The Tone Scale: How Valid Is It?

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

double post----deleted

(Note: Evil transcriptionists who tried to sabotage me have been sent to RPF)

 

[Bill]

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.

It is always good to hear from a believer.

I have just a few criticisms of Hubbard's Tone Scale.

• First, per Hubbard these are all the "emotional tones". That's it. If you experience an emotion not on the list, it doesn't exist - stop feeling that.
• Explain the values of the "scale". What are they based on? Specifically. How are the gaps calculated? Anybody? They have absolutely no meaning without some explanation on how they were derived.
• Who the hell "slides up/down the scale"? Who slides through all the emotions between, let's say, cheerfulness to fear? I certainly don't if something scares me. It's stupid to claim it but Hubbard says it's so it "must be true".
• I often experience several emotions at once. Not according to Hubbard! Nope. One emotion at a time up-up-up and down-down-down. Another stupid. For instance, on a rollercoaster I might feel exhilaration, fear, amazement, surprise -- all at once. I don't think I'm unusual.
• The whole idea of emotions on a hierarchy is stupid. This emotion is "higher" than that emotion. Think about an amazing athlete in a battle for the gold - maybe experiencing determination, anger, fierceness and maybe even hate compared to a contented couch potato... who is at a "higher" tone? "Higher" is arbitrary based not on emotion but context.
• This is just another Hubbard "I know everything, here is everything you need to know in one scale/process/assist". He didn't know much but he sure knew how to sell it.

tl;dr The Hubbard Emotional Tone Scale is bullshit.

 

[PirateAndBum]

Yikes, we've got another one! FFS

 

[PirateAndBum]

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.

I find your abbreviations a pain in the ass to read Thad. Suggest you spell shit out. Do you really need to make be b? Really?

 

[PirateAndBum]

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

No, it's more like you're a painintheassoclass.

 

[strativarius]

Dear Thaddeus Monroe Slamp.

I think u r a pr@. & if th@ is ad hom 2 bad.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Yes lotus, it's true, French girls are not as easy as is commonly believed. There was one, a certain Eliane, well, you wouldn't believe the amount of drugs and alcohol it took to get her in the mood (render her unconscious).

I think it is true the other way round - English girls do seem to like French men (maybe it's the accent?).

 

[strativarius]

I think it is true the other way round - English girls do seem to like French men (maybe it's the accent?).

Yes, I agree, in fact I think English girls like most continental European men, Italians, Spaniards and Greeks etc. Can't for the life of me see why though.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Yes, I agree, in fact I think English girls like most continental European men, Italians, Spaniards and Greeks etc.

Not true.

 

[strativarius]

Not true.

Oh, all right then, the sort of English girls who go on package holidays to the Costa Blanca.

 

[JustSheila]

[bcolor=#ff99cc]"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.[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]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.[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]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.[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]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.[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]"I 1ce failed a class in free thinking, because I came to the conclusion u could think freely"-LRH[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]The # of unstated assumptions/"everybody knows"/hidden standards I think I see in this post r truly astounding:[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]1) Everybody knows there's 0 worse than a cheater[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]2) Everybody knows there's 0 worse than a klepto[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]3) Everybody knows there's 0 worse than a scammer[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]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).[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]5) Everybody knows left-wing ideas about "good"/evil r the 1s that count.[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]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).[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]7) Everybody knows the ends don't justify the means (seems to me if there were an omniscient being, ends would indeed justify means).[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]8) Every1 has the same definition of injustice, /that injustice is the worst possible thing.[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]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.[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]10) Every1 has the exact same definition of cruel/that's the worst thing a person could b.[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]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).[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc] 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?).[/bcolor]

[bcolor=#ff99cc]"Whatever else u may say about the 10 commandments, u gotta respect the fact that there were only 10 of them."-Robert Anton Wilson[/bcolor]

[bcolor=#ff99cc]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.[/bcolor]

[bcolor=#ff99cc]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.[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc]"Every new law creates a new criminal."-Robert Anton Wilson[/bcolor]

[bcolor=#ff99cc]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!"[/bcolor]
[bcolor=#ff99cc] [/bcolor]
In the example above, you can see one of the maladies affecting many Scientologists: verbal diarrhea. Apparently their brains go into a kind of freefall, spinning and linking anything to anything and it just keeps going and going, nonstop.

Verbal Diarrhea
A condition suffered by an individual who has the inability to shut the fuck up, I.e the words keep flowing.
Don't get involved in a conversation with Jill she has a bad case of verbal diarrhea.

Somebody who doesn't know how to shut up. They love the sound of their own voices and continue to drone on and on repeating the same points over and over again in different ways before they wrap up what they're saying. People with verbal diarrhea can take a simple yes or no answer and make it last for several minutes.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Verbal Diarrhea

 

[George Layton]

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!

God doesn't care because it isn't human. God doesn't not care because it isn't human. Far to often a person will tell you what God is saying and far to often it is a personification of god. God didn't make up the tone scale and God didn't add to the enhanced version of the tone scale. People did.

 

[freethinker]

So, maybe the proof that the Tone Scale works is after enough Scientology people come up-tone enough to realize it is a scam and leave?

That's called Serenity of Leavingness. It is very high toned outside of Scientology.

 

[TomKat]

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.

I agree with all your points. I don't think the tone scale determines character much at all. My favorite wise crack regarding the tone scale is when someone described another as being in Serenity of Covert Hostility

 

[Gib]

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.

I agree with everything you wrote Wilbur. Looking up words, and doing demos and even clay demos have been around for a long time. Shoot, architects used to do conceptual models of a building made of balsa wood, nowadays it can be done on a computer without clay. LOL

We must not forget Hubbard stole study tech from those teachers and claimed credit but reworded it. The concepts are simple and really just 3 things, looks up words, demo it, and provide a model if needed.

I point out the rhetoric & sublime of hubbard, such as Key To Life, if one does that course why one gets the key to life. LOL

But, here's the kicker. Hubbard complained of making a penny for word back in his beginnings when he was writing for John Campbell. So what did Hubbard do, but create his own publishing company, known as Bridge Publications, where Hubbard got royalties on every book or lecture sold.

How much money did Hubbard make on selling his books and lectures? That was his empire, selling words whether printed or on sound. And how to make more money is to sell the words of 3 simple concepts and say many words.

That small shit known as DM is doing the same with his Golden Age of Tech rewrites.

ROFLMAO

What a con!

 

[guanoloco]

It is always good to hear from a believer.

I have just a few criticisms of Hubbard's Tone Scale.

• First, per Hubbard these are all the "emotional tones". That's it. If you experience an emotion not on the list, it doesn't exist - stop feeling that.
• Explain the values of the "scale". What are they based on? Specifically. How are the gaps calculated? Anybody? They have absolutely no meaning without some explanation on how they were derived.
• Who the hell "slides up/down the scale"? Who slides through all the emotions between, let's say, cheerfulness to fear? I certainly don't if something scares me. It's stupid to claim it but Hubbard says it's so it "must be true".
• I often experience several emotions at once. Not according to Hubbard! Nope. One emotion at a time up-up-up and down-down-down. Another stupid. For instance, on a rollercoaster I might feel exhilaration, fear, amazement, surprise -- all at once. I don't think I'm unusual.
• The whole idea of emotions on a hierarchy is stupid. This emotion is "higher" than that emotion. Think about an amazing athlete in a battle for the gold - maybe experiencing determination, anger, fierceness and maybe even hate compared to a contented couch potato... who is at a "higher" tone? "Higher" is arbitrary based not on emotion but context.
• This is just another Hubbard "I know everything, here is everything you need to know in one scale/process/assist". He didn't know much but he sure knew how to sell it.

tl;dr The Hubbard Emotional Tone Scale is bullshit.

I don't know why you feel you must criticize Doctor Hubbard's Emotional Tone Scale. Take for instance the rolly coaster example. Why...just the other year I was involved in a rolly coaster accident where the car my meat body was occupying separated from the tracks and hurled to the ground where it smashed to pieces upon impact.

Initially, I felt great Pain which is quite high at 1.8 just before I experienced Body Death 0.0. Suddenly, it dawned on me that I was being Inhibited on the CDEI scale and I decided to become Curious about bleeding profusely while suffering contusions, lacerations, ruptured organs and compound fractures.

I then decided to walk myself back up the Emotional Tone Scale a half step each time until I reached Boredom 2.5. It took some time at this level to continue with the process to reach Cheerfulness 3.5 but I stuck with it.

Meanwhile, the wogs on the ride all decided to dram Body Death and were soon shipped off to the morgue.

 

[Thaddeus Monroe Slamp]

God doesn't care because it isn't human. God doesn't not care because it isn't human. Far to often a person will tell you what God is saying and far to often it is a personification of god. God didn't make up the tone scale and God didn't add to the enhanced version of the tone scale. People did.

ex-scientologist tone scaleU must understand, that I believe Scientology has @ LEAST a small part of what's going on w/spirit (s). That's the pov from which I address u. So I would say thetans, not people, to emphasize that I believe the tone-scale is something real, / that it's an old agreement on the track. In fact I think it may b 1 of the oldest. It may involve the separation of beings from theta. Hard to say. I know of no Scientology doctrine about the change in understanding of theta 1ce individual thetans formed part of the picture, only the minimal idea that thetans were separation from theta. Hubbard never say's theta=God, but I only know of 1 instance in which LRH corrects some1s understanding of the 8th dynamic, / that is in a taped lecture in which he say's that he's looked into it, / the 8th dynamic is not "the big thetan".

 

[Bill]

ex-scientologist tone scaleU must understand, that I believe Scientology has @ LEAST a small part of what's going on w/spirit (s). That's the pov from which I address u. So I would say thetans, not people, to emphasize that I believe the tone-scale is something real, / that it's an old agreement on the track. In fact I think it may b 1 of the oldest. It may involve the separation of beings from theta. Hard to say. I know of no Scientology doctrine about the change in understanding of theta 1ce individual thetans formed part of the picture, only the minimal idea that thetans were separation from theta. Hubbard never say's theta=God, but I only know of 1 instance in which LRH corrects some1s understanding of the 8th dynamic, / that is in a taped lecture in which he say's that he's looked into it, / the 8th dynamic is not "the big thetan".

Or, 1 cld say: In fact I believe the big the big that he old agreement of theta. Hard tone-scale in which he pov from the scaleU must theta 1ce is something only know of no Scientologist understan". ex-scaleU must the pov from the scaleU must the change in w/spirit may instanding real, / that's looked lecture separation oldest. In fact I thetans were separt of thing on old say. It may in understans, not "the pov from the pov from that I that I would say's going real, / that he's the say's that he's the picture, th

[generated via Gibberish Generator]

I think your comment might make sense in another universe. Can't tell.

 

[pineapple]

That's called Serenity of Leavingness. It is very high toned outside of Scientology.

Or "Serenity of Fleeingness."

 

[Thaddeus Monroe Slamp]

Or, 1 cld say: In fact I believe the big the big that he old agreement of theta. Hard tone-scale in which he pov from the scaleU must theta 1ce is something only know of no Scientologist understan". ex-scaleU must the pov from the scaleU must the change in w/spirit may instanding real, / that's looked lecture separation oldest. In fact I thetans were separt of thing on old say. It may in understans, not "the pov from the pov from that I that I would say's going real, / that he's the say's that he's the picture, th

[generated via Gibberish Generator]

I think your comment might make sense in another universe. Can't tell.

Do I need to discontinue my short hand if I wish to be understood?

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_(literary)

I have decided to leave this group. I was foolish to think I had enough in common w/y'all to converse. It's possible there r some thinkers here, but the noise to signal ratio in this space is too high for me. Bet there's 1 or 2 (or more) of u w/whom good conversation could eventually come about. Bye. Clear skies to ya, mateys.