Kha Khan
Patron Meritorious
I saw a thread on sympathy, which I think is quite good. But I wanted to address the broader subject of the Tone Scale. I wanted to share an insight.
The Tone scale is stupid. Moronically stupid. And the reasoning Scientologists (current and er, um, ah "ex") use to justify their acceptance of the Tone Scale demonstrates much that is wrong with Scientology.
There is the Tone Scale:
First, the idea that "higher" "tones" are always better than "lower" "tones." So (not surprisingly, consistent with Hubbard's amoral and psychopathic personality and values):
1.5 Anger
1.4 Hate
1.3 Resentment
1.2 No sympathy
1.15 Unexpressed resentment
1.1 Covert hostility
Are always, regardless of the circumstances, "higher toned" -- and thus "better" -- than:
0.9 Sympathy
0.8 Propitiation
0.5 Grief
0.375 Making amends
0.3 Undeserving
Really? So, your wife tells you that that the mother she loved dearly just died. It would be "higher toned" -- i.e., better -- to feel and express Anger, Hate or Resentment than, heaven forbid, Sympathy?
[Now some would say no, Kha Khan, you should match her tone of Grief to better communicate with her, and then move her up to something better, like, well, Hate. Because Hate is higher toned, and better, than Grief. And, to anticipate an issue discussed below, the only way to go from 0.5 Grief to 2.8 Contented is through 1.4 Hate. The transition from Grief to Contentment requires Hate.]
Say you screwed up -- e.g., made a business mistake or, worse, did something morally wrong. Cost your employer $500,000. Cheated on your wife. Might the appropriate response be to 0.375 make amends, or even even be in 0.8 Propitiation? Dude, you farked up! Oh no, it would again be much "higher toned," better, healthier to express... Anger, Hate or Resentment? WTF?
On consider:
2.6 Disinterested
2.5 Boredom
2.4 Monotony
2.2 Depression
2.0 Antagonism
1.9 Hostility
Somebody has just punched you in the face, knocked you to the ground, pulled a knife and threatened to cut your heart out. Under these circumstances it is "higher toned" to be disinterested, bored or depressed than antagonistic or hostile. Me, I'm going to be antagonistic and hostile and shove that knife up his.... You can be bored or disinterested and get disemboweled.
Then there is the stupid idea that one always goes through these levels in this precise order. [See discussion of 0.5 Grief to 2.8 Contented through 1.4 Hate above]. Consider the supposed transition up from:
0.8 Propitiation
0.9 Sympathy
0.94 Numb
0.98 Despair
0.96 Terror
to 1.0 Fear
Being in 0.8 Propitiation assumes you are in an inferior relationship to another person, organization, process, etc. You would hardly be in Propitiation if you were in a superior position. But 0.9 Sympathy assumes you are in the superior or advantageous position; you aren't hurting, it is the other person who is hurting. But at at 0.98 Despair, 0.96 Terror and 1.0 Fear one is obviously again in the inferior position. So let's see, the transition is from an inferior position (0.8 Propitiation) to a superior position (0.9 Sympathy) back to inferior positions (0.98 Despair, 0.96 Terror and 1.0 Fear).
Far more importantly, it is always the case that the transition is from an inferior position (0.8 Propitiation) to a superior position (0.9 Sympathy) back to inferior positions (0.98 Despair, 0.96 Terror and 1.0 Fear). Why?
Or consider:
1.3 Resentment
1.2 No sympathy
1.15 Unexpressed resentment
Why would No sympathy always come between Resentment and Unexpressed resentment? It doesn't for me. For me it goes from "No sympathy," to thinking to myself -- "Hey, what the Fark? I'm not sure I like this -- but not expressing it -- to expressing -- "Hey, what the Fark! I damn well don't like this!
Worse is the "reasoning" by which we accepted this crap. Basically, think of one or two examples in which what Ron said might be valid or true, and then conclude that it is always valid and true. Consider:
0.5 Grief
0.375 Making amends
Why would "Making amends" always be before Grief going up the Tone Scale? Sometimes, maybe, yes -- you did something wrong, make amends and then feel grief. [But, for me, in the situation where I did something wrong the grief would come first, which would cause me to want to make amends. Making amends would be higher on the Tone Scale than Grief.] But other times, almost certainly no. If something was done to me and I suffered a loss as a result, then I may feel grief, but I sure as hell am not feeling a need to "make amends" before or after feeling the grief.
The idea that the Tone Scale is always linear, always in that order. Jeesh.
Why did we believe that crap?
Initially because the idea of it was attractive -- it makes the world neat, orderly, tidy, predictable. Because Hubbard said so. Because we didn't want to lose our friends, families. Because after investing X number of dollars and Y number of years, it is hard to admit that, "Oh jeesh, one of the very first things I was taught is, now that I look at it critically, pretty much stupid."
Finally, to return again to an earlier example, maybe for a Scientologist the transition from Grief to Contentment requires passing through Hate. But, FWIW, I've known Buddhists and Christians where the passage from Grief to Contentment did not require passing through Hate.
Perhaps the Tone Scale -- and the included requirement that the transition from from Grief to Contentment requires passing through Hate -- says more about Ron, Scientology -- and us -- than it does about humans generally.
The Tone scale is stupid. Moronically stupid. And the reasoning Scientologists (current and er, um, ah "ex") use to justify their acceptance of the Tone Scale demonstrates much that is wrong with Scientology.
There is the Tone Scale:
It is difficult for me to express my utter contempt for the idea that this is anything but unadulterated B.S. Where do I begin?40.0 Serenity of beingness
30.0 Postulates
22.0 Games
20.0 Action
8.0 Exhilaration
6.0 Aesthetic
4.0 Enthusiasm
3.5 Cheerfulness
3.3 Strong interest
3.0 Conservatism
2.9 Mild interest
2.8 Contented
2.6 Disinterested
2.5 Boredom
2.4 Monotony
2.2 Depression
2.0 Antagonism
1.9 Hostility
1.8 Pain
1.5 Anger
1.4 Hate
1.3 Resentment
1.2 No sympathy
1.15 Unexpressed resentment
1.1 Covert hostility
1.02 Anxiety
1.0 Fear
0.98 Despair
0.96 Terror
0.94 Numb
0.9 Sympathy
0.8 Propitiation
0.5 Grief
0.375 Making amends
0.3 Undeserving
0.2 Self-abasement
0.1 Victim
0.07 Hopeless
0.05 Apathy
0.03 Useless
0.01 Dying
0.0 Body death
- 0.01 Pity
- 0.02 Shame
- 0.07 Accountable
- 1.0 Blame
- 1.3 Regret
- 1.5 Controlling bodies
- 2.2 Protecting bodies
- 3.0 Owning bodies
- 3.5 Approval from bodies
- 4.0 Needing bodies
- 5.0 Worshipping bodies
- 6.0 Sacrifice
- 8.0 Hiding
-10.0 Being objects
-20.0 Being nothing
-30.0 Can't hide
-40.0 Total failure
First, the idea that "higher" "tones" are always better than "lower" "tones." So (not surprisingly, consistent with Hubbard's amoral and psychopathic personality and values):
1.5 Anger
1.4 Hate
1.3 Resentment
1.2 No sympathy
1.15 Unexpressed resentment
1.1 Covert hostility
Are always, regardless of the circumstances, "higher toned" -- and thus "better" -- than:
0.9 Sympathy
0.8 Propitiation
0.5 Grief
0.375 Making amends
0.3 Undeserving
Really? So, your wife tells you that that the mother she loved dearly just died. It would be "higher toned" -- i.e., better -- to feel and express Anger, Hate or Resentment than, heaven forbid, Sympathy?
[Now some would say no, Kha Khan, you should match her tone of Grief to better communicate with her, and then move her up to something better, like, well, Hate. Because Hate is higher toned, and better, than Grief. And, to anticipate an issue discussed below, the only way to go from 0.5 Grief to 2.8 Contented is through 1.4 Hate. The transition from Grief to Contentment requires Hate.]
Say you screwed up -- e.g., made a business mistake or, worse, did something morally wrong. Cost your employer $500,000. Cheated on your wife. Might the appropriate response be to 0.375 make amends, or even even be in 0.8 Propitiation? Dude, you farked up! Oh no, it would again be much "higher toned," better, healthier to express... Anger, Hate or Resentment? WTF?
On consider:
2.6 Disinterested
2.5 Boredom
2.4 Monotony
2.2 Depression
2.0 Antagonism
1.9 Hostility
Somebody has just punched you in the face, knocked you to the ground, pulled a knife and threatened to cut your heart out. Under these circumstances it is "higher toned" to be disinterested, bored or depressed than antagonistic or hostile. Me, I'm going to be antagonistic and hostile and shove that knife up his.... You can be bored or disinterested and get disemboweled.
Then there is the stupid idea that one always goes through these levels in this precise order. [See discussion of 0.5 Grief to 2.8 Contented through 1.4 Hate above]. Consider the supposed transition up from:
0.8 Propitiation
0.9 Sympathy
0.94 Numb
0.98 Despair
0.96 Terror
to 1.0 Fear
Being in 0.8 Propitiation assumes you are in an inferior relationship to another person, organization, process, etc. You would hardly be in Propitiation if you were in a superior position. But 0.9 Sympathy assumes you are in the superior or advantageous position; you aren't hurting, it is the other person who is hurting. But at at 0.98 Despair, 0.96 Terror and 1.0 Fear one is obviously again in the inferior position. So let's see, the transition is from an inferior position (0.8 Propitiation) to a superior position (0.9 Sympathy) back to inferior positions (0.98 Despair, 0.96 Terror and 1.0 Fear).
Far more importantly, it is always the case that the transition is from an inferior position (0.8 Propitiation) to a superior position (0.9 Sympathy) back to inferior positions (0.98 Despair, 0.96 Terror and 1.0 Fear). Why?
Or consider:
1.3 Resentment
1.2 No sympathy
1.15 Unexpressed resentment
Why would No sympathy always come between Resentment and Unexpressed resentment? It doesn't for me. For me it goes from "No sympathy," to thinking to myself -- "Hey, what the Fark? I'm not sure I like this -- but not expressing it -- to expressing -- "Hey, what the Fark! I damn well don't like this!
Worse is the "reasoning" by which we accepted this crap. Basically, think of one or two examples in which what Ron said might be valid or true, and then conclude that it is always valid and true. Consider:
0.5 Grief
0.375 Making amends
Why would "Making amends" always be before Grief going up the Tone Scale? Sometimes, maybe, yes -- you did something wrong, make amends and then feel grief. [But, for me, in the situation where I did something wrong the grief would come first, which would cause me to want to make amends. Making amends would be higher on the Tone Scale than Grief.] But other times, almost certainly no. If something was done to me and I suffered a loss as a result, then I may feel grief, but I sure as hell am not feeling a need to "make amends" before or after feeling the grief.
The idea that the Tone Scale is always linear, always in that order. Jeesh.
Why did we believe that crap?
Initially because the idea of it was attractive -- it makes the world neat, orderly, tidy, predictable. Because Hubbard said so. Because we didn't want to lose our friends, families. Because after investing X number of dollars and Y number of years, it is hard to admit that, "Oh jeesh, one of the very first things I was taught is, now that I look at it critically, pretty much stupid."
Finally, to return again to an earlier example, maybe for a Scientologist the transition from Grief to Contentment requires passing through Hate. But, FWIW, I've known Buddhists and Christians where the passage from Grief to Contentment did not require passing through Hate.
Perhaps the Tone Scale -- and the included requirement that the transition from from Grief to Contentment requires passing through Hate -- says more about Ron, Scientology -- and us -- than it does about humans generally.
Last edited: