him.
Of course in this analogy the fish's context of "water" is that it's also a life-giving environment for him: but humans tend to fully inhabit (or "swim in") various contexts that aren't altogether beneficial to them, and aren't even aware of it. By contrast, looking at a situation from a view of responsibility is an empowering context. And so The Landmark Forum tries to give you access to seeing the created context you may be operating in—or from.
• Cost (as used in Rackets™). The impact of one’s reactive ways of being and acting. The costs of Rackets™ are love/affinity, vitality/well-being, self-expression, and satisfaction/fulfillment, all of which fall under Aliveness. See also Payoff
When your life sucks, when you're in a negative or disempowering context; the way to break out of it (to overcome the negative or disempowering context) is to distinguish something. Then you can see your disempowering story as a story, and take new action in alignment with reality; or take on one or more new ways of being that might work better for you.
• Curriculum for Living.™ The Landmark curriculum, which includes the original 3-Day Landmark Forum ®, The Advanced Course ®, The Self Expression and Leadership Program, and The Landmark Forum In Action Series.
• Disappear. To "disappear something" is to eliminate it, or experience it disappearing, such as to disappear a Complaint. See also Racket™.
• Distinction. A distinction is a linguistic phenomenon that brings something into being as a presence, for which previously there was no presence. A distinction is simply a word used to name something, to facilitate the abstraction, for the discussion and/or use of that thing. Exploring abstractions and distinctions is the core aspect of learning ontologically-the being part, instead of the knowledge part. So Distinctions are the "meat and potatoes" of The Landmark Forum. A Distinction can give you access to discover something about the nature of things—and about ourselves. Being able to make distinctions is about the most critical aspect to getting anything out of The Landmark Forum. It's almost the entire ballgame.
• Distinguish. Similar to Distinction above. Also: to take something from an undifferentiated background and bring it to the foreground.
• Dominate/Avoid Domination Axis. Human beings often unconsciously find themselves either trying to dominate a situation or avoid being dominated or overpowered. This age-old natural dynamic can shape how we communicate, make decisions, and relate to others. Landmark sometimes refers to this as operating on a “dominate or avoid domination” axis, and it's closely tied to "the need to be right". Landmark suggests that many of our actions (and reactions) stem from a largely unconscious need to ensure we’re in control (dominance) or not under someone else’s control (avoidance of domination). This is seen as a primary driver in interactions, from workplace conversations to personal relationships. This dynamic is where "Rackets"™ come from, and the overall “dominate / avoid domination” pattern keeps people stuck in defensive / reactive cycles. Becoming aware of it frees up mental and emotional energy for more creative or authentic action.
When we want to “win” an argument, grab attention, or prove someone wrong, we’re often in dominate mode. When we’re trying to remain unnoticed or dismiss ourselves from the conflict, we may be in avoid-dominance mode. Landmark’s position is that these natural human strategies can limit our possibilities for real connection, clear communication, and collaborative problem-solving, because we’re locked into reactive stances based on fear or ego.
• Effect. See At effect.
• Empty. Not real, made up, no substance. Generally used in conjunction with "meaningless" as in "empty and meaningless" and used in the "Emtpy And Meaningless" exercise. "Empty" can also be used when creating a space for something (clearing). See "Meaningless".
• Enrollment. A kind of sharing that causes a new possibility to be present for another person, such that they are touched, moved, or inspired by that new possibility. This term has nothing to do with signing-up for The Forum, which is Registration.
• The Landmark Forum. An accelerated learning experience, set up as a guided dialog between the instructor and participants designed to bring about a *transformational shift in the participants. Effectiveness and quality-of-life can become altered, even Transformed, in 3 days (plus an evening). A Forum is usually a larger group (sometimes 100+ people), and the Forum Leader reads the overall energy of the room, tracks where different conversations are going, and strategically orchestrates the flow so participants stay engaged and supported in their breakthroughs.
The first course that leads to the "Advanced Courses (part of the Curriculum for Living but there are several you can choose from, now). The Landmark Forum ® is the entry point for all Landmark programs and Advanced Courses.
• Forum Leader. The primary facilitator who guides participants through The Landmark Forum 3-Day (plus an evening) course. More than a typical “presenter,” the Leader’s role combines aspects of a teacher, coach, facilitator, and catalyst for each participant’s personal discovery. Forum Leaders undergo rigorous selection and training within Landmark, often years of leadership development, feedback, and coaching before they’re qualified to lead a Forum on their own. They’re steeped not just in Landmark’s curriculum and distinctions, but also in how to manage group dynamics, encourage breakthroughs, and handle sensitive conversations responsibly.
The Forum Leader knows the material inside and out—every exercise, “distinction,” and the underlying theory behind each. This helps them adapt to participant questions or scenarios on-the-fly. It’s the Leader’s job to establish a space where participants can be open and introspective. At the same time, they challenge participants—calling out inauthentic or guarded communication—so people can have genuine breakthroughs.
• Freedom. A State of Being. Freedom comes from being at ease. Freedom comes from being effective. Experiencing Freedom comes from being generative (e.g. having conversations that are possibility-based).
• Get it or Getting it. When you “get it,” you have a moment of genuine insight or clarity about a Landmark distinction, exercise, or concept. It’s not just intellectual understanding; rather, you see something or experience dialoge in a way that changes your perspective or shakes up your assumptions. Example: you might be wrestling with the notion of “responsibility” in Landmark’s sense (i.e., distinct from blame or fault). You would have heard it explained multiple times, but at some point, the concept “clicks”—you actually grasp the power of holding yourself as the source of your experience. That’s when you might say to the Forum Leader or facilitator: “I got it.”
In the context of Landmark, “to get it” and “to pop” both point to different shifts: “getting it” emphasizes the cognitive clarity or understanding of a key distinction, while “popping” zeroes in on the emotional/experiential breakthrough experience—a moment of sudden freedom or new possibility that often feels palpable in the room. So each term highlights a slightly different aspect of experiencing sudden insight or release. Together, the experiencing both of these things are required to achieve Transformation. “Getting it” often precedes a behavioral shift or a deep internal shift. Once you truly “get” a Landmark principle, you’re more likely to live it, not just talk about it.
My only issue with the term—if used between Landmark Grads, internal volunteers, or staff has always been that people can be dismissed as not "getting-it". So these key distinctions can be misused. Generally if an internal Landmark volunteer or staffer is making waves, they're either out of integrity or they don't "get-it"—a dismissive way to mollify valid criticism from within. On the attendee side, if a person doesn't "get-it" they may be needing more time to process and consider when locking-in key distinctions, to increase their chance to "Pop" as they call it.
• Graduate. A person who has completed The Landmark Forum.
• I. What people tend to think of, in its capacity as an Identity, as being a collection of characteristics, attributes, and experiences from the past. Landmark tries to (at least temporarily) get you to see and understand I, not as a concept of self but instead just simply a pattern of neurons firing*. This allows you, at least temporarily, work to view Events, Moments, and Interpretations differently. See also Identity in the following term.
• Identity. A Story that we invented about ourselves. The process of inventing an Identity begins in childhood, as we gradually adopted ways of Being and Acting to deal successfully with things that didn't quite go the way we thought they should.
• Informative Learning. Learning that increases what people know and adds to their skills by bringing new knowledge to an existing worldview and frame of reference. Compare to Transformative learning.
• Integrity. This Landmark term throws outsiders, since the common understanding is about a "quality of being honest and having strong moral principles"—not in Landmark: in The Forum Integrity is a state or condition of being whole, complete and unimpaired. For a person, integrity is a matter of a person’s word. The extent to which who you are reflects the person you intend to be. It is presented, though, from a perspective of workability. The more workable, the more integrity, the less workable, there is a loss of integrity. Keeping one's word is associated with integrity -- agreeing with common usage -- but in Landmark, it is a progression. Not keeping your word (aka not "being your word") means you were inauthentic about your word. Inauthenticity leads to unreliability, which reduces workability, and thus a loss of integrity. Example: If you say you will be at a business meeting at 5pm and show up at 5:10pm, there is some inauthenticity there, and a loss of 10 minutes of time, reducing the workability of the meeting, which may have to still end on time. So there is less time for discussion, information sharing, etc which can lead to incompleteness—which also reduces workability. Thus a lack of integrity, a loss of integrity, or simply being "out of integrity" (meaning: you are outside of a state of integrity). People who are continually aligned with their word are "in integrity" and often described as "walking the talk, or being "in integrity".
• Life. As in "yourself and your life." Our entire set of relationships with people.
• Listening. In Landmark Education, "Listening" includes the action of actually listening to another person in the common sense, but it also includes a state of being. In this regard, the qualifying statements are similar to "...your listening is being limited by your interpretation." This state of being is recognized as providing a coloration to your listening to what others are saying, and to what is happening around you, even if no sound is hitting your ears. Listening is related to "Already Always Listening"™ which is the application of interpretation, and the recognition that we are always applying some sort of interpretation to our sensory input. By recognizing that we are applying color, and the color that is being applied, we can then choose that coloration. The state of being is referred to as "your clearing", and that clearing provides the coloration, the interpretation, and the responses produced. Internally, Landmark volunteers and staff employ a "committed listener" practice.
• Meaningless. The absence of inherent meaning. Used in conjunction with "empty" as in "empty and meaningless", which comes up towards the end of the course during the "Empty And Meaningless" exercise. This sentiment comes from Ecclesiastes and other philosophical texts from several eras. Meaning is the association of things with other things. This is an action of interpretation, of creating "story" anytime we are in the act of making-meaning. Since it is made up, it is not real, and therefore empty. People tend to use "meaning" to ascribe substance and value to something. But since the meaning is made up (empty), it is really meaningless, without substance, and thus subject to change, alteration, transformation, or disappearance by you. Being able to suspend or "remove a meaning which does not serve you", instead of the default of being a Meaning-Making machine (see term below) is one of the popular concepts taught during the 3-Day Landmark Forum course. Not to be confused with Nihilism—Landmark clarifies that saying life is "empty and meaningless" does not imply a negative or pessimistic stance. Rather, it underscores that meaning is something that we add (see next term "Meaning-Making Machines"). In practice, participants have reported feeling liberated by this concept, not despairing.
• Meaning-Making Machines. The Landmark Forum establishes that "humans are meaning making machines" on Day 1, which means: we assign meaning to everything that happens to us. ⁣Everything. The problem, Landmark states, is that most of the time meaning gets assigned subconsciously, and often we assign things a negative meaning. ⁣⁣That’s just the nature of the human mind: we go negative (our minds are these "if it bleeds, it leads" things, when it comes to Interpreting). ⁣And because we often do this subconciously, we do not see that we're creating-meaning and feeding an overall Interpretation or Story", of an external event or moment. And, again, because we do all of this subconciously and automatically our "stories" are often taken as fact --- not the Interpretations that they actually are in reality. Getting this concept early is an important core foundation for understanding concepts later on like Rackets and how they can rob us of Aliveness. See also Story and What Happened terms.
• Occur (often used in the plural form, as in "how it occurs ..."). An active form "occurring" and in the past tense "how it occurred ..." both allude to the interpretation of something. Occurring applies story and reason to create your view of what happened, or to how you think about something (often independent of facts or what's so). Occuring is Landmark shorthand for “the way I see, perceive, or interpret this situation.”, and occurring is a subconscious summarization and associative process that hits the conscious mind as real or as truth (again, often independent of facts or what's so).
It is really difficult to grasp occurs / occurring without training or practice. It's hard to understand it just by reading this concept in a book, or this Glossary. Example: someone yelling at you could occur as them being angry from far away (if you don't hear everything they're saying, and only looking at their face); or you first are thinking that they think you are deaf or "stupid"; when in actual (objective) reality the person may have just been trying to urgently get your attention to an oncoming car, or other danger or emergency. To stop and briefly note to yourself "how something is occuring" can help you suspend our "meaning-making" nature so that we might avoid creating an unhelpful story about what happened inaccurately.
Learning to see how things occur for you is a big first-step towards trying to describe what happened or understand what's so, otherwise the alternative is to automatically be beholden to your interpretations unknowingly-and not able to evaluate how something occurred for you. When you are noticing how something “occurs” to you—you can reframe that view and open new avenues for action or collaboration.
Landmark underscores that what “occurs” (internally) and what “shows up” (externally) are both distinctions you can notice, and choose to alter. One exercise that Landmark teaches is to actually use the word "occurs" in a phrase-"it occurs to me"-to create a space for a positive (healthy) confrontation (not argument, opportunity to get clear communication) to avoid misunderstandings and "Speak into the Listening". The phrase "it occurs to me that..." is an opening to create possibility for Authenticity and Racket-free communication in relationships with friends, co-workers, or even family members.
• "On It" In Landmark parlance, “on it” typically means you’re fixated on, preoccupied with, or caught up in some particular story, interpretation, or point of view. When a Forum Leader says to a participant, “That’s because you’re ‘on it,’” they’re pointing out that the participant is attached to a certain interpretation, perspective, or “story,” rather than simply seeing and describing the facts as they are. To be "on it" is to be stuck in a narrative—you’re not just noticing a circumstance or event in a neutral way; you’re emotionally or mentally entangled in it—often adding judgments, resentment, or a personal “spin.” It can also mean you have Identification with "the Story"—meaning you’ve started to see the event and your interpretation as one and the same. Instead of acknowledging that you’re adding meaning, you treat the meaning like an unquestionable truth. "on it" also suggests you’re limiting your view. In Landmark terms, you might be ignoring other possibilities or contributions you could make because you’re fixated on proving your "story" right (or on protecting yourself from being wrong). Being “on it” is closely related to running a “racket,”™, a persistent complaint paired with a payoff (some hidden benefit) and a cost. When you’re “on it,” you’re effectively living inside that complaint or story.
Early on during The Landmark Forum, people are “on it” when they keep telling the same anecdote or complaint. It might be about a boss, spouse, or personal struggle. Because they’re so “on it,” they can’t easily hear feedback or see a new interpretation. The phrase also comes up when a participant appears highly reactive, defensive, or insistent. The strong emotional charge signals they’ve conflated an event with their personal story about the event. A major theme in The Landmark Forum is that events themselves are neutral, but we add our own meaning. Saying “You’re on it” is shorthand for “You’ve got an interpretation that you’re holding onto as reality.” If you’re “on it,” you may be at the effect of your interpretation—believing it’s imposed by circumstances—rather than seeing you could *choose how to respond or how to frame the situation.
By naming it—“You’re on it!”—the Forum Leader helps the participant see that their viewpoint is not a neutral “fact,” but a subjective stance. This separates “what’s so” from the meaning or emotional load they’ve attached. Recognizing you’re “on it” is an opportunity for breakthrough—it can be the catalyst for stepping back and asking, “What if there’s another way to see this? What if my interpretation isn’t the only truth?” That question opens the door to new possibilities. Landmark insists that once you see you’re “on” some story, you can let go of the automatic reactions. You gain agency and the freedom to choose actions and perspectives more in line with your commitments, rather than being run by the story. The first step is to notice “I’m on it.” That alone can loosen the grip of the narrative. Once you realize you’re “on” a single interpretation, you can ask, “What else could this mean, or what if it doesn’t mean that at all?” Instead of staying stuck in resentment, for instance, you might shift to a more empowering perspective that aligns with your commitments (e.g., open communication, collaboration, partnership). By seeing when you’re “on it” and disentangling from that automatic storyline, you regain flexibility, responsibility, and freedom in how you respond—key elements of the personal transformation Landmark aims to catalyze.
• Ontology (and/or Ontological). A set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them. Ontology deals with the nature of Being. Landmark's emphasis on language and it's Ontology is predicated upon the notion that humans think in language, and that mastering one's internal language is one key to living powerfully.
Ontology in the philosophical sense is a theoretical discipline, considered by some Philosphers to be (roughly) a possible science of what is, of the kinds and structures of objects, properties, events, processes and relations in every area of reality.
• Payoff. A payoff is something one gets out of certain ways of Being and acting that is not immediately obvious. Rackets™, for example, are all about payoffs; however, Rackets also exact many hidden Costs*.
The payoff can be addictive, because it reaffirms your self-image and your story about the situation. Payoffs usually satisfy an immediate emotional or ego need (to win, to be validated), but they don’t necessarily foster real connection or growth-and they often come at a Cost.
Landmark’s goal is to help participants see these dynamics (and the payoffs/costs they yield) so they can choose new ways of interacting—ways that aren’t locked into being right or avoiding being wrong. By breaking free of the dominate/avoid domination cycle and acknowledging that the need to be right is just one expression of that, you open space for authentic communication, mutual respect, and real collaboration.
• Pop. There are no statistics on this, but it's generally understood that everyone who completes The Landmark Forum gets transformation on at least some matters. The experience of it is distinct from one person to the next. Some people experience a more powerful transformation in the Advanced Courses than from the original Landmark Forum. But Landmark says the bottom-line is that if you participate in the program, and take what you get, you will Pop -- meaning: you'll "get" a Landmark principle or concept, such that you will pop and experience transformation.
A “pop” can be catalytic. Once you’ve had that emotional or embodied breakthrough, your communication, relationships, or sense of what’s possible tend to change markedly—and often quite quickly. When attendees pop or otherwise "get", it manifests via physical and emotional indicators: People sometimes describe a wave of relief, laughter, or even tears when they “pop.”
An analogy often used by the Forum Leader is: "when making popcorn, the kernels cooking will all "pop at different times. So if you stay with it, and honestly take what you get, you* will pop at some point during the course."
There is some overlap between when you "get it" and when you "pop". When you “get it” you usually have made a big distinction] that leads to a new inside (setting the stage for a breakthrough), and when you “pop” your breakthrough leads you to experience a release and sudden shift which can lead quickly to transformation. Graduates and participants often use “get it” and “pop” in conversation to describe specific turning points during the Forum or other Landmark courses. The language helps them name those breakthrough moments.
• Possibility. A phenomenon in language that creates a new future right now. Possibility leaves us with Power and Freedom.
• Power. The rate at which an intention is turned into a result. Power comes from possibility and from being authentic.
• Racket.™ A Racket is a persistent complaint combined with a fixed way of Being. Rackets are maintained because of Payoffs, and they persist until dropping the Racket (and thus its associated cost) is chosen. This complaint pattern can give you an ongoing sense of righteousness or victimhood—both of which feed the need to be right.
By giving up the need to be right, you a can own and drop your Rackets™ and live Authentically and foster relationships built on honesty and mutual respect, rather than hidden agendas. Landmark says that Rackets (and their costs)rob us of Aliveness. See also Payoff and Cost* terms.
• Reality. That which is real either independently of language (e.g., "a car"), and that which is real only in language (e.g., a concept). A proper understanding of how reality exists as a concept is critical to understanding the concepts covered in the "What Happened" terminology and exercises. Reality is often also discussed as What's So.
• Reason. An excuse we invent to justify choices we make. That would be Ambrose Bierce's definition. When choices are made according to "reasons," they are distinguished as the "machine" operating, based on assumptions about truth and reality. Genuine choice operates on another level. Reasoning is not denied, but distinguished as rooted in our stories about reality. NOTE: This is not a Landmark term. Just the generic meaning of the word is used in Landmark programs. See also Choosing vs Deciding and Reasonable.
• Reasonable. To justify acting, or not acting, based on reasons and justifications. See also Choosing vs. Deciding. The Forum wants you see that there is possibility, power, and self-expression available to us by being The ability to choose when you want to be reaonable or unreasonable is one of the main key life-altering breakthroughs that The Landmark Forum wants to impart to its Graduates.
• Registration. See also Enrollment. Some action that registers a commitment to the future, for example registering for a gym membership.
• Resentment. A poison people swallow hoping it will kill the other person. NOTE: This is not a Landmark term, specificially. Just the generic meaning of the word is used in Landmark programs. Rackets™ are often driven by resentment cand create unseen costs.
• Responsibility. This is a key area of the Landmark Forum that people can struggle with, and is one of the most difficult to explain to anyone who hasn't attended The Forum, so I will let founder Werner Erhard explain it:

“Responsibility begins with the willingness to take the stand that one is cause in the matter of one’s life. It is a declaration not an assertion, that is, it (Responsibility)is a context from which one chooses to live. Responsibility is not burden, fault, praise, blame, credit, shame or guilt. In Responsibility, there is no evaluation of good or bad, right or wrong. There is simply what’s so, and the stand you choose to take on what’s so. Being responsible starts with the willingness to deal with a situation from the view of life that you are the generator of what you do, what you have. and what you are. That is not "the truth". It is a place to stand. No one can make you responsible, nor can you impose responsibility on another. It is a grace you give yourself – an empowering context that leaves you with a say in the matter of life.”

-Werner Erhard

• Self-Expression and Leadership Program. The final courses in the original Curriculum for Living ®. This program expands one’s natural capacity for providing leadership and making a difference as a natural self-expression.
• Show up (as in "how you show-up, or "how something shows-up for you"). “How I show up” or “how something shows up” generally refers to how someone or something appears or presents itself in a given situation. This could include your body language, your choice of words, your energy, or how you act toward others (e.g. showing up authentically, or showing up having integrity). Example: “You consistently show-up as annoyed, which impacts how everyone interacts with you.” The emphasis is on awareness of impact. Another Example: if you’re showing up distracted or closed-off, that may affect how people interact with you.
Becoming conscious of how you show up is a step toward being at choice in how you present yourself—so you can align your way of being with your commitments or intentions. Last Example*: if you're going with your default interpretation of something, how it shows-up for you (your experience of a situation) may be negative leaving you At-Effect of a disempowering story.
Landmark underscores that what “shows up” (externally) and what “occurs” (internally) are both distinctions you can notice, and choose to alter. By consciously choosing how you “show up,” you can positively influence relationships, teams, and outcomes.
• Speaking into the listening. Effectively communicating to another such that the communication is heard in the way in which the speaker intended.
• Stand (as in "taking a stand", "a stance", or "standing in your commitments"). “Stand” refers to a powerful declaration or commitment you make—both to yourself and to others—that shapes how you show up and take action in the world. Unlike a mere opinion or belief, a “stand” is something you choose to be...rather than something you simply have. It serves as a guiding principle or commitment that informs your choices and interactions, creating a powerful context for transformation and possibility.
The Landmark Forum emphasizes that language isn’t merely descriptive—it can be generative. By taking a stand, you use language to generate a new possibility or reality, not just talk about it. That’s why “I stand for X” has a different impact than “I’d like X to happen.” A stand also tests your integrity and authenticity—if you say you stand for something, your actions, words, and presence should align with it. Whenever you break from that commitment (see Breakdown), you can notice the gap and restore integrity by recommitting to your stand.
A stand should not ever be confused with a goal or wish: a goal might have a deadline or a specific outcome. A stand is broader and more fundamental: it affects how you relate to everything, including unexpected circumstances or failures, because it’s an expression of who you are being, not just what you want to accomplish. Also taking a stand might feel arbitrary at first (because you can choose any stand you want), but once declared, it becomes a guiding principle you own and live by. It’s less about being “right” and more about being true to what you’ve publicly committed to.
In Landmark (and est before it), taking a “stand” means creating and inhabiting a powerful context or commitment that informs every aspect of your behavior. It’s an active, generative way of shaping your actions, language, and relationships, rather than passively being shaped by circumstances or beliefs.
• Stinginess. Deliberately holding oneself, and one’s contribution, "close to the vest" and without generosity. Also not being authentic or having integrity are two ways in which we might be or show-up for others as stingy or not generous.
• Stoicism. Not directly related to The Landmark Forum curriculum or a term from the 3-day course; however, Stoicism as a philosophy informs the concepts of "At Cause" and "At Effect".
• Story. A "story" is an account or interpretation of past events often mistakenly taken for what actually happened. People tend to collapse their interpretations into what really happened—such that you can only see a situation from your interpretation. Landmark says that you naturally think about the actual reality of something not "as it is", but as what you made it mean. “She told a story” does not mean “she lied.” Rather, any account (in our internal dialogue, or when talking to another person) is subconsciously an interpretation. Yet we tend to believe our interpretations are facts when they aren't. If another Landmark Forum Leader or Graduate asks you "is that really what happened, or is this your story?", they aren't calling you out or saying you're being untruthful: they are inviting you to stop and examine if you are unconsciously confusing your interpretation with what's so or what actually happened.
• Strong suit. A way of being and acting that one relies on to produce results and make it in life, but keeps us from perceiving new options. Strong suits can originate from three transitional stages of one's life — early childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. These may have worked repeatedly in the past but they can obstruct more effective approaches. Previously called "Formula for success", and "Winning formula".
• Superstition. The system of ideas, beliefs, social and cultural assumptions, and taken-for-granted conclusions (etc) through which an individual interprets and interacts with the world, other people, and himself or herself. Living with others' Dogma and adhering to it, instead of living so to speak. NOTE: This is not a Landmark term. Just the generic meaning of the word is used in Landmark programs.
• The Need to Be Right. Many people don’t realize that they’re operating from a stance of “I must be in charge” or “I must not be overpowered.” By labeling it as a dynamic, Landmark helps participants become aware of how pervasive it is in everyday life. For the need to be right dynamic to be in play, possible payoffs include: feeling superior, maintaining the illusion of control, voiding vulnerability or scrutiny, or getting sympathy or attention. When you are holding/running a Racket™ (persistent complain) about someone, you are "making them wrong". Letting-go of the need to be right is a powerful way to be and a first-step to dropping your Rackets™ or breaking out of a Dominate-Avoid Domination cycle. Even when you’re avoiding confrontation, you may still have an internal stance of “I’m right” or “They’re wrong,” which is a subtler attempt to keep from feeling dominated by others’ ideas. Seeing this takes practice, and giving-up the need to be right takes practice as well. Doing so allows you to avoid the Cost / Payoff cycle that comes along with the need to be right and related issues it brings. See also Dominate / Avoid Domination and Racket™.
• Transformation. The invention of a new realm of possibility for yourself and your life. The invention of the realm is a necessary condition, but not sufficient for transformation. Without resultant new actions in alignment with the possibilities populating the realm, the invention is just a mental exercise.
• Transformative learning. Transformative learning, gives people an awareness of the basic structures in which one knows, thinks, and acts in the world. From that awareness comes a fundamental shift that leaves people more fully in accord with their own possibilities and those of others. Transformative learning is contrasted with Informational Learning. Informational learning increases knowledge and ability. Transformative learning results in new perspectives and new abilities (and sometimes disabilities). The common example is of learning to ride a bicycle. Very little information is provided, like "pedal". Suddenly the learner gets balance and is able to ride the bike without help. They have discovered it for themselves, and may never loose the ability to ride a bike. The experience, the learning, transforms the person, their perspective and their abilities. Before they couldn't, now they can. And, a whole new world or realm of possibilities is opened up.
• Unreasonable. Not to be mistaken for irrational or wreckless. To be unreasonable is to go beyond one’s reasons, justifications or lengthy considerations—to act creatively or to act on something one is committed to. WARNING—in a high-control group scenario, outside of The Landmark Forum (e.g. between Landmark staff) the notion of “being unreasonable” can be used in negative or harmful ways when combined with citations of "being out of integrity. The spirit of this concept is about operating creatively or from integrity with your commitments—but can be used in unequal power-dynamics to manipulate, abuse, or exploit. See also Choosing vs. Deciding and reasonable.
• Unreasonable Request. A request that requires one to go beyond one’s reasons, justifications and considerations to act on something one is committed to.
• Vicious circle ™. The human tendency to collapse what happened with the story we tell ourselves (or others) ABOUT what happened. The story creates a clearing, a listening, for that which supports the story (confirmation bias, etc), resulting in more occurrences of things that further support the story, forming a self-supporting Vicious Circle. The Vicious Circle™ encompasses possibility-limiting concepts that determine our experience, and shape future experiences.
• What Happened. Consensual (agreed-on) shared reality, or "objective" reality aside from (not relating at all to) judgment, blame, right/wrong, good/bad, and other forms of "meaning." What happens occurs to us as it is analyzed—our Already Always Listening™. If my ex-wife told me she had a problem with what I've done, that's what happened. If I say in response that "she was unreasonable and mean to me", that's my story about it, not necessarily what happened. See also Story which is a core component of understanding this term and concept. Landmark participants practice labeling the raw data (“He arrived at 9:15”) vs. the story (“He disrespects me by always showing up late”).
Special NOTE: In our current era where "Alternative Facts" inflames or distorts discussions requiring an agreed-upon reality, successfully working through What Happened or What's so (for The Forum's purposes) is truly THE challenge of our time!
• What is and/or What's so. In Landmark there’s a difference between the raw facts of a situation and the interpretations or stories we layer on top of those facts (See What Happened above). Landmark uses "What's so" to direct attention to reality as it is: independent of our habitual biases, judgments, or narratives.
Landmark emphasizes that: while “what is so” is factual, our experience often depends on the meaning or story we create. By recognizing the difference, you can see where your emotions come from (the story) look only at the facts themselves. Landmark suggests that if you can distinguish the fact from the interpretation, you have the freedom to choose a new way of responding. Landmark Forum Leaders conduct group exercises where facilitators ask participants to state only what’s so about something, before discussing feelings or interpretations. This exercise reveals how quickly we add personal meaning or “take things personally”, allowing the participants to have a breakthrough.
• Workability. “Workability” refers to how effective or functional something is—whether it’s a plan, a conversation, a relationship, or even an individual’s approach to life. The standard of workability is straightforward: does it produce the desired outcome without unnecessary friction, conflict, or breakdown? If yes, it is “workable.” If it leads to persistent breakdowns, frustration, and unresolved issues, it’s “unworkable.”
Rather than judging something as morally right or wrong, Landmark encourages you to ask: “Is this working?” or “Does this achieve what I’m committed to?” This departs from good/bad or correct/incorrect judgments, focusing on tangible results and practical alignment with one’s commitments.
Something “works” when it aligns with “what’s so”—the facts on the ground—and with the agreements you’ve made. Workability often ties back to integrity and authenticity in Landmark’s view. If your word is out of alignment with your actions, relationships often become unworkable. Landmark is all about workability and "being your word".
In Landmark, unworkability suggests you’re often “in resistance” to how things are (the facts), or you’re not in clear communication about your expectations. This and "being your word" and "walking the talk" are some of the more abstract, but also potentially abusable, aspects of how people working inside Landmark interact, and seems to be how they set/calibrate expectations.
Rather than labeling an unworkable situation as “bad,” Landmark invites attendees to see it as an opportunity: "*What’s missing that, if provided, would make this workable? A new agreement, a new action, or a shift in mindset?" It is quite a positive and helpful concept, and only concern with it is how veteran atteendees—who become volunteers—end up dealing with being told they're "out of integrity" or making a situation unworkable. Landmark seems to use its entire spread of distinctions (the "technology") internally, and seemingly aggressively, for their work.
• "You Don't Know, What You Don't Know" (related to Blind Spots). Landmark suggests our worldview is limited not just by what we do or don’t know, but by the fact that there are areas of knowledge or perspectives that we aren’t even aware exist. This is distinct from “I know I don’t know something,” where you can seek answers; “you don’t know what you don’t know” implies there’s a realm of possibility you haven’t discovered to begin with. A large focus in Landmark is on revealing these "unknown unknowns". When they become known, you might see new choices, new perspectives, or realize your old assumptions were self-imposed. Example: Until you realize you’ve been approaching your career with a victim mindset—“They never promote me because they’re unfair”—you may not see the role of your own minimal self-advocacy as part of the dynamic.
“You don’t know what you don’t know” is a powerful tool you can use to find your blind spots. If you get triggered, step back and label that as “what’s so” (a neutral event) vs. “my automatic interpretation.” This difference can lead you to the source of most any blind spot. Example: Discovering you have an ingrained fear of rejection can shift how you engage in job interviews or personal relationships, allowing you to approach them with more confidence and openness. See also Blind Spots.

Terms or phrases with "™" or "®" are trademarked or registered properties of Landmark Worldwide, are openly used in their public literature, and are only referenced here for my own recollection. All rights to these terms belong to Landmark Education and Landmark Worldwide, and no authorship or ownership is claimed in any way.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The terms and definitions on this page are my own personal work product and are not reviewed or approved by Landmark Worldwide.

FAQ

1. This is a LOT of information! How could I (and how do you) ever keep it all straight? How can I ever be sure I understand Landmark's terminology, let alone apply any of it, after studying resources like this?

A:

The short answer is you probably can't—if you haven't experienced the Ontologically-taught Landmark Forum. I learned this stuff while experiencing The Landmark Forum: an intense 3-day (and one evening) ongoing group-based conversation that lasted 12-15 hours per day. And then practicing many of the tools and techniques they made available. And reflecting on it. It's just not material that lends itself to the written-word: because our minds would use what we already know to try to understand these terms. Erhard himself said these concepts cannot shared in the ordinary sense of communication. Instead, Erhard (and by extension, Landmark after him) say you have these distinctions in you already: you just have to experience them communicated in a way where you get an opportunity to discover the conceps for yourself.

So a discussion and conversation, in a group setting, is how The Forum works—it's all just word salad otherwise. Thus, this informal Glossary and my Landmark posts were never intended for learning or "getting" Landmark concepts and distinctions.

Every discipline has its own lingo or "terms of art"; however, The Forum concepts must be experienced in the context of exercises and discussion-for the terminology to be learned and practiced. Landmark's teaching is Ontological, that is, our understanding of the nature of a thing ("being" etc)—so it understanding is formed through our immediate firsthand interaction and experience with their material, or "Technology". Each concept or term is taught this way, during the 3-day sessions.

To put succinctly: the knowing of this material ("getting it", as they say), and practically using these tools, usually requires attending The Landmark Forum 3-day weekend (and one Tuesday night) sessions. The phrase "If you know, you know..." (IYKYK) applies to so much of this material. I think someone who pursues a degree in academic Philosophy, with emphasis on both Eastern and Western Philosophies, would probably get this stuff—but for my money, a weekend at The Landmark Forum was a lot quicker (and cheaper 🙃). The Forum a repackaging of a lot of major Zen and Philosophical concepts, but it gets pretty deep in a short time. So I think anyone trying to use my 3-part write-up or this rough Glossary, without having attended The Forum, is folly. Hence that is why this page's intended audience are Forum grads or non-biased/academic researches.

2. Are you a Landmark Forum fan, enthusiast, or shill? Otherwise what is the point of this page?

Nope. I am just some guy who got a free ride (company sponsored) to attend The Landmark Forum in 1995. The point of this rough Glossary is twofold:

1. This page is a companion piece to my 3-part special write-up on The Landmark Forum that I published here in 2009.
   
2. This page is for my own personal reference from notes I wrote down in between sessions, and is offered to Landmark Graduates-to provide a place for unbiased revisiting of Landmark terminology (as I understood it, anyway) after attending nearly 30 years ago.
   

So I talk about The Landmark Forum without fear or favor. While I don't "proselytize" Landmark, and I have concerns about things I read about their internal culture, I am not here with any axes to grind. That I attended and perhaps got something out it for myself way back in 1995-is not something I am interested in talking about in this rough Glossary. This page is about covering terms and concepts that are covered during The Landmark Forum, and I have zero interest in trying to "sell" anybody on any personal-development organizations. My personal "stand" here is to have a reference of my original notes on these concepts from 30 years ago. I feel that anyone's decision to take Landmark Forum is theirs alone, and this page and contents should not be used in making a decision to attend The Forum.

So I am NOT trying to "get people to join" Landmark Worldwide, nor am I anti-Landmark. I do believe The Forum is only useful for certain types of people with certain personality traits which include curiosity, and a strong sense of who they already are (and don't mind self-examination). It is certainly not for everyone, and I think Landmark Worldwide reps and Forum Leaders would 100% agree with me on that.

3. I have read many of these terms and concepts in other materials, or experienced them in other seminars and conferences that I have attended in the past. Can you share any Philosophies inform the Landmark Forum curriculum?

A:

Yes! Below is a list I compiled over the years, of some of the primary philosophies (or philosophers) that I have read, which seem to be the core knowledge that informed Werner Erhard in his creation of the original est curriculum. I will include specific Landmark terms (in parenthesis) next to each philosopher or philosophy that I cite:

Abraham Maslow (emphasized self-actualization and peak experiences / the impetus for personal transformation found in est correlates with the push toward self-actualization and tapping hidden human potential) **
Alan Watts - not strictly a philosopher, but popularized Zen and Eastern thought in the West. Erhard attended a few Alan Watts seminar gatherings **
Albert Ellis - pioneer of Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT)
Aldous Huxley - Philosopher who influenced the Esalen Institute and early self-help leaders. Writer of the immensely popular "The Perennial Philosophy" which influenced Philosophers and thinkers (and LGAT creators) alike for the past 70 years. **
Alfred Korzybski and General Semantics (What Happened and What's So) - famous for "The map is not the territory" - teaches the difference between reality and our understanding (interpretation) of it
Carl Rogers - American psychologist and founder of Humanistic Psychology **
Dale Carnagie - American writer and teacher of courses in self-improvement, including "How to Wind Friends and Influence People" **
Eric Berne - Developer of Transactional Analysis, and author of one of the earliest books in the self-help / human-potential area: Games People Play
R. Buckminster Fuller (Werner Erhard was directly inspired by Fuller, who taught about integrity, design science, and “doing more with less”)
Dick Price - Early Human Potential Movement key figure and co-founder of the Esalen Institute. Edward Deci - co-founder of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) - Aspects of SDT emphasize Autonomy, or feeling that your actions are chosen and self-endorsed (as opposed to imposed). Two core concepts of SDT involve "Intrinsic Motivation" (doing something for its inherent satisfaction or personal interest), and "Extrinsic Motivation" (doing something for an external outcome—rewards, approval, or to avoid punishment). Both Autonomy and these two core concepts of SDT (Intrinsic vs Extrinsic motivation) overlap with the est / Landmark focus on being "At Cause" with personal empowerment, responsibility, and authentic communication and "dropping the act". Further, SDT encourages moving from external pressures (“I have to,” “I need external approval”) to an internal, freely chosen rationale (“I choose this because it aligns with my values and interests”). The est / Landmark analogue of this "choosing vs. deciding" distinction, which parallels the shift from extrinsic obligation or fear to an intrinsic, self-authored choice ("At Choice"). Landmark participants are urged to identify and generate commitments in alignment with their values rather than “shoulds” or “musts.”
Edmund Husserl and phenomenology (the rigorous study of conscious experience as it appears) influenced 20th-century existential thought (Occur)
Epictetus (Stoicism)
Fritz Perls (Gestalt Therapy)
Humberto Maturana (Subjectivity, Observation, and the Construction of Reality.)
Jean-Paul Sartre (Freedom and Responsibility)
Julian Rotter (Locus of Control) - modern analogues of At Cause and At Effect are detailed in Locus of Control: Internal Locus of Control = "At Cause" in Landmark, while External Locus of Control = "At Effect" in Landmark
The Kyoto School of Zen Philosphers (Being)
Ludwig Wittgenstein (Distinctions and Story)
Marcus Aurelius (At Cause and At Effect have analogues in Stoicism)
Martin Heidegger probably one of Erhard's biggest influences in the early days of forming est - (Being, Ontology)
Maxwell Maltz author of "Psycho-Cybernetics", a forerunner of self-help books in the 1960s. **
Michael Murphy - Early Human Potential Movement key figure and co-founder of the Esalen Institute.
Mind Dynamics - seminar training company founded by Alexander Everett **
Napoleon Hill - author of "*Think And Grow Rich", a forerunner of self-help books in the 1930s through the 1960s. **
Richard Ryan - co-founder of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) - Aspects of SDT emphasize Autonomy, or feeling that your actions are chosen and self-endorsed (as opposed to imposed). Two core concepts of SDT involve "Intrinsic Motivation" (doing something for its inherent satisfaction or personal interest), and "Extrinsic Motivation" (doing something for an external outcome—rewards, approval, or to avoid punishment). Both Autonomy and these two core concepts of SDT (Intrinsic vs Extrinsic motivation) overlap with the est / Landmark focus on being "At Cause" with personal empowerment, responsibility, and authentic communication and "dropping the act". Further, SDT encourages moving from external pressures (“I have to,” “I need external approval”) to an internal, freely chosen rationale (“I choose this because it aligns with my values and interests”). The est / Landmark analogue of this "choosing vs. deciding" distinction, which parallels the shift from extrinsic obligation or fear to an intrinsic, self-authored choice ("At Choice"). Landmark participants are urged to identify and generate commitments in alignment with their values rather than “shoulds” or “musts.”
Rober Jay Lifton - Psychiatrist who coined the term and concept "Milieu Control" which involves controlling an environment and communication through social pressures and group language.
Scientology - religion founded by L. Ron Hubbard **
Seneca (his letters are studied in Stoicism as they encouraged self-master, choice, and detachment from circumstances as paths to equanimity)
Taoism (Taoist notion that events are empty until we give them meaning resonates with Taoist themes of wu wei (non-forcing) and the idea of “allowing” or “not resisting” what is)
William Danforth - American businessman and author of the book, "I Dare You!" **
William Glasser Psychiatrist author of Reality Therapy (What's So)
Zen Buddhism (Being, Ontology) **

Other notable Neuroscience names that may have been studied by early Human Potential Movement seminar creators (including Werner Erhard):

George Miller, Eugene Galanter, and Karl Pribram: Neuroscience researchers who, during the Human Potential Movement era, focused on Frontal Lobe and Higher Cortical Functions research. Their nascent work would later help inform later research into Executive Function, as it aligned broadly with the emerging scientific insights into how the frontal lobes guide planning, self-monitoring, and adaptive behavior. Though est and Mind Dynamics did not teach neuropsychology concepts in any rigorous manner, this early research overlapped with the zeitgeist that the human brain—particularly its self-regulatory and “executive” capacities—could be harnessed for personal transformation.

** Cited by Erhard himself to the author of his authorized biography.

4. I read somewhere that est borrows a lot, or steals, from Scientology. Is that true?

A:

While Werner Erhard was involved with Scientology for a brief period, the extent of direct influence on est is debated. Many see parallels in the intensity, and the focus on personal responsibility, and the breakdown of personal narratives. Erhard himself has denied using or taking any training materials from Scientology, and his answer has always been that est training should be seen as a compilation (or distillation) of many disciplines (which is, if we're evaluating Scientlogy—is what L.Ron Hubbard also did).

I have no direct experience with Scientology, only what I've read or heard ex-Scientologists say—and Scientologists on-record clearly see parallels in a lot of est and LF concepts. But I can't comment on which specific materials Erhard may have “borrowed” for usage in creating est. I was once told Scientology's “Reactive Mind” concept (first mentioned in “Dianetics” and throughout Scientology materials and rundowns) was in-part what gave Erhard concepts of “Automatic Ways of Being” — aka “Already Always Listening” ™.

I’ve also been told that memories that are “engramic”, which involves managing how we can reorient how things occurred to (or for) us. The Dianetic theory believes that engrams are misinterpretations of past trauma (and root causes of your distress) — has a lot in common with Landmark. Scientology goes on to say you can handle these past traumas yourself and get them removed (during auditing). Scientologists are taught that you, rather than external forces, have the power to alter your mental-emotional state—removing engramic root causes of issues. Est concepts of "what happened", “at cause”, and “at effect” are viewed by Scientologists as Erhard appropriating their concepts and materials, via different terms or phrases. One of est’s flagship distinctions is that you are “at cause” in the matter of your life; and transformation begins by recognizing and assuming responsibility for how events “occur” for (or to) you.

It is believed the Erhard had undergone auditing and participated in Scientology and that organization labeled him as a "squirrel". It's possible Erhard experienced re-framing and other Scientology concepts resonated with him, e.g. you’re ultimately responsible for clearing out the "reactive mind”. But Erhard flipped this a bit, made it way less “metaphysical” and more “methodological”. Other concepts Scientologists see are from Auditing when they hear of est/Landmark’s “committed Listener” and activities involved around helping people not be out Integrity.

So both Scientology and est harness language to shift participants’ frames of reference (“Clear,” “reactive mind”, “engram,” vs “Racket”, “distinguish”, “at cause” etc). Erhard may have recognized the potency of structured, confrontational processes (like auditing) to catalyze change—and then tailored est’s group dynamics accordingly.

Several writers have listed Erhard's exposure to Scientology materials that led launching est. I think it's no big secret that L. Ron Hubbard cribbed many concepts and teachings in formulating his own curriculums, from some of the Philosophers I listed in the previous FAQ answer, when he wrote "Dianetics" and later internal Scientology materials. But I speak with zero experience or authority on anything in Scientology!

5. What are other sites, beyond this one, where I can read about Landmark Forum?

A:

Well there's always the official Landmark Worldwide site, but for reviews or write-ups I enjoyed the following articles below. Several unvarnished opinions, critiques, etc as well.

A Skeptic Goes to the Landmark Forum
The Landmark Forum: 42 Hours, $500, 65 Breakdowns
A Review and Summary of the Landmark Forum
My Review of Landmark Forum
My Landmark Forum Review: The Good, The Bad, and The Boring
Landmark Education A Cult? (Not Even Close)
The Landmark Forum — a rationalist's first impression
Landmark Forum: Mysterious training course coming to your office
You’re O.K., but I’m Not. Let’s Share.
Being zen at work
Get Confident, Stupid!
I thought I'd be brainwashed. But how wrong could I be...
The Return of Werner Erhard
Founder of est Targeted in Campaign by Scientologists

6. There really aren't a lot of books or official public documents about the original est, or about Landmark (or even books published by Landmark Worldwide itself). Are there any kind of books you can point me to, aside from the online articles and write-ups you gave here?

A:

It's true there aren't a lot of books written about est and Landmark. The seminars and training curriculum of both were meant to be provided in specific contexts which centered around an active dialog within a group setting, so there really aren't a lot of written materials provided. Since the training depends to a great extent on group dynamics, privacy for participants dictated that filming of entire seminars was almost never allowed. Other than a few excerpts allowed by Erhard (and some, later, by Landmark in their marketing), it is nigh impossible to truly "hear or read about all the concepts" (or get a blow-by-blow) of the training. Like est before, Landmark believes you must experience the Forum's dialog and flow, not read about it. But if you're willing to hunt down some out-of-print books from the 70s about est (some of which had input from est trainers, and Werner Erhard himself) there is some interesting reading out there:

Est: Erhard Seminars Training: 60 Hours That Transform Your Life by Adelaide Bry
EST: Playing The Game* The New Way by Carl L. Frederick
est, Tools For Life, Transformation, And The Western Mind by Ernie Schultze
Getting It: The Psychology of est by Sheridan Fenwick
Speaking Being: Werner Erhard, Martin Heidegger, and a New Possibility of Being Human by Bruce Hyde and Drew Kopp
The Book of Est by Luke Rhinehart
Werner Erhard The Transformation of a Man: The Founding of EST by William Warren Bartley III

7. Those books you listed are pro-EST and pro-Werner: can you also give books and resources critical of EST, Erhard, or Landmark?

A:

I only personally know of two books that discuss problems with Est/Landmark and their founder—one I just discovered in late 2024: "Is This A Cult?". A great read that I highly-recommend and reviewed on this blog.

I definitely do not want to be seen excluding critical voices about Landmark; however, there is no shortage of critical voices—and I prefer only listing books I've read here, or rources I would recommend. If you have an additional material to suggest, please feel free contact me and send any suggestions for this FAQ item.

Is This A Cult?
Outrageous Betrayal *labeled as "defamatory" by representatives of Werner Erhard and Landmark Worldwide.
Rick Ross-Cult Education Network SEEK Safely

8. What is Landmark up to, today?

A:

I really didn't keet up with Landmark after I attended The Landmark Forum in 1995, though I have friends who volunteered for them. The last thing I personally heard was they entered Bankruptcy protection—and were preparing to emerge from that with new leadership in 2024. Beyond that, I would direct you to Landmark Worldwide on what they're up to now.

9. I am contemplating attending The Landmark Forum or similar transformational group training. What advice could you give me?

A:

I 100% believe in informed consent regarding The Landmark Forum or any similar personal-development group, coach, or self-help organization. I would caution you to be wary of organizations that aren't answering all of your questions or concerns, and I would avoid any organization applying pressure or a hard-sell for their seminar, products, or services. Ultimately such a consequential decision is yours—and ultimately only yours.

I would also advise you to beware people giving sensational testimonies or advice—especially from a "should" or "should not" standpoint. You deserve a nuanced and thorough assessment, when seeking such advice. I would recommend my 3 posts about it from a few years ago, and there are books listed in FAQs #6 and #7 above. If you are just starting-out reading about Landmark, inform yourself before making any personal commitment to participate in The Landmark Forum. People have reported sincere and valid growth and benefit from The Forum, and there are negative and concerning reports about internal organization practices as well.

I am not anti self-help or out to sway people against any organization. I would never invalidate peoples' positive experiences, And advise anyone committed to attending The Landmark Forum—which can be a positive experience—they should exercise moderation after attending The Landmark Forum. Pausing on any additional courses is the best and safest approach: some of the distinctions, exercise, and concepts is powerful, and in the wrong context can just as easily be misapplied. I believe it's a thin line between radical ownership and manipulation, self-gaslighting, or unforseen danger for any person who might have PTSD or CPTSD.

If you agree that moderation is a sound approach after Graduating The Landmark Forum: this means making a promise to yourself to not sign-up for any further courses for a period of time. This my own personal-recommendation for anyone attending The Landmark Forum for the first time: I believe it's healthiest to not rush right into additional follow-on courses, or to volunteer for Landmark Worldwide, after Graduating The Forum. Pause—and give yourself time to process the insights, distinctions, or transformation that you may have experienced first. <--- that is the best advice I could ever give to anyone who has chosen to attend any LGAT, and that includes The Landmark Forum.

The volunteer-pipeline at Landmark has many valid criticisms, and caution applies here, no matter how positive the intial experience or other courses have been for you. Give yourself the respect and self-care of integrating your breakthroughs! Note: I can't really comment on the new "Landmark WorldWide New Era, LLC" post-bankrupcty entity—they may be trying to change their negative practices concerning volunteers and staff (I don't know, so I still advise caution).

10. I am recovering from a negative experience with Landmark or other self-help organization. Do you know of, or can you recommend, any resources that I can reach out to?

A:

Yes, I wholeheartedly recommend SEEK Safely, and I wish you the very best in your journey and healing.

11. How is Landmark able to claim that they have a special "Technology", when it just seems to be terms and concepts that were repackaged from Philosohpers' existing phenomenological, ontological, and epistemological works?

A:

1. In a word: Lawyers. Every seminar, every meeting...just about every time and place Werner Erhard spoke in a room is considered by him (and Landmark founders) as "the work" and the "Technology". And Erhard and Tekniko (and by proxy Landmark or anyone who holds licenses to "the work") consider any of Erhard's special generative use of language -- and they say it is legally owned product. It's why I say at the top and bottom of this page that I claim no ownership of, nor do I teach or share, Erhard or Landmark's terms, exercises, or concepts.

Part of why philosophical works, sciences, and economics are open within academia—is because generally specialized "terms of art" are not copywritten. Just one of the many ironies, since Erhard has made a push into academia in the past decade and a half.

2. You can leverage NLP techniques to frame (and reframe) concepts into entire schools of thought—and have it work. This isn't a unique or novel thing, and is in fact what mankind has done with various Philosophies and knowledge systems for centuries.
   

3. A simple possible truth of Landmark's "Technology" is that a smart salesman simply liked to read and think deeply a lot...then he got briefly involved in Mind Dynamics and Scientology (which themselves were uneven repackagings of Philosphical concepts)...and he had a series of epiphanies that led him to enroll others into working with him to create "the mother of all early LGATs called est." I can't say that's how Landmark arrived at viewing this stuff as a precious Technological product—it's just one possibility. 🤷🏻

12. I practiced Buddhism before I attended a Landmark Forum, and I am thoroughly confused about "Empty and Meaningless" exercise and concept. It doesn't feel anything like "Emptiness" (śūnyatā) that I was taught. I don't feel like it matches what I learned, at all, and I need to figure out if I want to even benefit from Landmark's separate distinction of this concept. Can you help?

A:

Let me see if I can help, but to unravel (and reintegrate) this it's a bit of a long answer: because I am a non-practicing student of Buddhism, and I had actually learned Landmark's "Empty and Meaningless" concepts first—before I learned the Buddhist concept of "Emptiness" (śūnyatā). Below is what I figured out, for myself (though your mileage may vary).

First point: "emptiness" is just one of a few frameworks in Landmark where Ontological vs. Psychological concepts can get confusing. You could complete the entire 3-day / 1-night Landmark Forum, and probably still walk away not 100% "getting it" on the "Empty and Meaningless" thing, possibly only to "pop" later. This would be especially likely for someone who already has experience with the Buddhist school of thought about "emptiness"!

In Buddhism, “Emptiness” typically refers to the lack of inherent, independent existence in all phenomena. It is an ontological statement about the nature of reality—namely, that everything arises interdependently and has no essential “self-nature” or static essence. While this can have psychological implications (reducing attachment, fostering compassion), it’s first and foremost an insight into how all phenomena are—impermanent, interdependent, and non-separate.

Buddhists do not typically say “life is meaningless.” Instead, they emphasize that events have no intrinsic essence or “self.” Because of that, any “meaning” or “value” is ultimately dependent upon causes, conditions, and human conceptual frameworks. This doesn’t equate to nihilism (most people take "Emptiness" to be that, it isn't); rather, it’s a “Middle Way” approach that recognizes phenomena are “empty” of permanent identity while still acknowledging the role of relative meaning, ethics, and compassion.

Realizing "Emptiness" in the Buddhist sense helps practitioners let go of attachments and aversion—the root causes of suffering (dukkha). It's about Liberation from clinging, in Buddhism. By seeing that everything is contingent and fluid, one can approach life with greater equanimity and compassion. "Emptiness" is typically explored via meditative practices (insight into the nature of the mind and phenomena) and an ethical lifestyle (the Eightfold Path). It’s closely linked to compassion (karuṇā) because realizing interdependence can heighten empathy for all beings.

Okay, so that's Buddhism's "Emptiness" -- now let's contrast against Landmark's completely different concept:

Landmark uses "Empty and Meaningless" to highlight the interpretive nature of human thought—it’s an epistemological and psychological tool: to show that meaning is constructed. Buddhism uses “Emptiness” to describe the ontological state of all phenomena (lack of inherent essence) and to guide practitioners toward liberation from clinging and illusion.

In Landmark the "Empty and Meaningless" exercise is largely about noticing how we add meaning to events, culminating in personal breakthroughs around identity, responsibility, and communication. In Buddhism "Emptiness" teachings are about a broader path that includes ethical precepts, meditation, and the pursuit of enlightenment (ending suffering). So Landmark's “Empty and meaningless” distinction is for liberation from self-created "stories" so you can create meaning aligned with your commitments. Buddhist "Emptiness" is about recognizing no fixed essence. Both Landmark's and Buddhism's concepts can each be mistaken for nihilism if misunderstood, but for both these concepts are about freedom. In Landmark it's being free from our stories and negative interpretations. In Buddhism it points to freedom, compassion, and wisdom.

Both Landmark and certain Zen traditions emphasize "letting go" of rigid interpretations or mental constructs that keep one stuck. In both frameworks practitioners discover that much of what we experience as “reality” is colored by our projections, narratives, and mental filters. Recognizing these filters is a step toward greater clarity and freedom.

13. What is "Transformation", in the sense of Est and Landmark? Is it real or even possible?

A:

When you make a personal breakthrough from integrating a new insight—the more sudden it feels, almost "instantaneous". The word Landmark says you're experiencing is "Transformation". I politely disagree with that positioning, but I do understand the framing. I split from Landmark and all self-help culture on some of the meanings they express for istantaneous "Transformation", and I will share my thinking below:

There are a lot of clumsy words we can use when we identify new and life-impacting distinctions, insights, or personal epiphanies. But the notion—that you’re a flawed person whose life doesn't work...and “you’ll only get different and positive results when you are transformed (e.g. "become a different person”) is problematic for me. You might seem transformed externally to other people, but you’re still the same person who must work to sustain your new insights and growth. Self-help culture has conditioned people that in an instant you’ll be transformed—as almost a guaranteed product or result of buying their service or seminar. They position "transformation" as the "only" way you can receive what they are offering. To be transformed to is to become a different person, in a sense. That's one possible way to view personal-development; however, I believe that to grow and internalize the useful tools given by Landmark (or any LGATs): we should instead practice radical-acceptance of ourselves during our transformation journeys. To seek transformation as "being a different person" as the alleged "only way" to grow and develop into our best selves—it means believing that you're flawed or broken at the very beginning of any training...and so you must practically become another person entirely (transform) in order to get the benefits of X or Y self-help seminar. And I think that is fundamentally incorrect. Your mileage might vary on that, and that's ok!

Landmark wants to "Transform the World" through "the work", or their "Technology"—so they internally believe you must experience Transformation. I believe, flaws and all (and despite our painful "stories" or experiences in life), we are already a whole person and we work with what we have. We bring our full selves to our lives and our growth, so that i fwe experience transformation in the Landmark sense, it is more sustainable without our having to tell ourselves that were a different person entirely now—which I believe can set a person up for disappointment. Personal-growth and self-improvement is one of THE key activities of our lives—and I find self-help organizations promising you'll “be transformed” problematic. You were a complete human being before new learnings and breakthroughs, and you are still a complete human being after new learnings and breakthroughs.

So that's where I land, on the whole "Transformation" thing. 😊 Again, totally okay if your mileage varies on that! 😉 Growth is powerful, and fast effective breakthroughts even more powerful still, so I understand why LGATs use this word—and it sells! But I think it's clumsy, and unhelpful for the nuanced real practical tools these LGATs do offer, and it's a bit of a hook for the for-profit self-help culture—and so I just don't hold with it. 🤷🏻

14. This is a very detailed Glossary, how did you create it? Are there any terms or concepts of Landmark "Technology" that you reject?

A:

I created this Glossary, originally, as an offline document populated from my personal handwritten notes I took each evening/morning during my original weekend Landmark Forum in 1995. In 2024, when I decided to create this online version on my blog, I merged some contents of that document with an abandoned online Glossary at Wikiversity: Landmartian Glossary - Wiki University. The intended primary audience of this Glossary are Landmark Grads, and Academic researchers.

While I do not exactly reject any NLP terms or Ontologically-taught concepts from Landmark, I don't practice some Landmark Forum-taught that I believe can be made harmful, or be easily-weaponized (or I only have used them internally to/for myself, never using them at another person). The concepts themselves are not inherently manipulative when taught in the Landmark Forum. Rather, the concepts can be applied in ways that ignore nuance—turning powerful distinctions into tools of psychological pressure or control. The concepts below could be used in manipulative or controlling ways, when wielded by those in supervisory positions within any organization that has integrated Landmark training (including Landmark itself):

In Landmark’s framework, “integrity” largely means keeping your word and acting in alignment with your commitments. When you break your word, you acknowledge it, “clean it up,” and restore integrity. There are ex-Landmark volunteers and staff that have reported seeing or experiencing Supervisors labeling their reports as having a “lack of integrity” for things like minor schedule deviations, or for questioning an assignment—creating scenarios in a work environment where there would be:

• Shaming or Guilt Trips: A Landmark leadership or management staffer calling others out for being "out of integrity", in front of other volunteers or staff. <br/ > • Pressure to Comply: By framing any disagreement or boundary-setting as “out of integrity,” leadership can discourage genuine dialogue.
• Fear of Being “Wrong”: People may fear being singled out as “out of integrity,” so they comply—even against their better judgment or personal boundaries.

Another framework with abuse potential is “On it”. “On it” describes being fixated on a story or interpretation—thus stuck, defensive, or closed to alternative views. The main two abuses that can occur with "On it" are:

• Shutting Down Feedback: If a volunteer raises valid concerns (about workload, fairness, or ethics), a supervisor might dismiss them by saying, “You’re ‘on it!’” implying the volunteer is just stuck in negativity or a personal racket, rather than addressing the content of the feedback.
• Avoiding Accountability: Leadership might label any pushback or critique as a staff member “being on it,” sidestepping meaningful discussion about actual organizational problems.

Similar to, and possibly used in-tandem with, "integrity" is “Responsibility”. Responsibility emphasize personal agency—participants are “at cause” in their interpretations and responses. But when misused, someone might be told they’re “not taking responsibility” if they question unrealistic demands. It can shift blame away from organizational conditions onto the individual.

The "Story" <---> victim-blaming cycle: Landmark framework can be misused to collapse genuine Trauma into "Story" and "at effect" discusions. Unless a person gives their informed consent to have their personal PTSD or CPTSD experiences challenged or re-framed, a massive risk of further injury exists for that person! This is a critical area Landmark needs to address in their training events and within their organization.

The concept and framework of "Workable" means something is effectively functioning in alignment with a commitment or goal. “Unworkable” highlights breakdowns where the process repeatedly fails or causes friction. So "workability" can have the following abusive scenarios:

• Marginalizing Dissent: Supervisors can say, “Your attitude is unworkable,” to silence disagreement—implying that the volunteer’s perspective hinders the entire group.
• Forcing Conformity: Anything that challenges established procedures or leadership demands can be branded “unworkable,” leaving volunteers feeling they must comply or risk ostracism.

15. If you could wave a magic wand to change some aspect of Landmark, or address issues you've stated about Landmark, what would you change?

A:

That question is easy: I believe in informed consent as more than just a concept for any training organization. And I am not talking about the "are you taking medications" registration questionnaires, NDAs, or Arbitration-Mediation agreement docs. Informed consent is just that: informing people of aspects of the training that may be uncomfortable or constitute potential triggers, or how participants may re-experience trauma when overhearing and supporting other participants. But registration-targets in the for-profit nature of any corporate LGATs creates an obvious conflict here—but think how powerful it would be to rise above that.

Every staffer in a Leader / trainer / coach role in the Landmark organization would get certified outside training on Trauma. Training such that, program leaders would be fully Trauma Informed. Internal training (SELP etc) for program leaders is not remotely adequate on the matter of Trauma. Empathy isn't enough, some measure of skill must enter the conversation on the matter of Trauma—and how Landmark deals with it. Right now the Landmark internal culture seems to generally collapse genuine Trauma into "Story" or meaning-making—and that needs to change, as it is out-of-step with current Gen Z values and mental models. I am Gen X, so addressing Trauma from a place of "story" was probably workable in my day: no longer. If Landmark is truly committed to bringing Transformation to the world -- they'd make this key change, such that outside training on Trauma is integrated into the "Technology".

Next, Landmark's board probably needs to entertain an era without Rosenberg-centric leadership someday. It's coming time, I think—because if "the work" (or "Technology") can stand on its own: having new leaders bring transformation to others is probably a much healthier place for Landmark. But I don't think that can happen, necessarily, because I think the licenser of the original "Technology" is—ultimately— a Rosenberg. So I think Landmark and the Rosenberg family will always be intertwined.

On the issue of group-dynamics and high control-group behaviors observers have heard and read about: clean it up, and move forward. Things happened, as they do in any human endeavor, and I truly believe acknowledging with a plan to move on...might engender forgiveness (maybe even enthusiasm) from many ex-volunteers and staffers. Regardless, owning the past exploitative violations—with a stand to be cause in the matter of reforming and addressing the issues-it would be anything but possibility-limiting..

Lastly,

That's my "magic wand" answer. We don't live in a world where these kinds of changes, or healing, happens from corporate entities—but it's nice to dream!

16. I hear Landmark is very litigious. Are you concerned about Landmark or Tekniko challenging you over the contents of this page?

A:

Before publishing this informal and unofficial Glossary, I consulted legal counsel so as to respect Landmark's products, brand, and terminology. Three key items anyone should consider before attempting any formal complaint, C&D, or claim:

1. I have never worked in or for the self-help / personal-development trade, nor have I ever worked as a personal coach—and so I have never used, taught, or infringed on Landmark's products, training, or "Technology" (which includes English language terms and published works / concepts of the Philosophers listed in this FAQ). I respect and honor Landmark's products, and make no claim of ownership to any of their terminology.
   

2. I have worked over two decades in the legal technology services industry, employed by two prolific law firms. I have retained and maintain counsel for any matters arising from the simple writing-down of words from the English language on this page.
   

3. As an established and respected Project Manager in my industry I don't do anything without managing risk—and I believe in contingency strategy: besides minimizing my legal exposure, I also maintain an in-depth and thorough list for targeted Discovery requests—which my counsel would aggressively pursue with unlimited resources—if I am ever challenged legally on the basis of discussing meanings of words. Trust. The terms on this informal and unofficial Glossary have never been claimed or represented as owned by me, and my few constructive criticisms of Landmark have been well-known beyond this 2024 web page, for over a decade. I direct readers to my Disclaimer for anything further on this.
   

I fully respect Landmark trademarks, and intend no infringements; however I am also prepared to assert that no injury could possibly occur—from publishing an informal list of English language specialized terms. See my Disclaimer for anything further.

Terms or phrases with "™" or "®" are trademarked or registered properties of Landmark Worldwide, are openly used in their public literature, and are only referenced here for complete Definitions. All rights to these terms belong to Landmark Education and Landmark Worldwide, and no authorship or ownership—to any material in this unofficial Glossary—is claimed in any way!

IMPORTANT NOTE: The terms and definitions on this page are my own work product (using aforementioned resources) and are not reviewed or approved by Landmark Worldwide.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this blog are my personal views, and are not the views of Landmark. Brand and product names are trademarks, or registered trademarks, of their respective owners. Refer to this site's Terms of Use for further details.