ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

The Tone Scale

Discussion in 'Grundy's Guide to Scientology' started by grundy, Mar 26, 2008.

  1. grundy

    grundy Gold Meritorious Patron

    One of the most major scales in Scientology is the "Tone Scale." This started with a simpler explanation of levels in earlier Hubbard materials and explanded throughout the years.

    Below is this Tone Scale of Scientology. For the most part, I have just left it as it is because it is explanatory on its own. For a couple I have added explanations or examples. These are MY explanations and maybe someone else would have a different example or explanation. If you disagree, ignore me. It's okay.

    There is a link in the next post on this thread to another site which has many scales and their relative levels correlated. I suggest it as a great reference. Doesn't have the examples I have tried to add, but it is more complete as a layout of scales.

    It should be noted that only from 0.0 (Death) to 4.0 (Enthusiasm) are considered to be "Human Emotions." The whole range are considered to be "spiritual levels and emotions." In Scientology, emotions are considered to be particles. The lower the emotion, the heavier or more massy the particle.

    Below 2.0 are "Negative" or "destructive" emotions. Above 2.0 are "positive" or "survival."

    People are considered to have two tone levels. A "social tone" is what the person is at that moment, or the level that someone uses to fit in. The "Chronic tone" is the level the person is usually at.

    Also, people are considered to have a "Thetan and Body" tone level (the level they are at as a human 0 - 4.0), and a "Thetan Tone" (the level they are at spritually -40.0 to +40.0)

    It should also be noted that the numbers of the level are considered to progress at a geometric rate the further you get away from 0, plus or minus.

    40. Serenity of beingness - considered to be at the level of "Pure Intention." You intend, therefore it is. Someone given a "Tone 40 command" will just comply.
    30. Postulates - Ability to "Intend." A postulate is a thought toward something. "I will get this job." The better the postulate is executed, the more likely is is to happen. "power of positive thinking" taken to the extreme here.
    22. Games
    20. Action
    8. Exhilaration
    6. Aesthetics - appreciation of art
    4. Enthusiasm
    3.5 Cheerfulness
    3.3 Strong interest
    3. Conservatism
    2.9 Mild interest
    2.8 Contented
    2.6 Disinterested
    2.5 Boredom
    2.4 Monotony
    2. Antagonism
    1.9 Hostility
    1.8 Pain - actual physical pain. It is considered to be a tone level
    1.5 Anger
    1.4 Hate
    1.3 Resentment
    1.2 No sympathy - having no sympathy or empathy for anyone.
    1.15 Unexpressed resentment
    1.1 Covert hostility
    1.02 Anxiety
    1. Fear
    .98 Despair
    .96 Terror
    .94 Numb - unable to feel emotions
    .9 Sympathy
    .8 Propitiation - the desire to "buy off" a danger source.
    .5 Grief
    .375 Making amends - the tendency to buy off ALL potential danger sources.
    .3 Undeserving
    .2 Self-abasement
    .1 Victim
    .07 Hopeless
    .05 Apathy
    .03 Useless
    .01 Dying
    0. Body death - Actualyl being physically dead.
    - .01 Pity -
    - .02 Shame - "I shouldn't have done that"
    - .07 Accountable - "it's all my fault"
    - 1. Blame - "it's all your fault" (accountable is higher because it is closer to being responsible. But true and full responsibility would be considered Tone 40.0 - responsibility for all aspects: in, out, them, you, everything.
    - 1.3 Regret - "I wish it wasn't my fault"
    - 1.5 Controlling bodies - slave drivers, micromanagers
    - 2.2 Protecting bodies - police officers, bodyguards, etc
    - 3. Owning bodies - slave owners
    - 3.5 Approval from bodies - "needing adulation" celebrities who need fame
    - 4. Needing bodies - "must have people around"
    - 5. Worshipping bodies - extreme fans, concentration on following celebrities, etc
    - 6. Sacrifice - "I must die as they will be better without me"
    - 8. Hiding
    -10. Being objects
    -20. Being nothing
    -30. Can't hide
    -40. Total failure

    Eatingness (needing to eat and eat and eat) and sexingness (must have sex, must have sex) are considered to be around the -4 to -8 level.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2008
  2. gomorrhan

    gomorrhan Gold Meritorious Patron

  3. grundy

    grundy Gold Meritorious Patron

    Thats a much more complete explanation.
  4. gomorrhan

    gomorrhan Gold Meritorious Patron

    Combined with Mary Freeman's Integrity Program and an understanding of the Admin Scale, a person could go pretty far, I think.
  5. JnD loose cannon

    JnD loose cannon New Member

    Illustrated Version

    Here is an illustrated version...

    The official link seems to be down (but its the same images)

    When I was a Scientologist I loved this chart. Hubbard sees each Tone as having a specific frequency (80-8008) like a radio wave. That and the "complete" claim left me thinking these were the only emotions!:no:

    The Knowledgism view is vastly different
    (as comparison -- not to detract from Grundy's Scientology Guide)
  6. Colleen K. Peltomaa

    Colleen K. Peltomaa Silver Meritorious Patron

    Then Filbert has his expanded Tone Scale, above 40.0 and it goes up to "Sovereignty".
  7. lionheart

    lionheart Gold Meritorious Patron

    Unfortunately the Tone Scale is used by Scientologiasts as a make-wrong.

    One tool to de-program the Scn evaluation is to consider all tone levels to be delicious and not something to be avoided.

    "Could you allow yourself to be "total failure"? Could you let that feeling just be there and let it be there even more and even more..."

    If you ran this through all tone levels like that, you would release each tone and be free to experience any emotion without judgement or resistance. This would be total freedom! :happydance: :happydance: :happydance:

    Seriously, try this and see what happens! :wink2:
  8. Colleen K. Peltomaa

    Colleen K. Peltomaa Silver Meritorious Patron

    Yes, the Handbook for PreClears has a Tone Scale process that helps one to act out every tone level.
  9. lionheart

    lionheart Gold Meritorious Patron

    Unfortunately Hubbard was obsessed by scales of "worse" to "better". This labelling of the emotions with a value-judgement causes resistance to the "lower" emotions. This is a code break evaluation and invalidation. Grundy's post demonstrates Hubbard's suggestive code breaks.

    Therefore any scn processing on the tone scale, although having some basic effectiveness would tend to be limited by the associated auditor code breaks and would therefore suppress the protest over "lower" tones rather than releasing the protest or resistence.

    My suggested process is not to put a value on the emotion, but just allow it openly, freely without judgement, protest or resistance.

    It would be effective to write out all the emotions on separate pieces of paper, mix them up and pick each at random and allow that one openly and completely. Experience it without resistance or judgement. That would overcome Hubbard's code break scale of worse to better.

    Each emotion is what it is. Energy in motion, letting the energy well up and flow through is glorious and delicious and may be the actual delight of living! :thumbsup:

    To illustrate this I took Hubbard's most invalidated emotion "Total failure" and suggested one enjoy its deliciousness. Every emotion is an absolute delight! Try it, allow total failure, enjoy it, relish it, encompass it with the delight of a new-born. Every emotion is different in character and every one is delicious. :happydance:

    Grief is lovely unless you try to change it. Bathe in it and let it be. Anger is glorious unless you attach guilt to it. Exhileration is exciting. Apathy is beautiful!

    No resistence, no judgement, no Hubbard! :thumbsup: Just wonderful, wonderful delight! Like a humming bird sups on sweet nectar, enjoy each emotion with wonder at the miracle that is life. :happydance:
  10. gomorrhan

    gomorrhan Gold Meritorious Patron

    Actually, I don't see a "code break" in the Tone Scale. I see it as arbitrary, numerically, but I do understand that when anger isn't working, people get spent, hopeless, etc., and move to the next tone "down". I don't see it as negative or positive, and the numbers do give that impression (in that sense, I can see the "code break"). Some people skip some tones "up" or "down", and I would say that the tones "above" antagonism are more difficult to see the relationship between, for me. Those between antagonism and grief strike me as being a very good map of how I function when confronted with overwhelming difficulty, pain, etc. When I'm in pain, I can't concentrate well, and attempts to communicate with me result in antagonistic responses, or angry responses, and if the pain or overwhelm continues or worsens, and I can't do anything about it, I decline quickly through the other emotions. I think this is pretty well established in others, also. The tones "below death" never really made much sense to me, and only seem justified within the "many lives" universe of scientology.
  11. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    A post I wrote on a.r.s. about the tone scale

    Here's something I wrote about the tone scale when I first started posting to the 'net. I think it came out pretty well and is applicable here. The stuffie without arrows is my commentary/reply.

    Jeff Lee wrote:

    > > Offhand I'd say "love" isn't quite definable as an emotion just like
    > > "closeness" isn't an emotion.

    > 3.0 Conservatism

    > At 3.0 on the chart, a person has a _conservative_ cautious aspect
    > toward life, but is reaching his goals.

    > Looks like what they call "conservatism" is more of an attitude than an
    > emotion, but I suppose opinions may differ. It's kind of surprising to
    > see "hate" there, while "love" is missing, though. You don't think it's
    > even a LITTLE bit odd?

    According to Science of Survival (I have an older edition here, 4th
    printing) pg 39, "Affinity, Reality and Communication, the three
    component parts of theta, asend and descend the tone scale in unison"

    All love is, Jeff, is affinity. It is a high degree of affinity. As
    one goes up the tone scale, one's affinity increases. Look at people
    who are on the lower bands, such as grief, apathy, fear, despair... they
    do not have a great deal of affinity. They are too caught up in the
    crippling emotions as stated above.

    > "Hate" has a few definitions of its own, ranging from unwillingness to
    > hostility to repulsion... Isn't that liable to imprecision or varying
    > interpretations?

    Not sure what you're getting at here. But let me take a stab at this.
    Hate, according to Hubbard, (tech dict, def 2) "around 1.5 on the tone
    scale affinity has almost totally reversed itself. Its dissonance has
    become hate, which can be violent and is so expressed..."

    If one looks at the expanded tone scale, one sees that hate is placed at
    1.4 (which is near 1.5) and anger is at 1.5, resentment is 1.3 and
    hostility is at 1.9. So Hubbard has mapped out the similar emotions,
    and their wavelengths, distinguished one from another, yet shown that
    they are indeed similar, and have similar wavelengths.

    > >>"Happiness" doesn't appear on the Tone Scale itself, but is equated with
    > >>mere "enthusiasm" in the accompanying text. And I find it strange that
    > >>"sympathy" is actually LOWER on the Tone Scale than "no sympathy"!

    Actually there are all sorts of happy type emotions on the tone scale,
    thee is mild interest, strong interest, cheerfulness,enthusiasm,
    exhilaration, serenity of beingness, and others. If a person's
    emotional wavelength was at any of these surely he could be said to be
    happy. IMHO, personally, I think Hubbard is saying here that there are
    many types and gradations of happiness. And I think any of us can look
    back into our lives and see that there were plenty of times we have been
    happy, but different types of happy and different intensities of happy.

    Take a look at where no sympathy is- its right smack dab btwn resentment
    and unexpressed resentment. It's like: hey,I'm not feeling sorry for
    the twit, he made his bed, let him lie in it. But sympathy is down by
    propitiation which is Uriah Heep country. It's even worse. That's
    where your enablers and codependent types,IMO, can be found.

    > >>In Hubbard's view of human emotions, there's hostility, pain, anger,
    > >>resentment, grief... but no love, no true happiness, no joy.

    Exhilaration. Aesthetic. Cheerfulness. We have an abundance of joyful
    emotions here.

    > > This is an extreme misrepresentation. Why would you wish to say such a
    > > thing?

    > Because "hostility", "pain", "anger", "resentment" and "grief" all have
    > numbers assigned to them on the Tone Scale, but "love", "happiness" and
    > "joy" do not.

    > > I wonder why you *think* it "is."

    > Simple -- because Hubbard bragged about his Tone Scale being "precise"
    > and "complete", yet many of the well-known pleasanter emotions seem to
    > be missing. On the other hand, there is no dearth of negative emotions
    > listed, some remarkably similar in meaning.

    And there's no paucity of joyful emotions.

    > > Have you so dehumanized Scientologists in your own mind that you would
    > > fabricate such pathetic concepts and apply them with such blithe
    > > presumption?


    > Mmm, "associated with", yes. But whereas very closely-associated terms
    > such as "hostility" and "antagonism" are both present on the scale, the
    > text equates "happiness" to "enthusiasm", which have extremely different
    > definitions in the dictionary.

    > > >Why "no sympathy" is more desirable than "sympathy"?

    > > I believe you make the usual (deliberate) error of equating "sympathy"
    > > with "compassion" in this context.

    > Firstly, it's not deliberate in this case. Perhaps it is a mistake to
    > assume that words used by a Scientology publication have the same
    > meanings and connotations as the same words used by the non-Scientology
    > world, but if so, in this case it was not an intentional mistake.

    > > In Scn, "sympathy" is narrowly defined, and implies a state of mind
    > > wherein a person conceives himself helpless to do anything but is
    > > anguished, on one's own behalf or another's. [...]

    I have attempted to address this in a previous paragraph,HTH.

    > > Offhand I would say the root of any genuine confusion is that there is no
    > > better English equivalent word for the exact concept Hubbard sought to
    > > convey, and this one had to do. The most common English meaning for
    > > "sympathy," which implies empathy or compassion is NOT the one that
    > > applies here. It's more like, but not the same as, "pity."

    > Then if "pity" is closer, why not use that instead?

    > > "Sympathy" is one of a number of words that have taken on specific,
    > > sometimes new or subtly changed meanings in Scientology. It's a simple
    > > matter of the fact that any technical subject must usually develop a
    > > terminology of its own in order to facilitate communication of its
    > > concepts.

    > Okay, this seems reasonable on the surface, but when taken in context
    > with Scientology beliefs and practices, it seems strange.

    > Hubbard made it clear that he believed that the *only* bar to learning
    > was the M/U, or misunderstood word. Why change the meaning of a word so
    > that means something completely different? Isn't that just *begging* to
    > cause an M/U? (For example, the Tone Scale page that I took that from
    > was on an official Scientology site, freely available on the Web. It
    > didn't give any indication of "sympathy" being redefined like this;
    > don't you think that someone with no knowledge of Scientology -- neither
    > good nor bad -- browsing that page might think it was a little odd to
    > see "sympathy" being represented as less desirable than "no sympathy"?)

    > Furthermore, Hubbard was certainly not averse to coining new terms:
    > theta, enturbulated, out-ethics, upstat, games condition, outpoint, and
    > so on.

    Well, he was trying to describe new concepts. And, in my opinion, I
    think he thought these were not entirely new concepts, but concepts that
    had been lost for a time. But they sure seemed new. I think he was
    doing his best to build a nomenclature that would work. I work in a
    large international corporation, and we have a nomenclature of sorts
    there,too. Not as much as in Scn, but then we are not describing so
    many new or rediscovered if you will, concepts. But still and all
    almost evey group has its nomenclature that has to be defined for
    newbies,etc. Right down to married people having their own secret
    language and in-jokes.

    > > In fact, Scientologists simply recognize the distinction between the
    > > term's narrow and specific meaning in its Scientology context; and its
    > > meanings in general English usage.

    > Scientologists do, sure. And do they always stick to general English
    > usage when talking to critics or the media, or do they sometimes get
    > away with an "acceptable truth" by using the Scientology definition in
    > hopes that the listeners will think they're speaking normal English?

    > > Their thoughts and opinions -- and their compassion -- remain entirely
    > > their own.

    > Say, where's compassion on the Tone Scale?

    I would say that compassion is closely bound with affinity, reality and
    communication.Affinity is the "feeling of love or liking for someone."
    acc to the tech dict, reality is "that which is made and which is
    commonly experienced by agreement; that which is made or one or many
    ake, and can be commonly experienced."
    and you know what communication is. Surely someone who felt affinity
    and reality for and with an individual and was willing to communicate
    with him or her would be compassionate. These would be compassionate
    actions. And as I stated before (actually it was Hubbard) Affinity
    reality and Communication.;..ascend and descend the tonescale in unison.

    So there are many places on the tone scale where compassion can be
    found, rather than just one place. Now take anger or hate or something
    like that in the nether reaches of the tone scale. One would not find
    much compassion there, per Hubbards material. And think of people that
    were feeling anger or hate that you were around. Were they
    compassionate? I bet they weren't/
  12. grundy

    grundy Gold Meritorious Patron

    The funny thing is that I never had a problem understanding all the levels (theoretical levels lol) of the tone scale.

    I had a realization about the related nature of all things Scientology when I was 15 years old and taking my first tech training. (After Pro TRs but before Sup/W/c/Auditor training.)

    I had done Staff Status 1,2, Method 1, student hat, Pro TRs. I had a "big keyout" when I all of a sudden could relate everything I had studied (ARC/KRC/Overts Witholds/misunderstoods/tone scale/awareness chart/grade chart/organization structure/comm cycle/TRs, etc, etc, etc.) in a split instant. I spent 30 mintutes talking to anybody and everybody about my great win and writing a success story and bugging the examiner, people routing me around flag, public, etc. etc.

    Well, it probably helped that in my C/S 53 I had had that the "past life clear" came up, I had just done method 1.

    I DID enjoy my flag training. 15/16 years old too. (I had taken a year off of high school as a "Sabbatical".) Went back to my senior year in high school as a 16 year old "trained word clearer and supervisor." It was wierd ....
  13. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    I think the tone scale is a fantastic fantastic bit of tech. It, like many things in Scn theory, comes in for criticism, but it's quite good. Of course there are limits to it, but there are limits to any theological, ideological or philosophical concept. This is one fo the better ones in Scn.
  14. lionheart

    lionheart Gold Meritorious Patron

    It is a code break when someone is upset and their feelings are labelled "down-tone". The very description of "up" and "down" are evaluations and invalidations.

    A labelling of someone as being "1.1" is one huge code break

    I'm not saying people don't move through emotional tones. I saw it many times when auditing people, just as described in DMSMH.

    It is the way Hubbard used it that is the code break.

    It is an example of the black and white sides of Scn tech. He tended to take something that has a workability and use it or reverse-use it to attack his imagined enemies.

    Emotions are just energy in motion, nothing more or less and they are all wonderful! :happydance:

    Try releasing all over the "scale" as I suggested, if you don't realise what I am saying. You have nothing to lose in trying it and every emotion to gain! Yippee! :happydance:
  15. gomorrhan

    gomorrhan Gold Meritorious Patron

    Yes, of course evaluating another person as downtone, or 1.1, or whatever would be a break (if in session). However, I am unlikely to take someone into my confidence who has just told me that they really enjoy taking sledgehammers to baby seals. In a sense, I'm evaluating them (but not for them). This is not a "code break".

    As to whether all emotions are wonderful, I think that's for each individual to establish for themselves. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of despair, grief or fear, but if you are, I'm happy for you.
  16. lionheart

    lionheart Gold Meritorious Patron

    Invalidation out of session of someone's so-called tone level is a code break! "I promise not to invalidate a pc's case or gains in or out of session" (If my memory from a quarter of a century ago is accurate)

    The SO execs use it often to control and invalidate juniors. Hubbard taught them to do this. This is Hubbard's Black Scientology.

    Reading Science of Survival is a code break by Hubbard. How many people on here felt somewhat invalidated when reading it? Ironic, when you realise that he wrote it under the influence of drugs as a diatribe against Sara Northrup! (look at what he says about women, 1.1, etc and relate it to his state of mind after the acrimony with Sara and his kidnapping of his daughter - join the dots yourself). He used the tone scale to invalidate his supposed enemies and future imagined enemies.

    Yes, I agree, each individual should decide for themselves about emotions, Don't take Hubbard's word for it about the relative value of them. Release them and see how you feel!

    It is the resistence to them that causes the "pain" experienced, not the emotions themselves. This is a subtle but vital point. Hubbard educated us to avoid, or resist "low-toned" emotions. Poor old Ron was too enturbulated by his case to appreciate that they are simply energy in motion and pass like clouds across the sky! :happydance:
  17. grundy

    grundy Gold Meritorious Patron

    As a side comment to this, when someone would bring this up as a "Violation of the Auditor's Code", the exec or person would point out "I'm not your auditor. Get your ethics in and get the HE&R off the line."
  18. lionheart

    lionheart Gold Meritorious Patron

    I rest my case! You have proven it for me Grundy. :D
  19. gomorrhan

    gomorrhan Gold Meritorious Patron

    I didn't say anything about invalidating someone's tone level, Lionheart. I'm talking about evaluating it for your own predictive ability. I'm also not interested in establishing their "value" as being less or more than other emotions. It's interesting as a SEQUENCE through which people progress. Either towards "succumb" or towards "survive" (though I prefer "thrive").
  20. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    The simplest solution is to recognize that Ron's 'Tech' was an arbitrarily cobbled-together manipulative pseudo reality that *intended* to fuck people's heads.

    The 'scales' are just part of the whole. Purely arbitrary; purely manipulative; purely deceptive.

    The attempt to 'save the baby' is itself a symptom of the effectiveness of the mind-rot.