What's new

The Tone Scale: How Valid Is It?

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
The woodpecker was uptone, in action, so he couldn't possibly be destructive to the base, right?:coolwink: Or the ants and other insect critters who were so busy eating it from the bottom up. Anyway, wrist needs a break so no more typing today after this. Does that mean I'm downtone or PTS to big, gorgeous, stunning woodpeckers? :laugh:


:lol::lol:

I don't think you either are PTS or downtone..but you should be given a handling to spot why and how you pulled it in...:blush: :biggrin:
The tree, unfortunately, is in a degraded state :unsure:


Actually, it was a remarkable challenge and experience. When I finally found a way to get high enough with the equipment I have and no longer as flexible, lightweight or young as years past, it felt great. The frustration of physical and equipment limitations dissipated and I looked out from the treetop to sunny, panoramic hillside views and no longer felt afraid I'd fall or intimidated. I saw and accepted the entire scenario, including my human limitations.

There is no emotion to describe how I feel, I never felt like this before. It's an integrated love, acceptance and understanding of self, flaws and all, exactly as I am - the overcoming of some sort of life crisis. Just wanted to share that before taking a little break from typing.



8340b335262913c0475c184e61fdb41a.jpg



woodpecker-damage1.jpg


I'll chat again with y'all in a few days. Bye for now. :fly2:

Is this your tree ???
When wood pecker do such a jod to a tree..it's because the tree is very ill (bugs infested though)
So yes..the woodpecker did alert you the tree was going to be a hazard for the house and wires.

(hopefuly you are very prudent Sheila..those jobs nears electric wired must be done by professionals though...take care. We know you can make things go right..but it's hazardous around there cutting trees )

Actually I would say (according to my favorite kids tone scale)

that both of you (woddpecker and you) are very determined and resolute.

Good luck and good recovery (we are not young chicks anymore..but still trying though ) :biggrin:
 

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
Oh good lord. *sigh*

Re: The Tone Scale: How Valid Is It?

Hey, guess what, it isn't 'valid' except to highly obsessed and gullible people following crap from a horrible human who is has baffled/conned you.

Get over it, its crap, dumb, and pointless outside the Hubbard long-con.


:grouch::grouch::grouch::grouch::grouch:
 

arcxcauseblows

Patron Meritorious
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=emotions

Scientology is pseudo science, fake news, a dictatorship let it go and find real scientific academic collaborative channels to fill your curiosities, wog tech is far superior even Scientology proves that, emeters are they made by sea org or OTs? No that's outsourced to China lol. The lawyers and private investigators are all wogs, tech (computer) consultants pr consultants, all wogs, Scientology staff don't go up the bridge they join as wogs and work as wogs most their life very few go clear or ot, if Scientology made you more efficient they would have staff get up the bridge before posting into production

Here's Hubbard's approach to every subject in a nutshell

In his head... "I'm the source of all! I'm the only source, I'm the biggest thetan! I'm immortal and all knowing! Humans must be destroyed and turned into scientologists! I will make them all my minions I'm God I'm Buddha I'm the anti christ"


In every lecture on any subject... "I was over in _____ studying_____ and they were having a hell of a time with ______ so I figured I might as well apply Scientology to this and what do you know!? I traced the subject back to ______ and of course he had it all wrong so I had to fix it and straightened it all out and now it's all taped up and this became this new process ______ and I almost killed myself doing it but I came through in the end, nobody else ever did this, just me but we won't get into why"

(So stop thinking about _____ just pay me for process ______)


Thought stoppers, and you're not supposed to discuss the subject any further that's verbal tech and you might find out he was wrong or come up with something better and he can't have that!

Good thing wogs don't have a policy like ksw and verbal tech or squirreling or there would be no science

They don't have a color emotions chart with Smiley's for the crib yet but I'm sure if you do some searching they have better information than Hubbard on the subject without the thought stopping cult ties

Like Brian Culkin said, Hubbard made complex subjects digestible for the layman. But to what end? No good
 

Elronius of Marcabia

Silver Meritorious Patron
It's about a 1 or 2 on scale of 1 to 10 Paul and only has use within the self referential
works of Hubbard and his sham Dianetics and Scientology.
Of course thats my opinion from the lowest of possible emotional position on the scale :)
being totally apathetic about the entire subject and whobird and his pseudo piece of shit
so called science:angry: I really can't be arsed to care much yawn :yes: and although I am conservative
in my opinions most of the time :yes:.

I am still yet enthusiatic about the topic and acutely aware of my chronic disdain for all
things Whobardian :biggrin:

Likely due too a fatal flaw in my character:coolwink::omg::dance3::thumbsup::hysterical: or maybe just a wee bit
of compasion for the poor lowly downscale chronically positioned wogs db's and sp's with
unsolvable cases who get stamped with the Whobardian nonsense.

Valid ? who really gives shit unless your out to solve a "Case" make a "Clear OTea":yes:

Trying to find one scrap of value out of Hubbards ramblings is like digging through
a pile of shit to find a kernel of corn for nourishmnet.

Yeah you can but not sure if its wise or wanted :coolwink:
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=emotions

Scientology is pseudo science, fake news, a dictatorship let it go and find real scientific academic collaborative channels to fill your curiosities, wog tech is far superior even Scientology proves that, emeters are they made by sea org or OTs? No that's outsourced to China lol. The lawyers and private investigators are all wogs, tech (computer) consultants pr consultants, all wogs, Scientology staff don't go up the bridge they join as wogs and work as wogs most their life very few go clear or ot, if Scientology made you more efficient they would have staff get up the bridge before posting into production

Here's Hubbard's approach to every subject in a nutshell

In his head... "I'm the source of all! I'm the only source, I'm the biggest thetan! I'm immortal and all knowing! Humans must be destroyed and turned into scientologists! I will make them all my minions I'm God I'm Buddha I'm the anti christ"


In every lecture on any subject... "I was over in _____ studying_____ and they were having a hell of a time with ______ so I figured I might as well apply Scientology to this and what do you know!? I traced the subject back to ______ and of course he had it all wrong so I had to fix it and straightened it all out and now it's all taped up and this became this new process ______ and I almost killed myself doing it but I came through in the end, nobody else ever did this, just me but we won't get into why"

(So stop thinking about _____ just pay me for process ______)


Thought stoppers, and you're not supposed to discuss the subject any further that's verbal tech and you might find out he was wrong or come up with something better and he can't have that!

Good thing wogs don't have a policy like ksw and verbal tech or squirreling or there would be no science

They don't have a color emotions chart with Smiley's for the crib yet but I'm sure if you do some searching they have better information than Hubbard on the subject without the thought stopping cult ties

Like Brian Culkin said, Hubbard made complex subjects digestible for the layman. But to what end? No good

You certainly got the bloviation patter down cold! LOL!

And let's include Architects and Construction Contractors to the list of essential wog outsourcing. Seems they exceeded their in-house capabilities (read: EPF & RPF) long ago.
 

F.Bullbait

Oh, a wise guy,eh?
Hmm... a tone scale devised by a person who was tone deaf. How valid can that be?


enhanced-buzz-32006-1348083190-6.jpg




:eyeroll:
 
Last edited:

F.Bullbait

Oh, a wise guy,eh?
There was some discussion in this thread regarding multiple tones occurring simultaneously.

Here is LRH attempting to address the deficiencies of his simple tone scale.

http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/

(Look under 'Tapes in order' then 10th ACC to find the transcript.) (Hint - in this site, you have to scroll to the top of the web page you requested or sometimes you will see nothing)


“Every one of the emotional bands has every one of the emotions in it. Now, this is the part being the
whole sort of a thing. Well, let's take boredom as an emotion and we find out there's the anger of
boredom and there's the grief of boredom and so on.


Let's take apathy. This is one of the most remarkable things. There is a - an apathy of rage. Or a rage
of apathy, and so forth. I mean, "Oh, I don't know what I'm going to do, but I could just kill somebody
about this," you know? So we take each one of the emotions and we find out it has each one of the
emotions in it.” .. 9[SUP]th[/SUP] ACC Lecture, Elementary Material, Know to Mystery Scale, 7 January 1955

(Ya, the pdf file says 10th ACC, material says 9th ACC, eeany, meeny, myyny, mo...)





:eyeroll:
 

Francois Tremblay

Patron with Honors
I do think there is some validity to the concept that we can get stuck on a "tone," and that we move from "tone" to "tone" as we talk and things happen and so on. But that doesn't take much intelligence to figure out. The idea of addressing someone a little more uptone than they are, is also a good common sense sort of thing. But the concept that we have one fixed scale of emotions, and that emotion X always comes after emotion Y in all situations, seems extremely implausible to me.

What I would like people to examine though (and I haven't read this thread in a while so it may have been discussed), is how the tone scale helps mold people into the Scientologist valence (personality type). If you honestly believe the tone scale is valid, and try to follow it, does that actually serve the purpose of making you more like a model Scientologist? Is that the whole point?
 

Knows

Gold Meritorious Patron
I just had a HUGE WOGNITION

:cheerleader::biggrin::thumbsup::dance3::buzzin::buzzin::buzzin::roflmao::dancer::dancer::giggle::giggle::giggle::giggle::party::party::party::laugh::laugh::woohoo::woohoo::thankyou::hattip:

Scientology is put together and held together by Wog Attorney's consulting a sociopathic leader (David Miscavige) on how to cover up his crimes and keep all of the money extorted and manipulated out of the unsuspecting victims who are unfortunate to cross $cientrickery's path.

The scum bag cock roach attorneys Keep Scientology Working. They make MILLION$ off of this and Slappy Miscavige gets to live his lavish lifestyle whilst he beats and abuses those that serve him.

:yes:

I will say it again -

TRUST is NOT at the Top O the Tone Scale!~:no:
 

Knows

Gold Meritorious Patron
I do think there is some validity to the concept that we can get stuck on a "tone," and that we move from "tone" to "tone" as we talk and things happen and so on. But that doesn't take much intelligence to figure out. The idea of addressing someone a little more uptone than they are, is also a good common sense sort of thing. But the concept that we have one fixed scale of emotions, and that emotion X always comes after emotion Y in all situations, seems extremely implausible to me.

What I would like people to examine though (and I haven't read this thread in a while so it may have been discussed), is how the tone scale helps mold people into the Scientologist valence (personality type). If you honestly believe the tone scale is valid, and try to follow it, does that actually serve the purpose of making you more like a model Scientologist? Is that the whole point?

Yes - good point.

"how the tone scale helps mold people into the Scientologist valence (personality type). If you honestly believe the tone scale is valid, and try to follow it, does that actually serve the purpose of making you more like a model Scientologist? Is that the whole point?"


I ran a successful business for many years prior to becoming a victim of Scientrickery.

I did not trust when I walked in. For some reason, :whistling:I did not trust the organization....my hackles were up.

But I was in the middle of a RUIN. Scientology exploited that ruin and got a shit ton of money out of me without providing any lasting help.

I kept thinking "I want this ruin to get resolved, they say the tech works when standardly applied"

so I will follow SOURCE / Sauced - L Ron the Con Hubbard

I slowly adopted everything that fat fuck said...."trust is at the top of the tone scale"

and whalla - I was a Scientologist...and no longer had an analytical mind to critically look at what I was being told by the "tech".

They got a lot of money out of me....money I earned WITHOUT the fucking tech or Org Board.

I now see the scam...very clever that little Hubbard....very clever indeed.

:coolwink:

I caught several Scientologist's filing bankrutpcy after putting their "Bridge, L's donations" on credit cards...and I questioned the ethical behavior...I was told something about "Pirates and Bums"....and that lead me to LOOKING which led me to the DOOR OUT.


 

Oscar

Patron
Let's just take the main levels of the 0-4 bit, and skip the, er, non-human range. So:

[skipped]
4.0 Enthusiasm
3.5 Cheerfulness
3.0 Conservatism
2.5 Boredom
2.0 Antagonism
1.5 Anger
1.1 Covert Hostility
1.0 Fear
0.5 Grief
0.05 Apathy
[skipped]

Hubbard said he derived the order from observing the emotions people went through in Dianetic auditing, sometimes so fast that way-stops get missed; someone said he pulled it out of his ass. Its provenance doesn't really matter. He said the numbers are an approximation, and not meant to signify too much.

He said there's a "volume" quality, sort of at right angles to the scale. So around the 1.0 fear level, a little bit of volume is anxiety, and a lot of volume is terror.

What do I mean by "how valid is it?" Let's see. I just want to stick to its main characteristics as it, not delve into discussing the merits of everything he ever said about it.

The sequence, ignoring the supposed observability in processing, is supposed to show increasing aliveness, potential for survival, general desirability. So on an individual level, life would generally look better if one is cheerful than if one is grieving (not so hard to accept); but similarly, life should generally look better if one is bored than being antagonistic (not so easy to accept, especially if one enjoys being antagonistic!). There's also the factor of emotion being applicable to the circumstances, so it's not as if grief is never merited.

I say individual level because some relatively "low-toned" people seem to accomplish a lot more than some relatively "high-toned" ones.

Anyway . . . .

  1. Are these emotions?
  2. Are they readily observable in people?
  3. Does the sequence seem correct, in that on a personal level does an emotion higher on this scale seem preferable to one lower down? [This question is complicated by Hubbard's idea that someone chronically above 2.0 is survival-oriented, and someone chronically below 2.0 is death-oriented]
  4. How about the Chart of Human Evaluation?

I'll give my own answers, just to start the ball rolling.

1. Yes
2. Yes.
Those first two aren't meant to be trick questions. I think the answers are obvious, but I spent so many years in Scn and the tone scale is such a basic Scn thing, who knows?!
3. I haven't done thousands of hours of auditing and taken careful note of the pcs' emotional tone. I know one was supposed to note it on the worksheets where it changed, but .... Personally, the sequence seems ok.
4. Heh. That's a vast, open-ended question! To be discussed, shall we say. :)

Paul
Invalid. Emotions are not on an altitude scale. They are on a scale measured soley by degrees of pleasantness to unpleasantness, a lateral scale. Death is not an emotion.
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
Pain and Death are emotions.

You dramming wogs need to wake up and know this stuff. When Jesus (just a shade above Clear - even though a pedophile) "raised" Lazarus from the dead all that was done was to bring him uptone out of Body Death.

This is why Tom Cruise says that only Scientologists can really help at an accident scene because the accident "victims" are merely dramming Pain as an emotion or something and just need to come up the Tone Scale a bit to get out of that emotion.
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Every time I see this image I'm struck by how much everybody seems to be enjoying themselves.

enhanced-buzz-32006-1348083190-6.jpg


Now, about the tone scale. If Hubbard got the idea from someone else it might possibly have some basis in truth, otherwise I'd say it was about as valid as the nine-pound-note in my pocket.
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Every time I see this image I'm struck by how much everybody seems to be enjoying themselves.

enhanced-buzz-32006-1348083190-6.jpg


Now, about the tone scale. If Hubbard got the idea from someone else it might possibly have some basis in truth, otherwise I'd say it was about as valid as the nine-pound-note in my pocket.
Oh, I don't know - I found all his reminiscing about pipe organ stops very uplifting.
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
I must have missed that TOBB. I presume he gives details on how he invented the pipe organ of course - immediately after he invented music.
Pretty close. I think it was on the Student Hat Course tapes on the EPF. I don't know if it was just a Sea Org thing or if the tapes are on public courses also. As I recall he was using a discussion about his expertise in pipe organs to make the point about how important it is to define words so you know the nomenclature of a subject. Whenever I see that picture of him at the keyboard I think of that.

Now that I know this was a con from the start I have to wonder if he enjoyed making us look up all that stuff and getting into long useless word chains just to mess with us? If I wanted to impress somebody I somehow suspect that emphasizing my familiarity with the internal workings of pipe organs wouldn't be my first choice but if you were an American pretending to be an English country gentleman then maybe that was what they did in the 50s.

Is it a bad thing that I can remember this kind of trivia at this point in my life? When I'm in a rest home will I be constantly talking about this to the nurses?
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Pretty close. I think it was on the Student Hat Course tapes on the EPF. I don't know if it was just a Sea Org thing or if the tapes are on public courses also. As I recall he was using a discussion about his expertise in pipe organs to make the point about how important it is to define words so you know the nomenclature of a subject. Whenever I see that picture of him at the keyboard I think of that.

Now that I know this was a con from the start I have to wonder if he enjoyed making us look up all that stuff and getting into long useless word chains just to mess with us? If I wanted to impress somebody I somehow suspect that emphasizing my familiarity with the internal workings of pipe organs wouldn't be my first choice but if you were an American pretending to be an English country gentleman then maybe that was what they did in the 50s.

Is it a bad thing that I can remember this kind of trivia at this point in my life? When I'm in a rest home will I be constantly talking about this to the nurses?
Talking about an American pretending to be an English gentleman reminds me of the astronomer Edwin Hubble who adopted a faux English accent like the one's he heard at Oxford University while he was a student there. He also took to smoking a pipe and wearing a cape. I can hear him now ... "By jove old boy, the darned universe is expanding don't you know".
 
Last edited:

guanoloco

As-Wased
Pretty close. I think it was on the Student Hat Course tapes on the EPF. I don't know if it was just a Sea Org thing or if the tapes are on public courses also. As I recall he was using a discussion about his expertise in pipe organs to make the point about how important it is to define words so you know the nomenclature of a subject. Whenever I see that picture of him at the keyboard I think of that.

Now that I know this was a con from the start I have to wonder if he enjoyed making us look up all that stuff and getting into long useless word chains just to mess with us? If I wanted to impress somebody I somehow suspect that emphasizing my familiarity with the internal workings of pipe organs wouldn't be my first choice but if you were an American pretending to be an English country gentleman then maybe that was what they did in the 50s.

Is it a bad thing that I can remember this kind of trivia at this point in my life? When I'm in a rest home will I be constantly talking about this to the nurses?

This was exactly the Student Hat. In fact, David Mcsquirrel-age had this taken off the tapes the last I heard.
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Talking about an American pretending to be an English gentleman reminds me of the astronomer Edwin Hubble who adopted a faux English accent like the one's he heard at Oxford University while he was a student there. He also took to smoking a pipe and wearing a cape. I can hear him now ... "By jove old boy, the darned universe is expanding don't you know".
To be fair, the British accent is pretty infectious but Hubbard didn't really do that. We got something more along the lines of - zowie, wheee, whirrrr....you know, man!
 
Top