Emotions II: Play Acting Scientologists

Scientology culture is recognizable by its collective, synthetic ‘cheerful’  or ‘enthusiastic’ emotional tone.  Scientologists learn to put on a happy face.  If they are seen without one, a fellow Scientologist considers it his duty to ‘handle’ it. And that primarily means making the person mentally deal with the life situation causing the lower emotion so that he can easily mentally cope with putting on a happy face in spite of it.  In a Scientology group one is expected to act happy.  To display any emotion less than that results in Scientologists almost instinctively interceding with a person’s psyche to remedy the perceived problem.  A Scientologist learns eventually to convincingly act happy all the time, even when he or she is feeling deep sorrow, a sense of devastating loss, or is suffering pangs of conscience.

Scientologists will bridle at the notion they are taught to play act through life.  But, the technology they are applying day in and day out is plain:

‘Force yourself to smile and you’ll soon stop frowning.  Force yourself to laugh and you’ll soon find something to laugh about.  Wax enthusiastic and you’ll very soon feel so.  A being causes his own feelings.’  – L. Ron Hubbard 25 August 1982

If you read Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior (Amazon Books, 2013) you will get a fairly comprehensive picture of the mood of the Scientology community that Ron was addressing with this bulletin, and the reasons for that tone.   That includes the mood that Ron himself was in.

I think that if you look at it objectively you cannot help but see the effects of a culture en masse adopting the stable datum that emotion is something to create like play acting.  That objective look has prompted some to reckon Scientology culture as resembling those communities depicted in the movies The Stepford Wives and The Truman Show.  How else could otherwise upstanding-seeming citizens blissfully ignore wholesale human rights violations happening at their church’s headquarters, the regular disappearing of church public figures, the forsaking of long-time associates and even family on the arbitrary order of one’s church, the countenancing of extreme methods of harassment directed at anyone who expresses the slightest disagreement with the Scientology way, etc, ad infinitum.  If you believe this only applies to the corporate church community you have got a serious case of denial – maybe even the Stepford/Truman strain.

There is another, accurate, word to describe this phenomenon of manipulating one’s own emotions.  It is called ‘acting.’

As in, act, from New Oxford American dictionary: 2. Behave in the way specified, and  5. Peform a fictional role in a play, movie, or television production.

I have news.  One must for sure act in order to attain desirable emotion, such as those concomitant with ‘happiness.’   But, Scientologists  – notwithstanding all their literalness with exact, precise definitions of terms – are given  and tend to thus dramatize the wrong definition of act.

Try, definition 1, Take action; do something.

Viktor Frankl can ‘splain better than I can:

Normally, pleasure is never the goal of human strivings but rather is, and must remain, an effect, more specifically, the side effect of attaining a goal.  Attaining the goal constitutes a reason for being happy.  In other words, if there is a reason for happiness, happiness ensues, automatically and spontaneously, as it were.  And that is why one need not pursue happiness, one need not care for it once there is a reason for it.

–          Vitkor Frankl, The Will to Meaning

For those Scientologist still sufficiently brainwashed to refuse to consider the words of a psychiatrist – even one who survived three stints in Nazi concentrations camps and demonstrably walked the walk far more realistically than any Scientologist who ever breathed – maybe the following will resonate.   It is understood in the highest halls of academia as well as the streets of Brooklyn.  You gotta work hard to ‘be’ who you wanna ‘be.’   Wake up.  Perceive. Feel. Live.

107 responses to “Emotions II: Play Acting Scientologists

  1. Crashing Upwards

    I think serenity could be a more natural or long standing state than happy. It would be odd to find someone always happy. I agree with the definition of Frankel that being happy aligns with accomplishment. Somewhere in LRH writings the same definition comes to mind. That happiness is overcoming not unknown obstacles toward known goals. That rings true. And no one would or could be in that state all the time. They have to overcome something to get there. And that process could involve all sorts of emotions.

    • Warren Marston

      There’s a second LRH definition for “happiness,” which is more fundamental than goal attainment. It’s “happiness is a state of admiration of things.” Just find something to admire, and you’ll find yourself happier immediately. Try it. It works!

      I used to do this all the time in sales work. Just before the prospect would open the door, or walk into the room, or answer the phone, I’d find something in my immediate environment to admire, so I’d be happy when he first noticed me. That would lift his tone, too, and we’d be off to a good start.

      This technique is not acting. The happiness it creates is real in present time.

      What Marty has described above is people going out of valence to align with group expectations. That absolutely was and is a problem in the Church, but it happens in all groups. Get a job at a Fortune 500 corporation and try being honest about your feelings throughout your workday, and you’ll lose your job fast. All groups want people who fit in and keep production rolling along cheerfully. Groups that become cults demand it more than ordinary groups.

      My point is that, like nearly all of organized Scientology’s out-points, this one is NOT inherent in basic Scientology philosophy or technology. It’s natural to groups in general. When the Sea Org became a Nazi cult, though, it did begin to enforce not only “right action,” but “right thinking” and “right feeling,” too.

      The LRH definition of “suppression” is “enforcement and inhibition of havingness, about which one can do nothing.” Sea Org management did tons of that. But that’s corruption of the subject. It’s not Real Scientology.

      • ” Just find something to admire, and you’ll find yourself happier immediately. Try it. It works!”

        “I used to do this all the time in sales work. Just before the prospect would open the door, or walk into the room, or answer the phone, I’d find something in my immediate environment to admire, so I’d be happy when he first noticed me. That would lift his tone, too, and we’d be off to a good start.”

        Makes sense. In my world, I consider that admiration to be love — just love. Love of a fellow human being. Love is very uplifitng.

    • Stats be damned, Love Hubbard before he made it an religion

      ” And that process could involve all sorts of emotions.”

  2. Right on!!! Very insightful…Love it!!!

  3. ‘Force yourself to smile and you’ll soon stop frowning. Force yourself to laugh and you’ll soon find something to laugh about. Wax enthusiastic and you’ll very soon feel so. A being causes his own feelings.’ – L. Ron Hubbard 25 August 1982

    Kind of a valuable datum, once I got it. But the first time I heard it, I was furious. At Ron! I think it was the first time I ever got mad at Ron. It was read at a staff “muster.”

    It was contrary to everything I had learned reading Dianetics!

    “Muster” is a military term and an apt one at that. We were all treated like green privates in the Marines – just about all the time. Yelled at, made wrong, LRH policy read to show how bad we were. “State of Emergency” announced because all our money had been sent up to management and we couldn’t pay the building rent.

    Staff life was not that bad in the 90’s in Dallas. But staff muster and staff meeting sure was. It was a dreadful time. So, so serious and solid. Stand at attention Positioned in another’s time and space. Humiliation. Dressed up like door-to-door Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    It’s what Ron in his early days said NOT to do!

    Oh, the cognitive dissonance!

    Back to “Force yourself to smile…” – that was read at staff musters ad nauseum. Before we would all ‘twin up’ to smell each other’s breath and armpits (actual CC Int drill – thanks Dave Petit!).

    Hmm, come to think of it, Dave Petit (CO CC Int) was the “Force myself to smile” poster child. He studied the secret FEBC tapes, so he KNOWS that by 1971, it was all about the money. In Ron’s own words.

    Sorry to rant, but the “Force yourself to smile…” are the words in my “when I was on staff” engram.

    Once upon a time it was well known (see 2 Rules for Happy Living) that we are here just as much to ‘experience’ as we are to ’cause’. That would include our feelings and reactions right? Four flows of auditing? Charge releases on finding truth?

    It’s actually a reverse Scientology process. Or the definition of a ‘1.1’ (covert hostility). Take your pick.

    The datum is only as good as eventually you realize you actually are capable of generating positive emotion. But that insight could have been presented in a nicer way. And I never realized until today that it was first issued in 1982!

    Mission Holders – force yourself to ‘wax enthusiastic’ about RTC’s reign of terror, or you’ll get a visit from the Finance Police!

    You were ‘wrong’ if you couldn’t or wouldn’t apply it. It really was a subtle indoctrination. The only thing worse along that line, was the ad nauseum playings of the Joy of Creating music CD – a fine set of music for a short time, but it was played over and over and over again – it literally became the soundtrack of our nightmare.

    • Ron is not convincing isn’t he

      n 1986, L. Ron Hubbard wrote a poem which is a guide to happiness.

      “The Joy of Creating”

      “Force yourself to smile and you’ll soon stop frowning.

      “Force yourself to laugh and you’ll soon find something to laugh about.

      “Wax* enthusiastic** and you’ll very soon feel so.

      “A being causes his own feelings.

      “The greatest joy there is in life is creating.

      “Splurge on it!” — L. Ron Hubbard

      (*wax: to increase in size, strength or intensity.) (**enthusiastic: having or demonstrating enthusiasm.)

      Four Steps to Make Yourself Happier

      1. “Force yourself to smile and you’ll soon stop frowning.”

      Try this exercise.

      A. Smile

      B. Don’t smile

      C. Smile

      D. Don’t smile

      E. Smile

      F. Don’t smile

      G. Repeat the above until you are cheerful.

      Do this exercise whenever you are frowning, upset, depressed, angry, apathetic or resentful.

      Try the exercise in front of a mirror for an extra boost.

      2. “Force yourself to laugh and you’ll soon find something to laugh about.”

      This exercise is useful when you are feeling stressed out or too serious.

      A. Force a laugh.

      B. If this is difficult for you to do, say, “ha ha ha ha ha.” Then say, “ho, ho, ho, ho, ho.” Then say, “he, he, he, he, he.”

      C. Repeat the above until you find something to laugh about.

      3. “Wax enthusiastic and you’ll very soon feel so.”

      When you feel enthusiasm for a difficult task, you make better decisions, get more done in less time and produce a better result.

      A. Write down a task you are avoiding or hate to do.

      B. Ask yourself, “What about this task is interesting?” Write down the answer.

      C. Ask yourself, “What could I be a little excited about regarding this task?” Write down the answer.

      D. Ask yourself, “What could I be enthusiastic about regarding this task?” Write down the answer.

      E. Repeat steps B, C and D until you feel enthusiastic about doing the task.

      You might be surprised at how quickly this works.

      4. “The greatest joy there is in life is creating.”

      What are your greatest joys in life?

      Being a parent? Starting a company? Finding new customers? Forming new relationships?

      Notice how each activity creates something?

      A. Write down three things you can create today.

      B. Do them.

      C. Notice if your day is more joyful.

      The happiest individuals, families and groups are those that create things.

      The most exciting goals you can have involve creating something.

      In fact, all of your success is your creation.

      “Splurge on it!”

      • Sounds like an interesting little exercise which might bring one up tone a little higher.
        But Cat Daddy, in the interests of accuracy, if he really wrote this in 1986, then it must have been in early January while he was suffering from stroke symptoms. He left his body on January 24th, 1986.

    • Whoa, good post, full of raw truth. Thank you.

    • For controlling people

      Thanks for those comments, Watchful Navigator. Does Dave Petit get kick backs for all his work at bringing in the $$$$?? Why else would he do it?

      It’s so telling that Peitit hasn’t been holed or disappeared. My experience with Dave Petit … he was a depraved and vile man.

      Back to the crime of “feeling bad”:

      Would be much saner TO DO something that makes you happy when you are feeling bad, esp doing something for another person. Or, just do some cleaning – that makes you feeling good. OR, how about …. examine what is making one unhappy and DO SOMETHING about the problem.

      Also, one can find things to be happy about, even if one has troubles and problems. And that is sane, but DENYING unhappiness is not/

      One big reason I left, hating the group …. I’ve been attacked by Scientology robots for being upset about results from courses and auditing and the disgusting way staff treats the public. Attacking an unhappy person is part of the insidious “training” of group members, to keep others in line. They attack and then turn their back on you, because you need to get handled – there is something wrong with you if you can’t pretend to be happy!!!!!

      Also, like Tory Cristman talks about, trying having a medical problem in Scientology. You were treated with SCORN. “Dramatize” your illness
      I met so many people in my time in Scientology who were desperately unhappy, came back from Flag miserable, on OT7 and going into rages over nothing. It was so bizarre. Too bad I didn’t know the definition of “cult”. I would have known I was in one!

      THANKS FOR DISCUSSING THESE ISSUES, MARK. Lots of people need to detox this cult behavior. Sadly, I’m finding too many people on the outside act like they are still in.

    • Watchful, I totally get it. Totally.

  4. “How else could otherwise upstanding-seeming citizens blissfully ignore wholesale human rights violations happening at their church’s headquarters”

    I never looked at it just that way. I love this! I love the Nas video, too! Thank you!

  5. I am tottaly flabergasted but want to leave some hope.

    • I found this video very interesting. It appears that the gentleman speaking is confirming the Scientology datum “Considerations are senior to mechanics” or have I misunderstood what he is saying?

      • You did not misunderstood. Hubbard picked it up earlier. Altough Hubbard put no limitations on possibilty. The field of brainplasticity put limitations on it. To that what is known.

        But both ways of looking at it give the possibility of bettering oneself

  6. The supression of feeling is also the supression of the connection to conscience.

    When you can’t feel, you don’t mind hurting people.

    This is how tyrants lead.

    • Sympathy is below hate, anger and covert hostility on the tone scale.

      Know wonder the only hope for man did not mind destroying families and critics. Having feelings for the feelings of others was uncool and banky in Scientology.

      Let me ask you, what type of human being would teach this?

      Who would consider that sympathy is below hate?

      This could very well be one of the destructive crossroads passed by that normal people, believing in Ron’s infallibility, agreed to and made it easy to harm people and critics.

      The relegating of sympathy below hate on the tone scale is sociopathy training 101.

      No wonder Scientology is considered so dangerous by the culture: it is

      • Bring on the justifications…… I know some of you have them.

        • Oxford definition of sympathy. Consider this deeply. Ron radically altered a basic human element in relations and redefined it.

          Think this one over deeply. This one is key ladies and gentlement

          http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/empathy

            • In case you do read this, shame researcher Brené Braun essentially defined sympathy as isolation and empathy as connection, connection being a basic need and (social) isolation meaning death. On my own journey I find this to be true, although I wouldn’t venture that LRH held this view.

              • No Love in Scientology

                i would never have an upset assessed ARCU and CDEINR again!!! LRH had devious ways of isolating people, which would make them diminish their own individuality and cling to the group. ARCU CDEINR is one of them. There is a whole lot more to being human and having relations with other humans than ARCU CDEINR.

                I used to desperately try to say enough about my ARCX in session so that it would F/N and I wouldn’t have to sit through the ARCU CDEINR assessment. I hated it.

                Why? Because many upsets DON’T fit into those categories: betrayal, sadness, anger, love, remorse. Those are NOT components of ARCU.

                Affinity is NOT love. (Admiration is not love either, just another trick to keep oneself apart from others, but that’s another story.)

                The magic of auditing is in the comm cycle – being understood and acknowledge. Yet your hands are completely tied – in auditing you have to describe your relationships with others within the limitations of ARCU CDEINR.

                If I ever have auditing again, I would insist on being asked for an upset, describe it in my own words (after all it is MY life) and go e/s if necessary.

          • Brian, the definition linked is actually empathy, which is good, as it ties in to what I wanted to say to your intial observation on the position of sympathy on the tone scale.

            Brené Braun, Ph.D., in her book “I thought it was just me” defines sympathy as “I’m over here and you’re over there. I’m sorry for you and I’m sad for you. AND, while I’m sorry that happened to you, let’s be clear: I’m over here.” This is not compassion.

            She defines empathy as “the skill or ability to tap into our own experiences in order to connect with an experiene someone is relating to us” and also refers to Arn Ivey, Paul Pederson and Mary Ivey’s definition, “the ability to perceive a situation from the other person’s perspective”.

            Where to begin? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written because while desireable, such rights are not granted automatically and unconditionally on the basis of human decency. The only hope for man deemed that certain minorities should be “disposed of quietly and without sorrow”. That same hope defined the soul of man as not human and in fact not of this universe. That same hope stated human rights should be made a reality, yet at times showed contempt for other faiths and humanity (homo novis?), and wrote policies that fly in the face of them.

            I am not learned. However, it is my experience that the combination of the tone scale, chart of human evaluations, LRH as the finder of the true truth, and his many broad, sweeping, authoritative statements have lead to simplistic black-and-white thinking and judgement. The tone scale is a marvelous tool of judgement, complete with little boxes on the CoHE to put people in – and that, then, is all they see and all they will allow themselves to see. Confirmation bias. It does not allow for the complexity of man and of life, at least not the way it is used now. But it does permit witch hunts and a caste society.

          • Brian, what gives? You post a definition for “Empathy” and say it is a definition for “Sympathy”.

            Right on the page you link to, the definition page, it says this: “People often confuse the words empathy and sympathy. Empathy means ‘the ability to understand and share the feelings of another’ (as in both authors have the skill to make you feel empathy with their heroines), whereas sympathy means ‘feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else’s misfortune’ (as in they had great sympathy for the flood victims).”

            • Read the next definition Valkov. Please feel free to take my agrument apart with, what I consider, minor points.

              Please, any other takers on my lacking clarity?

              • Valkov, here is my reality on those two words:

                Sympathy is a prior ability to have before empathy. Sympathy is having ones own feelings towards another. And Empathy is having so much feeling toward another that their feelings become your feelings.

                Empathy is sympathy with a singular intense focus so that the other person’s experience becomes our own.

                Nit picking definitions Valkov, I’m sorry to say, is denial of the gravity of my post. Brick wall denial.

                • Brian, if you would stop thinking of yourself as an irresistable force, you might then be able to abstain from opterming me as being in brick-wall denial. I deny that my understanding of the 2 words is the same as yours. I affirm that my understanding of the 2 words is different from yours. Learn to live with it, Your hunger for agreement will not yield any good karma. Deny this at your own risk.

                • “Nit picking definitions Valkov, I’m sorry to say, is denial of the gravity of my post. Brick wall denial.”

                  “Gravitas” (!) 🙂 🙂 🙂

              • Brian, I am not interested in “arguments” or rhetoric. Never have been. Having posted the second definition, of “sympathy” itself, I can see where you’re coming from.

                I see empathy and sympathy as two different things, your posts notwithstanding. I see them more like this, from Dictionary.com:

                What is the difference between empathy and sympathy?

                Both empathy and sympathy are feelings concerning other people. “Sympathy is literally ‘feeling with’ – compassion for or commiseration with another person. Empathy, by contrast, is literally ‘feeling into’ – the ability to project one’s personality into another person and more fully understand that person. Sympathy derives from Latin and Greek words meaning ‘having a fellow feeling’. The term empathy originated in psychology (translation of a German term, c. 1903) and has now come to mean the ability to imagine or project oneself into another person’s position and experience all the sensations involved in that position.”

                • Thank you Valkov, so what is your view on my post?

                  That Ron relegated sympathy below hate?

                  That hating people is higher than feeling for other’s pain?

                  • LRH’splacing of “sympathy” where he placed it,makes sense to me in terms of his definition of the word. He presented the Tone Scale as a series of flows, dispersals, and ridges ranging from the finest towards the top to the progressively more solid towards the bottom. The state he called “sympathy” may perhaps be denoted by some other word, but “sympathy” is the word he chose to use and it makes some sense to me that he did, because I think what he was naming was a state of feeling that is pretty close to an automatic compulsive agreement close to “propitiation”, as he termed another, contiguous one. I see his trying to name a state of feeling that is close to an automatic, hypnotic duplication, where a person feels what the other person is feeling, without the ability to reject it. It is plausible to me, that we may be “hard-wired” genetically to experience this state as part of a “herd instinct”, a subliminal communication or bond with other life-forms, a sort of “when one suffers, we all suffer” kind of response.

                    But in terms of LRH’s scheme of progressively descending “tones”, it makes sense that what he called “sympathy” is lower than what he called “hate” in terms of energy flows and ridges because sympathy would be a stuck one-way flow whereas hate may represent a state in which the person still has some ability to reject or disagree. Perhaps equally compulsively.

                    So I think that LRH’s thinking needs to be understood in his own terms, by his own definitions, in his own universe, rather than by using the common definitions we all know. Because he was not working at trying to fit his observations into the pre-existing established definitions and agreements we already hold, such as the Oxford definition of “sympathy”, but was trying to describe and name his own observations of phenomena for which there were not necessarily words already extant. So he sometimes extended the meaning of a word to cover what he observed, rather than trying to fit what he observed into the existing definitions. So what you mean by “sympathy” may not be what LRH meant and understood by this word. Not realizing this can lead to arguing endlessly with a “straw man”, and getting worked up about something that does not in fact exist.

                    If you observed something that there did not appear to be a precise word for in your language, what would you do? I think one would have to either invent a new word, which LRH sometimes did, or extend the definition of an existing word, which he did in this case. There may be other possibilities.

                    Sorry to inflict all this on you, but you did ask what I thought, for which I thank you, but there you have it.

                    • Thanks for giving me your take Valkov.

                      From my perspective the atrocities done in the name of standard tech find their justification in redefining words like sympathy.

                      Another term that causes self imposed distortions is “open minded”.

                      I undertand that Scientologists see things differently.

                      I see this as dangerous and self deluding. But that is me.

                    • Brian, I see that we are not discussing or trying to understand LRH’s perspective and the meanings he was trying to convey. As long as you are only interested in trying to squeeze reality into your predetermined “map” of it, we are not going to be on the same page, or actually talking to each other, because you are simply on your own soapbox and not trying to expand your horizons.

                      You posted,
                      “From my perspective the atrocities done in the name of standard tech find their justification in redefining words like sympathy.” This appears to be an association of unrelated elements.

                      This is not a response to much of anything I posted; it follows a token “ack” of my post, and is just a re-iteration of your “position”, which I basically see as political. Not at all an attempt to expand your knowledge or perspective.

                      In fact, as I have already posted, LRH’s definition of “sympathy” vis-a-vis his presentation of the “emotional tone scale” builds on the common definition of “sympathy”, and actually goes towards explaining the atrocities you refer to. If you would bother to understand what he meant by the TONE of “sympathy”, you might take a step towards understanding the lemming-like dynamics of the lockstep of the kool-aide drinkers, and of those who manipulate them. Also, phenomena like Stockholm Syndrome.

                    • In my experience and investigations Valkov, outside just the Independence, it is my consclusion that Ron did exhibit some distorted mindsets illustrated by putting sympathy below hate.

                      Have you read Jon Atacks new version of his book. I have been reading everything I can get my hands On? I have friends who were at the trials in Clear Water. He is so afraid of Scientology that he is not sure if he wants to communicate with me because of my posting on this blog.

                      To me Valkov, your accusations speak more about you then me. Your attacks personally tells me you are still ‘in’ the church.

                      You have been well trained.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Fear is not much of a tone level for purveying truth.

                    • Thanks Marty. I am pretty slow sometimes!

                    • And I do understand what he meant by sympathy. Just like I understood what he meant by “open mindedness”.

                      But you see, he redefinded these terms that are key to understanding his mind. The exhibiting of no sympathy and the exhibiting of hate, in scientologists, makes sense because of the tone scale.

                      The exhibiting of no critical thinking makes sense because of ‘open mindedness”.

                      It takes time to make the connections between the tech and the atrocities. Knowledge preceeds action.

                      I am commenting on some of the tech and you are making comment on me personally. It is what it is. You have a right to your own view and I to mine.

                      Read Jon Atack’s book. I know that won’t go over well here for some. It is an eye opener. Expand your knowledge base. Come to your own conclusion with that.

                      Peace Out Dude,
                      Brian

                    • Brian, I am not accusing you of anything. I will only say once again that I don’t think LRH arbitrarily “placed” the emotions on the scales as he presents them, I think he presents what he observed, just as you might state “There is a tree there. It has a top and it has a bottom.”

                      Whether you like it or not, LRH was often a keen observer of actual life.

                      By the way, I have mostly gotten over considering being labelled a “Scientologist” as an ad hom, which I think it is used as by some critics. They think a metacomment such as “You think like a typical Scientologist” is a rebuttal and a dismissal that removes them from the necessity respond to the content of a post.

                      Other than getting my money on account back 3 years ago, that hadbeensitting there for ages, I had disassociated myself from Scientology almost 20 years ago, and had never been much involved with the “church”. I had received some services and done some TRs at a Field Office and then a Mission back in the 1970s and early 1980s, then backed off.

                      That does not preclude me from having an interest in what LRH actually said and taught about the core tech and concepts. I don’t need to appeal to Jon Atack or any other authority to tell me what to think. I can look and listen for myself and make up my own mind as to what I am hearing and seeing, and I think “critics” sometimes drink their own brand of kool-aide.

                    • valkov I hope this goes after your last post as my iPad 1 does funny things to longer threads.

                      Thanks for sharing me your experience and time line. Getting to know people in this medium is exciting and at the same time quite limiting in scope, as far as truly knowing each other is concerned.

                      I do trust that LRH was passionate about observing and learning. Sometimes he was brilliant. But I think the difference between a person like myself and you and Marty and Mike Rinder is my take on Ron when he was not master of emperical observations.

                      It is my opinion that ex Scientologists have a challenge. That challenge is to neutralize and overcome, through reason and constructive criticism, the imperfections in Ron, that manifested as policy that now seek Independence’ destruction. And has caused countless sufferings against the ‘enemy of the only way.’

                      This quest is not ‘elder abuse’ as some would say,tainting the legacy of an old dead man. It is a quest to understand the source of principles applied that seek to ruin enemies utterly, and booby trap free thinking with scientific sophistry and cruel punishment.

                      Reading a book by anyone will not control our thinking. Our thoughts are our own, controlled by us.

                      I am the same politically. I read and watch everyone: fox, msnbc, cnn, wallstreet journal,nyt etc.

                      I seek out those ideas that challenge mine and have confidence in my motives to know that I care about one thing: being clear and seeking understanding and not simply seeking being right. Sometimes I faulter in my approach and my ego gets in the way. But I correct and continue.

                      Much has been said about the down sides to Scientology but not much about Ron’s down side.

                      It is my opinion that the reason it is so hard to substitute the word Ron for Scientology, when discussing atrocities, is because it is much too painful.

                      Too much betrayal of trust. So the enemy will always be Nibs, Sara, Mayo, Warner Erhart, Communists, Psyches, Journalists, Governments, Squirells, Bts, SPs, PTSes.

                      Never Ron…… Never. It was always that the enemy wanted to destroy him because his purpose was so holy and great. We were never allowed to know that maybe the church has harmed people or that the goals promised were false and people wanted their money back and maybe sue because of personal suffering at the hand of Ron’s well trained black ops thugs.

                      For me it is not a stretch in the least to equate symapthy below hate and this one statement: “ruin them utterly”

                      Simon Bolivar, Fair Game, GO, dissing Mayo, his wife, being angry at his son for killing himself! Angry!! At his son!! For killing himself!!!

                      Symapthy below hate explains this to me. I know, he redifined symathy to mean some grovelling ignorant spineless creep who thinks nothing of himself.

                      He had an MU. Big time. That is not what the word means. But his relegating the word below hate reveals his psychology. A psychology that became the Church of Scientology. And a doctrine that gives justification to harming others.

                      If you can’t feel for others, you don’t mind harming them.

                      And harming people is what Scientology is trained and expert at.

                      Because being critical

                    • Though I have transcended the need to believe in Ron, there are times I thank him for certain lessons I understand now.

                      So thank you Ron! Thank you for everything, including your crazy assed self lol!

                      Ya know….he was something…………….

                      If you believe in/or know of God, he was still one of my teachers, but not my guru, as they say in India.

                      Be well Mr. Hubbard were ever you are.

                  • I’d like to add that I do not think LRH “relegated” anything here. Contrary to the popular belief of some, I do not think LRH “invented” everything he spoke/wrote about. I believe that he was actually reporting things he had observed. He was reporting his observations, not his inventions. The “tone scale” was his attempt to outline in detail his observations of energy behavior as it fell downscale from the moment of creation. This is in line with other philosophies/systems/teachings, like Gurdjieff’s, where the “ray of creation” falls through “octaves” and degrades as it descends into materiality, much like musical tones do.

                    Some people like to postulate that Scientology was LRH’s fantastic “invention” with no basis in reality. No. Much of Scientology is LRH’s observations(obnosis) of reality.

                    As for “sympathy”, the way I believe LRH meant it, we could rightly say that the “kool-aide drinkers” of Scientology are right there, in deepest knee-jerk sympathy(and propitiation) in various ways with each other, with the party line, with Miscavige, who plays on it all the time to make everyone else wrong, etc.

        • Brian, I’m a fan!!! Thank you for pointing this out. WELL SAID!!

          Empathy was a crime in Scientology. You’ll know if you ever needed it!

          • You and Brian are quite right about this aspect of things. But in the core auditing tech, empathy is essential and auditing can have no positive result if it is absent. For example, any C/S to be a good and effective C/S must parallel the pc’s mind and case. In other words, he must have complete empathy. How can he otherwise “parallel” the pc? And the auditor must have empathy in order to effectively audit the pc in front of him, not some imagined case.

            The suppression of empathy, emotions, and “feelings”, in the CoS has been the downfall of Scientology and its orgs. Instrumental in bringing about this suppression and this downfall is the IAS and the “cold chrome steel” valence perpetuated by the Sea Org.

            • Yes, iamvalkov

              I was deeply moved by the Audtiors Code film and Confessional TRs film and the film with Jason Beghe (can’t remember the name of it). I told Jason before he left how Trimbo was like my favorite character!!! Those films express some of the best in humanity.

              I am GAT trained, and it was robot training. I had some objectives from an old Saint Hill Class VIII public. It was so amazing and so different and I had huge wins quickly. He created a space where sit was all about ME! In a good way!

              This is what I’ve found now learning about the movement: LRH set up the SO. He was locking up people, even children, on the Apollo. He was making the CMO kids stay up all night. He was having people thrown overboard with hands tied and blindfolded. He was having people throw buckets of water at someone for punishment. He had a CMO kid following him around holding an ashtray. I’d like to punch him!!

              From the start of Dianetics, LRH had a continual problem of (1) how to make enough $$ to support his grandiose lifestyle and keep an organization going (2) inevitably, people couldn’t stand him and got the F away from him. Solution: the SO. Slaves who couldn’t leave. Solution: Policy to keep public from leaving. Nice guy, huh?

              I’m happy to say that all the beautiful things in Scientology – I don’t think he believed, since he practiced the opposite. I am fine believing them.

              • Yes, I getcha.

                “I am GAT trained, and it was robot training. I had some objectives from an old Saint Hill Class VIII public. It was so amazing and so different and I had huge wins quickly. He created a space where sit was all about ME! In a good way!”

                So LRH created the course that trained this old Class VIII auditor who audited you so well, yet he also created the Sea Org and did some terrible things to some people, even some children.

                So, how does one reconcile these very contrary facts? I suggest reading Marty’s latest book, Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior, for some clues.

                By the way, the robotic GAT training was not created by LRH but was someone else’s invention.

                • And I don’t see that LRH lived a “grandiose lifestyle”, especially in the 1950s. He mostly struggled to support himself as he developed Dianetics.

                • And I suggest Jon Atack’s book, “Lets Sell These People a Piece of the Blue Sky” for a broad view.

                  Marty’s book was great. I consider Jon’s book essential. There is a reason the Church tried to destroy Mr. Atack. And those reasons are in his book.

                  • Brian, there are 2 sides to that story. You do know that in 1984 Jon Atack and some others over in Europe had a break with the CoS, after the “mission massacre”, and Jon signed off on a detailed Ethics Order and later a detailed Comm Ev of David Miscavige, which was a very accurate indictment of him? In that document, Miscavige was declared a “Suppressive Person”. Since Miscavige had Hubbard’s favor and backing at that time, as Marty has confirmed in his book, of course this turned into a “mutual Declaration society”.

                    Tony Ortega recently had a post about these events on his blog. You might also read the Declare of Miscavige itself.

      • Exactly right!

  7. I couldn’t help notice the young girl in the video was playing Beethoven’s Fur Elise in F-sharp minor which is technically much more difficult to perform than the original key of A minor. I wonder why this key was chosen.

    Since we are talking about emotions, the key of F-sharp minor has been described as being aurally dark, giving a feeling of languid discontent. It has even been considered the Devil’s key for its more covered and deep sonorous characteristics. F-sharp minor is also the relative minor of A major, which is the parallel major of the original key of A minor, the key of piety and tenderness.

    Yes, I am a geek… {crawling back under my bridge now.}

  8. I think the biggest downfall of all of this is that very few Scientologists ever got trained. The theetie-weetie, “let’s all be cheerful!” folks were almost always the PCs who never did an auditing course, let alone take anyone in session. Now, all of a sudden, it is these people who never actually learned Scientology that are the examples of what Scientologists are.

    I found that as I got audited AND trained, I got more emotional. I was and am a “weeper” when it comes to touching movies. But I was not always that way. I became more empathetic and understanding, and it accelerated after OT III. I had to leave the church folks behind a few years ago because there are, as you point out, a lot of people who cannot confront real emotions and real life situations. But I am here to tell you that I have seen this rise in empathy in myself, and other Scientologists. Just not enough.

    Me: “My step-dad is dying of cancer, and is in incredible pain”

    Scientologist-types: “Oh…. sorry.” and then run away. Or “Did he get his leaving the body R-Factor?” WTF!

    Mark

    • Hi Mark,

      This is in no way meant to apologise for Scientologists’ behaviour, but I haven’t actually met many people, Scientologist or otherwise, who could deal with the subject of death very well. Even hint that I’m going in that direction in conversation and they take to the hills. I think it takes a lot of courage to be there with other people and their loss, pain and powerlessness in that moment. I know instances where I have failed to do so and I sincerely regret it.

      I find it repeatedly ironic that as a ‘spiritual’ movement, where the founder condemned Asia for its alleged disregard of life, the general notion is to ‘drop the mock up’ and move on. When I was dying (since recovered, but yes, it was that dramatic) a staff member at CC Int actually told me over the phone that if the asist program he wrote didn’t work out I should just ‘drop the body’ and ‘get another one’ and ‘confront the fact’.

      So where Scientology as a group could have moved into a total love of life (supposedly we have the infallible tools to do so, although I am not so sure now), it instead moved toward a total disregard of life. Debt and death (karmic and otherwise) seems to be the motto.

      • The failure of that staff member to have and display empathy for your situation is one thing — and a bad thing. But the advice to “confront the fact” of what at the time seemed to be impending death is not a dramatization of inability to feel. It’s just facing reality.

        We will all someday experience the death of our physical bodies, and with that a tremendous loss of havingness, and loss of one of our most important stable data holding back who knows how much and what confusion. In the final analysis all we CAN do is confront this experience. So that staff member’s suggestion to do that was not monstrous or even incorrect.

        However, “confront” does not mean to use force to resist anything. Real confront includes dropping all resistance to fully experiencing what’s happening. That includes whatever emotions may occur. Those emotions may disappear after being fully experienced, but they can’t be denied.

        Tibetan Buddhism has some very interesting data on the sequence of experiences that one passes through at body death and all the way through Between Lives into the next body. The details of that data may or may not be accurate, but the basic principle involved rings true — full confront without resistance is the only way to go.

        • Hi Warren, thanks for your response. While I’ve been chatting for ages, at times I still forget to put in all the data. The guy was ice cold.

          Inded, being told to ‘confront the fact’ is technically not wrong. In case you haven’t had the opportunity to experience it, and don’t know anyone who has, then you would not know what it is like to be told by an unemotional doctor that you have a terminal illness. Thank goodness the medical profession is catching up and does realise that messages delivered with warmth and empathy can help the person deal with it far easier than being left alone in post diagnosis shock.

          Strangely, I am not afraid of death, although I may think differently when I get there😉 But I agree on what you say about non-resistance. It is a good way to live and indeed the heart of the Tao, methinks. Not so sure about the spiritual bit, though. As I said in an earlier post, I realised I really do not know that I’m a spirit. I’ve only been told as much. It’s a very fine but noticeable difference, and I feel much freer for it – like a child setting out to explore the world!

        • I would like to add, Warren, that I was actually hoping for a response to the latter part of my comment – on the moving away from the appreciation of life as a spiritual movement toward non-appreciation thereof. I had only included my personal example as background to highlight my point.

          Said point being that no matter the reasons why, what started out as a life-afirming psychotherapy movement and later religion in the 50s ended up as a vampire.

          Another anecdote to illustrate my point: I was away from St Hill for nigh 20 years. Had it as my spiritual home in my memory. When I returned, the body was the same – but somebody else was at home.

          • Warren Marston

            Letting Go,

            “The body was the same – but somebody else was at home.”

            Spot on! I’ve felt exactly the same way when I’ve visited Church orgs and missions in recent years. In ecology there’s the concept of “invasive species,” that move into an ecological niche and displace the original species that was there first. I actually think that’s happened in Scientology. An invasive species of thetans has displaced the original Real Scientologists.

            There’s an LRH policy that says, and I’m freely paraphrasing here, that good beings use the organizational power of Scientology to free people, while SPs (sociopaths) use it to control them. Scientology was originally about freedom. Somewhere along the line it became about control.

            The famous Stanley Milgram experiment (see his book “Obedience to Authority”) proved that two-thirds of the population will do anything they are told to do by strong enough authority figures. Put sociopaths in positions of authority over a large group selected at random from the general population, and you get a control-oriented, freedom-destroying cult, whether it be religious, political, military, commercial,. or anything else.

            The ancient Greeks called these obedient people “hylics,” from the Greek word “hylos,” which meant “body.” Hylics had very low spiritual awareness, and thought they were bodies. They were concerned only with physical survival, conformity to community expectations, and having a stable position in the hierarchy of control. They were mest beings through and through, and comprised 80% of the population. When Socrates began showing his students how to think for themselves and open their awareness to rational spirituality, the hylic majority put him to death. LRH got in trouble with various powers that be on the same basis.

            Most Scientologists in the late 60’s were most emphatically not hylics. They were interested in spiritual freedom rather than control. They would have been eager students of Socrates, and in the one-third of Milgram’s subjects who told the “authority figures” in the experiment to go jump in a lake.

            But once the Sea Org got underway, more and more hylics were attracted. The Sea Org environment was of necessity highly control oriented, and didn’t provide much opportunity for its members to get up the Bridge, but did provide a huge cause to which they could dedicate themselves. That attracted and retained a high proportion of hylics, while driving out true spiritual seekers. Eventually hylics took control of the Sea Org, and then spread outward and downward to fill the whole “ecological niche.”

            This “invasive species” had little appreciation of love, beauty, and the rest of what makes life worthwhile, and no sense of spiritual wonder. And what they did with the Church of Scientology is the same thing they’d previously done with every other religion throughout history.

            The key to handling this situation is first of all to recognize that compared to today’s COS, original Scientology (or Real Scientology as I’ve taken to calling it) was vastly different in its tone level and its culture. Almost everything “wrong” with Scientology today is a corruption of Real Scientology perpetrated by mest beings who took over Sea Org management. The handling is not to abandon Scientology technology in favor of other solutions. It’s to bypass COS and re-establish Real Scientology delivery as a spiritual practice without any of the control cult nonsense. The customers of Real Scientology will find their “love of life” expanding, just as it did for us 45 years ago before the corruption occurred.

    • "Inside Scientology"

      A very eye-opening book is “Inside Scientology”, Janet Reitman’s history of the church. It can help you weed out what is workable in Scientology and what is not, where these processes came from and what LRH was focused on at the time. Highly recommended for anyone who as involved.

  9. My dear friends please take a 2 hour journey, and yes if you want ask me how some tidbits relate to Hubbards views of the Thetan.

  10. Marty I know you still believe in a soul.

  11. Like oil and water, the Culture repels those who refuse to fake it.

  12. Good stuff Marty.

  13. Marty, your post matches my own observations but for one glaring exception. I have seen a number of Sea Org staff indulge in “management by face-ripping”. Dave Petit is a particular master in this art and even uses it on public now and then. Which makes me wonder, is there some agreed-on rationalization for this obviously “mis-emotional” behavior, or does everyone just stew in their own cognitive dissonance?

    • some more info, please

      What is Management by Face-Ripping?????

      • “Face-ripping” refers to someone getting in your face, typically in a loud, angry tone of voice, as if they are going to rip your face off. In a management context it applies to a senior dressing down a junior about how badly they’ve screwed up, what a worthless piece of crap they are, or what is going to happen to them if they don’t achieve whatever improbable target they’ve been assigned.

        Throughout the Church of Scientology it’s much more prevalent than you might expect, given all of LRH’s advice about getting results by appealing to reason rather than through fear and intimidation.

        • Right – the SEVERE REALITY ADJUSTMENT instituted by David Miscavige. Like all of DM’s action, LRH built the foundation.

          I have sickening grief at having been part of Scientology. I was never on staff, never did any admin training, never went to Flag, never knew there were two versions of Scientology: the PR one and the real one. I don’t think my friends knew, either

          This is severely abusive and inexcusable. My heart breaks for everyone damaged by this cult.

  14. I am really not into rap, aside of a very few exceptions.
    I Can by Nas I like and respect. So as this post on acting.
    Thank you.

  15. maxim46zbitnoff

    I am enjoying your continuing explorations. I can have emotionality many ways…. sometimes I am emotional and sometimes I’m not. Sometimes I honor the wisdom of letting my emotions inform me without having to change them and sometimes I feel like being done with them. I don’t see finding meaning in emotional experience any better than wanting to transcend it… simply choices to explore. However, I believe that one of the reasons we incarnate is to intensely feel our feelings…. at least some of the time;)

    Over the weekend I was at my hometown of Ukiah, California, for my 50th High School reunion. Sunday morning I took a drive in town and had an onset of sadness…. feelings of lost possiblities as well as just hearing about the death of two guys I had palled around with growing up. It was an Our Town (the play) experience… realizing that as we live our lives we often don’t appreciate them and are confined to our own boxes. After I’d completed my loop it occurred to me that I could repeat the same route and “run out my feelings” by repeating the action that turned them on per scientology tech but then I realized it was okay to feel just as I was and let the feelings play out as they would.

    Later I was telling others about my sadness wanting to describe it and noticed there was a noticeable body reaction from them as if to brace themselves or be ready to supply the appropriate reassurances. My response was to assure them it was a “good” sadness.

  16. Hi Maxim. Born and raised in Willits myself. Went to my 40th reunion a few years ago there. Hear you regards lost friends remembered. It was sad however It was a “good sadness” and I understand that. Just remembering the friendship and “cool times” I had with some of them was great. Felt the sadness from them being gone then memories of good times with them-not so sad anymore. Feelings/emotions are what they are.

  17. I had some good released after I dealt with how I forced myself to be ‘uptone’. It was a limitation for me, and I don’t consider it very uptone.

    LRH said that it’s all pretense. And by that I think he meant that one is not truly his valence, so he needs to pretend to play the game as the valence. I think the hypocrisy of being uptone is the characteristic of 1.1 and in the COS they’re pretty much concerned to show how uptone they are and also for outsiders to see how uptone all SCNists are. It’s fake PR. I think uptoneness should be accompanied by some basic KRC as well, and belittling the low-toned ones is not truly uptone. 1.1 mocks the uptone levels like the COS (to an extend) mocked LRH’s texts. So, I experienced.

  18. Marty, on spot!
    I see you are drifting into the final direction. Being open minded and trying to honestly inform oneself leads to this conclusion. Ursula Caberta called the interim phase methadone. It took me weeks to understand the full extent of her words. Reading some comments I see that some still do not understand the meaning. Your words are carefully chosen and I appreciate that they are.
    I believe that Mike Rinder is on the same page, he is just more diplomatic.So I would not expect such post from him. The wording would be much different.
    Regarding LRH I can only add for the those who are still supporting him without ANY reservation:
    It does not matter who wrote it. It can also be verbal. It is the meaning of what is being said. If Adolf Nazi said that you should not beat your wife, I would still take it as a truth. And if God told me that I had to lie at least 10 times an hour, then I would not accept this as being true for me. He could even write it down in another Bible and force me to do word clearing on it. It would not change anything. What is true for you is true for you. Yes, I can agree on that. Surely I could even replace the word “true” by x. What is x for you is x for you. A tautology🙂

  19. LRH’s action definition seems very close to Frankl’s: happiness: the overcoming of not unknown obstacles towards known goals.

  20. Your whole discussion of emotion is fascinating, Marty. Back in the Science of Survival days LRH said many times that addressing secondaries brought the highest level of case gain possible, even more than discharging engrams if I remember correctly. I think you are on to something especially as many people, including Scientologists, hide their emotions for whatever reasons.

  21. Marty ~~
    I really depict the Kool Aid mindset you so aptly describe here ~~~

  22. Roger from Switzerland Thought

    I’m shaken !🙂
    So well written !
    Thanks !

  23. It’s a computation if one thinks he needs always be in a certain mood.
    That’s makes AP&A one of my favorite books.

    However, even if one shouldn’t opress his emotions, it is important to be aware of the mood one is in. What causes emotions? Where do they come from? What is the root of it?
    Being aware of ones emotions dependes on the awarness of the individual.
    Dr. Ekman (“Lie to me” TV- Series consultant) worked for years with Buddhists and even the Dalai Lama and he has interesting stuff to say about emotions.
    It’s not wise to opress or “blank out” all emotions.
    But I wouldn’t recommend letting them be uncontrolled either.

    Knowing emotions and discharging the accumulated, negative emotions is the best thing one can do.

    “Postulating” ones emotion, or “force yourself to smile” can be a good thing (in fact, the idea was presented by LRH in the “Route to Infinity” lectures for the first time, long before the bulletin came along).
    Also many Buddhist practices are objected to “cultivation of higher moods”.
    Just don’t blank out the real charge. Find ways to find the root (source) of the mis-emotion and how to process it, key it out (for real) or better yet, erase it.

    We are fortunate for having such an array of techniques to make it right.

    • Sorry, my lack of english skills again confused one concept to the opposite.
      I wrote: “Also many Buddhist practices are objected to “cultivation of higher moods”.”

      But what I actually wanted to say is, that many Buddhist traditions do practice the cultivation of higher moods (emotions) – like metta, compassion.
      I think the problem in Scientology, what we inherited from the organisation is the result of the technocratic emphasiz on production in orgs. “No case on post” can be a very good concept, but it can also create emotionless (read soulless) robots.
      Corporate Scientology and its policies can be so wrongfully misapplied that any emotion (good or bad) can be invalidated. ( “You J&D, stop laughing” or “I don’t want this HE&R on my lines, people die, live with it” – this is a below 2.0 environment, of course).
      Another organizational aspect is, that you are supposed to play a role as soon as you get a post in a SCN org. “You’re now the ____! Don’t play around like a fool here or you’ll find yourself in deep shit.”
      And also you’re always under pressure to produce, to get things done, make the target. Little time for your personal soul-work and today little to no staff-auditing to make some spiritual progress.

      I am really happy I was not a staff member in the times of Golden Age of Verbal Interpretations.

  24. Excellent hard hitting post. Thank you.

    Scientologists, to me, are simply individuals who are just not very authentic. By that I mean, they aren’t willing OR able to just be who they are in the moment.

    They are exactly as you say — play acting some false placid emotion that is acceptable.

    It’s maddening, frankly.

    That said — I’ve found in some buddhist communities a type of “peaceful, loving, soft spokenness” that gives me the creeps and sends me out of that community quickly. As Pema Chodren (Buddhist nun) has said — “all the smiling seems like a lot of repressed resentment”

    At the end of the day — I believe we are all striving to be happy and free from suffering. The trick is how?

    Christine

    • Hello Christine,
      I have seen this in different other religions too. Also in some Christian circles.
      It’s funny, but the most authentic people I met have been from Muslim background. This family was from Morocco – very cheerful, loving, creative and genuine religious people (in short, beautiful people). I am very greatful I had the opportunity and the plesure to meet them.

      However, what I like about many Buddhists I met, they have a different way to percieve space and this gives them the ability to also put something nice there by intention (postulate) – this kind of self-determinism is also true for many Scientologists I know.
      Sure, one could say, this is “acting”, and of course, this is. Higher “emotions” are composed of attention units and thus, when there is no charge in the way, a person can act more freely, express emotions more freely or even do something wholesome with them.

  25. Mosey, when you make that breakfast for him….
    Please realize you are doing it for us! Thank you🙂
    Cece

  26. “Force yourself to smile and you’ll soon stop frowning. Force yourself to laugh and you’ll soon find something to laugh about. Wax enthusiastic and you’ll very soon feel so. A being causes his own feelings.’ – L. Ron Hubbard 25 August 1982”

    I never really liked this quote. It does seem artificial. When I was involved in scientology there were a few people here and there that seemed believe in it and to act artificially as a result. I noticed those types outside the church just as much outside as inside the church though.

    “walked the walk far more realistically than any Scientologist who ever breathed ”

    It is easy to imagine how those artificial happiness types could generate pain, denying air to those with genuine thoughts of their. As a matter of fact it sounds like you hate their guts. It sometimes sounds like you hate all scientologists.

    This is unfortunate for me because I am still wrestling with question of whether I am scientologist or not. As an field auditor I have only ever practiced dianetics. The only part of Ron’s non dianetics methods I use regularly is study tech. This has acquainted me with one of Ron’s definitions for a scientologist, that is a person who uses scientology to improve conditions.

    I guess the question of whether I am scientologist or not depends on the definition of scientologist being used. I think most ordinary people would define a scientologist as a person who is actively involved with the group referred to as scientology and they would only think of the church lead by MIscavaige. I guess I am not really one of those now, if I take the informal advise some of them. Perhaps though I still fit Ron’s definition when her referred to application.

    The other question is does this mean the great internet personality who once audited Tom Cruise hate my guts as another one of those phony scientologist types. Oh well who really gives a fuck. I am probably never going to meet him and there are plenty other people I have met through the church that hate me anyway. Well it’s time to sleep now in the land of oz, good night and good luck. May the force be with you.etc etc.

  27. Marty,
    This is a wonderful blog and very apropos to anybody involved with Scientology.

    And yes LRH did found that communication is the way out. That means the complete release of one’s and others emotions and considerations. But unfortunately Hubbard apparently later changed his mind, and encased his Spiritual Therapy into something that resembles the barbed wire of a prison camp.

    As you pointed out many times before, the Sciences cut up with LRH visionary and advance understanding; we are not in the 40’s and 50’ anymore. So the faithful scientologists will find find themselves in the ridiculous position of asserting privileged knowledge of the mind and spirit that is now freely available to anyone.

    Their untenable position is further exacerbated by the heavy price Scientologists must pay, not only in financial terms but on the loss of their civil rights, family, and peace of mind.

    The arrogant, artificially uptone personality displays, are the masks that cover the truth of betrayed and broken lives. For who would want to accept that he/she has been conned out of a lifetime?

    Yes repressing our emotions will make us sick, and yes it will kill us too.

    In the book “When the Body Says No: Exploring the Stress-Disease Connection”, Gabor Mate masterfully closes the gap between Mind, Quantum Physics and the inner workings of the Autonomic, Glandular and Immune Systems.

    Chapter 7: http://www.ccebook.org/preview/0470923350/When-the-Body-Says-No-Exploring-the-Stress-Disease-Connection.

    “The same influences that the organism is most likely to interpret as emotionally stressful, are not surprisingly, also the most powerful psychic triggers for the HPA axis: “Psychological factors such as uncertainty, conflict, lack of control, and lack of information, etc are considered the most stressful stimuli and strongly activate the HPA axis. Sense of control and consummatory behavior results in immediate suppression of HPA activity.”

    Consummatory behavior – from the Latin consummare, “to complete”- is behavior that removes the danger or relieves the tension caused by it. We recall that stress-inducing stimuli are not always objective external threats like predators or potential physical disasters but also include internal perceptions that something we consider essential is lacking. This is why lack of control, lack of information-and, as we will see, unsatisfied emotional needs (e.g., lack of love), trigger the HPA axis.
    Consummation of such needs abolishes the stress response. “

    That above, in my view, summarizes the Scientology experience: Secrecy, multiple layers of hidden control, manipulation, loss of ownership of own life and the continual uncertainty to make it right, as to do so will obviously involve unmasking your “best friends” and “allies.”

  28. Loved “Memoirs” and was stunned by Sarge’s recollection of Ron wanting Sarge to rig up a lethally charged E-meter! Talk about emotional tone playacting and cognitive dissonance! At the end Rons life he had so much mass, charge, and BTs that he actually wanted Sarge to rig an E-meter with enough electric current to blow away the BTs AND KILL THE BODY!

    Ultimately, the Founders tech could not free the Founder. I have a hard time reconciling this. Marty can you share any thoughts about this sad reality that may give greater understanding?

  29. I liked that part from Victor Frankl about how happiness will take care of itself if you accomplish your goals. That is very real to me.

    As far as phony emotion goes, I have seen some people get pretty unreal in attempts to prove they were “uptone”. I didn’t like faking my tone so a lot of times I would ruffle feathers in attempts to get things done.

    I do think that there are times when “keeping your TR’s in” is very workable. If you feel like crap it isn’t a good idea to slop it over everyone’s lines while trying to get your job done. I think it has survival value to discipline yourself from showing less desirable emotions while in public or while trying to make a sale or whatever. It isn’t a great habit to do it all the time and submerge your own beingness.

    I have had several good cries while getting auditing over the years and afterwards felt incredible. I know there is value to letting off and showing true emotion.

    Thanks for flushing this one out Marty.

  30. You don’t get enough credit for your song choices Marty.

  31. For me happiness comes easily…all I do is look around and realize how grateful I am for what I already have.
    I was pretty miserable in Scientology because I was always in fear of “not getting it right” or “not being good enough” But now I see that I’m even grateful for those experiences…..And I’m so happy to know that it was there for the lesson only.🙂

  32. Its like everything else, you can take something literally or use it applying criteria. This cookie cutter culture of the CoS of abiding by the book just doesn’t hack it for me. Also Ron was very changing, very mutable, you can see this in his writings. This is normal when developing something… what is this cumbersome human trait of wanting everything set and done… It always turns into a pain the but!

  33. This is one of the best posts yet. It resonates on all levels, yet isn’t too pushy for any lurkers who may be on the fence. I really, really liked it.

  34. These last two posts on emotion have given me pause to take a closer look at my understandings and experiences with emotion.

    I find that emotion is a many faceted experience. Not just because there is a wide range of feelings and attitudes covered within the emotional tones themselves, but also because there are different ways to experience emotion.

    I am now thinking that there seems to be at least two levels of emotion that one may experience at any given time.

    There is the level where emotion is very much experienced as “effect”, (it “moves in on one” unbidden).

    At this level the emotional tone that is experienced, and the “volume” of that experience, seems to be coming in from flows created by other life entities in present time, and/or from memories that one is in contact with (either one’s own or those of other entities). This level is closely, or entirely associated with close contact with bodies and “life” entities. There appears to be an almost infinite number of “emotional tone flows” (the actual wavelengths and flows of each emotion) bombarding us at any given moment, both from the beings in the environment, and from the sum of a being’s own “restimulated ” emotion. What one experiences, and how one experiences it seems to be determined by the prevailing emotional flows at the time, or some kind of average of emotions available. I no longer believe that there is such a thing as “pure emotion” at this level.

    But I find that there is also a second level. At this level emotion is experienced more as observational. This level is more “exterior” if you will.

    At this level one is more at cause over the experience “as effect”, and also more at cause in originating “emotional flows”. I believe that this level always exists but can become overwhelmed by or “interiorized” into the first level. From this level the being is in more control regarding his emotional experiences. I believe this is the level that is being addressed by Ron’s article on Joy of Creating.

    Many of Scientology’s processes address handling one’s life by hunting down the things that are interfering with one’s ability or willingness to create the life they desire. But there is another approach, also within the technologies of Scientology. This second approach does not rummage into the past, but rather has the being exercise his basic OT abilities. It is addressing the being as “cause” rather that of “effect”.

    So the question is, “is the first level, or the second level, more “real”? I think the answer to that depends on how you measure “reality”.

    Is the second “fake” because the being deliberately creates it? Is the first NOT “fake” simply because the being doesn’t acknowledge his responsibility in experiencing it?

    Is one “more valid” than the other?

    Personally I consider that “desire to experience everything and anything” created the universe, but it also set the trap. “Willingness to experience anything” is the key to that trap.

    Eric

  35. Fine succinct post.

  36. But I have failed to address the other aspect of the opening post in regards to “false” emotion, as in “the person really is not in that tone but he is “PRing” people with it.

    Yes this can be quite objectionable. I also consider it “covert” by definition.

    When “mocking-up” emotions becomes a method of dominance of others it becomes objectionable.

    When one uses mocked-up emotions to avoid real situations it tends to be inhibitive of progress.

    However…. there always seem to be other viewpoints or realities.

    Take one of the most fundamental tools of Scientology, auditing. Without the ability of the auditor to “be exterior to” the client’s emotions, and his own personal emotions, he would not be a very effective auditor.

    The training drills 0 to 4 especially, are there to bring the auditor to the point where he can maintain his confront under any auditing situation. It would be totally useless to the client if, when the client gets angry or sad, or whatever, with something in a session (often by way of aberration in this case), that the auditor “gets into that emotion” and responds in kind. This would not be an especially effective method of helping the client confront his aberration.

    Confront, in part, is defined as “the ability to be other than, or the ability to ‘not be’ something.” If one is not “other than” an emotion, then he is not CONFRONTING that emotion, he is BEING it.

    So, right from the get-go Scientology is training people to be exterior to emotion. Is that a “bad” thing? Seemingly not in an auditing situation.

    Whether or not the auditor is feeling up-tone, when he is in session, he has to be able to maintain his confront, or as a lesser solution assume a “mock- up” of being “calm-assertive” for the sake of the client.

    So, is mocking-up, or creating, or assuming emotions on purpose a bad thing?

    I guess it depends on one’s purpose and perhaps their emotional tone.

    Eric

    • martyrathbun09

      I highly recommend you read On Becoming A Person, Carl Rogers, to appreciate the limitations of the otherwise wonderful and effective TRs.

      • Marty

        Yes, TRs are definitely limited in the way they are taught, and the use they are designed for. But, as you say, they also have possibilities of being “wonderful and effective”.

        One of the limitations I see is in the results of some of the TRs training, in that often the auditor ends up “trained” to the point of becoming wooden. Somewhere along the line in the TR training the student lost sight of the fact that he was supposed to be in communication with the client. REAL COMMUNICATION, not some drill valence! To be in communication requires one to duplicate the other person. Duplication is a situation where both ends of the comm line are “resonating” at the same wave length. If the TR training makes the auditor so “other than” that he is not in ARC with the client, you lose the whole game.

        There are definitely flaws and limitations in TR training and use. This, to me, is just one of the most glaring.

        PS: I am planning to read that book. I know you have recommended it many times, but I am a bit slow sometimes.

        Eric

        • TRs and woodness

          In my observation, much of Scientology was aimed to hypnotize (make a person very suggestible and malleable) and brainwash (forsake your will for that of the organization).

          Making communication so absurdly technical and leaving out friendliness and caring, using the word duplication instead of listening and understanding …. well, there you go. One more step toward dehumanizing and de-individualizing.

          PS – I got a lot out of TRs. There were gems in a lot of Scientology, especially pre-1959, before Hubbard got kicked out of England.

  37. I believe most of us decide which part of ourselves we want to reveal to whom. Things get interesting when it becomes dangerous to be authentic.

    The happiness police leave you in fear of being deemed unhappy (=unworthy). And fear is rampant. Fear is in the scripture (the ‘only way’ delusion), fear is in the marketing (last stop before eternity), fear is all over the admin lines (excessive and unjust punishment, also well before DM’s time). Fear is in session (what if I don’t have a win?), fear is in the course room (mustn’t yawn, mustn’t yawn!). Fear is now at the events (did I clap and pay enough?). Fear is being called at all hours of the day from all around the world. Fear is KNOWING you cannot say what you think and not daring to ask your friends questions teetering on the brink of treason. John Sweeney was right to call it the “Church of Fear”.

    I am only just learning, and trying very hard, to remind myself that everyone is doing the best they can with what they have from where they are. Perhaps the synthetic happiness was meant as protection and has been worn so long people have forgotten it. I am not trying to excuse atrocities. I am trying to understand them. And I do believe that love for the people in Scientology, if not the construct, will melt the ice. Eye-opening articles, keeping up these kind of communications, and being insufferably nice to people you know who are still ‘in’. Lord knows they can use some kindness.

  38. I had no idea! I missed so much by avoidance of the sea org.
    Artificial, forced, unnatural emotion! There was none of this at our mission. I do recall it at the org, though, and had a lot of sympathy for those folks, overworked, underpaid, and horrible living conditions.

  39. I was never that involved so as to witness this excessive pretense of feeling happy all the time and also wasnt in the states. But I definetly got that crappy “wow, everything is so fab!” vibe from registrars overseas, the states and from guys coming from the Freewinds to take victims onboard the ship. It always felt creepy… No R factor with the run of the mill earthling but in my country its considered extremely impolite to rock someones boat, even if he or she seems sort of loony… So the public just acomodated their Rs.
    I always experienced a sense of impact and of wanting to retreat from this kind of scene, something in the air just seemed off… Really off!!
    Marty I love how you write!

  40. I was reading through some John Ruskin quotes a little bit ago and came across one that made me think of this blog topic of play acting scientologists. See what you think.

    “When men are rightly occupied, their amusement grows out of their work, as the colour-petals out of a fruitful flower;—when they are faithfully helpful and compassionate, all their emotions become steady, deep, perpetual, and vivifying to the soul as the natural pulse to the body. But now, having no true business, we pour our whole masculine energy into the false business of money-making; and having no true emotion, we must have false emotions dressed up for us to play with, not innocently, as children with dolls, but guiltily and darkly.”

  41. Pingback: Emotions IV: The Top Of The Tone Scale | Moving On Up a Little Higher

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s