Scientology and Feelings

[Dark Phoenix]

Hey everyone.

Having read so many posts, with no many viewpoints and fresh prespectives, and of course the many eye opening stories of struggle and survival, I've learned such a great deal from the board. Lot of smart peeps here.

Anyway, along with the above, I've also read articles and info on the net, along with a couple of books on the subject of scn, the usual stuff, and something I've picked up on is a minimization of human feeeling. I imagine this type of action might be more pronounced in certain situations, like in session, but the idea of feelings as some sort of a weakness is quite prevading throughout.

So before I look at this any further, I'd like to get a clearer understanding of what the Scientology position, or written word, is on human feelings. I can of course see no practical use for them in the cult. Respecting and empathizing with the your fellow colleagues simply serves no purpose. It's completely non productive. Among other things.

I'd also appreciate some feedback on how different feelings which may arise while in an auditing session, and how each one gets gets handled

I suppse coming from a once background in humanistic counseling where feelings are explored at length, I'd like to understand Scn approach the technique used on human emotions, and why that's the solution. What is a successful handling? Are some or all emotional responses or feeelings considered 'Charge'?

I really appreciate any insight any one can give.


John D. (Jack) Mayer says, “Emotions operate on many levels. They have a physical aspect as well as a psychological aspect. Emotions bridge thought, feeling, and action – they operate in every part of a person, they affect many aspects of a person, and the person affects many aspects of the emotions.”
Dr. Maurice Elias says, “Emotions are human beings’ warning systems as to what is really going on around them. Emotions are our most reliable indicators of how things are going on in our lives. Emotions help keep us on the right track by making sure that we are led by more than the mental/ intellectual faculties of thought, perception, reason, memory.”

 

[Type4_PTS]

Hey Phoenix,

There is another thread with some related content here as well you may find of interest:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=12986

Larry

 

[Dark Phoenix]

Hey Phoenix,

There is another thread with some related content here as well you may find of interest:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=12986

Larry

I remember that thread from a while back, very good thread too.

Thanks for the headsup, Type4_PTP.

I guess I'm trying to focus here on specifics, and the actual process used to handle feelings, as in an auditing session.

I also want to focus on the the how cutting people off from their emotions is also a method of mind control.

This may also have the possibility of creating a cold and heartless person, but cutting of a person from their feelings can result in a greater susceptibility to being controlled by an outside force. It's all part of the two way system. One learns to control others while at the same time learns how to be controlled

The way I understand it, half the information we get from the world comes from our thinking, the other half comes from our feelings. When we cut ourselves off from our feelings (narcissism), we are cut off from half the information available to us in our world. By cutting off from our feelings, we cut off from the messages of our internal self.

No one outside of ourselves can control our feelings. Others may influence our thoughts and thinking, but our feelings emanate solely out of the core of our being. They give us a sense of independence from others and define us as separate individuals. When we cut ourselves off from our feelings, we take away from our sense of independence. ‘

When thinking becomes the sole way of relating to the world, any feeling other than anger or sentimentality seems to threaten our sense of stability. We then shuttle our messy feelings farther and farther away from our awareness to protect ourselves from the discomfort they carry with them. The vulnerability we feel from our feelings is then seen as a threat to our independence. As we depend on thinking more and more, we grow more and more vulnerable to the influence of others affecting our thinking. This causes us to increasingly withdraw from connection with others.

DP

 

[uniquemand]

I can't speak as a Scientologist, but my own understanding of feelings is related, so here goes:

I see feelings as a compass. They lead us toward certain scripted behaviors (anger to violence, grief to retreat, etc.). Like a compass, they are a very valuable tool, but like a compass, they are vulnerable to certain weaknesses (anger can be programmed to respond to the "wrong thing", same with grief, etc.), and when they dominate our thinking, can result in witless reactions to life. That said, people who try to think their way through something that their heart (emotions) is already telling them the answer to, could be missing out on the benefits of "consulting their feelings".

Where there is a battle between what is thought, and what is felt, there is an opportunity for integration.

It would be poetic to think that we could just follow and trust our emotions. When this occurs, it can be quite sacred. However, sometimes we are led to do things that later we regret, or that prevent our learning. Where this occurs, I, personally, feel that life becomes meaningless. Where life is an endless sequence of logically related positions, it's equally meaningless, to me. I see it as a balance.

 

[Wisened One]

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.

 

[Disinfected]

So before I look at this any further, I'd like to get a clearer understanding of what the Scientology position, or written word, is on human feelings.

Have you studied the tone scale? Have you read Science of Survival (a basic for understanding what Scientology says about emotion)? Please summarize what you have learned and perhaps we can start to fill in the gaps?

 

[Dulloldfart]

I'd also appreciate some feedback on how different feelings which may arise while in an auditing session, and how each one gets gets handled

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.

In Book One Dianetics, the auditor might ask the pc to concentrate on the emotional content of an incident while running through it. In 1968-era Dianetics, as part of an assessment of some kind the auditor might ask the pc, "What attitudes, emotions, sensations or pains are involved with _____ [pc's item in pc's own words]?" The pc may give a bunch of items in answer to this question, with the auditor noting any instant reads accompanying these items. Let's say one of the reading items is "A feeling of despair". At the appropriate time the auditor might try running a chain that starts out with the command, "Locate an incident of another causing you a feeling of despair." Hopefully such an incident will flash to mind and as the process proceeds the pc will recount the incident and thereby get to discharge it, at least to the extent that Dianetics discharges stuff. But as far as I remember there is no part of the procedure where the auditor tells the pc to focus on recreating the despair in the incident.

In beginning sessions like Book One Dianetics or Self Analysis there may be more auditor emphasis on feelings. In Self Analysis, various aspects of an incident are focused on in sequence, so the auditor might ask the pc to focus on the sight or smell or weight or feeling or . . . in an incident. In Book One, where the auditor has a bit more freedom to wing it, he might ask the pc to try and pick up the emotional content.

But generally speaking, if the pc comes up with feelings the auditor will acknowledge them, but not do anything particularly different to the pc giving "scene" content only, providing that TA is happening one way or another.

Paul

 

[Smilla]

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.

 

[Mystic]

Hey everyone.

Having read so many posts, with no many viewpoints and fresh prespectives, and of course the many eye opening stories of struggle and survival, I've learned such a great deal from the board. Lot of smart peeps here.

Anyway, along with the above, I've also read articles and info on the net, along with a couple of books on the subject of scn, the usual stuff, and something I've picked up on is a minimization of human feeeling. I imagine this type of action might be more pronounced in certain situations, like in session, but the idea of feelings as some sort of a weakness is quite prevading throughout.

So before I look at this any further, I'd like to get a clearer understanding of what the Scientology position, or written word, is on human feelings. I can of course see no practical use for them in the cult. Respecting and empathizing with the your fellow colleagues simply serves no purpose. It's completely non productive. Among other things.

I'd also appreciate some feedback on how different feelings which may arise while in an auditing session, and how each one gets gets handled

I suppse coming from a once background in humanistic counseling where feelings are explored at length, I'd like to understand Scn approach the technique used on human emotions, and why that's the solution. What is a successful handling? Are some or all emotional responses or feeelings considered 'Charge'?

I really appreciate any insight any one can give.


John D. (Jack) Mayer says, “Emotions operate on many levels. They have a physical aspect as well as a psychological aspect. Emotions bridge thought, feeling, and action – they operate in every part of a person, they affect many aspects of a person, and the person affects many aspects of the emotions.”
Dr. Maurice Elias says, “Emotions are human beings’ warning systems as to what is really going on around them. Emotions are our most reliable indicators of how things are going on in our lives. Emotions help keep us on the right track by making sure that we are led by more than the mental/ intellectual faculties of thought, perception, reason, memory.”

Feelings!!! I'm a great believer/experiencer of "feelings". This is basic stuff having nothing to do with any idiotic mind-entrapment hallucinatory lie like "the whole track".

Learning to FEEL. Feel what? Fell it all from the bottom of Self to the magnificence of Spirit, our Planet, Solar System (Sun and Planets) and on out into the never-ending expansion of forever.

Feel! No mind trying to "figure it out", just feeling and experiencing. Soul, baby, soul!

We even get into this in our experiences of art whether being the artist or the viewer/listener. (Yeah, Lips Hubbard tried to fk art up too.)

If it has to do with depth of human feeling, Lips was against it, had to "run it out" and make soul-dead beings who would follow his trap sacrificing (without making Sacred) themselves to the glory of Lips and his soul-killing "tech".

FEEL!

 

[Wisened One]

NOT feeling is such a wonderful escape in and of itself tho. Ya know? Shoving unhappy, unwanted, negative-seeming emotions to the back of one's mind because they must work (then making sure you work long hours and every day of the week), etc. Well then, you have no time to grieve or be angry, etc. See?

Then the situation, etc is long behind ya by the time you DO wake up and realize whatever about said situations.

Nice.

Feelings and emotions are there for a reason and should never be squashed, denied, etc.

No wonder why people have ulcers, high blood pressure, obesity, depression, smoke cigarettes, etc!

 

[Smilla]

NOT feeling is such a wonderful escape in and of itself tho. Ya know? Shoving unhappy, unwanted, negative-seeming emotions to the back of one's mind because they must work (then making sure you work long hours and every day of the week), etc. Well then, you have no time to grieve or be angry, etc. See?

Then the situation, etc is long behind ya by the time you DO wake up and realize whatever about said situations.

Nice.

Feelings and emotions are there for a reason and should never be squashed, denied, etc.

No wonder why people have ulcers, high blood pressure, obesity, depression, smoke cigarettes, etc!

I couldn't agree more. Smilla.

 

[GoNuclear]

The bottom line on feelings

Sometimes feelings are great, sometimes they suck, sometimes they help, sometimes they get in the way. It's always best to be at cause over them, at least to the point where you can set them aside if need be, which brings me around to the bottom line on feelings ... if you put your feelings in your left hand and shit in your right hand, guess which hand fills up first?

Pete

 

[Mark A. Baker]

So before I look at this any further, I'd like to get a clearer understanding of what the Scientology position, or written word, is on human feelings. I can of course see no practical use for them in the cult. Respecting and empathizing with the your fellow colleagues simply serves no purpose. It's completely non productive. Among other things.

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

 

[Zinjifar]

gotta love that 'Science of Survival':

"The only answers would seem to be the permanent quarantine of such ['1.1, or covertly hostile, low-toned'] persons from society to avoid the contagion of their insanities and the general turbulence which they bring into any order, thus forcing it lower on the scale, or processing such person until they have attained a level on the tone scale which gives them value.
In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints."

Zinj

 

[Smilla]

gotta love that 'Science of Survival':

"The only answers would seem to be the permanent quarantine of such ['1.1, or covertly hostile, low-toned'] persons from society to avoid the contagion of their insanities and the general turbulence which they bring into any order, thus forcing it lower on the scale, or processing such person until they have attained a level on the tone scale which gives them value.
In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints."

Zinj

Yes a cleared planet would be fun place to live in and the ends justify the means. Or rather rather in scino language: the greatest good etc. Smilla

 

[Mark A. Baker]

gotta love that 'Science of Survival':

Actually, I do. Allowing for Hubbard's proneness to hyperbolic excess and perpetual opinionating, it's an interesting book. Of course I tend to view Hubbard as something of a Ross Perot or Ron Paul of the self-help movement.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Ted]

gotta love that 'Science of Survival':

"The only answers would seem to be the permanent quarantine of such ['1.1, or covertly hostile, low-toned'] persons from society to avoid the contagion of their insanities and the general turbulence which they bring into any order, thus forcing it lower on the scale, or processing such person until they have attained a level on the tone scale which gives them value.
In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints."

Zinj

Much of what Hubbard wrote was a matter of his own case analysis.

 

[Veda]

Richard DeMille accompanied Hubbard, and his soon to be "erased" daughter, Alexis, to Havana, Cuba, where 'Science of Survival' was dictated into a sound recorder by Hubbard:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/demille.htm

When in college, Alexis attempted to contact her biological father. This is what happened:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=126632&postcount=15

 

[GreyWolf]

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.

Wish I had said that.

 

[simplyme]

gotta love that 'Science of Survival':

"The only answers would seem to be the permanent quarantine of such ['1.1, or covertly hostile, low-toned'] persons from society to avoid the contagion of their insanities and the general turbulence which they bring into any order, thus forcing it lower on the scale, or processing such person until they have attained a level on the tone scale which gives them value.
In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints."

Zinj

The scary part...that and his letters to the South African Gov't. (if real).

Simple