![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Landmark Forum & Scientology
A family member of mine has been involved in the Landmark Forum for a couple years. He raves about it, but I’ve never had a special interest in going. When I recently started reading about Scientology, I began noticing a lot of similarities to what I’d heard about Landmark. From what I understand, both organizations tend to either downplay or deny any possible connection between their teachings. Neither organization is particularly helpful in comparing/contrasting between the two. As I’ve never been to any Landmark or Scientology training or events, what follows is strictly my interpretations based on second-hand source material found on the internet. I always recommend you go do your own research and come to your own conclusions. And as much as I don’t like to suggest it in this case, personal experience is often the best teacher of all.
Landmark Forum (or Landmark Education) is a modification or an adaptation (not sure which term they prefer) of an LGAT (large group awareness training) program which rose to prominence in the 1960’s, when such things were all the rage. The program was named Erhard Seminars Training, or “est” for short (all-lowercase). Sometime in the mid-80’s Werner Erhard (founder of est, born Jack Rosenberg) sold the underlying “technology” (ie, teachings) of est to his employees. They changed it around significantly, dropped many aspects of the original est training, and repackaged it as Landmark.
Since est isn’t around anymore, I’d like to focus just briefly on Erhard and then jump into Landmark and how it’s similar in a couple areas to what I’ve seen of Scientology. Firstly, it seems to be well established on the internet that Erhard was at some point in his past either a full-fledged Scientologist, or else studied it. This was confirmed verbally when my family member asked a Forum leader recently. The Skeptic’s Dictionary entry on Erhard says:
In the late 1960s, Erhard studied Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard became a significant influence. Scientologists to this day accuse Erhard of having stolen his main ideas for est from Hubbard. We do know that when Erhard set up est he considered making it a church, as Hubbard had done with dianetics and the Church of Scientology. But Erhard decided to incorporate as an educational firm for profit in a broad market.
Supposedly though this earned him the enmity of none other than L. Ron Hubbard, who saw est as not only a competitor to Scientology, but also believed that Erhard “stole” various aspects of either Dianetics or Scientology and incorporated them into est.
In an LA Times article reprinted at WernerErhard.com (registered to “The Friends of Werner Erhard”), we find the rivalry between the two men continued:
Hubbard wrote a four-page analysis of the program, saying est was essentially Scientology “up to 1954.”
“Their instructors and foundation board are certainly students of Scientology texts and possibly of Scientology,” Hubbard wrote. “The reason they can’t say why it works is that they don’t dare mention or at least just don’t mention Scientology. Werner Erhard may pretend to his staff that he invented these processes. But many of his staff would have to know that it is Scientology.”
Erhard denied that “these processes” were the same, telling a biographer: “I am not surprised that people find traces of Scientology in est. In est we use variations on some of the Scientology charts, and as a result the terminology overlaps a bit. In essential respects, however, the two are different.”
That article also explores Erhard’s allegations that the Church of Scientology waged a sort of covert war against him for several years, both to disrupt his est training seminars, destroy his public persona, and Erhard even seems to have suggested assassinate him. Whether or not it was an orchestrated campaign against him, Erhard did publicly fall from grace. Wikipedia reports that, among other things, a man died at one of his seminars, and many others had nervous breakdowns. The IRS also unsuccessfully tried to expose the organization - Erhard later counter-sued them and won. Most damaging of all though seems to have been an episode of 60 Minutes aired in the late 70’s:
A segment on 60 Minutes portrayed Erhard as physically abusive to his wife and featured accusations by some of his daughters of incest and of physical abuse. One daughter later retracted allegations of violence, saying that a reporter had offered her two million dollars to make accusations.
For more info on this saga, I recommend checking out that LA Times article. As to the actual content of est training, Hunter S. Thompson called est in Fear and Loathing “a pricey, psychobabbling series of long and demeaning behavior-modification sessions that preached the virtue of selfishness.” In any event, it seems that Erhard’s image, and the image of his seminar program had taken such a hit that all he could do was discontinue it. As mentioned above, he sold the underlying technology to his employees and brother in the 80’s. They reformulated it and started up again as Landmark in 1991.
Like Scientology, Landmark is one slippery fish when it comes to actually figuring out just what the hell it is this organization is really all about. Even after conversations I’ve had with many people, I’ve been rather confused about how it works, and what it really does. In fact, I only really started to get a grasp on it when I began finding out about Scientology, and could kind of compare it to the things I’ve heard. Both Scientology and Landmark are really concerned with how people use language. In my humble opinion, that’s actually the real secret to both organizations. You teach people to become aware of how they use language and help them (or cause them to) change it. The changing of the language consequently changes the way people experience reality.
From that foundation, the similarities continue on upwards. One of the main concepts of Landmark training seems to be something they call “distinctions.” As explained by Charles Denison’s excellent 5-part series on Landmark:
A distinction is what you get when you “distinguish” one thing from another. One Forum leader explained that fine wine or jazz music is appreciated through distinctions. In The Forum it is, more or less a cognitive vehicle which helps participants distinguish reality from illusion, the past from the future, the floor from the ceiling, and so forth.
Here we see one of the primary modifications of language: the introduction of a common word, and it’s redefinition in terms which are meaningful only within that group. Scientology makes huge use of this technique. Actually, people even refer to “Scientologese” in regard to the weird complex language that Scientologists use amongst themselves. Reading certain pieces on Scientology, you’re bound to encounter such strange words like “clear”. In my experience, if you get involved in a conversation between multiple members of Landmark, you’ll hear a similarly heavy use of jargon. It’s strange because they are speaking English, but they are speaking it in a way that just doesn’t add up. They are making “distinctions” which the rest of us have not made.
One of the big distinctions that Landmark seems to foist on you is this idea that what happens in your life and what it means are two totally separate things. On this, Denison observes:
What we humans do, it is explained, is take the simple facts (reality) and combine them with the meanings and interpretations we make up in life, and then begin to relate to the interpretations as though they were the reality.
[…] We take what we made up, we live as though it were real, and finally we begin to make things happen out of the stories which have come to believe are reality.
They seem to refer to this in language like: The Distinction of “What Happened” and “The Story About What Happened”. The idea seems to be to allow yourself to take a step back from problems in your life, and see them in a new context. Or rather free them from the old context which has held you back.
This is subtly different from the more common New Age assertion that you “create your own reality”. In Landmark, they seem to focus on the idea that you create the meaning of events. They also go to great lengths to try to teach you that events are essentially meaningless in and of themselves:
[…] all that has happened in one’s life is empty and witnout any inherent meaning. Abuse, failures, personal losses, poor decisions, and many other experiences often lead to anxiety, self-debasement, and guilt. If the individual can re-frame those events as void of all meaning, implies the Forum curriculum, then he or she will be transformed in a new relationship to reality– a “profound relationship with how it ( really) is”, which frees the person from the burden of old interpretations. Free from these burdens of the past, the trainee is left with the possibility of “reinventing oneself” and one’s future.
In a sense, I find this very reminiscent of L. Ron Hubbard’s ideas about how the mind works, and how to improve it’s effectiveness. His language is altogether different, but the underlying idea seems rather connected. Hubbard taught that the mind is made of two components, the reactive and analytical mind. The reactive mind “reacts” - that is, it stores up (mostly negative) events which have occurred in your life (or past lives). They are stored in something called engrams, patterns that build up over time, and basically force you to live according to those problems, repeating them endlessly.
While Landmark’s theology seems to be more about disconnecting yourself from negative interpretations, the auditing process of Scientology tries to get you to mentally/emotionally replay the events or traumas. You repeat this process as long as it takes to get a negative reading on the E-Meter (a device similar to a lie detector which measures physical response). The goal is to be able to “erase” engrams from the reactive mind by simply overcoming them. You confront them until you no longer react to them. The Scientology TR’s (Training Routines) deal with this even more extensively and seem to work hand-in-hand with the auditing process.
I also see a subtle connection between this Landmarkian idea that “events are essentially meaningless” and L. Ron Hubbard’s insistence on the “misunderstood word.” Hubbard wrote in Dianetics:
The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not understood.
The connection here is difficult for me to articulate. It seems like Landmark is focusing on withdrawing “meaning” into oneself, and putting it under the service of the Will. Scientology seems to be saying this in reverse, saying the Will should be bent towards a mastery of “understanding.” I feel like they’re making the same point, but I could be misinterpreting it. (Might just be a case of a “misunderstood word” in Scientologese, or of an incorrect “distinction” in Landmarkian!)
Landmark also talks about things called “Rackets” and “Winning Formulas” which seem to be obtuse ways of describing actions that we perform automatically. Throughout the Forum, the Forum Leader engages in an on-going conversation with group participants and helps them to become aware of their automatic behaviors, and how they control them. Participants in the Forum also go through something called the “Fear Process” (supposedly one of the “few” holdovers from est) in which they undergo a guided visualization where they confront the idea of fear head-on. Again, this all seems rather similar to the process undergone in Scientology auditing.
Landmark has weathered a lot of accusations about being a “cult.” Of course, such labels are no stranger to Scientology either. Whatever the merits of those accusations for either group, people who undergo such training become privy to a set of teachings and a system of using language to understand experience. It’s going to necessarily alienate them to some degree in the eyes of people who have not been part of such things. Combine this with the enthusiasm and proselytizing of people who are genuinely experiencing new ways of approaching life, and you can easily see how cult accusations arise. I don’t really agree with all the philosophies, motivations or teachings of these groups, but I think it’s interesting to look at them as inherently neutral “technologies” (since this is what both claim to be). Technology will always expand to cover all potential uses, both good and bad. What you do with it is up to you.
June 30th, 2005 at 11:15 am
Spot on observations.
Another thing Landmark stresses (or at least they did when I was there) about becoming free of your past is that you need to go around and “complete” so that the “incompletions” don’t weigh you down going forward. This could entail anything from going back to talk to a relative you had shut out of your life for years because of an unresolved dispute, to a situation where you might have been “withholding” something from a friend, resulting in unresolved tension. My Forum Leader posited that most of us go through life leaving a “trail of incompletions” in our wake, and part of the Forum experience is learning to transcend the fear that prevents us from confronting these things.
The unique use of words and phrases definitely creates a sort of chasm between those who have been through the program and those who haven’t. The value of the “distinctions” comes throuh acting as a quick shorthand for concepts that might take hours or days to thoroughly explain; their helpfulness doesn’t become apparent until you’ve actually used and applied them for a while. Think of it this way: Imagine a system of math that didn’t know anything about the use of exponents. Someone looking at it for the first time might say: “What’s the point of using these funny little numbers and calling them ‘powers’, when all you’re really doing is multiplication?”
To me, the terms “Racket” and “Winning Formula” each describe a separate but very definite phenomenon that occurs in human beings, based on several assumptions about how we operate. I could sit and list the definitions, but that would only give the uninitiated a very limited grasp of their use. After you’ve tried them out and worked with them a bit, they become second nature. (Though after prolonged lack of contact with anyone else who actively uses them, it does tend to wane.)
While I did find value in a lot of their concepts and techniques, the lass savory aspects of Landmark (for me) were the incessant pressure to proselytize, and also the expensive cost of the courses. The money might have been somewhat justifiable were it not for the fact that the assistants (i.e. most of the people who operated and kept things running) were unpaid volunteers. $300+ weekends plus mostly unpaid labor means that somebody was getting massively rich off it. That, plus the ongoing badgering to take more courses, was why I and most everyone else I knew beforehand who had gotten involved turned the other way and never looked back.
June 30th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
Interesting stuff.
Their use of words, linguistic structure and meaning reminds me of Korzybski’s and Whorf’s stuff on semantics. The use of language to “entrain”, imprint, or alter mental states seems, to me, to be related to be related to NLP [or Anthony Robbin’s take on it - NAC].
Ultimately, imo, Scientology/est/Landmark/Robbins/NLP/self-help/traditional therapy strikes me as, on one level, nothing more than a set of tools to enact behavioral change. And as far as that goes, I think it can be extremely worthwhile.
The problem I tend to find with Scientology and similar is that they seem to be organized in such a way to induce behavioral change with very specific results and end-states in mind. End-states that aren’t particularly interested in development of self but are, in fact, instead looking to bend an individual’s self actualization [thanks Maslow!] to the “will” of the “group”.
I think part of the appeal is that such groups offer the illusion of enlightenment [or perhaps, elitism?] by making you “clear” or “healthy” or “actualized”.
On a slightly different note, the “reactive mind” of Scientology and Landmark’s differentiation between reality and the “story about reality” both strike me as very Buddhist concepts… attachment as ‘reactive’ mind and maya/illusion as the “story” of reality…
June 30th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Re-reading this bit:
“The connection here is difficult for me to articulate. It seems like Landmark is focusing on withdrawing “meaning” into oneself, and putting it under the service of the Will. Scientology seems to be saying this in reverse, saying the Will should be bent towards a mastery of “understanding.” I feel like they’re making the same point, but I could be misinterpreting it.”
I’d have to say I agree, mostly, but they’re not quite making the same point. Ideally, they make slightly different points, using the same set of behavioral and linguistic tools. In reality, they both do end up making the same points as they’ve both fallen into the same trap that almost all group dynamics do. Scientology, perhaps, intentionally. Landmark, perhaps unintentionally. Though that’s certainly a matter of interpretation.
As I understand what you’re saying, and the two organizations, it seems to me that Landmark, like NLP, is [trying] to give you a set of linguistic and behvioral tools in order emphasize the power of will [and language] to “maximize” one’s life. Realizing the internal nature of meaning and applying that to a sort of “Will to Power”.
Scientology, otoh, takes that same tool set and goes one further, emphasizing, like all religions and/or cults and movements, the primacy of their specific “understanding” of reality. The confusion arises because they use the same tool set and emphasize the “getting clear” aspect to the world at large as opposed to the “unique” understanding of cosmology and metaphysics that Scientology purports.
Of course, from all I’ve read about Landmark, it would seem they also have fallen into the trap of “Understanding over Will” what with their recruitment and proselytizing of the inherent superiority of their particular belief structure [that’s arisen out their tool set.]
Hope this was kinda what you were trying to say. If not, apologies for the bastardization of your comments…
June 30th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
I had a GF once whose Mother was a psychotherapist, she pressured my GF into doing the landmark forum and it really turned her into a fucking bitch.
She always had it in her I guess but Landmark really helped he to acheive her full potential as a self-actualized, self-centered, self-directed, self-regarding and self-absorbed all-around nasty piece of work.
So FUCK Landmark Forum and fuck EST and fuck Scientology, if it was up to me all those people would be gathered together and pushed off of a roof for the good of mankind.
present company excluded, of course!
June 30th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
I agree there is some merit to the buddhist comparison.
One of Gotama’s first insights was that human consciousness is composed of several ‘aggregates’ which include sense impressions, feelings, thoughts and mental formations ( like beliefs, concepts, expectations etc ) along with a big picture of where you’re focussing your mind as the fifth one. these elements interacting is what generates the illusion of the essential self or ego, and it is the mental formations in particular that landmark and est and all these guys seem to be scoping in on. it’s relatively easy to show someone how their beliefs don’t match up to the real world, especially when you’ve already surrendered some personal authority as a precondition to doing the process in the first place.
but the problem is, unlesss you deal with the emotional needs that spring from the level of feeling and thought, disabling one set of beliefs isn’t gonna do a damn thing cause the emotions are what leads people to adopt beliefs in the first place, and they’ll just find another one to meet the same core need, and since they’ve been taught that they’re now clear or complete or whathaveyou, will just make them defend the new belief all that much more tightly. which is how the cult gets the hooks in and keeps them there.
June 30th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Yeah, Korzybski’s General Semantics was supposedly one of Hubbard’s bigger influences. I tried researching that somewhat, and most of what I read I found to be rather inscrutable. Maybe I ought to tackle it from the NLP/Tony Robbins angle. Speaking of which, in highschool for some reason we were forced to endure a district-wide Tony Robbins presentation that lasted all day. I was so fucking mad during that, but I’ll have to do a separate post on it.
This whole thing about “the Will” is something I’ve been meaning to crack for a while. It seems like this is probably the strongest influence that Crowley/Parsons had on Hubbard.
This is exactly true. I think when discussing beliefs, people tend to forget the strong emotional attachment that people have to them. It’s much greater than any intellectual one. I’ve also seen plenty of people who are long-term members of Landmark who trumpet the virtues of it constantly, and yet seem to have made very little progress. In a sense, it just seems like they convinced themselves that since they have a new language and system to understand it, their problems have left. But they have not. It’s essentially my same criticism of Tony Robbins: he teaches you how to trick yourself into feeling happy. It’s very creepy.
June 30th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
In my humble opinion, that’s actually the real secret to both organizations. You teach people to become aware of how they use language and help them (or cause them to) change it. The changing of the language consequently changes the way people experience reality.
perhaps the secret to ALL organizations….
from incantations to “And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.” to genetic code to lawyers….
word –> world.
one
human?
June 30th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
i dont know anything about landmark so i wont say anything about it. but with this scientology stuff i am reminded a little bit of the concept of vritti in yogic meditation:
now you can certainly say that the complex sanskrit terminology of the yogis is as obfuscatory as scientologese, and its certainly prone to newage distortion and misinterpretatin. but (a) it doesn’t cost thousands of dollars (b) yogic ideas deal with the pre-linguistic concept level (c) yogic ideas deal with emotions and other subjective states. and (d) it doesn’t require an idiotic machine to diagnose.
personally i think the focus on language is weird and obsessive. it kind of reminds me of the idea behind political correct ‘redefinitions’ of language - i.e. change ‘nigger’ to ‘african american’ and racism will go away. except it doesnt work that way - instead of reharmonizing the culture, racists will say ‘african american’ between clenched teeth while their hateful resentment may actually increase. likewise in scientology you have a bunch of warped, pent-up cultists at war with the world.
furthermore, while i am not insensitive to things like atonement, forgiveness, karmic repair, or however you want to put it, the risk of a shallow system like scientology is that the whole idea of “clear” so easily becomes an excuse for irresponsibility, amorality and fuck-it-all forgetfulness. what a perfect cult for unethical bond traders!
June 30th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
Albion: I completely agree about political correctness. And I think it stems from exactly the same sources as Scientology, Landmark, NLP, etc. I’m not sure which one is the trigger for the rest. But the first such articulated attempt I’ve seen to reinvent how language is used is Korzybski’s General Semantics.
Well, philosophically anyway. I guess you could probably make the argument that ANY religion actually does this same thing. Christianity uses “God” and the “Devil” to not only describe certain concepts but to construct a worldview and behavior modification. Gnosticism likewise uses terms like “archons” and “demiurge” to do much the same thing (with different intentions of course).
As human? says above, it’s really the secret to ALL traditions…
You’re definitely right about the similarity to a lot of yogic and Hindu (and Buddhist) concepts. I don’t necessarily seem them as their own jargon - since they actually arose out of a particular linguistic tradition. With Scientology, etc, they are interesting especially because they take English, the language we’re so familiar with and make it foreign.
Anyway, this is a great topic and I have tons more to say about it. Lots of great comments here all around though. Thanks!
June 30th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
the risk of a shallow system like scientology is that the whole idea of “clear” so easily becomes an excuse for irresponsibility, amorality and fuck-it-all forgetfulness. what a perfect cult for unethical bond traders!
————————–
That’s EXACTLY what these groups represent IMHO. Lifespring is the same way. They lock you in a room for a whole day and don’t let you take a piss and tear you down and tell you what a worthless worm you are. Then they reveal the “big secret” - you are entitled, entitled, ENTITLED! and have no responsibility to ANYONE or ANYTHING but your own self-gratification and need for greed.
Narcissistic psychpathology, not spirituality, is what that is. But then again I’m biased.
June 30th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
another nlp tool that i use is challenging pre-suppositions, which are similar to beliefs, though they tend to be assumed to contain facts. these pre-suppositions(like smoking is addictive or, as i get older my metabolism slows down or, older people who laugh a lot are crazy) . i deal with pre-suppositions by challenging them in as many ways as i can imagine. this strategy is intuitive and one has to build carefully to the attack(and not be wrong……) the emotions that lie underneath beliefs and presuppositions are allies for new models of living once a person is ready to let the old stuff go. it is a process of negotiation.
the only real difference between what i do and what EST and scientology do is i don`t build in a model of dependency on me. i don`t want to see my clients for months. i have other things to do.
it was unfortunate that you had to endure the robbins thing for a whole day tim, the big ken doll can be tiresome after a while. even richard bandler tires of his approach. richard says “why have people walk over hot coals over and over?, it`s a metaphor, not a workout.”
nlp is all about building escape pods from the trap of beliefs and pre-suppositions that are limiting. my challenge is “how much good feeling can you handle?” i don`t want to be the messiah as a result of my work. i do want time to play with my kids,ride my mountain bike and play soccer. the halo would just get in the way.
June 30th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
good point about linguistic traditions. i guess thats one price of being part of such a relatively young culture as we are - most of our ideas are borrowed from somewhere else. with hindu/yoga & buddhist traditions you have well developed theories of mind. with scientology you have…xenu.
As human? says above, it’s really the secret to ALL traditions…
hmm, i see what you mean but i’m not sure i fully agree with you & human? will have to think on that some more.
June 30th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
here`s tom in the news again,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/…0630084029
June 30th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
Sounds like “confronts” in scientology
June 30th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
Yeah, good catch. I forgot that term “confronts” - thats part of what they cover in the Scientology TR’s
PS. I put your quoted passage into a blockquote. It’s pretty simple to do yourself. Just highlight the text you want, and then smash the “b-quote” button above. just makes things a little clearer on who’s sayingwhat
June 30th, 2005 at 9:43 pm
“It’s essentially my same criticism of Tony Robbins: he teaches you how to trick yourself into feeling happy. It’s very creepy.”
See, I have an ongoing debate [with myself of course] as to whether or not that’s necessarily a good or bad thing. Or if that’s what he actually does.
I’ve long refused to buy into the concepts of religion because, to me, they DO seem to have achieved supposed happiness by tricking or lying to themselves. “I’m saved, I believe in the one true god” etc, etc.
I don’t see how NLP is quite is the same thing.
It seems to me NLP presents you with the option of “brainwashing” yourself as opposed to letting others do it for you. The human condition seems to respond to certain stimuli in certain ways… you can either “react” [Scientology
] or try and co-opt the process to your own advantage.
And then there’s the question of what’s the difference between “tricking yourself” into happiness and “authentic” happiness? As long as you don’t use the power of denial *cough*religion*cough* to ignore aspects of life or the human condition, how is it “really” tricking you? And what is “real” happiness anyways?
Many questions, going in circles, obviously.
Making a bunch of school kids sit through that type of Robbins seminar doesn’t work at all though… I can see how it could grate…
There’s an interesting interview with him in What is Enlightenment? magazine online… I also found the Dan Millman and Jack Lalanne interviews in that issue pretty cool…
http://www.wie.org/j15/robbins.asp?ifr=bma
http://www.wie.org/j15/millman.asp?ifr=dt&ifd=71
http://www.wie.org/j15/lalanne.asp?ifr=dt&ifd=71
June 30th, 2005 at 9:50 pm
shoot, didn;’t even notice that. Woulda helped in the case of all those posts lost trying to use tag…lol.
July 1st, 2005 at 6:54 am
“The changing of the language consequently changes the way people experience reality.”
perhaps the secret to ALL organizations….
“In the beginning was the Word…”
July 1st, 2005 at 6:58 am
Sorry about that… attempted to “block quote” and failed miserably. Apologies.
July 2nd, 2005 at 2:46 pm
[…]
The Non-Random Threshold
While I’ve never attended the Landmark Forum, I’ve been toying for a couple days with an idea I […]
September 13th, 2005 at 10:58 pm
[…] for a period of time. In the Gpod interview, Campbell mentions wanting to send you to the Landmark Forum. Elsewhere I saw you use a modified version of a popular […]
April 26th, 2008 at 10:58 am
[…] I’m pretty sure Landmark and Scientology have alot in common. The link below is a taster as to how similar they are. Otherwise, google is your friend and will help you see That they operate by making you think you’re a pathetic excuse for a human being and that only through their organization can you attain any sense of worth. Actually, that sounds like alot of religions/cults. Landmark Forum & Scientology - [tmbchr]™ __________________ Doesn’t promiscuity describe the behavior of someone who has slept with more people than oneself? […]