Scientology and Feelings

Mystic

Crusader
As mentioned elsewhere "Science of Survival" is an excellent source for this as regards the SUBJECT of scientology. Generally speaking scientology recognizes and acknowledges the role that free emotion plays in life & living.

The question of "stuck emotion" or "inappropriate emotion" however is generally regarded as indicative of "case" and suggestive of the need for auditing to relieve that "case". By "stuck emotion" is meant an emotional state that doesn't shift, such as a person who is perpetually angry, or one who is stuck chronically in grief. Similarly "inappropriate emotion" would be an emotional response which seems out of proportion or not in keeping with whatever stimulus may have triggered the response.

In contrast the cult of the Co$ often uses ANY emotional response as a "make wrong" and as evidence of the "need to handle", preferably by an expensive program of auditing or other approved Co$ service. This is, of course, a clear violation of the fundamentals of scientology, but nothing new there.


Mark A. Baker

And when one is free of having to reference anything spewed by Lips Hubbard, one has then reached a most wonderful freedom of feeling, feeling, feeling.
 
And when one is free of having to reference anything spewed by Lips Hubbard, one has then reached a most wonderful freedom of feeling, feeling, feeling.

I actually have sympathy for that viewpoint, M. Although for me I'm inclined more to trust in "understanding", whereas you seem to have a thing for "feeling".

The goal from my perspective is to make any piece of useful technology "your own", and not to hold to it as dependent on some external "authority". Nonetheless, when the question is what is scientology's take on emotions, then recommending a scientology book is warranted. Last I heard, Hubbard wrote most of those.

FWIW, I'm currently reading a book by a psychiatrist who has apparently coopted the tone scale for his own brand of mental technology. Not certain about this, but he might even have been a scientologist at one point. Now I COULD have given his book as a reference on the question, however that would not really address the question of the scientology perspective. :)

In short, I actually attempted to address the question being asked rather than just shoot off some vehemently held personal opinion as a response.


Mark A. Baker
 

Mystic

Crusader
I actually have sympathy for that viewpoint, M. Although for me I'm inclined more to trust in "understanding", whereas you seem to have a thing for "feeling".

The goal from my perspective is to make any piece of useful technology "your own", and not to hold to it as dependent on some external "authority". Nonetheless, when the question is what is scientology's take on emotions, then recommending a scientology book is warranted. Last I heard, Hubbard wrote most of those.

FWIW, I'm currently reading a book by a psychiatrist who has apparently coopted the tone scale for his own brand of mental technology. Not certain about this, but he might even have been a scientologist at one point. Now I COULD have given his book as a reference on the question, however that would not really address the question of the scientology perspective. :)

In short, I actually attempted to address the question being asked rather than just shoot off some vehemently held personal opinion as a response.


Mark A. Baker

Ya. Understanding can be very OK. However feeling/sensing goes many steps beyond, and is direct experience with no reference to a book, which is limited to mind.
 

Dark Phoenix

Patron Meritorious
There is no parallel at all between the humanistic approach of tentatively reflecting back the client's feelings as perceived by the counsellor, and what is done by a Dianetic or Scientology auditor.

In general the auditor asks a question, and the pc responds with content and feeling or not, either of which is usually acceptable to the auditor. For example, if the repetitive auditing command is "Think of a time" (I don't know if this is a regular process command or not, although it sounds familiar), and the pc expresses anger while talking about an angry incident, the auditor will acknowledge the answer and then give the question again. Whatever the pc comes up with, assuming it is an answer to the question, the auditor will simply acknowlege and give the question again until the process has run its course. Even if the pc is crying her eyes out, if she is still in session and answering the question, the auditor won't (or shouldn't) veer off and do something else, although the auditor might ask what is going on with the pc if she hasn't said so.

Paul

Thanks for the clear overview Paul.

In this case, It seems that certain empathic techniques would simply be inappropriate. Given the very set structure and purpose of this particular process, treating the emotions of the pc as an empathic opportunity for deeper exploration would hamper the transfer of verbal information.There's no scope for empathy. And I'm not referring to the technique of reflective empathy
 
Last edited:

Dark Phoenix

Patron Meritorious
Everything in Scientology works to constrict feelings to a very narrow band of approved emotions. Psychologists refer to it as 'constriction of affect' and it is a pathological sign. Scientology does this so that they can fuck with your head whilst teaching you ignore your feelings and instincts. I have a way of looking at it that's something like this: The mind must ask questions, and the heart must answer. Works for me. Smilla.

Thanks Smilla.

Acknowledgement of our emotions, both by ourselves and others, help us develop emotional control and strengthen our emotion knowledge. Further exploration can reveal choices we might never knew we had and feelings we no longer need. It can be a very empowering. It's not as easy to manipulate someone with this sort self-knowledge
 

Dark Phoenix

Patron Meritorious
When I was in, I remember how sort of cold, clipped, unsympathetic that SO, Staff and Publc were regarding displaying feelings.

I remember learning how all the lower emotions were, well...low-toned and who wants to be caught displaying any of them for very long, ya know? (Oh it was stated that they are proper emotions and DO need to be felt/displayed, just not for very long or to wallow in any of them).

Now I still don't even disagree with any of that (about wallowing in them, etc.). But at the same time, I now understand that some people's time-limits of experiencing/displaying such emotions/feelings is different, than others.

And to label them as 'low-toned' and/or as a 'victim' too quickly/harshly is uncalled for.

Very true WO, feelings are neither good or bad, they just are.

Scns method of categorizing emotions is just another form of control. By assigning specific value traits to each emotion, it follows that the person feeling a particular emotion also has the assigned traits of that emotion, and from that can be infered the type of person he is. And of course everyone wants to be known for more desirable traits.
...................................................................................................................................

It's always amazed me how Scientology manages to exploit the needs of the self so people are fixated on their bridge and their eternity, while at the same time it's very ethos despises and denegrates the self
 
Last edited:

Dark Phoenix

Patron Meritorious
As mentioned elsewhere "Science of Survival" is an excellent source for this as regards the SUBJECT of scientology. Generally speaking scientology recognizes and acknowledges the role that free emotion plays in life & living.

The question of "stuck emotion" or "inappropriate emotion" however is generally regarded as indicative of "case" and suggestive of the need for auditing to relieve that "case". By "stuck emotion" is meant an emotional state that doesn't shift, such as a person who is perpetually angry, or one who is stuck chronically in grief. Similarly "inappropriate emotion" would be an emotional response which seems out of proportion or not in keeping with whatever stimulus may have triggered the response.

In contrast the cult of the Co$ often uses ANY emotional response as a "make wrong" and as evidence of the "need to handle", preferably by an expensive program of auditing or other approved Co$ service. This is, of course, a clear violation of the fundamentals of scientology, but nothing new there.


Mark A. Baker

Thanks for the info Mark.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
"Charge" would pertain to deeply felt misemotions. I don't know 'bout you, but I would not want to be experiencing uncontrollable anger or grief 24/7. Hubbard said that feeling grief, anger, any emotion including misemotion during the actual situation is normal and appropriate. But people who are constantly feeling like crap need to get better.

I found Scn to be about feeling MORE. If you want to really see a belief system that downplays emotions, check out Buddhism. I think it's mostly great, but I'm not totally in favor of the detachment they talk about and I don't think Hubbard was, either.

However, having said that, I will say that anyone who's active in the cult - that his or her needs take a back seat to those of the cult's. And that's when emotions get dampened because one has no time for it, one can't have case on post or case on course, etc.
 

Dark Phoenix

Patron Meritorious
However, having said that, I will say that anyone who's active in the cult - that his or her needs take a back seat to those of the cult's. And that's when emotions get dampened because one has no time for it, one can't have case on post or case on course, etc.

Glad you made that point VC.

The staff are there to simply get a job done and Scn is certainly not known for it's culture of consideration and open support for the needs and feelings of it's hard working staff. Emotional indulgences of any sort are just not conducive to good production. This is quite likely where my impression comes from.
 
Last edited:
I found Scn to be about feeling MORE. If you want to really see a belief system that downplays emotions, check out Buddhism. I think it's mostly great, but I'm not totally in favor of the detachment they talk about and I don't think Hubbard was, either.

The "detachment" of which you speak arises from the philosophical consideration of the interdependence of "false states of knowing" (i.e. ignorance, in this case about the truth of self) which in turn leads to inappropriate or unwarranted emotion which continues the pattern of suffering experienced by beings.

In other words, "detachment" can be likened to a form of "pan-determinism" which recognizes that emotion is not in itself a "bad thing", but it IS a transient condition. As a transient condition it has no "permanent existence". As with any innately transient condition any attempt to cause an emotional state to persist despite its inherent transiency results in suffering. Buddhism is a philosophical path to the ending of suffering.

Buddhism isn't "anti-emotion". Buddhism recognizes that emotion has no inherent "permanency". Any attempt to "fix" or "maintain" emotion despite its lack of permanency comes as a result of ignorance as to the nature of emotion, and more generally existence. That ignorance is the basis for suffering. The way to end suffering is through realization of the basis of suffering and the means of suffering arising therefrom.


Mark A. Baker
 

Veda

Sponsor
The Scientology "Bridge" is a bait and switch operation.

To an "OT" Scientologist, a non Scientologist is a R6 Bank Implanted BT infested humanoid. In Scientology, "Human Emotion and Reaction" is called "H,E&R." It has a negative connotation.

Scientology stinks so badly that it attempts to separate itself from itself, once others begin to perceive the stink. "That's not really Scientology, this over here is Scientology," etc.

Ultimately, Scientology may produce some people with a godlike ability to bullshit convincingly. That's as close to "OT" as Scientology is going to get with its "Bridge."
 

Wisened One

Crusader
The Scientology "Bridge" is a bait and switch operation.

To an "OT" Scientologist, a non Scientologist is a R6 Bank Implanted BT infested humanoid. In Scientology, "Human Emotion and Reaction" is called "H,E&R." It has a negative connotation.

Scientology stinks so badly that it attempts to separate itself from itself, once others begin to perceive the stink. "That's not really Scientology, this over here is Scientology," etc.

Ultimately, Scientology may produce some people with a godlike ability to bullshit convincingly. That's as close to "OT" as Scientology is going to get with its "Bridge."

:goodposting: YEAH!!
 

Anony-Moose

Patron
Re: OP on scientology and feelings:

In terms of scientology culture, I know the fact that psychologists ask the question "How did that make you feel?" was the brunt of many a laugh and joke in scientology. It was considered really really wrong to ask such a question. The scientology culture "said" that psychology spent way, way too much time worrying about people's feelings. I see it as just another way to put down psychology. As if that was all psychology ever did, was ask for peoples feelings. The idea was that this kind of questioning by psychologists turned the person into a "victim" who was nothing more than his emotions.

Ironically, in scientology "two way communication" (an auditing and interviewing technique) you ask, "Do you have any feelings about (blank)?", among other questions. Why is it wrong when psychologists ask for feelings and right when scientologists ask for them? They are two different wordings of the exact same question.

"Emotion" is considered a negative in scientology, if it's not high on their tone scale, and especially if it's outside of an auditing session. Hence the term "mis-emotion" which is defined as any unpleasant emotion. So if you cry or get angry or any such thing, it is considered that there is "something wrong with you", you need a session, you have overts, etc. In the system of scientology hierarchy, negative emotion may flow down the command channel, but not up. Even though all "emoting" supposedly comes from the "reactive mind", scientology's version of the sub-conscious, it is not considered bad if an executive gets angry and berates or even beats up his junior in the way David Miscavage does or Marty Rathbun did. If your senior is screaming at you, you are expected to show no emotion and just take it (the screaming is called face-ripping) and if you react, it is because "you have undisclosed crimes" against scientology. In a mind control system, everything you think and feel, must be controlled, must fit into the "box" of approved or disapproved emotions, all at the approved or disapproved times. And yes, it was this way before David Miscavage came along, for those of you who want to blame all this on him. At my org, over the years and going back to before DM, we had at least 2 Exec Dirs who physically abused their staff. Another who face ripped as a daily routine. The scientology system, exactly as LRon wrote it, breeds this kind of behavior from executives. Along with a robotic and unresponsive sub group of underlings and and yes-people, all "making it go right!", all carrying out "command intention!"

If you cry too much at a funeral, you must get a session to "run it out". If you cry for hours and hours in an auditing session, it's okay because it's all on your paid hours and it just means that you will have to buy more auditing. The validity or invalidity of feelings or emotions in scientology depends solely on whether or not they support the scientology system in some way, or go against it. There is no other criteria. That's a mind control system- part of the milieu control.

The scientologists on this board will tell you "Oh yeah, emotions are cool in scientology". Only in the glib and deluded world they live in. Their emotions may be cool now, but only because technically they're out of scientology, practicing their very own home made version of the subject, where they may have decided to place emotions back on a level where they belong. But that's because of them and who they are and it has nothing to do with "scientology", really.
 

Dark Phoenix

Patron Meritorious
Re: OP on scientology and feelings:

In terms of scientology culture, I know the fact that psychologists ask the question "How did that make you feel?" was the brunt of many a laugh and joke in scientology. It was considered really really wrong to ask such a question. The scientology culture "said" that psychology spent way, way too much time worrying about people's feelings. I see it as just another way to put down psychology. As if that was all psychology ever did, was ask for peoples feelings. The idea was that this kind of questioning by psychologists turned the person into a "victim" who was nothing more than his emotions.

Ironically, in scientology "two way communication" (an auditing and interviewing technique) you ask, "Do you have any feelings about (blank)?", among other questions. Why is it wrong when psychologists ask for feelings and right when scientologists ask for them? They are two different wordings of the exact same question.

"Emotion" is considered a negative in scientology, if it's not high on their tone scale, and especially if it's outside of an auditing session. Hence the term "mis-emotion" which is defined as any unpleasant emotion. So if you cry or get angry or any such thing, it is considered that there is "something wrong with you", you need a session, you have overts, etc. In the system of scientology hierarchy, negative emotion may flow down the command channel, but not up. Even though all "emoting" supposedly comes from the "reactive mind", scientology's version of the sub-conscious, it is not considered bad if an executive gets angry and berates or even beats up his junior in the way David Miscavage does or Marty Rathbun did. If your senior is screaming at you, you are expected to show no emotion and just take it (the screaming is called face-ripping) and if you react, it is because "you have undisclosed crimes" against scientology. In a mind control system, everything you think and feel, must be controlled, must fit into the "box" of approved or disapproved emotions, all at the approved or disapproved times. And yes, it was this way before David Miscavage came along, for those of you who want to blame all this on him. At my org, over the years and going back to before DM, we had at least 2 Exec Dirs who physically abused their staff. Another who face ripped as a daily routine. The scientology system, exactly as LRon wrote it, breeds this kind of behavior from executives. Along with a robotic and unresponsive sub group of underlings and and yes-people, all "making it go right!", all carrying out "command intention!"

If you cry too much at a funeral, you must get a session to "run it out". If you cry for hours and hours in an auditing session, it's okay because it's all on your paid hours and it just means that you will have to buy more auditing. The validity or invalidity of feelings or emotions in scientology depends solely on whether or not they support the scientology system in some way, or go against it. There is no other criteria. That's a mind control system- part of the milieu control.

The scientologists on this board will tell you "Oh yeah, emotions are cool in scientology". Only in the glib and deluded world they live in. Their emotions may be cool now, but only because technically they're out of scientology, practicing their very own home made version of the subject, where they may have decided to place emotions back on a level where they belong. But that's because of them and who they are and it has nothing to do with "scientology", really.

Good post Anony-Moose.

You can feel the whole gamut of human emotions until the cows come home when you're handing over money, but outside that you're limited to the more uptone emotions only. And having already been subjected to the standard phobia indoctrination, this narrowing of the range of feelings is quite an effective emotional control.
 

Wisened One

Crusader
Re: OP on scientology and feelings:

In terms of scientology culture, I know the fact that psychologists ask the question "How did that make you feel?" was the brunt of many a laugh and joke in scientology. It was considered really really wrong to ask such a question. The scientology culture "said" that psychology spent way, way too much time worrying about people's feelings. I see it as just another way to put down psychology. As if that was all psychology ever did, was ask for peoples feelings. The idea was that this kind of questioning by psychologists turned the person into a "victim" who was nothing more than his emotions.

Ironically, in scientology "two way communication" (an auditing and interviewing technique) you ask, "Do you have any feelings about (blank)?", among other questions. Why is it wrong when psychologists ask for feelings and right when scientologists ask for them? They are two different wordings of the exact same question.

"Emotion" is considered a negative in scientology, if it's not high on their tone scale, and especially if it's outside of an auditing session. Hence the term "mis-emotion" which is defined as any unpleasant emotion. So if you cry or get angry or any such thing, it is considered that there is "something wrong with you", you need a session, you have overts, etc. In the system of scientology hierarchy, negative emotion may flow down the command channel, but not up. Even though all "emoting" supposedly comes from the "reactive mind", scientology's version of the sub-conscious, it is not considered bad if an executive gets angry and berates or even beats up his junior in the way David Miscavage does or Marty Rathbun did. If your senior is screaming at you, you are expected to show no emotion and just take it (the screaming is called face-ripping) and if you react, it is because "you have undisclosed crimes" against scientology. In a mind control system, everything you think and feel, must be controlled, must fit into the "box" of approved or disapproved emotions, all at the approved or disapproved times. And yes, it was this way before David Miscavage came along, for those of you who want to blame all this on him. At my org, over the years and going back to before DM, we had at least 2 Exec Dirs who physically abused their staff. Another who face ripped as a daily routine. The scientology system, exactly as LRon wrote it, breeds this kind of behavior from executives. Along with a robotic and unresponsive sub group of underlings and and yes-people, all "making it go right!", all carrying out "command intention!"

If you cry too much at a funeral, you must get a session to "run it out". If you cry for hours and hours in an auditing session, it's okay because it's all on your paid hours and it just means that you will have to buy more auditing. The validity or invalidity of feelings or emotions in scientology depends solely on whether or not they support the scientology system in some way, or go against it. There is no other criteria. That's a mind control system- part of the milieu control.

The scientologists on this board will tell you "Oh yeah, emotions are cool in scientology". Only in the glib and deluded world they live in. Their emotions may be cool now, but only because technically they're out of scientology, practicing their very own home made version of the subject, where they may have decided to place emotions back on a level where they belong. But that's because of them and who they are and it has nothing to do with "scientology", really.

WOW. :goodposting: :clap: especially the parts I've bolded! :yes:
 
Top