Scientologists and Grief

Moderator: doubleVee

<<

DRE

OTIII

Posts: 247

Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:20 pm

Post Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:53 am

Scientologists and Grief

I was recently told by CoS haters on IMDB that Scientologists are not allowed to mourn. LRH put grief and sympathy low on the tone scale. Anyone who has such emotions should be dissuaded.

I say this is BS. During the time I was in the CoS, I was not dissuaded from feeling grief. I was only told to get over it, same as in normal human society. I am also aware that many current and former Scientologists have felt grief. Witness John and Kelly Travolta's reactions to the death of their son (John is asking "Why, God?" and Kelly is withdrawing into herself) or the expressions of regret posted on these boards.

I thought this might be an interesting debate to start. What's your take on Scientologist grief? Are they licensed to feel it? Do they? What measures exist to encourage or discourage it? Let's get some real tech experts' input on this instead of people who think they're experts but ain't.
<<

James McGuigan

User avatar

Ghost in the Machine

Posts: 396

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:42 am

Location: Between Reality Tunnels

Post Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:40 am

Without getting into an essay, alot of it also depends on your understanding and beliefs about death. In Scientology, the theatan is still alive and its just the body that has been dropped, and the theatan will find a new baby body soon.
Freedom is a choice. Choose to be yourself, choose to speak your truth and do so with compassion. And above all else, choose to be not afraid. If I can't dance, its not my revolution.
<<

DRE

OTIII

Posts: 247

Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:20 pm

Post Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:45 pm

Yeah, they mentioned that. They were also like "in Hubbard's world, remembering your grandfather can only weaken you." That was the main part I called BS on. Scientologists aren't Nazis about grief. Right?
<<

speckledtrout

Clear

Posts: 129

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:49 am

Location: out yonder.

Post Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:58 pm

I am NOT a tech expert but from having grown up in it:

I think its at least a little BS. You're allowed to be "in Grief" if its appropriate to the situation, but there is the expectation that it not become your chronic tone level. If you're in grief for something they deem silly, well, you are dramatizing. The only Scilons who think the death of your child is silly are the same sons of bitches who come up to you at Christian funerals to say "Oh it was God's will."


Some people take it too far, others don't. I bet the former-SO members had some iffy stuff happen in this area.


As far as *sympathy* for the aggreived, well I THINK (not sure) that is technically a no-no. Same as for a sick person.
mikolot mayim rabim adirim, mishbarai'yam
--Ps. 93
<<

Iknowtoomuch

Suppressive Person

Posts: 913

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:13 am

Post Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:51 pm

Normal societies idea of grief is far different than a Scientologists. I've rarely ever heard someone outside of Scientology tell someone to "get over it".
Because Scientologists think the person will come back they are far less greify about losses. This is the general rule.
There's no question about it.
"Everybody has a right to believe what they want to believe. But I don't believe that anybody has a right to trick anybody, to hurt anybody, to harm some body, for their own purposes." - Jason Beghe
<<

DRE

OTIII

Posts: 247

Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:20 pm

Post Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:31 am

I'm pretty sure sympathy is okay. When I was inside, I sometimes mentioned my deceased grandparents (they passed on of cancer and Alzheimer's) and always got consoled. Tom Cruise has expressed that he feels for the Travoltas on the View and no one's mad at him for that. Maybe in some extreme fanatic CoS cliques grief is frowned on. Not in general public areas, though, or so it appears. :)
<<

speckledtrout

Clear

Posts: 129

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:49 am

Location: out yonder.

Post Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:34 am

Most like. The only thing with sympathy I am sure of is that if a child is ill or hurts themselves, you are not supposed to show any sympathy because then they will do it again (sigh).
mikolot mayim rabim adirim, mishbarai'yam
--Ps. 93
<<

DRE

OTIII

Posts: 247

Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:20 pm

Post Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:56 am

Well, that's a given in normal society too. "You shouldn't have touched the stove, Junior. I told you it would burn you." Of course, I suppose Scientologists' definitions of hurting oneself may be different from other people's.
<<

speckledtrout

Clear

Posts: 129

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:49 am

Location: out yonder.

Post Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:03 am

Um, no.

Say Junior gets the flu. "You shouldn't have made yourself sick, Junior."
Say Junior falls off his bike and smacks his head. You a) say nothing until the contact assist is done and b) comfort the child as little as possible so they won't fall off their bike again.



It's a very "Mommy's sympathy makes weak, sick beings" kind of masculine thinking.
mikolot mayim rabim adirim, mishbarai'yam
--Ps. 93
<<

Iknowtoomuch

Suppressive Person

Posts: 913

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:13 am

Post Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:27 am

DRE wrote:I'm pretty sure sympathy is okay. When I was inside, I sometimes mentioned my deceased grandparents (they passed on of cancer and Alzheimer's) and always got consoled. Tom Cruise has expressed that he feels for the Travoltas on the View and no one's mad at him for that. Maybe in some extreme fanatic CoS cliques grief is frowned on. Not in general public areas, though, or so it appears. :)



Celebrities are treated entirely differently than the average Scientologist. They aren't pounded by many of the same ideas that get passed along from Scientologist to Scientologist either.
There's also a huge difference between a public Scientologist and a Sea Org member's reaction to the same things.
This isn't an all encompassing idea though. Some Sea Org members are very cool and sympathetic. I'm speaking as a general rule.
"Everybody has a right to believe what they want to believe. But I don't believe that anybody has a right to trick anybody, to hurt anybody, to harm some body, for their own purposes." - Jason Beghe
<<

doubleVee

User avatar

Forum Moderator

Posts: 471

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:14 am

Location: Las Vegas

Post Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:27 am

I've been thinking a bit on this subject as well.

I remember when my father died, a field auditor took pity on me or something and decided to give me a session to "run out the grief".

Yes, the idea that the person will be reincarnated helps a lot, but there is still a loss there (loss of a comm line, lowering of ARC) and restimulation of previous deaths and losses.

Remember also that there is supposedly a difference between appropriate emotion and mis-emotion (see the definition of Clear). Of course that's not what people put into practice, they tend to try and erase all emotion, but there you go.

In my case, despite thinking at the time that we knew where my dad had gone (he "shopped around" for a new body and new parents before dropping his) of course I was still considerably upset. After one session, which I can't recall the length of but can't have been more than a couple of hours at most, the auditor took me for a walk and dropped the cycle. Based on her actions and certain comments that were later relayed to me, there was apparently something wrong with me that I failed to feel great about the whole thing that quickly. The fact that I was still unhappy about not only his death but certain... situations that we had unresolved before then was a sign that I was out-ethics or no-case-gain or, at best, extremely low-toned. I believe she described me as a "black hole". That sure made me feel awesome at the time.

Everyone at his funeral-type thingie (no body) was so complimentary to my mom and everybody for not being emotional or crying or anything. Displays of emotion are most definitely looked down on, no matter the reason. I myself didn't cry over my dad for years.
Somebody has to speak for these people.... no more running. I aim to misbehave.... If you can't do something smart, do something right. (Serenity)
<<

speckledtrout

Clear

Posts: 129

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:49 am

Location: out yonder.

Post Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:11 pm

I found that displays of love, enthusiasm, or affection were ok. "Mis"emotion was not, even when it might be appropriate. Tom Cruise on Oprah? Enthusiasm. People are apparently "afraid" of Enthusiasm. Doublevee grieving? Misemotional if its been "handled."

I recently had my 'in' family comment on how I seemed so much more uptone and happy. I realized it was because I got to bring my spouse with me, so there was "someone in the bunker" I guess is the best way to describe it. If I got upset, I could go into my room and talk, for once.

They'd labeled me as "content" on the TS for years...well duh, "content" is basically "polite but stoic." No way I was showing how I felt either way about things. Part of that's me, but part of it was the damn pigeonholing of your personality.
mikolot mayim rabim adirim, mishbarai'yam
--Ps. 93
<<

doubleVee

User avatar

Forum Moderator

Posts: 471

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:14 am

Location: Las Vegas

Post Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:19 pm

speckledtrout wrote:Tom Cruise on Oprah? Enthusiasm.


I saw showbiz or ET or some dumb show speculating on his "new approach" to talking about Scientology, how he's been more laid-back. It got a better reception than him being over the top. How much do you want to bet that the church told him he was being too far up the tone scale for the general public? (more than 1/2 a tone above them) Seems to be working tho.
Somebody has to speak for these people.... no more running. I aim to misbehave.... If you can't do something smart, do something right. (Serenity)
<<

speckledtrout

Clear

Posts: 129

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:49 am

Location: out yonder.

Post Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:29 pm

Yup. I bet that was *exactly* what he was told!

Because "social conventions" is really just a phrase for "the tone level of the dumb drooling masses." :roll:
mikolot mayim rabim adirim, mishbarai'yam
--Ps. 93
<<

Holden Caulfield

User avatar

PTS Type III

Posts: 419

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:44 pm

Location: A Central Park Bench

Post Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:56 am

The way I see it, putting any kind of restrain on your own emotions and cementing them hieracially is devastating to any human being, and especially artists.

This is the main reason, I think, there are so many B-actors in Scientology and basically none with any true substance. No, Anthony Hopkins, no Meryl Streep but mostly a bunch of sitcomers. If I'd have to make one exception it might be V. Ribisi.

Actors are supposed to be able to draw on emotions from the whole range, which essentially becomes impossible if the values you hold put some emotions together with mental illness, or "abberations".

Instead, what you get is an overemphasis on the emotions deemed positive and thus, a hypocritical environment. This is the clash that slapped TC in the face when he jumped on Oprahs couch.
"If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth."

Return to Tech Debates & Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software