the Tone Scale is Stupid. Moronically stupid.

[well_that_sucked]

Not to disagree with anything already stated, but, here are the 3 primary problems I see with the Tone Scale:

1) It's Arbitrary. It reflects both Ron's *own* biases and preferences, but, *also* the biases and preferences he wanted to install in his 'supermen'.

2) It's 'loaded'. The 'position' on the Tone Scale isn't the only tendentious element. *Also*, each category, according to Ron, implies *other* qualities which are *not* in evidence. For example; someone below '2.0' has bad breath. The fun part of this is that it makes it easier to 'rank' people and 'discover' their Tone Level on an *additional* arbitrary level.

3) The sheer *existence* of the 'Tone Scale' implies an element of scientific rigour to Scientology that *Does Not Exist*. It's 'technical', which implies actual 'technology', rather than sheer bias and arbitrariness.

And yet, the 'Tone Scale' is often the last bit of 'Scientology Tech' to be abandoned by escaping Scientologists Which may give you some indication of how important it is to the MindFuck itself.

Zinj

on the PTS/SP course students recite the tone scale while staring at a damn wall until they know it backwards and forwards verbatim. It's stain is damn near permanent and it is very mentally damaging.

After this indoctrination a scilon will forever after constantly judge and label people. Classify them. People are no longer human beings to the scilons but things to be emotionally manipulated, handled, shunned or disposed of without sorrow.

 

[Kha Khan]

I'll tell you one thing. I audited on the Dianetic Intership and the NED Internship and completed the latter and one thing that worked for me 100% was that if a pc was very down toned, he would always pass through anger on his way up. I also used this data when having an argument with someone or when dealing with someone who was threatening to get violent. As we communicated, the person would sooner or later begin to get angry and rather than panic, I always felt relief because I knew that the person was on the verge of reaching boredom and would soon calm down. This never once failed to happen in my real life experiences! I've applied this hundreds of times.

So in your experience, the transition from 0.5 Grief to 2.8 Contented always requires passing through 1.4 Hate and 1.5 Anger? 100% of the time? Never fails?

Somebody is in grief because they lost a child, parent, spouse. The only way they will ever feel 2.8 Contented is to pass through Anger and Hate? I'm sorry, I don't buy it. That has not been my experience.

I personally lost a parent. I felt real Grief. Eventually, I healed and felt contented. Did I feel 1.5 Anger during the transition from Grief to Contented? Honestly, no.

Far more importantly, did I feel 1.4 Hate during the transition from Grief to Contented? Honestly, no. Thank God.

As I've said, I've known a number of Buddhists, Christians and others who regularly and consistently make the transition from Grief to Contentment without feeling Hate.

Perhaps the uniformity of your experience -- i.e., "if a pc was very down toned, he would always pass through anger on his way up" -- says more about who you were dealing with, Scientologists, than it does about humanity as a whole. Hopefully, it does.

Did it ever occur to you that "if a pc was very down toned, he would always pass through anger on his way up," because he had been taught and indoctrinated by the Church of Scientology that passing through Anger (and indeed, Hate) was required?

ps. You said, "if a pc was very down toned, he would always pass through anger on his way up." Did he always pass through Hate?

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

The Sinister Cult of Scientology is a totalitarian hell and mindbender circus that put Orwell's 1984 nightmare to shame!

Look at it!

Consider that the followers actually promote it and want's to take over the whole freaking planet! - make Scientologys Ethics Officers say what's legal..

Now the 'tech' must have been instrumental in screwing these peoples heads up so badly! - Hubbardian mindbending.. The alleged 'Tone Scale' is suspect!

A prime suspect at that!!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

As I also said, maybe for a Scientologist the transition from Grief to Contentment requires passing through Hate. But, I've known Buddhists and Christians where the passage from Grief to Contentment did not require passing through Hate.

Out of curiousity, have you ever read "On Death & Dying" by Kubler-Ross?


Mark A. Baker

 

[nw2394]

Erm, at the risk of stirring up some sort of hornets nest here, I think the OP expresses an idea about the tone scale which I don't share about it.

I do not regard, say, anger as "better" than grief. The tone scale has an ordering of emotional responses which seem to have a degree of logic as compared with the individuals general ability to live and survive. But just because there may be some truth to that, it does not mean to say that anger is a better emotion to use in a situation where grief would be more appropriate.

Some folks have the idea that "becoming OT" or more enlightened or however one wants to express that notion that one should be able to, say, watch the events that unfolded on 9/11 from a state of serenity of beingness. If anyone has that idea then they are mistaken. One cannot become enlightened by becoming emotionally disconnected from one's surroundings. One can, however, be less the unknowing effect of them and thus able to "move on the tone scale" (as a Scientologist might put it) as needed.

Also, as a personal observation, it does not seem necessarily the case one always moves from a low level to a high level through every intervening step - so one does not necessarily more from grief to contentment via hate. If Hubbard's view about wavelengths and the tone scale are in any way an actual reflection of reality, then I see them more in the manner of quantum energy levels and one can jump from one level to another without necessarily ever being in any intermediate state.

I cannot defend the actual numbers or tell anyone whether the list is complete or overblown - merely that it seems to be a good general observation of how life responds to and deals with its environment from an emotioanal persepctive.

Nick

 

[Carmel]

Erm, at the risk of stirring up some sort of hornets nest here, I think the OP expresses an idea about the tone scale which I don't share about it.

I do not regard, say, anger as "better" than grief. The tone scale has an ordering of emotional responses which seem to have a degree of logic as compared with the individuals general ability to live and survive. But just because there may be some truth to that, it does not mean to say that anger is a better emotion to use in a situation where grief would be more appropriate.

Some folks have the idea that "becoming OT" or more enlightened or however one wants to express that notion that one should be able to, say, watch the events that unfolded on 9/11 from a state of serenity of beingness. If anyone has that idea then they are mistaken. One cannot become enlightened by becoming emotionally disconnected from one's surroundings. One can, however, be less the unknowing effect of them and thus able to "move on the tone scale" (as a Scientologist might put it) as needed.

Also, as a personal observation, it does not seem necessarily the case one always moves from a low level to a high level through every intervening step - so one does not necessarily more from grief to contentment via hate. If Hubbard's view about wavelengths and the tone scale are in any way an actual reflection of reality, then I see them more in the manner of quantum energy levels and one can jump from one level to another without necessarily ever being in any intermediate state.

I cannot defend the actual numbers or tell anyone whether the list is complete or overblown - merely that it seems to be a good general observation of how life responds to and deals with its environment from an emotioanal persepctive.

Nick

Agreed, and expressed well, Nick.

Like with a lot of the tenets within Scn, the are many mis-conceptions about the 'actual' tech on the tone scale. Much that I've read on this thread, isn't 'tone scale' tech at all, and certainly not what I've taken from it or found useful.

I've been 'semi-ordered' by one of my 'brothers' here, to stay away from 'tech' type threads for a bit, so I'll leave it that.

 

[Free to shine]

How about "chronic tone level"? The ones that are hidden behind the "social tone level"? Now if that isn't a licence for arbitrary judgement, I don't know what is!

 

[lkwdblds]

A comment on workability

My pro tone scale post was seconded by EP and ignored by most others. Thank you EP. I found Leon's post quite interesting and tend to think along the lines he does. Jacques' post is also thought provoking. I think Jacques makes some very good points, however I think he dismisses "workability" with too broad of a brush. My goodness, if something alleged to be technical works with a high degree of predictability then that tech merits further study.

I think that using Jacques' astute explanations for workability does not totally 100% negate the tech which seems to be working. At best, it relagates the wins obtained from that tech to something akin to a PLACEBO effect. Now, if a person routinely taking an inert placebo is constantly having wins and improving, rather than declaring the placebo to be totally worthless, it would open the door to studying a new technology which would be the technology of placebos and how they can be used to improve conditions.

It boils down to this: In the theorectical world, the scientific truth behind a technology is what counts while in the workaday world of actually living life, many people care more about "workability" and results.
lkwdblds

 

[cantsay]

I agree with Carmel, a lot of stuff quoted as "tech" isnt actually correct - sorry KhaKhan, but the main points you are upset about arent atually tech at all. Ive never seen anything written that someone HAS to go through every tone on the scale on their way up, in fact I seem to remember a tape on one of the levels that says the opposite (does anyone have that reference?). As someone has mentioned previously, "bouncing" on the tone scale is a more accurate description a lot of the time.

The scale is simply a tool, and a flawed one at that, described from one dubious persons point of view, from limited research, of what happens in a very specific circumstance (running engrams). It can be handy (I agree with it in general, mainly the upper half), but it is not a be all and end all like the Church says. It certainly doesnt refer specifically to how a person behaves in normal situations. I also agree that the "math" part of it is bogus.

Unfortunately LRH, management, execs and staff have created a set of "slang" that refer to the tone scale, and THAT is where most of the upset is probably from. The scale itself is an ok concept, its the action of using it to make someone change their behaviour to what you want that it is a suppressive thing.

A handy thing for someone might be to write your OWN tone scale. I think everyone has their own range of tones and if you know your own, you might become better able to handle situations where you feel that you go "down-tone" or whatever. But in the end, things like this are only useful if you find they help you personally.

 

[cantsay]

How about "chronic tone level"? The ones that are hidden behind the "social tone level"? Now if that isn't a licence for arbitrary judgement, I don't know what is!

I personally found the idea of "chronic tone levels" quite useful - it stops me getting aggro at why certain people are so stubborn/negative/backwards in their view of life. But then, Im not the type of person to use these concepts to belittle anyone, just to try and understand their point of view.

The idea of "social veneers" and "social tone levels" were justifications for staff to annoy public and push through peoples objections to invastions of privacy, or simply to ignore using manners for one reason or another. Pretty gross...

 

[Free to shine]

I personally found the idea of "chronic tone levels" quite useful - it stops me getting aggro at why certain people are so stubborn/negative/backwards in their view of life. But then, Im not the type of person to use these concepts to belittle anyone, just to try and understand their point of view.

The idea of "social veneers" and "social tone levels" were justifications for staff to annoy public and push through peoples objections to invastions of privacy, or simply to ignore using manners for one reason or another. Pretty gross...

I don't see why emotions need to be classified at all. :confused2: It brings in labelling and judgement - based on the perceptions of the person doing the labelling - and reinforces the idea that some emotions are bad and some are good. All emotions are part of living and life and can teach us much about ourselves.

Whatever truth there is in the tone scale, it is used and abused to reinforce the "Bridge" as being the only answer. Once you are labelled as having a chronic tone below 2.0 - rightly or wrongly - you are pretty much fair game. Who hasn't heard the phrase "Oh that 1.1 shit!"?

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I think people are making a big error when they try to point out that the thech is some pure thing and people mess it up. The tech is supposed to be applied to people, and therefore it has a social context in every manner and aspect of it and with its effects on people. The Tone scale is one of the tools used to handle people. It is useless to discuss its aspect as they hang on the charts. It has to do with people.
Per the tech, a person who is below 2.0 lessens your survival potential. Remember "Science of Survival"? So while Hubbard doesn't literary call one tone level better than another, it is implicit in the nature of the tone scale itself. People are categorized and labelled as elements and how those elements will interact with one another. It is like a human version of the periodic table. 1.5 can get in comm with a 1.1. Hydrogen can combine with oxygen. Kind of makes the tone scale sound scientific, doesn't it?
The difference between what people say they have observed with the tone scale and the periodic table is that there are no cases yet observed where the period table doesn't work. In fact, it was put together from the data of many chemist over meny years. Not so with the tone scale. It is one guy's opinion. Some times a 1.5 can get in comm with a 1.1. But that doesn't mean any of Hubbard's technology is valid, including the tone scale. When a reason is discovered that works 100% of the time in getting people with different emotions to better communicate, then we can learn and have actual knowledge about human emotions. But this is not what the tone scale does, although this is what Hubbartd claims. People may experience times where their interpretation of what took place confirms, in their opinion, that the tech worked. But the key lies in their interpretation about what happened and their evaluation of people's tone levels etc. And the mere fact that they considered people do have tone levels (consider that word: Tone Levels) they are more than halfway there in evaluating what they saw as "the tech working."

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[cantsay]

I don't see why emotions need to be classified at all. :confused2: It brings in labelling and judgement - based on the perceptions of the person doing the labelling - and reinforces the idea that some emotions are bad and some are good. All emotions are part of living and life and can teach us much about ourselves.

Whatever truth there is in the tone scale, it is used and abused to reinforce the "Bridge" as being the only answer. Once you are labelled as having a chronic tone below 2.0 - rightly or wrongly - you are pretty much fair game. Who hasn't heard the phrase "Oh that 1.1 shit!"?

I agree with the second paragraph, but the first sounds like youve been hurt so bad with this topic that you dont want to think about the idea objectively. Which I can understand if that is the case! When I said the idea of chronic tone can be useful, I wasnt talking about in the Church, Im talking about NOW, out in the real world. Forget for a second how it was used on you in the past:

Being able to attach a label to how someone is feeling is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, when dealing with elderly sick people, knowing their current "chronic tone" is can be very important. Someone who is always confused and scared can eventually get violent over time, as is the case with dementia patients. Being able to see where they are at emotionally gives the people around them the best chance of helping them constructively, rather than getting mad at them.

My neice is 13, and the little darling is going through a stage of chronic 1.1 and anger (been about a year of it now, wearing a little thin.... ). Pretty normal for a teenager in her circumstances. I know I can communicate to her pretty well if I pick a tone a little above hers. It tends to work, most of the time!

My mother is schizophrenic, and is in chronic fear. She is paranoid to the hilt, and to know she is afraid all the time explains her behaviour and stops me getting frustrated at what appears sometimes to be rediculous behaviour - and she can do some wierd shit.

I dont think there is such a thing as good and bad emotion like the church tends to teach. But there are good and bad ways to USE emotion, which is a whole different ballgame. I agree with you, emotions can teach us a hell of a lot about ourselves, and are an integral part of life

 

[uniquemand]

I think people are making a big error when they try to point out that the thech is some pure thing and people mess it up. The tech is supposed to be applied to people, and therefore it has a social context in every manner and aspect of it and with its effects on people. The Tone scale is one of the tools used to handle people. It is useless to discuss its aspect as they hang on the charts. It has to do with people.
Per the tech, a person who is below 2.0 lessens your survival potential. Remember "Science of Survival"? So while Hubbard doesn't literary call one tone level better than another, it is implicit in the nature of the tone scale itself. People are categorized and labelled as elements and how those elements will interact with one another. It is like a human version of the periodic table. 1.5 can get in comm with a 1.1. Hydrogen can combine with oxygen. Kind of makes the tone scale sound scientific, doesn't it?
The difference between what people say they have observed with the tone scale and the periodic table is that there are no cases yet observed where the period table doesn't work. In fact, it was put together from the data of many chemist over meny years. Not so with the tone scale. It is one guy's opinion. Some times a 1.5 can get in comm with a 1.1. But that doesn't mean any of Hubbard's technology is valid, including the tone scale. When a reason is discovered that works 100% of the time in getting people with different emotions to better communicate, then we can learn and have actual knowledge about human emotions. But this is not what the tone scale does, although this is what Hubbartd claims. People may experience times where their interpretation of what took place confirms, in their opinion, that the tech worked. But the key lies in their interpretation about what happened and their evaluation of people's tone levels etc. And the mere fact that they considered people do have tone levels (consider that word: Tone Levels) they are more than halfway there in evaluating what they saw as "the tech working."

The Anabaptist Jacques

I do understand your point, but I would also point out that there ARE such things as energy vampires, people who will beat you down, sap your confidence, etc. People who are chronically angry, or depressed. While this doesn't make them bad people (in that most of them don't actually have any intention to harm, they think they are trying to help you have a realistic look at life, or something like that, when they are tearing you down), it does make you stop and think. It's a truism that you are the company you keep. While you can separate from people, temporarily, if you lie down with dogs.... etc.

My goal, when aiming to become Clear, wasn't to become SUPERIOR to others, or to distance myself from them, but to be able to be good company, relate with anyone at all, but not necessarily get sucked into their energy, their game, etc, and that includes their chronic emotion. I think I achieved that. Granted, now I'm mostly alone.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I do understand your point, but I would also point out that there ARE such things as energy vampires, people who will beat you down, sap your confidence, etc. People who are chronically angry, or depressed. While this doesn't make them bad people (in that most of them don't actually have any intention to harm, they think they are trying to help you have a realistic look at life, or something like that, when they are tearing you down), it does make you stop and think. It's a truism that you are the company you keep. While you can separate from people, temporarily, if you lie down with dogs.... etc.

My goal, when aiming to become Clear, wasn't to become SUPERIOR to others, or to distance myself from them, but to be able to be good company, relate with anyone at all, but not necessarily get sucked into their energy, their game, etc, and that includes their chronic emotion. I think I achieved that. Granted, now I'm mostly alone.

I agree with what you say here about people and their emotions, but with the caveat that none of that proves anything about the tech. But that someone who has already bougth into Hubbard's premises would take the exact things you said here and say "See, that proves it works."

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Alanzo]

In the same way that TAJ pointed out that a chart on a wall can not be the only defense of the tone scale - it must be evaluated on how it is USED on people, it is clear that ALL of Hubbard's scales - not just the tone scale - were used as social control mechanisms.

High on the scale means "Good"

Low on the scale means "Bad".

And they all mean that socially.

There is only one scale that is legitimate.

And that is the Agreement With Alanzo Scale.

At the top of the scale, we have Total Agreement with Alanzo.

Every step of the scale beneath that shows a falling away from grace, a deeper and deeper corruption of Purity.

For those of you lower on the scale, you can work yourselves up.

At least you have that going for you.

Keep going! You will make it.

All the way.

 

[cantsay]

I agree with what you say here about people and their emotions, but with the caveat that none of that proves anything about the tech. But that someone who has already bougth into Hubbard's premises would take the exact things you said here and say "See, that proves it works."

The Anabaptist Jacques

True. Hubbard was simply describing something (badly) that people knew already. As was the case with a lot of the "basics".

 

[Alanzo]

I don't see why emotions need to be classified at all. :confused2: It brings in labelling and judgement - based on the perceptions of the person doing the labelling - and reinforces the idea that some emotions are bad and some are good. All emotions are part of living and life and can teach us much about ourselves.

And I think this view is not at all a reflection of something that FTS is reacting to from her past.

I think this is an excellent reflection, and a very useful one, of the truth about human emotions.

It is important to know what emotion you, or another person, often displays, or is displaying presently. It is a valuable understanding of the person and how to see things from their viewpoint, and even to better understand your own.

These observations of human emotions are not served by placing them on a scale, with some emotions "higher", and some "lower".

That is total crap.

(I'm worried about my sentence structure tonight. I'm wondering if I might need another grammar course. Is that low-toned?)

 

[Free to shine]

And I think this view is not at all a reflection of something that FTS is reacting to from her past.

I think this is an excellent reflection of the truth about emotions.

It is important to know what emotion a person displays, or is displaying presently. It is a valuable understanding of the person and how to see things from their viewpoint.

But these observations of another person's emotions are not served by placing them on a scale, with some other emotions "higher", and some "lower".

That is total crap.

Thanks Alanzo, I was just about to answer that comment, and you have done it for me, and probably better. This does not however reflect where I am on the Total Agreement with Alanzo scale, which of course fluctuates daily according to my moods.

 

[Alanzo]

Thanks Alanzo, I was just about to answer that comment, and you have done it for me, and probably better. This does not however reflect where I am on the Total Agreement with Alanzo scale, which of course fluctuates daily according to my moods.

A woman in Australia the next morning makes a man in the US laugh the night before.

And it all happens at the same time.

Those are the Internets for you.