The Tone Scale: How Valid Is It?

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Dulloldfart, May 7, 2017.

View Users: View Users
  1. F.Bullbait

    F.Bullbait Oh, a wise guy,eh?

    We take many things for granted that are a puzzle to folks from other cultures.

    I used to live across from an apartment building that housed people "fresh off the boat". One day I saw a fire inside an apartment which had the door open. A further investigation revealed an electric oven was being used by the inhabitants as a fireplace.
  2. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    You think that's bad. I had a Brazilian renting a room from me for a while. One day I gave him a ride. When I stopped for gas, he kindly offered to put the gas in the tank. By the time I turned to give him the key to my locking gas tank, he had a screwdriver in his hand to break it open, that fast. I kid you not. :omg:
  3. I thought when I looked into that link I would find a work w/only the most tenuous relation to Hubbard's. I was right.
  4. I thought when I looked into that link I would find a work w/only the most tenuous relation to Hubbard's. I was right.
  5. I thought when I looked into that link I would find a work w/only the most tenuous relation to Hubbard's. I was right.
  6. I thought when I looked into that link I would find a work w/only the most tenuous relation to Hubbard's. I was right.

  7. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Silver Meritorious Patron

    Hubbard is known to have favored Myer's Dark Jamaican but if all you got is Eng Rum he'll drink it
  8. I think u make a valid point about the Church, except I don't know of where LRH says all tones have harmonics of all other tones. He says some tones r harmonics of some other tones. I'd like to behold any evidence u have of ur take over mine. In any case the sort of manipulation u describe does go on in the church, last I checked. It's crap that needs to stop for the real subject to emerge. I possibly shouldn't b on this message board. I consider myself an fzer, among other things. LRH made a system that had the potential to b the 1st religion where some1 @ very bottom could potentially cause harm to some1 @ very top (KRs/Things that should not b reports), but fact is I was told @ least 2ce, that experience ruled above that seeming potential. Altho, I could understand the why on that, that + the fact I did not have a good friend w/whom to compare notes, who was also in Scientology, meant that it was about @ that point my cognitive dissonance was getting too extreme for me to have much potential to bootstrap myself into an effective Scientologist. Couldn't excuse that, deep down in my thetan kisser.
  9. Here we get into the difference between a philosophically inclined fzer/an anti-Scientologist. It's a deep subject; a big can of worms, / if u don't even respect the opinion I'm about to give, I hope you'll respect the point of this preface pov.
    1. Personally, I gotta respect LRH for trying/trying damned hard to come up w/a damned good answer. As for my own observations; I'm left wondering what the psychologists have been up to, if they never came up w/a scale of emotions. That is a definite Scientological pov. As for the same for every1; I think it rather long established in philosophy that we can't say for certain that 1 person sees anything like the same color red. All we can say is that we make the same demarcation between red/say, green. In other words, the question "do we experience the exact same emotion" is in fact where we get some degree of meaninglessness in a question.
    2. All this says to me, is that the tone-scale is 1 of LRH's more complex observations. I would also say it's brilliant...but that's just me, I suppose.
    3. uh...brilliance, IMNSHO. Hubbard is the 1st/only person I know to say that emotions relate to how well a person thinks they r surviving. As for having to experience each as 1 moves up/down scale. That's not real to me. I don't yet believe it's true, because I've never observed it in myself or others. It does "stand to reason" tho/I'd take that pov, if I suddenly saw it was true. LRH was not an occultist, but an engineer (I know he did not pass his engineering class, but somehow or another, he took on many of the thought habits of an engineer, IMNSHO). Therefore there's 0 numerological symbolism to the #s, as LRH makes clear. He also STRONGLY hints, that tho the #s aren't reflective of anything like some platonic absolute truth, the idea of harmonics means they r not completely arbitrary, either. The #s give some idea of where tones r harmonics of each-other.
    4)... ... ...OK; on the 1 hand I consider the HCHE brilliant; on the other hand, I doubt it lives up to it's potential. No1 knew, for instance, what a homosexual really was, until they began fighting to b free. Observing a caged animal is not the same as observing a freed 1. Look @ Freud's bass ackwards speculations on the matter for instance. 1.1 is still sometimes an important part of some gays behavior to this day, but the basic why for such may b way off the mark. I need to read SOS/see what he says about oppression there. Note that during the raid, Scientologists were instructed to b 1.1 to the peeps conducting the raid (See Omar V. Garrison on this point). IMNSHO, SOS is 1 of maybe 3 of LRH's most important Dianetics/Scientology works. Psychotherapists should have beat down the f'ing door to get it. A few did. The blurb of 1 such used to b on the back of SOS. Note that the psych study has also been removed from the beginning of SOS. I'm aware of the stated reason for this on Wikipedia, but highly doubt it. Wikipedia has a scathing/lying critique for anything in the realm of religion/spirituality/metaphysics, much newer that 120 years ago. No big surprise, therefore.
  10. Maybe you'll get this; maybe u won't. Expanded tone-scale has both pity/no pity. They r quite close to each-other on the scale. It helps if u understand that "God" does not "care". Since "God's" care is infinite, "He" does not "care" (where care in quotes = ur particular ideas of what 1 would do if they "cared".). I 1ce had a conversation w/the 8th dynamic, wherein he told me in no uncertain terms "I don't care how it's going". THat eventually woke me up!
  11. I really admire how u seem to b trying to b objective here, / give the devil his due, but on point 1) This seems to b from the pov that "OBVIOUSLY" psychologists know more about emotions / such than LRH. We differ on this pov, if so.
    3) Yeah...sorry...I think LRH's relation of emotion to evolution is what makes the tone scale so brilliant. U can't have 1 w/out the other. To say the scale is basically right, but the science purely bogus strikes me as the most irredeemable nonsense, / besides mere confirmation that LRH was a pragmatist.
  12. U seem to b admitting that there's Scientology/then there's the cult. That's why I'm in the fz. I think LRH was brilliant / made real additions to the knowledge of mankind.
  13. There's so much I could say about this post, / I may later, but I think so much is explained by something LRH said in a lecture...I think sometime in the 60s. "I don't know how to teach judgement". Thinking of the ramifications of this, hopefully u, @ some point come to consider the possibility that the church, @ some point became a red-herring; that's why I'm in the fz. I'd give my left nut to know the exact point wherein LRH went bat-shit, if it wasn't a gradual development. Tending to guess, creation of Sea-Org, if there was an exact time, these days...yet I think he did some important stuff after it's creation. Stuff that emphasized he was not playing a wog game, tho, / so, of course, this is where the "law-only"/"real-estate novelists" type crowds get most down on him. Big games involve big risks.
  14. The most important thing I have to say about this post is that I dislike rather intensely, that it seems to me ur disguising the promotion of "law-only"/"real-estate novelist"/pinko commie soc values as real criticism/wish to understand. I find that to b underhanded. The answer to the question: "How much have u been programmed by the media/modern literature?" is in my case, NOT F'ING MUCH! I'm not even saying that those povs r wrong, yet. The arg has not yet progressed to that point. U haven't shown ur cards, so the game is still in play. After u have the guts to come right out w/what ur selling, then we can discuss particulars/the like. The answer is most likely "action", but if it isn't then that simply shows how far south the society has progressed. Seems to me the central concern of the whole track, is how the MEST universe treats OTs/big beings, who, admittedly, do not conform or see eye to eye w/ "conform-or-else" as the way to do ethics. 1ce ur @ that point in ur questioning (if u ever r) the questions that arise r: 1) R there better policies towards big beings/OTs? 2) If there is a better solution or solutions, is LRH in-line w/such and/or to what degree? 3) Is the current church in-line w/such. Answering these questions may well tell u who u r (enemy formula).

    I'm surprised the "LRH: THE____" series (LRH: The Writer, LRH: The Educator, etc) hasn't produced LRH: The Economist. His economic ideas r completely out of line w/neoliberal agenda, but fit pretty well w/ Adam Smith, the philosophy of Mill, Ben Franklin/Ayne Rand. Church should get on that. If ur not a commie symp...please...stop giving so much credence to their BS words.

    Anyway: I'm surprised the society hasn't completely crashed yet; since if the above economists (including LRH) r right, it should've any time after 1910-1930 or so. Seems to me the fact that it hasn't excuses anybody getting welfare; since; the fact that it hasn't yet, has gotta make u wonder if right-wing views on economics might actually b false. Franklin makes total sense to me, but how long has it been since we've abandoned his suggested fundamentals? Curiouser/Curiouser!
  15. TomKat

    TomKat Patron Meritorious

    I think Hubbard's observation of 1.1 is a great contribution to human understanding, probably drawn from personal self-observation. Is there an actor in Hollywood who doesn't have covert hostility down? It's a fascinating tone, but I notice a lot of people who use it are more fearful than hostile, more vic than perp. You really need some grit to pull off the Full Monty. Take Sen. Chuck Schumer -- his phoniness is so overblown it seems fragile, a cover for propitiation.
  16. "I 1ce failed a class in free thinking, because I came to the conclusion u could think freely"-LRH
    The # of unstated assumptions/"everybody knows"/hidden standards I think I see in this post r truly astounding:
    1) Everybody knows there's 0 worse than a cheater
    2) Everybody knows there's 0 worse than a klepto
    3) Everybody knows there's 0 worse than a scammer
    4) Everybody knows the tone-scale is the only thing LRH produced/there can't b other qualifying data (sorry; as much as LRH liked simplicity, there r problems w/more than 1 factor involved in solution. Hubbard; like a good engineer; tried to find least factors needed to solve a problem, but he did occasionally admit there were problems who's current solution was TOO simple).
    5) Everybody knows left-wing ideas about "good"/evil r the 1s that count.
    6) Everybody knows that laws about mscief exist because mischief is SOOOOOO darned wrong. This couples w/Everybody knows that people convicted of criminal mischief had mischief in their hearts (actually, I've reason to believe that laws concerning criminal mischief have almost 0 relation to the state of a persons mind or emotions).
    7) Everybody knows the ends don't justify the means (seems to me if there were an omniscient being, ends would indeed justify means).
    8) Every1 has the same definition of injustice, /that injustice is the worst possible thing.
    9) Every1 has the same definition of cruelty, /besides babies know everything about ethics, it's just us retarded adults who don't. Everybody knows that vicious is the worst thing a person could b.
    10) Every1 has the exact same definition of cruel/that's the worst thing a person could b.
    11) Everybody knows that a person in enthusiasm, couldn't b a better supporter of animal rights than some1 in grief (assertions of this general sort).
    Everybody knows LRH was saying 1 should NEVER B IN GRIEF (Nope! That's not what he was saying. Besides: Ever heard of the 5th dynamic?).

    "Whatever else u may say about the 10 commandments, u gotta respect the fact that there were only 10 of them."-Robert Anton Wilson

    OK...All of these things u seem to b saying r the worst things u could possibly do or b...sorry...Jesus opposed legalistic ways of thinking. He was a VERY BIG BEING/they executed him for it/let a murderer go free/the only person we know is going to heaven is the thief on the cross next to him, because he's the only person Jesus ever said directly was going to heaven.

    U see...I see it different. I can see something worse than all these things u seem to want to say r so damned bad...I see MIND CONTROL, in any of it's myriad forms, as being worse. Always have; always will. Seems to me something LRH may have never have said directly is a POV of any TRUE Scientologist. Namely: The most pitiful thing about this planet is how few have ever tried anything except hypnosis as a cure for non-psychotic/non-psychopathic mental illnesses. So much is just so much mind control/hypnosis...we scientologists find this to b a matter worthy of much grief, IMNSHO.
    "Every new law creates a new criminal."-Robert Anton Wilson

    P.S.:It's not so much that I disagree, but that I'm an iconoclast; and I'm coming right after all ur sacred cows!
  17. Wilbur

    Wilbur Patron Meritorious

    According to Hubbard's tone scale, the higher-toned you are, the more you will make decisions that encompass all the dynamics. What I have observed is that some people who are "high toned" take decisions that suit THEM, and don't always care about how it impacts anybody else. They know they are doing well as individuals, and seem to feel it makes their right to survive more important than anybody else's. Which suggests to me that there is something not quite right about the theory behind the tone scale. I do find some of the ideas behind the tone scale interesting and potentially informative, but I don't think the tone scale is the full story.

    For example, whether a person keeps their word doesn't seem to be entirely related to tone level. There are some drab, low-toned people who make a point of keeping their word, but are otherwise low-toned, and some high-toned people who keep their word only to the extent that it suits them (which, in effect, isn't keeping your word at all - the whole point of keeping your word is that you commit yourself to something, which means doing it regardless, acts of god aside).

    I tend to choose my friends based more on things like whether they keep their word, and whether they make me feel good as a person, than how enthusiastically they say "A E I O U" (Tech film reference, for anyone who is puzzled by that statement).

    I recall a person in my local org who was in chronic 'enthusiasm'. She was always touted as the embodiment of the state of Clear. But I found her to be a nasty, unpleasant person to be around. There were also people in fake enthusiasm. That kind of person was tiring to be around. I remember feigning exhilaration myself, as youngster, around an OT VII executive at ITO, because I thought she was in the tone level of exhilaration. When she laughed and said "look at him", I realised how ridiculous it was trying to pretend to be in a particular tone level, or mimicking other people's behaviour.
    • Like Like x 1
    • LOL LOL x 1
    • List
  18. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    one of the things, or maybe several, were that if I did method one word clearing, and then student hat, and also primary rundown, and the later KTL/LOC,

    why I would be a genius beyond unbelievable.

    I fell for hubbard's rhetoric and sublime thinking. Nowadays it's called PR.
  19. Wilbur

    Wilbur Patron Meritorious

    Yeah. To be honest, I gained a LOT from study tech - especially the idea of not being lazy, and looking up words I didn't know, even though I couldn't otherwise be bothered. I also gained a lot from the looking-up-of-small-words section of the KTL. Looking up words is one aspect of Scientology that I have continued to use throughout my life. Along with the phenomena of a misunderstood word (and the other barriers to study). But you are right, looking up words, whilst it gives you a good vocabulary and aids understanding, doesn't seem to be the key to genius. And certainly the idea of trawling through your past life to find all the MUs you have gone past doesn't seem to be as valuable as Hubbard made it sound. It might be useful for someone who has made a practice of reading books without looking up words, I suppose. But I remember spending three or four days in qual, word clearing the whole of the Dianetics book, to try to resolve difficulties that I was having studying Staff Status II. I felt no better at the end of it than I did at the start. The only reason it ended was because I decided that it was a ridiculous waste of my time, and wasn't really helping, upon which I managed to conjure up the EP of my qual action, and get back on course.

    I think word clearing itself can be useful. But it has to be done in moderation. Wading through days and days of nothing but word clearing can often create more of a mess than it is intended to clear up. I don't think doing the Primary Rundown would create anything other than a FEAR of misunderstood words. And of dictionaries!
  20. Wilbur

    Wilbur Patron Meritorious

    Also, I think the criterion used in star-rate checkouts, of being able to parrot back a definition of a word without comm lag, is flawed. I could give verbal definitions of some words I knew I didn't understand. And would comm lag on giving definitions for words that I DID understand, sometimes. I think all of this is a symptom of the fact that although Scientology paid lip service to the idea that "the thetan himself knows" and is responsible, it became increasingly condescending towards its own practitioners, assuming they DIDN'T know a word despite saying they understood it, and that their ethics were out, despite a person claiming that they felt their ethics were in.

    Scientology went down its own dwindling spiral of not trusting its own adherents to know what they in fact knew. Which I suppose it had to do, given its business model of fleece-and-declare.