the Tone Scale is Stupid. Moronically stupid.

Tiger Lily

Gold Meritorious Patron
An awesome post on an awesome thread containing a fair few awesome posts! :clap: :thumbsup:

Personally, I have learned a lot from this thread and appreciate the insights and viewpoints shared here. :yes:

EP

Me too EP -- it's helped me a bunch!!

Thanks everyone for sharing the great insights you have!

:)TL
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
I don't agree that it's useless, no, though I think you make some fair points.

What you see when you observe another person's tone level is their relationship to psychic energy - their own and other people's - and the likely consequences on an energy level of interacting with them. Somebody in grief, for example, is hard work to be around (and people in apathy even more so because they think everything is useless), someone in anger is likely to attack you in some way, someone in fear is likely to run away from you or the environment, and so on.

It's not the *whole story about who and what the person is, that's certainly true. It might be a 2-dimensional representation of a multi-dimensional reality which we can't see the whole of (and why people can jump from one tone to another without going through all the intermediates).

* For example, some people who are very spiritual are prone to depression because they're very sensitive and easily affected by the negative aspects of their environment such as cruelty, insensitivity and ugliness.

I said useless to spiritual growth. If you want to stay inside your present viewpoint, the tone scale works wonderfully.
A way of looking at life is that any viewpoint is completely different from any other viewpoint. What you are saying is that grief is grief is grief, no matter who what when or why. "There's nothing to understand, that person is in girief, or propitiation, or boredom."
Do you see where that puts you? You are defining existence from your reality. Pure understanding requires openness to other viewpoints. It is acquiring reality, not defining it. The process is of prying open doors, often with BIG surprises behind them. To imagine one knows already keeps the door closed.

I do not believe that there are absolutes. Cruelty, insensitivity and ugliness do not exist except as one elects to percieve them so. Escaping judgment of any kind is a well worn path to understanding. The only consequence to understanding is growth.
Look what happens to people who most use Hubbard's stuff to run their lives. He himself went mad using it. Do you think the millions who voted with their feet were all wrong? It can't hurt to look.
 

EP - Ethics Particle

Gold Meritorious Patron
Realizations of a lesson learned...

I said useless to spiritual growth. If you want to stay inside your present viewpoint, the tone scale works wonderfully.
A way of looking at life is that any viewpoint is completely different from any other viewpoint. What you are saying is that grief is grief is grief, no matter who what when or why. "There's nothing to understand, that person is in girief, or propitiation, or boredom."
Do you see where that puts you? You are defining existence from your reality. Pure understanding requires openness to other viewpoints. It is acquiring reality, not defining it. The process is of prying open doors, often with BIG surprises behind them. To imagine one knows already keeps the door closed.

I do not believe that there are absolutes. Cruelty, insensitivity and ugliness do not exist except as one elects to percieve them so. Escaping judgment of any kind is a well worn path to understanding. The only consequence to understanding is growth.
Look what happens to people who most use Hubbard's stuff to run their lives. He himself went mad using it. Do you think the millions who voted with their feet were all wrong? It can't hurt to look.

Recently, someone very dear to me took the time to pursue the matter of "standing in the other's shoes" with enough persistence to finally get me to a point where I was both willing and able to do so (at least at that particular moment).

When you truly "get" the viewpoint of another person, the right indication comes naturally and the result is pure magic.

I wonder if it is in fact possible to adequately respond back to another person or say anything truly constructive, comforting or useful without assuming (insofar as possible) their viewpoint and perspective as the first act.

Thanks, Nexus. :clap:

EP
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
Recently, someone very dear to me took the time to pursue the matter of "standing in the other's shoes" with enough persistence to finally get me to a point where I was both willing and able to do so (at least at that particular moment).

When you truly "get" the viewpoint of another person, the right indication comes naturally and the result is pure magic.

I wonder if it is in fact possible to adequately respond back to another person or say anything truly constructive, comforting or useful without assuming (insofar as possible) their viewpoint and perspective as the first act.

Thanks, Nexus. :clap:

EP

Thank YOU, EP. Yes, it is magic. I got someone else's viewpoint completely and consciously for the first time several months ago, and my life hasn't been the same since. It seems like such a small thing. But it isn't!
Hard to explain to someone till they do it. Congrats!
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
I said useless to spiritual growth. If you want to stay inside your present viewpoint, the tone scale works wonderfully.
A way of looking at life is that any viewpoint is completely different from any other viewpoint. What you are saying is that grief is grief is grief, no matter who what when or why. "There's nothing to understand, that person is in girief, or propitiation, or boredom."
Do you see where that puts you? You are defining existence from your reality. Pure understanding requires openness to other viewpoints. It is acquiring reality, not defining it. The process is of prying open doors, often with BIG surprises behind them. To imagine one knows already keeps the door closed.

I do not believe that there are absolutes. Cruelty, insensitivity and ugliness do not exist except as one elects to percieve them so. Escaping judgment of any kind is a well worn path to understanding. The only consequence to understanding is growth.

Look what happens to people who most use Hubbard's stuff to run their lives. He himself went mad using it. Do you think the millions who voted with their feet were all wrong? It can't hurt to look.

Some of what you're saying here is worthy of reflection, but also I think you're putting a lot of words in my mouth here that I'm not saying. Because I'm not saying that the Tech is a 100% crock of shit, therefore I must believe it and both it and the CofS are 100% correct.

I don't. It was, as Pilot said, a research line and an early one in the human potential field (at least in the US and other Western countries). Other things will come along later, and maybe they already have; my stepdad, who was responsible for my becoming a scientologist and was a long-time one himself, gave me nearly all his Scn books once he discovered Harry Palmer's Avatar.

The tone scale? I think the tone scale is a relative truth; my belief is that the spirit (the real you) is always free, but the projection from it into the physical universe is what creates and experiences the "tones." It's that projection which creates the ego, through forgetting its own eternal reality and thus becoming preoccupied with the need to survive. How well it thinks it's doing in that game of survival is what creates its subjective experience of the tones.

When we wake up (I'm not speaking from experience here, sadly, at least not yet) and realise the whole thing is a dream, we detatch from emotional experience and become "the observer" a lot more; then we'd observe the tones as though they were happening to someone else, but from a viewpoint exterior to them.

Judgment for me is a result of resisted identity; when I find myself being judgmental of others, it seems to be because they're being or doing things in others that I'd like to do or be myself but I'm afraid to admit it.

As for the question of cruelty, ugliness and insensitivity, I'd say they are what Robert Pirsig would call "low-Quality" experiences (I read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" before I studied any Scientology).

Just one example; most straight men, and probably gay ones too, would prefer a kiss from a pretty girl (a high-Quality experience) to a kick in the balls (a low-Quality one).
 
Last edited:
If A then B (Comment on Tone Scale)

I seem to remember that in Science of Survival LRH said that the Tone Scale could be used to determine where other people were at on a survival level, so you could use the Tone Scale to decide whether you wanted to go into business with or marry that person, etc. It seemed quite the useful tool to the early wog initiate such as myself.

I now observe: LRH had close upper Sea Org Staff members with whom he worked for years – including David Mayo for example, LRH’s own auditor -- LRH should have certainly known the “Tone Level” of those people – Right?? And it should have been a high “Tone Level” because they were at the uppermost levels of COS, and LRH certainly would not have been fool enough to work with low “Tone Level” people for years, would he?

I now observe also that COS has had Sea Org Staff members who have been in very elevated positions of responsibility – Mr. Headley at Golden Era Productions, for one – who certainly must have been a high “Tone Level” person because one certainly doesn’t entrust a key portion of one’s business enterprise management to a 1.1? Surely the COS is not fool enough to recruit and promote low “Tone Level” people to key positions. Surely the COS and LRH know how to determine where a person is chronically on the Tone Scale, and promote only the best.

(After all, I can see the glossy photographs in the beautiful high quality Flag publications, the smiling attractive well dressed people on Staff, these people are obviously very high on the Tone Scale.)

Surely the COS and LRH could use the Tone Scale, and the definition of a Suppressive Person to determine whether or not key employees have suppressive characteristics, and prevent those SP’s from rising thru the organization.

(Oh my goodness – I just visited the website that has all the pictures of the SPs!! What horrible looking people! They are dowdy, fat, frowzy, dumpy, stupid looking – obviously very low toned people!! Who would ever believe anything these ugly looking people had to say --?)

But I then observe that all of a sudden Mr. Mayo and Mr. Headley, who obviously at one point in their lives had to possess a high Tone Level to handle the large responsibility entrusted to them -- and thousands of other key Sea Org people on whom the success of the enterprise depends -- are gone from the organization! And are all of a sudden declared to be low on the Tone Scale, Suppressives at 1.1, covertly hostile! How could this be!!? Cannot we use the Tone Scale as a predictor of these people’s performance in the organization? Cannot we use the definition of Suppressive Person to predict their performance in life? What happened???

A number of possible explanations come to my mind.
A. LRH did not know how to use his own Tone Scale.
B. The COS does not know how to use the Tone Scale.
C. I am obviously a complete idiot and cannot grasp the Reality that is presented to me on glossy paper in shiny color photographs, or the Reality seen in out-of-focus stupid awful photographs on a SP mugshot website.
D. The Tone Scale is Bullshit.
E. The Suppressive Person Definition is Bullshit.
F. The entire world is full of covertly hostile Suppressive Persons waiting to surface (which makes COS/LRH a PTS Type III – INSANE).

Let us examine these possible explanations. I know LRH was a bright guy, can’t have been A. B, hmm, B. No, there is a lot of Tone Scale training in COS, can’t be B. C. Hmm, am I a complete idiot? Possibly, possibly – but wait, I went to Flag and GAINED CERTAINTY and HAVINGNESS and took one of the COS’s IQ tests and COS itself said I was a Fucking Genius. . .

So it must be some combination of D, E, and F.

Bullshit and Insanity. Got it.

My goodness, I am feeling fat, frowzy and dumpy of late. . .

If the Tone Scale is supposed to be a WORKABLE definition of spiritual/emotional states, then how come it does not WORK for LRH who wrote it up, and for the COS which is supposed to use it? If the Suppressive Person definition is supposed to be a WORKABLE model of how to identify bad guys to avoid, then why did said definition not WORK for the guy who wrote it up, and does not WORK for the COS which is supposed to live by it?

Some combination of D, E, and F above. Bullshit and Insanity. Got it.

Oh wait. :ohmy: OH My Goodness! I forgot! They could have all been Suppressive Persons in a Past Life!! AHah! . . . .!:wink2:

Let me address that one in another post. . . . I can hardly wait. . . :happydance:
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
Some of what you're saying here is worthy of reflection, but also I think you're putting a lot of words in my mouth here that I'm not saying. Because I'm not saying that the Tech is a 100% crock of shit, therefore I must believe it and both it and the CofS are 100% correct.

I don't. It was, as Pilot said, a research line and an early one in the human potential field (at least in the US and other Western countries). Other things will come along later, and maybe they already have; my stepdad, who was responsible for my becoming a scientologist and was a long-time one himself, gave me nearly all his Scn books once he discovered Harry Palmer's Avatar.

The tone scale? I think the tone scale is a relative truth; my belief is that the spirit (the real you) is always free, but the projection from it into the physical universe is what creates and experiences the "tones." It's that projection which creates the ego, through forgetting its own eternal reality and thus becoming preoccupied with the need to survive. How well it thinks it's doing in that game of survival is what creates its subjective experience of the tones.

When we wake up (I'm not speaking from experience here, sadly, at least not yet) and realise the whole thing is a dream, we detatch from emotional experience and become "the observer" a lot more; then we'd observe the tones as though they were happening to someone else, but from a viewpoint exterior to them.

Judgment for me is a result of resisted identity; when I find myself being judgmental of others, it seems to be because they're being or doing things in others that I'd like to do or be myself but I'm afraid to admit it.

As for the question of cruelty, ugliness and insensitivity, I'd say they are what Robert Pirsig would call "low-Quality" experiences (I read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" before I studied any Scientology).

Just one example; most straight men, and probably gay ones too, would prefer a kiss from a pretty girl (a high-Quality experience) to a kick in the balls (a low-Quality one).

Thank you for the followup and the viewpoint.
"Relative Truth" exists only for one viewpoint, not more IMO. Anything which decides one's reality in advance of understandiing derails spiritual growth. We decide unconsciously aplenty. Why do it consciously?

I am in line with the idea of observor. We'll see how things roll out.
 

Carmel

Crusader
From the viewpoint of spiritual growth the tone scale is not only useless, it is deadly. Understanding comes from knowing the viewpoint of the other person. A tone scale perpetuates the idea that one understands the other person because one can observe and categorize emotion FROM ONE"S OWN REALITY.
<snip>

I've read your posts since you made this one, and I think I get where you are coming from, but there's a point here about the tone scale, that I think has been somewhat missed.

I don't believe the tone scale (the info in SOS), was just about labeling someone. To me it was 'labeling' (or describing or whatever), 'mechanisms' or 'behaviour' of people, rather than 'people' themselves.

I think we've all gotta learn to crawl before we can walk, in regard to spiritual growth. If one is going the adverse affect on a daily or weekly basis because they have no idea or don't understand how they are maybe being 'played' by another, then that will or would cut across spiritual gowth.

I've already stated in this thread (or the one on sympathy), that I didn't 'buy' everything about the tone scale, but I'm thankful for particular data in SOS book 1, because it helped me see something which I was constantly going the adverse affect of. Prior to reading SOS, I didn't see it, let alone understand it. SOS helped me see and understand much which I was blinded to. Having that understanding, freed up my attention greatly, to the point where I had little or no attention on any of it, anymore. If I had gone on a path of "spiritual growth" at that point, I believe it would have certainly helped. As it was, I stayed in the org, and it certainly helped on that front.
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
I've read your posts since you made this one, and I think I get where you are coming from, but there's a point here about the tone scale, that I think has been somewhat missed.

I don't believe the tone scale (the info in SOS), was just about labeling someone. To me it was 'labeling' (or describing or whatever), 'mechanisms' or 'behaviour' of people, rather than 'people' themselves.

I think we've all gotta learn to crawl before we can walk, in regard to spiritual growth. If one is going the adverse affect on a daily or weekly basis because they have no idea or don't understand how they are maybe being 'played' by another, then that will or would cut across spiritual gowth.

I've already stated in this thread (or the one on sympathy), that I didn't 'buy' everything about the tone scale, but I'm thankful for particular data in SOS book 1, because it helped me see something which I was constantly going the adverse affect of. Prior to reading SOS, I didn't see it, let alone understand it. SOS helped me see and understand much which I was blinded to. Having that understanding, freed up my attention greatly, to the point where I had little or no attention on any of it, anymore. If I had gone on a path of "spiritual growth" at that point, I believe it would have certainly helped. As it was, I stayed in the org, and it certainly helped on that front.

Hey Carm,
Everyone's path leads through lots of stuff. But it is a path, not a truth. I love you dearly and wish you the best.
Nexus
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
I said useless to spiritual growth. If you want to stay inside your present viewpoint, the tone scale works wonderfully.
A way of looking at life is that any viewpoint is completely different from any other viewpoint. What you are saying is that grief is grief is grief, no matter who what when or why. "There's nothing to understand, that person is in girief, or propitiation, or boredom."
Do you see where that puts you? You are defining existence from your reality. Pure understanding requires openness to other viewpoints. It is acquiring reality, not defining it. The process is of prying open doors, often with BIG surprises behind them. To imagine one knows already keeps the door closed.

I do not believe that there are absolutes. Cruelty, insensitivity and ugliness do not exist except as one elects to percieve them so. Escaping judgment of any kind is a well worn path to understanding. The only consequence to understanding is growth.
Look what happens to people who most use Hubbard's stuff to run their lives. He himself went mad using it. Do you think the millions who voted with their feet were all wrong? It can't hurt to look.

Excellent post. :yes:
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
I said useless to spiritual growth. If you want to stay inside your present viewpoint, the tone scale works wonderfully.
A way of looking at life is that any viewpoint is completely different from any other viewpoint. What you are saying is that grief is grief is grief, no matter who what when or why. "There's nothing to understand, that person is in girief, or propitiation, or boredom."
Do you see where that puts you? You are defining existence from your reality. Pure understanding requires openness to other viewpoints. It is acquiring reality, not defining it. The process is of prying open doors, often with BIG surprises behind them. To imagine one knows already keeps the door closed.

I do not believe that there are absolutes. Cruelty, insensitivity and ugliness do not exist except as one elects to percieve them so. Escaping judgment of any kind is a well worn path to understanding. The only consequence to understanding is growth.
Look what happens to people who most use Hubbard's stuff to run their lives. He himself went mad using it. Do you think the millions who voted with their feet were all wrong? It can't hurt to look.

Yep ... beautifully said.

:eyeroll:
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Looks like I'm in a minority of one here then. It happens. (previously snipped)

It says in the Bible "Resist not evil" (Matthew 5:39).

It doesn't say that evil doesn't exist in the first place, which is what Nexus100's post implies.
 
Last edited:

Carmel

Crusader
Looks like I'm in a minority of one here then. It happens. <snip>
No, not at all. :)

No matter what, truth is truth, and often there are truths in all points of view which sometimes are seemingly in "opposition" to eachother.

The aspect of the tone scale where people were "categorized" was of no use to me. However, the aspect that got me to look at and understand things that were going on, in regard to relationships in my life that were affecting me, was of use to me, and something that I would never negate or deny.

The 'tech', be it on the tone scale or whatever, was taken and used different ways by different people. Not so long ago, I thought that the 'tech' was what it was, and could or should have only be duplicated a certain way. Now though, I consider that the tech wasn't a 'gift' in itself, but something which could help one 'look' and 'find' truths for the taking.

With the 'tone scale' data, I believe there was much there for the taking. However, I also think, that there was much there that could could trap and enslave.

I think it is incorrect to say or assume that any of the tech, including the tone scale tech, resulted in one taking a particular view or stance - it didn't. IMO, the same stuff/the same tech, has led to entrapment for some, and freedom for others. We're not all the same, and we're not robots. Having and knowing 'truths' that we've found (through whatever means), is a good thing. However, I think that 'discoveries' or concepts we grasped through the 'tech', were as much to do with 'us' as they were to do with the tech itself. I think that is why so many of us are in contention about what Scn was or is. It's not so much what it was, but how we perceived it and used it.

In regard to scn 'theory' - Too often I think, one assumes that the way 'they' took it, is how it 'was', with a lack of willingness to see how it may and could have been 'otherwise' perceived and used.
 

EP - Ethics Particle

Gold Meritorious Patron
Just sayin'....

The Map Is Not The Territory

(Note - I am not intending to promote NLP with the quote below. Just that I found the article well stated. EP)

by Rex Steven Sikes
The map is not the territory.

The father of general semantics, Alford Korzybski stated, "A map is not the territory it represents, but if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness". What this means is that our perception of reality is not reality itself but our own version of it, or our "map".

No two people can have exactly the same map. While we all have similar neurological structure, it functions differently in all of us. This is the basis for our problems in communication when we try to impose our map upon another person. Learning to recognize the structure of another person's map allows us to "see the world though their eyes" and therefor understand and relate to others respectfully and accurately.

Our maps are created through gathering data through the five senses. Our senses bring certain aspects of the world to our attention, which go through neurological processes or filters, forming our values, beliefs, criteria (rules), and capabilities. These are often expressed consciously, yet most of the time they operate outside of our awareness and we don't realize that they can be changed to serve us in better ways.

When we pour water through a filter not everything passes through. Likewise, as information "pours in" from the outside world, it is output (our language and behavior) according to what we delete (filtering out 'unneeded' information), distort (picture a giraffe with an elephant's head), and generalize (all redheads have fiery tempers).

Generalization is the basis for the formation of our beliefs. (Although, which came first, the chicken or the egg?) What we believe about the world is how we interact within it. Most often it is our beliefs that limit us. We have beliefs about spirituality, the world, our capabilities and our environment, right and wrong, what is just and unjust, and whether or not we can change.

Values are the things we invest our time, money and effort in trying to attain. Examples: Fun, freedom, money, love, honesty, integrity. They are what is important to us. And we have very definite criteria or rule structures about how we go about attaining them.

NLP offers us a means of understanding our own and other's maps of reality. This knowledge allows us to create change for ourselves and others. It also allows us to generate unbelievable trust, rapport, and influence in communication while preserving the integrity of the other person(s).

NLP can assist you to begin to create trust, warmth and understanding with another person, friend or stranger, by learning what is important to know when communicating. Learning what to pay attention to and how to become more skilled in interacting with others will prevent you from imposing your own map upon those around you.

I am saddened that our human evolution has not yet taught us how to effectively deal with the condition of being human. We've made great strides in inventing weapons, pollution and waste, as well as great worthwhile achievements - yet we still struggle with issues of fairness, respect, integrity, tolerance and acceptance.

It is am amazing that in this day and age, with such a marvelous technology as Neuro Linguistic Programming, that people aren't doing more to improve the most frequent and common behavior to humans: communication. We have a technology which emphasizes simple principles of integrity and respect for fellow human beings regardless of race, color or creed. Even some of those people involved in NLP training do not practice what they preach!

NLP is about creating rapport, a favorable communication climate, respect and influence. It is about resourcefulness and attitude change. NLP offers us a way to improve the human condition through the appreciation and understanding of others. The number one assumption of NLP is to appeal to others through their unique map rather than imposing ours upon them.

We need to educate people to the idea that there are better ways to communicate with each other. As "NLP'ers", we need to be a model for others. We need to make a difference and begin to ease tensions.

A great person once said "You can light a million candles off just one". As each of us begins to take responsibility for the way we communicate, we can discover what make us wonderful as a species is our differences. We can help young people grow up with self esteem. We can assist adults in finding jobs and being productive. We can ease tension between ethnic groups, parents and children, teachers and students and become proud that we took steps to make the world a better place. It all begins one on one, the way most communication occurs anyway. The thing about lighting a million candles is that your candle needs to be lit first!
 
Last edited:

Tiger Lily

Gold Meritorious Patron
No, not at all. :)

No matter what, truth is truth, and often there are truths in all points of view which sometimes are seemingly in "opposition" to eachother.

The aspect of the tone scale where people were "categorized" was of no use to me. However, the aspect that got me to look at and understand things that were going on, in regard to relationships in my life that were affecting me, was of use to me, and something that I would never negate or deny.

The 'tech', be it on the tone scale or whatever, was taken and used different ways by different people. Not so long ago, I thought that the 'tech' was what it was, and could or should have only be duplicated a certain way. Now though, I consider that the tech wasn't a 'gift' in itself, but something which could help one 'look' and 'find' truths for the taking.

With the 'tone scale' data, I believe there was much there for the taking. However, I also think, that there was much there that could could trap and enslave.

I think it is incorrect to say or assume that any of the tech, including the tone scale tech, resulted in one taking a particular view or stance - it didn't. IMO, the same stuff/the same tech, has led to entrapment for some, and freedom for others. We're not all the same, and we're not robots. Having and knowing 'truths' that we've found (through whatever means), is a good thing. However, I think that 'discoveries' or concepts we grasped through the 'tech', were as much to do with 'us' as they were to do with the tech itself. I think that is why so many of us are in contention about what Scn was or is. It's not so much what it was, but how we perceived it and used it.

In regard to scn 'theory' - Too often I think, one assumes that the way 'they' took it, is how it 'was', with a lack of willingness to see how it may and could have been 'otherwise' perceived and used.

:clap: Great post Carmel!! Very well said.

That's why I think it's such a valuable skill to be able to see the viewpoints of others (not that I have mastered this :eyeroll: :no: -- but it is a goal of mine). Everyone has something to say that can contribute to the "whole" of what is truth.

-TL
 

crm1978

Patron with Honors
I remember when I was in how the tone scale was used to judge and label others If people agree with Scn they were "uptone" and if they rejected it they were downtone.The worse thing was to be called 1.1 Gay people were all called 1.1 then and are probably still thus labeled .The tone scale was also used to explane tech failures "He was low toned that is why processes X did'nt work".The High Tone good low tone bad thing was very common
 

Lurker5

Gold Meritorious Patron
:unsure: Where is Kha Khan? Hasn't posted for almost a year. Where is our Kha Khan?????:confused2:

Come back, Kha Khan, come back . . .
 
Top