See earlier Terra Cognita: Intention, Clear Schmear, Do Not Evaluate for the Preclear, The E-Meter, The Is-Ness of Is-Ness, Cause Over Life — Really?, BT’s in the Belfry, Two New Conditions!, The Condition of Liabilitiness, Condition of Doubtfulness The Mind, The Way To Happiness: Really? A Story, Auditing: a PC’s Quest for the Holy Grail, The Knowledge Report, Integrity, The Almighty Stat, The Reg, The Horrors of Wordclearing, Why Scientologists Don’t FSM, Respect, The Survival Rundown – The Latest Scam, Communication in Scientology… Or Not, Am I Still A Thetan?, To Be Or Not To Be, An Evaluation of Scientology, Fear: That Which Drives Scientology and Justification and Rationalization.
Getting Emotional
The concept that people operate at different emotional levels is nothing new, both to the layman, the social scientist, and to leaders of major religions. Joe is depressed. Sally is cheerful. John is perpetually angry. And David loves controlling bodies.
The Scientology Tone Scale is a hierarchy of human emotions ranging from Serenity of Beingness down to Total Failure. The scale is divided into two parts. The top half is comprised of those emotions displayed by a spirit plus their body. The bottom half encompasses those emotions below body death; essentially, emotions manifested by the spirit alone. LRH assigned each tone level a numeric value from 40.0 (Serenity of Beingness) to 0.0 (Body Death), and -0.01 (Failure) to -40.0 (Total Failure). LRH wrote that this numerical classification “…is not arbitrary but will be found to approximate some actual governing law of nature.”
According to LRH, people are stuck in a “chronic” tone level, but typically exhibit a “social” tone level when interacting with others. For instance, a person might be in the chronic tone level of Controlling Bodies but appear Enthusiastic when addressing small auditoriums of people at quarterly events.
Day to day circumstances cause people to temporarily move up and down the Tone Scale. The death of a loved one might plunge a person into the tone level of Grief. Playing basketball with buddies or painting a landscape might rocket a person into Games or Aesthetics.
“The higher the individual is upon the Tone Scale, the better chance he has of obtaining the wherewithal of living, the happier he is, the healthier his body will be.” LRH, Science of Survival. And thus, one of the goals of Scientology auditing is to increase people’s tone levels.
A Workable Technology?
I don’t know of anyone who developed a more comprehensive scale of human emotions than LRH (which doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist). The question is: Did he get it right? Partly? Or was he completely off base?
Quieter, less extroverted people aren’t necessarily low toned but can get labeled as such. Similarly, a shy individual can be mistakenly assigned a lower position on the chart than is warranted. On the flip side, low toned people often hide behind wide smiles and false enthusiasm.
I’m sure that anyone who’s been in Scientology for any length of time remembers “surveying” strangers on the street in order to gauge their chronic and social tone levels. Fun times.
I used to wonder if there weren’t more tone levels but never came up with any. Maybe the Tone Scale really is a “workable technology.” Not perfect. But workable.
As with most everything LRH wrote and talked about, I take his tech and policy with a big grain of salt. Few of his lectures, Bulletins, or Policy Letters ring completely true for me anymore. For those willing, much of his tech needs further research (the real kind) and refinement. That said, might the Tone Scale still be a useful tool, even if just to make people aware of the concept that people operate within a range of human emotions?
The Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation
The Chart of Human Evaluation from LRH’s book, The Science of Survival, is comprised of thirteen emotional tones associated with an array of expected characteristics and behaviors at each level. Some believe LRH fell short in assigning the correct attributes to their corresponding tone levels. He got some right. He came close on others. He failed on a few. Was he at least in the ball park?
Perhaps his most infamous designation (though not spelled out specifically on the chart) was ascribing all gay people to the tone level of “covert hostility.” Over the last thirty years, I’ve lived next door to two very nice gay couples. None of the four were covertly hostile and all were friendly. Same for a gay relative.
I suspect LRH projected many of his own fears, prejudices, and insecurities onto the chart. His own Second Dynamic transgressions with women and children have been well documented but no one within the church would dare connect him a lower tone level. Many stories, too, have been told about how he abused his staff.
To lighten the mood, here’s a line from LRH for you girls: “A society…in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, the care of men and the creation of the future generation, is a society which is on its way out.” (The italics are his.)
So What Else is New?
Like other Scientology tech and policy, the Tone Scale can be perverted to suppress and control people.
One way this is done is by stereotyping people based on narrow criteria, much of which is unproven and/or false. Below Monotony on the Tone Scale, people are said to be “low-toned” and are on a “succumb postulate”—and by extension, should not be helped as Scientology is only for the able and the church doesn’t have the time or resources to waste on down-stats. Good Scientologists don’t associate with “low-toned” people.
LRH wrote about communicating with people based on their tone level. According to his concept, people can be controlled and manipulated—and sold Scientology services—by communicating with them at, or slightly above, their tone level. Perhaps no one is more versed in this than Scientology registrars.
Our Way or the Highway
I’ve observed that underneath the happy countenance of many Scientology staff lies a dark streak of “No-sympathy.” Not only is this especially recognizable in the Sea Org, but is a classic trait of other hard-core cults.
Scientology public has little sympathy for “Wogs” outside their church. Staff has little sympathy for org public not kowtowing to LRH and moving quickly up the Bridge. Staff can be especially brutal to each other. One of the most notorious examples was (is?) the practice of condemning people to the Hole at the Int Base in Hemet.
This No-sympathy mindset has evolved from empathizing with others due to temporary hardship or adversity, to feeling sorry for them, to showing no mercy or compassion to anybody not in complete agreement with Scientology and LRH. Mission and Class 5 org personnel are usually not as heartless as Sea Org members.
This isn’t to say there isn’t nice staff—the Sea Org included. To the contrary. The majority are good people that joined the ranks to help others. Unfortunately, this abovementioned No-sympathy attitude has saturated all echelons of the church—no doubt, starting with LRH decades ago. I’ve witnessed staff turn from Cheerfulness to Anger or Resentment on many occasions.
Just below No-sympathy on the Tone Scale is Unexpressed Resentment. And just below it is the infamous, 1.1, Covert Hostility, the favorite hangout of the suppressive person. Directly below it are Anxiety and Fear. During my time on staff, I saw many fall through this range of tones after rubbing shoulders with the many injustices and ludicrous policies pervading the organization. I can only imagine the dread that ex-Sea Org members had to endure prior to leaving and having to confront living in the “dangerous” outside world.
Interestingly, some staff deal with these organizational insanities by becoming what LRH termed, “theetie-weetie.” Everything is light and airy for people like this. Everything is good; everything will work out in the end. As LRH said, the theetie-weetie “Cannot go deeper in the bank than a thought.” Underneath their perpetual grin is someone who can confront very, very little. I’ve observed that a number of staff at a local org fall into this sad category.
The Illustrated Tone Scale
One of the most celebrated charts in Scientology is the Illustrated Tone Scale strewn with its emotive little cherubs.
I still have a framed version hanging in my house. True, it’s not prominently displayed in the living room, but the occasional guest might see it in the hall on the way to their room. I doubt I’ll ever get rid of the thing.
Last Words
I appreciate the idea of recognizing inherent nature and behavior based on emotional disposition—just as long as I don’t go overboard and unfairly pigeonhole everybody.
Sill Not Declared,
Terra Cognita
I think Miscavige, being a sociopath, has the trickle down effect going on. If you aren’t capable of being as non compassionate about your fellow staff as he is, then you don’t last long in his space. Through command chains this trickles down and gets reinforced here and there with some of the most fanatic (or easily interpreted as such) policies such as KSW 1. Sure many resist, because probably more than half of the staff/SO that are in the valence of a Miscavigite (that’s a monster in certain folklore) know that being a sociopath goes against so many of the other works of LRH where he did speak of compassion. This disconnect is greater with some than others.
If you really want to learn the tone scale, study ‘The Well-Tempered Clavier’ by Johann Sebastian Bach.
Yes, although I studied the tone scale and thought it useful at the time, it wasn’t always. In fact, mostly always slotting people into some category or other, hampered my just getting on with them or dealing with them. It often caused relationship problems because you often looked down on people you deemed low toned.
I cringe when a couple of ex-scions I know still think in terms of the tone level. A person gets assigned a tone level or it’s because of their tone level that they do or did a certain thing or things. That person is doomed forever because of it. When does such arrogance dissipate?
I also don’t agree with the covert hostility assigned to gay people. I know many and it just doesn’t fit.
I never use the so called “tech” anymore and don’t miss it. I work with people in the “outside world”, which is my world, and can honestly say I have far less problems with people than I ever did in scientology. I accept people face value and find most people genuine, no problem. And I’ve forgotten what’s it’s like to be backstabbed.
I’m not continually assessing and analysing people. It’s freeing.
Marildi, in responding to my post to M2C you said, “He has made it clear that he does not (to quote) ‘need some university psychology department to tell me that the subject works or doesn’t work. You have made it all far too complex. The proof is above the level of formal logic. The proof is in doing it and seeing what happens. You can’t ‘figure it out’ without doing it, and doing it correctly.’”
:”Above the level of formal logic,” huh? By whose judgement? He’s channeling Elron there for sure! M2C is more than welcome to his subjective impressions of $cn’s efficacy, and I’m happy that you both seemed to have had much better results with it than almost anyone that I’ve talked. So it works for him,’nuff said there.
But there are lots and lots of folks who have NOT experienced the marvels and wonders of 100% standard tech, zipping them up the bridge with their Eternity blazing before them, BTs vanquished, and able to wield totally bitchin’ suppa powerz on cue. It’s hard to come to any kind of valid estimate, but I have to tell you here, there are just not that many of you folks left. Now, if it worked as well for you everyone as it did for you folks, then it would have proved its worth many times over by unanimous assent and we’d all still be doing $cn, happy as clams!
But that’s just not the scene here at all, is it, Marildi? Instead of an ever-increasing number of folks going up the bridge and getting audited, there seem to be fewer and fewer. So, we’re really just sifting the wreckage here, trying to salvage and reconstruct anything that still works out of this mid-air disaster. $cn’s chance to become a recognized professional field and submit its empirical claims to objective evaluation has long since past and its the steep decline that the cherch has been in for decades is largely due to that fatal error.
Harpoona, your logical error is treating Scientology as a simple, indivisible whole that can be straightforwardly tested and thereby declared workable or unworkable. Does physics “work”? Does medicine “work”? Scientology, physics, and medicine are subjects composed of many parts, applied by many different persons and organizations, and continuously under development and improvement.
So when you say, “let’s just test it,” the key question is what “it” shall we test? Exactly what would your experiment be? Who would perform it? And who would put up the funding for it? Yes, the Church could afford it today, but that absolutely was not the case when Ron was putting the tech together in the 50’s and 60’s.
But Elron very pointedly presented it as an indivisible whole that, according to KSW scripture, could never be altered in any way. So, if there’s a logical error there, it’s certainly not mine. I’m merely taking Elron at his word, then keeping track of the claims of efficacy that he made for his system.
As I just mentioned to Marildi, if you choose to present yourself as senior to science and operating at level higher than formal logic, then the success of your enterprise either succeeds or fails, based on your claims of practical results. It’s like Elron said, “Science? We don’t need to show you no stinkin’ empirically-validated objective study results; we have 100% standard tech that delivers 100% success all of the time”.
That works just fine IF you achieve those claims, but not so well when you don’t. And, apparently, quite in contrast with you and Marildi’s experiences in $cn, many, many folks have found it to be quite a bit less that 100% effective. Now, one could interpret that easily perceived fact as being due to folks not actually doing the 100% standard tech 100% accurately, or blame the PC for his own shortcomings, but as the years rolled on and the disastrous results piled up, that becomes more and more of an indefensible stance, imo.
“So when you say, “let’s just test it,” the key question is what “it” shall we test?”
There are many possibilities there. For example, we could objectively evaluate the efficacy of Elron’s counseling methods in one or more well-studied areas of psychotherapy, such as in the treatment of PTSD or OCD, head-to-head with other counseling models, and by using a variety of subjective and objective measures to determine its relative efficacy in comparison to those other methods. This has been going on for quite a few years now and the work of designing, carrying and publishing the results of these types of studies is very often done by academics working in those fields. The cost of undertaking them is typically born by the university of government agency that whose personnel are conducting them and there is no cost to the professional groups who represent a particular counseling model. Indeed, an important consideration in conducting objective studies like these is that the folks who have a vested interest in the study’s outcome DO NOT foot the bill.
Not to be dismissive here, but your questions evidence an almost total ignorance concerning what mainstream research is and how it’s been conducted for many years in the field of clinical psychology to compare and contrast the efficacy of a wide variety of different counseling models. $cn has chosen to try and create some sort of alt science approach since the early 50’s and that move has proved disastrous for it, as evidenced by its continuing contraction as a religion and it’s dismissal as a bogus and fraudulent movement by almost every counseling professional who’s aware of its methods and history.
One could continue to preach to an ever-shrinking choir or get with the program here and try to salvage what is of worth from the wreckage that is $cn in its present collapsing form…unlike those who continue to remain in the corporate cherch, you’re entirely free to make your own choice there.
If the “Scientology” tested were the procedures employed by today’s Church, it would not be a valid test, because the Church’s tech has been corrupted more and more over the last 35 years under DM. That’s the basic reason for the contraction. During the 60’s and 70’s there were far fewer disappointed customers, and the Church was expanding quite nicely. So we’d need to test the procedures of that earlier era.
We’d also need to use only the best auditors and C/Ses, as even back then there was a certain amount of deviation from Standard Tech. We certainly couldn’t have non-Scientologist therapists try to apply Scientology techniques in the experiment, as they couldn’t be trusted to do them correctly.
As I’ve said before, prior to getting into Scientology I received “client centered” therapy from a psychology professor who’d gotten her Ph.D directly under Carl Rogers at the University of Chicago. While there she’d been a participant in a test of Dianetics, and she described to me how it was conducted. I’d read Dianetics: Evolution of a Science already, and it was obvious to me that she and her colleagues had butchered the Auditor’s Code without realizing that would torpedo their results.
Then there’s the issue of Standard Tech itself. Regardless of LRH’s claims, in my opinion the tech was never really 100% perfected and completed. There were research avenues he never fully explored, that were later developed by others outside the Church, and are used today by some Independent auditors. I’d want to test the best techniques no matter where they came from.
But, basically what it boils down to for me is what I’ve said before. I’ve had my own experiences, and observed the experiences of others, receiving and delivering auditing, sometimes well and sometimes poorly. That’s given me enough certainty on what bad to throw out, and what good to preserve and build on, so as to move forward and get something done, without going through the dev-t (“unnecessary developed traffic”) of formal university research studies that would take years and whose results wouldn’t matter to me anyway. Nor would they matter to the public at this point.
I would like to do a very easy test. Let’s start with time dating.
If you can remember that King Sardon of the Ping Pang sector had a cleft foot 37,000,000,000 years ago, it would be a simple to remember what you had for breakfast a year ago.
I could set up a test to measure the truth about time dating.
Are you willing to do that?
“So we’d need to test the procedures of that earlier era.”
Or, to be completely fair, put DM’s squirrel tech to the test right along side of the earlier version. That’s part of the beauty of the scientific method: It doesn’t pre-judge the results and everyone is assured an equal opportunity to prove their method.
“Then there’s the issue of Standard Tech itself. Regardless of LRH’s claims, in my opinion the tech was never really 100% perfected and completed. ”
I completely agree and his insistence that it was, and that he alone had a corner on the Truth, makes $cn rigidly inflexible, unable to admit to or correct its mistakes and unwilling to submit its methods to objective evaluation, even after it went into such a steep decline that no one that I’ve talked to sees a plausible way out for it now.
” That’s given me enough certainty on what bad to throw out, and what good to preserve and build on, so as to move forward and get something done, without going through the dev-t (“unnecessary developed traffic”) of formal university research studies that would take years and whose results wouldn’t matter to me anyway.”
As a perspective based on your own personal needs and concerns, that makes total sense. However, $cn ends of dying with you and those like you if there’s not some focused effort to sort things. For me, as someone who thinks the vast majority of what’s of value in $cn is really the uncredited work of others, that prospect does not bother me at all. But for folks like you, Marildi, Foolproof and others here who regard it in a much more generous and favorable light, I would think that the prospect of its demise as coherently organized religion or path to spiritual freedom would be fairly appalling.
Yes, it’s appalling. If any mega-millionaires are reading this, please respond with an offer to fund “the baby without the bathwater.” All the bad filtered out, and all the good brought together from all the researchers. It could definitely be done.
I was once run on R3R by the C/S program because I was experiencing, grief, the loss of my old cat when he died.
I had never been run on such a process. I reckon I was supposed to be Up Tone about it all after running this process. Well, I wasn’t, it was a complete waste of time and confusing. Why on earth should I emote being Tone 4 about losing a cat to a natural process known as death?
I cry only because I miss my little friend. That doesn’t me my life has stopped or has been hindered.
By the way, as an indicator that TC’s essay was just a short “hit piece” is the inclusion of that LRH comment about women (which I think is from New Slant on Life, but may be in SOS too, not sure). Why throw that in? Yes, LRH was really off base in that comment. BUT, almost all of us here ALSO know that LRH quickly changed his mind about that, giving a large proportion of the highest posts in Scientology to women.
True enough, Mary Sue assumed the rank of scapegoat after the GO operations blew up and become known.
This is for the most part, not a serious discussion. Most of the comments on this subject align with the essay by TC; just an opportunity to bash LRH, in this case on his writings about the Tone Scale. We’ve only read about the 1.1/gay section on every single critic blog numerous times. (and probably the most shocking and crazy/dangerous part of SOS was LRH’s suggestion that low toned people be imprisoned and/or killed (eliminated). Now THAT is worthy of total condemnation along with the 1.1 section.
So, LRH was not completely right. Big surprise. But the book is about 750 pages long, depending on the edition. I have found TONS of applicable data in the book that help me in life almost every single day. Carp on certain points if you want, but I have found the Tone Scale and chart of human eval, largely accurate by my own personal observation. It helps me a lot to spot the tone of the person in front of me. I’m not continually doing that, but I definitely DO notice a red flag. I live in Asia, travel throughout the continent and in Europe as well, and often I come across people who do not speak English, and using what I know about the Tone Scale and the ARC Triangle has helped me negotiate countless situations successfully.
” I have found TONS of applicable data in the book that help me in life almost every single day.”
I read it cover to cover several times back in the day and was also impressed with some of the concepts and models. That there would be a set pattern of organization consisting of a hierarchy of emotional response made sense to me as did his prime imperative, Survive.
But years later, after I was much better read in the fields that Elron borrowed from, I realized that most of the stuff that made the most sense was misappropriated from Darwin, Freud, Carl Rogers and just so many more. When he changed some names around and made sure not to credit the specific sources that he’d borrowed directly from.
So, I wouldn’t dispute your claim of finding plenty to value in the book, I’d just question whether what you found valuable was really more the work of others, instead of his own.
Thank you Harpoona for your feedback. I think there is a 15 second audio on google where John Lennon mentions that everybody builds on everything before them. This is certainly true in music and most areas of scientific discovery, and relatively original ideas and new discoveries are made within that context. Obviously, LRH took the idea that Freud made well known, that one has memories, which though hidden from one, affects one negatively in the present. LRH does credit him a bit in the early days, as well as forty or so earlier philosophers and thinkers at the beginning of the earlier editions of Science of Survival.
Though as LRH’s megalomania kept growing and growing through the years and as he dramatized/became convinced that he was a combination of Moses, the Law Giver, Jesus, the Savior, and in fact the real Buddha, he dubbed himself “source” and credited no one else at all, as only HE channeled /discovered the REAL truth about everything (yes, when any earlier data or any data at all conflicted with LRH data, it was simply … “false data” … any disagreement with Ron was because of a misunderstood word on the part of the person who had a divergent viewpoint).
But it should be at least acknowledged that LRH did in fact put together some VERY original ideas. I have challenged anyone to come up with an earlier model of actual worked out processes run to a required end phenomena of a realization and very good indicators, and under a specific code of the therapist, with a muzzled comm cycle. These are original constructions. The Tone Scale as it was presented (whether completely correct or not) is an original scale as specifically devised (or observed as LRH would prefer).
*********************************************************
There are numerous problems with Scientology as an activity, but in my opinion, the ESSENTIAL problem, though certainly not the only one, is that one is simply not “allowed” to disagree, to have a different viewpoint. Now, this is nothing new in the religion business. And Scientology is a fundamentalist religion, however it presents itself. Throughout history, all of the great religions of the world have had their battles, many bloody, and many schisms and factions whenever the right to disagree came up. (this certainly includes Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism). In Scientology, one is not allowed to say “no” without incurring group shame and attack..
I worked in Scientology for 35 years (joined staff when I was 19 in 1970) as an accomplished auditor, Case supervisor and course supervisor. I never voiced a disagreement out loud in all those years (though I had a few) and in all those years, I never, EVEN ONCE, encountered in all the countless checkouts I gave or observed, EVER came across ANYONE that said they disagreed with anything Ron said or thought he was wrong on any point. That’s what happens when ONE individual is the ONLY source of truth and people accept that EVERYTHING this source said is entirely correct.
Of course, I no longer think Ron was correct in every thing he said. But then again, I’m a “declared SP” now, so that has to be taken into account, I guess.
“Though as LRH’s megalomania kept growing and growing through the years and as he dramatized/became convinced that he was a combination of Moses, the Law Giver, Jesus, the Savior, and in fact the real Buddha, he dubbed himself “source” and credited no one else at all, as only HE channeled /discovered the REAL truth about everything (yes, when any earlier data or any data at all conflicted with LRH data, it was simply … “false data” … any disagreement with Ron was because of a misunderstood word on the part of the person who had a divergent viewpoint).”
Exactly, Joe! Elron made the same mistake that every single fundamentalist religion that features some sort of absolute unquestionable authority, based on some supposedly infallible text of individual, as the Truth, The Light, The ONLY Way. It wasn’t any us that portrayed $cn as “beyond science” in its truth claims; it was Elron. So, if the Word of Elron which is supposedly infallible is actually shown to be in error anywhere, then there goes the authoritative basis for the entire cosmology, because if he was in error in some aspect of his cosmology (take the paleogeology/geography of volcanoes, for example), then he could be wrong elsewhere. And here’s the kicker there: In absolutist systems of belief, there is no means of correction of err because (wait for it…) errors are by definition not something that are possible.
Pretty much all science is based on what came before. Hubbard, of course, rarely gave any credit for anything other than himself. (I occastionally still wonder how he was brought up and what he was taught by his parents.) A lot of his information is valuable and I balk at the insistence that it was all done by hypnotism. Certainly the TRs, properly taught, are quite the opposite. The key, for me, was the realization (cognition) that since *I* was doing all the real work and reaching conclusions, the “wins” belonged to me. Also the errors. So what I took away was a lot of information and ponderables (requiring further searching), then decisions as to what to do with them. And over 50 years from when I began the scio journey (I’d actually begun the spiritual journey 16 years prior), I’m still seeking and, hopefully, growing. I also met and married the finest woman I’ve ever known (XSO) and we both cherish what we got out of it and what we’ve learned since. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater has always been avoided by us both! LOL
The Tone Scale, another example of a seemingly useful bit of analysis, which falls apart at the slightest examination.
It seems that Hubbard really thought that people vibrated or emitted waves at certain wavelengths. Nowhere is it explained what is vibrating or how the numbers were derived. I suspect they were invented on the fly.
At one point he explains it as a ratio between “theta” (or spirit) and “entheta” (enturbulated theta, or spirit that is disturbed by past experiences and not available). How a non-material entity can have such ratios is not explained. At other points he explains it in other ways.
While it is intriguing to speculate about the tone scale, it is not actually based on any tests or actual research. So it is safe to ignore it unless you are unfortunate enough to be on a course where you have to memorize the whole thing.
I wish I could give the reference in writing for all here to see, but it is confidential and not yet on the Internet. But there is a little essay that Hubbard wrote for the tutors he hired for his kids when they were at Saint Hill. It is called “Search for Research”. I know there is another writing with that title, but it does not match my memory of the essay I read at the Gold Base.
In this little essay he described research, and it is simply the kind of research you would do if you were writing a science fiction novel. Go to the library, find out information etc. Nothing about testing, tabulating results, statistical analysis, double-blind studies. In all my searches to find out how Hubbard did research I never found anything more than that.
At one point my post (job assignment) title was “Director of Research and Design” so I did a lot of searching to find out what Hubbard did when he did “research”. All I ever found were “pilots” and those were just on the order of “Try something on some people and see what happens”. Most of the pilots that I did find were constantly altered during the testing period, and were never codified or statistically analyzed. Classic pseudo-science. Confirmation bias to the maximum.
I actually participated in the pilot for the Purification Rundown, the one where Captain Bill created that horrible airless “sauna” in the basement tunnels of the Big Blue. Hundreds of “test subjects”. We did daily reports. And when we were utterly sick of the sauna and the piles of pills with the awful “Cal Mag” formula (calcium and magnesium powder dissolved in a hot mix of vinegar and water) we all invented wild success stories just to get out of there.
Take a bunch of desk pilots and give them daily exercise and you will get some “wins”. But there were no biopsies of “fatty tissue” before and after to determine levels of stored “toxins”, no blood tests, no measurements, not even a periodic meter test. Just a bunch of reports from a bunch of folks who were all determined to find out it was the greatest discovery since the wheel.
Hubbard never did any real research so it is safe to put any “scientific” statement by him in the dustbin. Including the “Tone Scale”.
The last comment from Marie Guerin was not actually from her but her husband, me, writing this right now on her ipad. I clicked too soon and . . . She is laughing right now . . .
i have observed people going up and down the tone scale pretty much per his sequence when dealing with ONE topic.
If you throw in other subject matters it will of course suddenly flick the person into another emotion or rather the person will suddenly emote differently. hence the difficulty with observing an ideal smooth descent or ascent along the tone levels when say observing someone in life, being hit with this and that.
This is why it was much more observable in auditing, when the subject was being kept on one point of address. BUT, when looking at a long term person’s “tone” and emotion regarding a particular topic, you can very well see the tone scale unfolding itself according to whether the person was winning or losing regarding that area of their life. It can also be seen on a short-term basis if the person is concentrated on one particular endeavour.
I contend that naysayers about the tone scale have had their observations derailed by the noise factor of life. In engineering we talk about “SNR”, or the Signal to Noise Ratio, which basically means that it is hard to get a clear signal in the middle of a lot of noise.
This is a very important factor in Research, where experimental observation strives to vary only one thing at a time and avoid noisy variations all around.
The topic of research has been mentioned quite often as less than satisfactory regarding Lrh ‘s methods and lack of documentation, which I also observed throughout my years in Scientology as quite lacking.
Regardless, I don’t partake with the automatic camps of “either”, i.e. he was all great, or he was all crap.
The probability that Lrh would have “taken” us all without having truly remarkable things to say or observed and relayed is actually quite minuscule. Just look at how hard it is in life to get an enterprise going, and last more than 50 years, let alone when dealing with the quacky areas of self improvements, religion, and cults.
Besides recognizing the weaknesses and flat out inventions propelled by his charisma, let’s just relax a bit so as to also being able to recognize some very interesting things.
“The probability that Lrh would have ‘taken’ us all without having truly remarkable things to say or observed and relayed is actually quite minuscule.”
Excellent comment. The rest of your post was excellent too.
“The probability that Lrh would have “taken” us all without having truly remarkable things to say or observed and relayed is actually quite minuscule.”
Yet, P.T. Barnum was right.
She didn’t mean that we were “taken BY’ LRH – she meant “taken WITH” him. Two different idioms.
I know. Hence my response. Study more American History.
“Perhaps his most infamous designation (though not spelled out specifically on the chart) was ascribing all gay people to the tone level of “covert hostility.””
I’ve never seen anyone point out the obvious, slightly obscene connection here. Covert hostility = stab you in the back = poke you from behind. GEDDIT? GEDDIT?
Thank you Doloras, and may I say you’re looking mighty fetching? there seems to be a widespread “MU” on ‘covert hostility’. Scientologists think it means when you make snide, sarcastic remarks, you know, those kinds of remarks we human have a special fondness for? Well yes, ‘covert hostility is when somebody stabs you in the back NOT the front! Sarcasm is one of my favorite ways to express my OVERT hostility but in a way that can get a good laugh if only from myself.
Sorry Doloras but it looks like I failed to get the innuendo of your comment on first reading. Something to do with covert hostility equalling “stab you in the back” equalling “POKE you from behind” all in reference to gay men and buggery. My first reply to you is blissfully unaware of this. I find that genuinely funny!
LRH said words to the effect that Scientology is not a perfect system, but a workable one. If you define workable as running a con and defrauding members of their money, I’d tend to agree with him.
Scientology proponents like to say Hubbard’s Tone Scale is a TOOL and they USE it. Sorry but I don’t see what practical utility it affords. It reminds me of a miniature Astrology with all it’s complexity but it finally doesn’t offer anything but entertainment. It makes a bit of sense but it also veers into on-coming traffic with its problems.
Not all of Hubbard’s emotions are emotions. “Controlling bodies” is a COMPULSION not an emotion. Naming things as emotions which aren’t emotions gave BULK to the doctrine by inventing more emotions to talk about. More talk means more knowledge for the knowledge-hungry scientologist. It also made the matter seem very esoteric, abstruse.
The illusion of PRECISION was beautifully created by assigning numerical values (TO THE DECIMAL POINT!) to the emotions. What deep understanding does the man have that he isn’t revealing???
Human beings are pretty good at negotiating each other’s moods without referring to instructions. Intuitively we know better than to approach a sad person with a cheerful countenance. It’s a matter of respect and sympathy.
Briefly I mention the TELLING placement of ‘sympathy’ on the Scale. That speaks volumes and I think should be viewed as a deal-breaker.
See my comment on sympathy further down this page.
Roger: “Not all of Hubbard’s emotions are emotions. ‘Controlling bodies’ is a COMPULSION not an emotion.”
No, it’s an effort. In the early years, when the scale was called The Emotional Tone Scale, there were only emotions on it. But when the “Tone Scale in Full” came out, it included tones above and below the “Emotion” section of the scale. Controlling Bodies is below emotion, under “Effort.”
Thus, what you wrote next – “Naming things as emotions which aren’t emotions gave BULK to the doctrine by inventing more emotions to talk about. More talk means more knowledge for the knowledge-hungry scientologist. It also made the matter seem very esoteric, abstruse” – is not only ignorance but disinformation, even if unintended.
“Controlling bodies” is an EFFORT not an emotion? Okay, I am ignorant as charged. There are lapses in my education.
However, the charge you level against me of spreading DISINFORMATION will be answered by by my legal counsel. Expect to hear charges of ‘double standard’ on your part where you hold me to a higher standard than Ron Hubbard when it comes accepting some things as knowledge and other things as disinformation.
I say he padded his tone scale with all sorts of ’emotions’ he arbitrarily placed as above and below each other and even assigned decimal point differences between them! as though any of this was quantifiable or even self-evident!
“Numb” is 0.94 while “TERROR” is 0.96. Then there’s ‘useless’ ‘apathy’ ‘victim’ ‘undeserving’ and whether one of these is hierarchically better or worse than the other is strictly how you choose to look at it. I call this ‘padding’ and you say i’m spreading disinformation! Why do you not level that charge against Hubbard? Unfair, Marildi. Unfair!
“I call this ‘padding’ and you say i’m spreading disinformation! Why do you not level that charge against Hubbard? Unfair, Marildi. Unfair!”
Roger, your remarks are statements about someone else’s statements – which you assume are false. even though you admit there are “lapses” in your education on the subject. Not only that but you come up with pure conjectures as to the other person’s (Hubbard’s) statements – conjectures out of thin air, simply because the findings are not real to YOU.
By contrast, Hubbard’s statements about tone levels are about his own discoveries, and whether they are true or not is beside the point here. Can you not see the difference?
So I don’t think I was being unfair at all – it was sheer propaganda/disinformation on your part. But I did appreciate the levity in your post. 😀
The friendly tone of your letter has been noted but I’m still filing charges of double standard against you for holding me to a higher standard than Hubbard whose breech’s of logic are greater than mine which, I’m happy to objectively and humbly report, are next to non-existent.
Marilidi: friendly but UNFAIR!
Roger: illogical but funny. 🙂
Roger, for the sake of accuracy, there’s an overlooked emotion between Numb (0.94) and Terror (0.96). That emotion is named Thunderstruck which is exactly at 0.95. As you may know, AC/DC had a big hit with it so it’s well worth getting a reality on as they say in Scientologese. I believe this information will be available on OT 9 or GAT 3, whichever comes first.
Elron’s tone scale and chart of evaluation are his updated version of Phrenology, but with implants and body thetans and really fucking weird people who you just know in your heart should never have guns, but are almost certain to have plenty.
“Elron’s tone scale and chart of evaluation are his updated version of Phrenology. . .”
Wow. You’re swinging pretty wildly there, HF. Phrenology is “the detailed study of the shape and size of the cranium as a supposed indication of character and mental abilities.”
If the statement I quoted above is the kind of stretch in logic you are using when you say “Elron” based everything he came up with on others’ ideas, all I can say is it’s a classic, albeit extreme, example of A=A=A.
I absolutely hate it when I have to point out that I’m purposefully exaggerating this or that for satiric purposes; or miming Elron’s penchant for extreme hyperbole for fun, but I guess that I’m just going to have to.
I don’t mean to say that Elron’s chart of human evaluation is comparable to that bizarre, but at one time very well accepted, “science” of Phrenology in every regard. I do mean to compare the two, based on exactly how empirically unsound both came to be seen over time, and on difference between how mainstream science deals with fundamental errors, relative to $cn’s lack of similar corrective ability
Psychology went on to fully admit, and be chastened by, its gullibility and susceptibility to quack, pseudo science claims in the wake of that and other similarly scientifically unsound formualtions and theories. As a result of this and other major self-corrections in science, we now have a very venerable and highly effective method of objective inquiry for use in evaluating truth claims. $cn chose another direction and has not availed itself of the many advantages afforded by employing the scientific method to disastrous results that can not be explained away.
It is destined to be viewed in the future in almost exactly the same way as psychology now views Phrenology. The only important difference there is that $cn has had the tools available to it to bring itself back into alignment with mainstream science for as long aas it’s been in existence, but purposefully chose not to do so for reasons that we could argue over for weeks. But logical arguments are, as the founder observed, much less important than the actual results that can be obtained. And when the objective results are a complete collapse of the religion – in terms of active membership size; number of well done auditing hours delivered; auditor course completions, etc. – then you’re pretty much forced to either admit the system is as worthless as Phrenology or admit the catastrophic error of trying to forge some sort of alt “Higher Science”…there’s just no way around it, is there?
“Elron’s tone scale and chart of evaluation are his updated version of Phrenology. . .”
Phrenology is “the detailed study of the shape and size of the cranium as a supposed indication of character and mental abilities.” If the statement quoted above is the kind of stretch in logic you are using when you say “Elron” based everything he came up with on others’ ideas, all I can say is that it’s a classic example of A=A=A.
The biggest problem I saw with the tone scale after I looked at it when I was no longer a true believer was that we were trained to ACT uptone while living a life of drudgery in Sea Org. Cheery cheery cheery outside OMFG I am starving to death and can’t keep my eyes open inside. We were NOT allowed to show any true emotion, only fake emotion. “No case on post”. Thus IMHO the tone scale was simply another tool to control how we were supposed to act with no real value.
We were not allowed to feel pain when having babies because we would give the child an engram. Same thing. Supress real feeling show fake feeling. I fell hard on the ice Thanksgiving evening. I got up and got in the car. I was covered in blood. I didn’t even realize I was in pain until I was alone because all these years later the intense programming I received in Sea Org won’t allow me to show true feelings in public.
So gee LRH all I have to say is Fuck You and the tone scale you rode in on.
I loved your post Terra.Oh I had forgotten those little cherubs.Today they seem more cheerful than David’s contorted artwork statues of bodies in his Ideal Orgs.There is a set of them climbing upwards that gives me chills,the pieces are cold and empty.Like the buildings.And thank you fo mentioning the change you saw in Sea Org members.The hostility and deep anger at those who did nothing wrong.I know I saw it too & lived it.That was another warning red flag that I filed away to use when I finally blew.And honestly for at least six years out the world still felt very dangerous to me.There were many times those six years when the siren call of the cult drifted over me.So glad I was able to lock it out.❤️
Good comments, AnnB. Keep in mind that the world *can* be a very dangerous place. (Just consider school shootings!) But, in the main, it is not so. The odds of not getting into dangerous situations are far in your favour. I’ve been involved with guns for over 60 years and have concealed carried for many of those. I have never once even considered drawing the weapon. Before I did carry, however, I surely wished I’d had one driving late at night on a prefreeway road in Idaho when two guys in a pickup tried to run me off the road and then began shooting at me! I got off that time and vowed never again to be unprepared. Most fortunately, I’ve never needed it. I surely hope the rest of my years continue in that vein!
It’d be interesting to see what words aren’t used in Hubbard’s teachings.
Hubbard’s omitted words are a chapter about the personality of the movement.
If Hubbard couldn’t see his flaws these transfer to the members left holding the Hubbard bag.
I think every actor going to acting school has to learn some sort of emotional tone scale. He needs that in acting. TV, movie or stage.
Every secret agent is trained in emotions, how to evaluate personality with the aim to know how to control the person or extracting information from the person.
It is also used in advertising, sales persons have to be trained on emotions and all the other pros that deal with humans.
If Hubbard is right with his scales the user can decide. If it works or not the results will tell.
Oddly enough the usual Scientologist has much attention on his emotions. He carefully avoids to look or “be” down tone.
But that information is not complete. The missing link is written in the book Scientology 8-80. Emotions are not only a human experience but also wave length. Every emotion is a wave with a frequency. If you want to influence a wave with a certain frequency you have to emanate a wave with the same or almost the same frequency. This is called resonance. So, a person in anger cannot influence a person in apathy. Simple electronic facts.
Evaluating a person on a basis of the emotion the person is in has some validity. It at least shows you what he will resonate to. It is not necessarily that he will display the behavior of his chronic emotions. The important point is, that he is liable to respond to that emotion emanated towards him. Someone that is angry can be very friendly. Showing no anger at all. But he can be controlled by a “anger wave”.
For example: Back in time when the hunting of the “disaffected” started those persons on staff that had a hidden hate of some sort and did not like their human fellows stripped off their social cover, unpacked their E-Meter and started roll backing all the other staff with a brutality never seen in an org before. Before that they had been normal friendly staff. But as they did resonate with the cause of this they did enthusiastically show and lived their hate.
I will disagree with your emotional wavelength theory because the “resonance” you claim to be the efficacious factor in effecting others with our emotions doesn’t effect the party if they can’t perceive our emotion. The efficacious factor is the person’s COGNIZANCE of our emotion, not our emotion itself or the wavelength vibrations it supposedly radiates.
I am a little curious how Hubbard reconciles the ’emotion-wave’ theory with his claim the thetan has no wavelength. If the thetan has emotions then it creates wavelengths which do have a location in time/space. That means the thetan can be located by the wavelengths from its emotions. A thetan isn’t supposed to have such a location. I’d love to hear the explanation that resolves those contradictions.
So, would I, but $cn won’t even entertain your questions, much less listen to any criticism or entertain alternative views…they’ll just send you to re-study your materials and find your MU.
It’s kind of like when we were promised flying cars by now…where the hell are they!? Same goes for $cn: promise the world, deliver very little, then expel everyone who even looks like they’re going to open their mouth and point out the scam to others.
No one here is part of “$cn,” including Schorsch, so please avoid the logical fallacy of Guilt by Association as that doesn’t make for an true discussion.
Roger: “The efficacious factor is the person’s COGNIZANCE of our emotion, not our emotion itself or the wavelength vibrations it supposedly radiates.”
I believe the efficacious factor IS the vibrations. This is why a larger amount of theta can disenturbulate a lesser amount of entheta, to give just one corroborating datum.
With regard to “how Hubbard reconciles the ’emotion-wave’ theory with his claim the thetan has no wavelength,” there is the datum that a thetan has no wavelength (etc.) except by consideration. And in the PDCs, he states that a thetan is “IN a very, very, small amount of mass.”
You believe the influence of one’s emotions on another is due to the VIBRATION of the emotion? Not due to the other’s perception of the emotion. This is easy to test. Just blindfold a person and emote to them and observe the effects. Conventional wisdom says the blindfolded person will be immune to the (alleged) vibrations of emotion directed at him.
A larger amount of “theta” can “disenturbulate” a smaller amount of theta? I’m afraid that statement doesn’t corroborate anything to me because I don’t know what “theta” is nor do I know what “enturbulated theta” is which means I don’t know the difference between enturbulated and diseturbulated theta. I’d like to know of some examples of this principle.
So a thetan CAN have a wavelength by ‘consideration’? If Hubbard says a thetan can then a thetan can. And if Hubbard says a thetan lives in a very very small amount of matter then a thetan does. A thetan is and does everything Hubbard says a thetan is and does. I can’t quarrel with that!
I found some of the SOS useful in that I could see some of it in other people, especially PCs and it communicated to the CS etc, keeping the ball rolling so to speak. However, I also saw work-ability in an army drill manual too. Overall there are simply far too many assumptions in the chart of human emotions which don’t bare out as to what Scientologists like to call standard. I still think it’s quite the piece of work to write all that stuff based on a theta-mest theory and it sits better in my mind knowing that it is JUST a theory.
Once again I stress, you can’t take Scientology seriously! Just look at what happened to and the way the Cof$ treats people. They took it seriously – I rest my case! (it needs a rest after what the Cof$ did to it).
With regard to the Chart of Human Evaluation, that goes hand in hand with the tone scale, somewhere Hubbard said that those columns/characteristics ARE accurate…if you can place someone on the tone scale, then know, without a doubt, that those other categories exist for that person…i.e. A person at 1.1 will have endocrine or neurological illness, or a person at Anger will have arthritis. Therefore, if you knew of a person who had arthritis, you could very well assume they were in that low tone band, and all other attributes existed for them across the boards as per the descriptions on that chart.
I could never make sense that my father, who was one of the most compassionate men I have ever known, was apparently in “Anger” and I needed to “know” that…because he showed signs of arthritis. Or that my gay friend, who would have given me the shirt off his back, was actually “covertly hostile” and just pretending apparently, even tho he factually did help me.
Making statements about people’s character and then asserting this is the ONLY truth is wrong and harmful.
It makes me sad to think I had those judgmental thoughts about my father at the time. While disconnection is a loud and rude display of alienation of affection, the more subtle effects of instilling judgement of others was, for me, created through this chart.
Reading how the chart effected how you viewed your father differently because he had arthritis, is a subtle look at the kinds of incremental change El Ron’s “tech” could create.
I found the simplicity of this small change shifted something in my mind.
Just when I’m thinking I’m doing a good job leaving this stuff behind I see something that changed my mind years ago still running automatically on the background.
I just ripped it out by the roots. Thanks Mona.
Spotting where I’m still carrying water for El Ron unintentionally happens alot to me while reading the blog posts and comments here daily.
In the spirit of Thanksgiving I give thanks to Mike, the various contributors and especially the commenters, who take the time to share their wisdom, confusion and argumentation.
You make my life outside the bubble better.
I surmise that cramming all human emotions onto a two-dimensional scale is indicative of Hubbard’s shallow, narcissistic view of other people. It’s a bit more complicated than that, but as a sociopath he was probably constitutionally incapable of adding a second or even third axis to the scale.
Actually, it’s at least 3-dimensional in that there is “volume” as well as “pitch,” along with harmonics and overtones.
“. . . when one looks at the tone scale one is looking at both pitch and volume. In music, a note
may be anywhere on the musical scale and yet not be loud. This would be a note of a certain
pitch but small volume. A note can be of a certain pitch with a great deal of volume. Further,
the note by harmonics and overtones may have timbre, or quality.” (Science of Survival)
I think you’re trying to read too much into Hubbard’s throwing harmonics and overtones into the mix: maybe it does add a sort of second axis, but it doesn’t improve much on his basically crude and over-simplified idea of emotions.
If you honestly study the book Science of Survival, I don’t think you’ll end up thinking the tone scale is “crude and over-simplified” – unless you feel that way about the subject of frequencies in physics, which it very much aligns with.
Sorry, Marildi, but reading almost anything Hubbard wrote makes my brain itch intolerably after just a few minutes. It’s the downside to being trained in literary criticism 😉
Thank you for the admission that you haven’t read the most comprehensive book on the tone scale – and thus you really don’t know much about the subject. Your description of it as “crude and over-simplified” describes your own understanding. 😉
I’m with Marildi on these points. One can certainly disagree with anything that LRH wrote, and in some areas (such as his initial statements on the only reason why a person gives up study, or the source of all confusion, or why people are ill, etc) he was prone to generalizations and over simplification, but to characterize SOS as a crude and over simplified explanation of emotions is simply to admit that one didn’t read the book, as it does no such thing, quite the opposite in fact.
No, I *didn’t* actually say I’d never read it, Marildi—just that when I did, I quickly recognised it was badly-written ill thought-out rubbish. That’s the UPside to a training in literary criticism: an ability to detect bullshit.
Perhaps it could be more accurately named Science of Denial.
Or, Much Ado About Nothing…
Or, Fanfare for the Common Fool
Or, “How to Turn a 10-page Essay into 730 Pages”
Can someone help me figure out what time the Leah Remini show about Disconnection will air on Tues? I heard 10:00 pm but is that 10 pm Central time? Eastern time? I assumed it would be on a 7 pm Pacific time. And I set my DVR to record it. I checked my “Scheduled” recording log today and see it is set to record at 10:00 pm. So now I’m really confused. Does anyone know what time Pacific time it will show on Tues?
Look on your local listings — just google it.
But I would be pretty certain it will show on the West coast at 10pm Pacific time. Same for Central Mountain. If you can get an east coast feed you will see it at 10pm EST.
Thanks Mike. I called Time Warner, the cable co we are with and got it from the horse’s mouth: IN CA it will air at 10:00 pm tomorrow, Tues. Now if you have a different cable co such as Direct TV, call them because it could be a different time that they air it.
What was most evident about scientologists seeing anyone not in agreement with LRH: he/she’s a 1.1. Even when the most evident signs show the person is in anger or simply crude 2.0 against LRH, scientology, or a part of these.
I am curious if those who had intimate relationship with L Ron Hubbard and others who have studied him have seen a comparison to Donald Trump?
This quote seems to be one likeness between the two:
“A society…in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, the care of men and the creation of the future generation, is a society which is on its way out.”
There appear to be other similarities. This is from an article in the NY Times: “The Trump University lawsuits — two class actions filed in a San Diego federal court and a state fraud case brought by the New York attorney general, representing about 7,000 plaintiffs in all — show that these conflicts would not be limited to the federal government. Court documents revealed a dishonest operation that was marketed as a way for regular people to make lots of money by following Mr. Trump’s ‘secrets’ to real estate investing.”
Hubbard marketed “secrets” to attain individual immortality, gain superhuman powers, and save the world. Scientology registrars (sales people) also routinely promise that a person will be able to make lots of money using new abilities gained from Scientology.
From the same NY Times article: “But according to Trump University employees, Mr. Trump’s investing techniques were never part of the program. Instead, salespeople were trained to exploit vulnerable ‘students’ by pressuring them to pay thousands of dollars to attend seminars and ‘personal mentorship programs,’ many run by people with little or no experience in real estate. One sales manager called the entire business model a ‘fraudulent scheme.’ “
Hubbard wrote policies that exhorted staff members to bring in lots of money for the organization. People practicing Scientology have to go through a lot of expensive low-level courses (similar to seminars) and auditing (like “personal mentorship programs”) before ever getting something that might provide the promised superhuman abilities. Not to mention that the high-level “programs”, where one finally learns the secrets, do not work.
And from the same article: “It is as if Mr. Trump views the courts as a casino: You win some and you lose some. But luckily for him, even when he loses, he wins: Most of the $25 million settlement will be a tax write-off.”
Hubbard wrote that courts are a tool to harass enemies. Get the person tied up in court proceedings and run up attorney fees. This is true whether Scientology is getting sued or is doing the suing. Plus, “legal costs”, to “defend the religion” and to “save mankind’s only hope”, are used to promote donations to Scientology fund raising organizations.
Other Hubbard – Trump similarities:
They believe there is a media conspiracy to discredit them.
If criticized or challenged about their ideas or actions, they attack the critic. Hubbard said, “Always attack, never defend.” The critic gets demeaned in some way, while the point in question is generally denied or not talked about at all.
As charismatic leaders, they appeal to people’s emotions to gain support, often by designating “enemies” they all have in common. Hubbard’s enemies were psychiatry, psychology, the media, governments.
They both found fault with the status quo and preached how things need to be changed (probably true of all politicians). They promise a new, much better world.
They surround themselves with people who will fiercely defend them.
They both made promises with only vague information on how these promises will be fulfilled.
I am reluctantly posting this comment. This is a first time comment from someone who seems sincere. I do NOT want this to degenerate into some sort of Trump/Hillary compete off hate-fest.
THere are certainly plenty of similarities between Trump and Hubbard and Trump and Miscavige.
I am sure some enterprising person could draw similarities between Hubbard and Mother Theresa or Mahatma Gandhi too.
Of similarities between Hubbard and Hillary Clinton.
I believe Trump is a narcissist. He has many unlikable character flaws. I find the same to be the case with many politicians.
Thanks for posting here helena.
Donald made more money. Does that make him a bigger being?
Surely a smarter one. Trump also wins the game regarding women. He hires lots of them in high positions and pays them very well. As well, I long ago passed on political coverage by the NY Times. I will now sit back and wait to find out what kind of “president” DT makes. It’s the only facet of him which is important.
Naw helena, I know Marla and he’s NOTHING like Hubtard. His public persona (which is what it is) is NOT like his private self. He’s an ok, if gruff and outspoken person. Big on actual work and production. That’s how he judges people.
TC, for me the tone scale closed me on getting into scientology. It seemed so logical and complete. It took me awhile and some help from friends to realize it was not only incomplete but extremely biased as to what emotions mean and their importance.
Many clams are truly robotic socially as they can go below 2.0.
Even L. Con Hubbard said a truly sane individual should be able to experience all emotions freely.
The point that made me realize what a manipulative bastard Hubbard was is that he purposely left out “empathy” as an emotion and “love”. There are more emotions but those two allow sciebots to violate human decency on a daily basis.
That makes me really mad. Well I’m an SP so I’m definitely below 2.0
Empathy and love are abilities, not emotions. See my comment on this below.
Empathy and love are abilities and NOT emotions? Charitably, I won’t hold you to that.
Let us define an ‘ability’ as something we can demonstrate or not demonstrate at will. Let us say ’emotion’ is a mental reflex action which takes place before we can name it. It occurs spontaneously which means it is not within the scope of our will. We deal with emotion only after it has appeared.
Given my statements about ability and emotion are self-evident, I say empathy and love ARE emotions.
Maybe ability isn’t quite the right word. But empathy and love don’t occur at just one level of the Tone Scale. They occur at all levels but in different ways. See my comment on sympathy further down the page.
The Tone Scale is presented as a numerically delineated instrument of measure similar to a thermometer. The hypothesis is that the qualitative differences between emotions are actually QUANTITATIVE!
The emotion is identified by a numerical value assigned to its vibratory frequency. When the vibratory frequency is high the emotion is a happy one. When the vibratory frequency is low the emotion is an unhappy one.
Of course, how we label those emotions is arbitrary but the hypothesis that emotions are names we give to something that changes its stripes in accordance with how fast it vibrates is an intriguing one.
What exactly is this vibrating substance that is cheerfulness at 3.0 and anger at 1.5? In short, what does the Tone Scale actually measure?
Per this theory of Emotion as a Quantitative Measurement, any emotion we can experience concurrently with another cannot rightfully be called an “emotion”. That’s because the thermometer-like instrument that is the Tone Scale can only measure one emotion at a time on its strictly up and down scale. Again, what does it measure?
Roger, I’ll give you my understanding of what you asked here:
“Per this theory of Emotion as a Quantitative Measurement, any emotion we can experience concurrently with another cannot rightfully be called an ’emotion’. That’s because the thermometer-like instrument that is the Tone Scale can only measure one emotion at a time on its strictly up and down scale. Again, what does it measure?”
Obviously, the tone scale doesn’t actually “measure” anything and isn’t an instrument in any way. It’s simply a listing out of the many tones a being can have and shows the order in which the tones change as the being becomes either “lighter” or “heavier” (which the being can actually feel when going up or down the scale, respectively).
Each tone level does have what we could call a primary wavelength, per definition, but it also has harmonics to it – the same as most musical notes. Two different musical instruments may play the same note, but the sound isn’t the same because their harmonics are different.
In the same way, it wouldn’t be the case that “any emotion we can experience concurrently with another cannot rightfully be called an ’emotion’.” As explained above, each tone level has a “primary tone” as well as concurrent harmonics of that tone. Similarly, even two or more primary tones can be experienced at the same time.
p.s. An example of experiencing two or more primary tones at the same time, would be perceiving your own emotion as well as the emotion of someone else, which can actually be “felt” sometimes.
Marildi, you told me the Tone Scale isn’t an instrument of measure as it “obviously” doesn’t measure anything” nor is it even an instrument at all. Let us define ‘instrument’ as a ‘tool’, okay? And for the record, a “scale” is an instrument of measure.
To understand the question, “what does the Tone Scale measure?” requires the capacity to infer what the Scale IMPLIES. It also assumes you agree there can be no measurement without a unit of measure.
The TS is an up-and-down scale where emotions are assigned placement by a numerical value that purportedly corresponds to their ‘vibratory frequency’ (a concept I can’t give credence to without requisite knowledge).
For instance, at 3.0 there is ‘cheerfulness’. According to you it is experienced as ‘light’ on a ‘heavy to light’ scale. At 1.5 the experience is ‘heavier’ and is called “anger”. It is ‘lower’ than ‘cheerfulness’ by 1.5 points. That is measurement.
My question is this in three wordings: 1. what is the unit of measure? 2. at 3.0 on the scale WHAT is at 3.0? 3. what is it that is experienced as the emotion of “numb” at 0.94 but is experienced as the emotion of cheerfulness at 3.00? The Scale IMPLIES a unit of measure and it is appropriate to ask what it is.
My assertion which you criticized me for is Hubbard was ‘bulking up’, ‘padding’ his Emotion Doctrine with stuff that looks terribly detailed and scientific. My criticism is NOT unfounded. I’m calling his bluff. I’m pointing out he devised a measuring instrument replete with precise-looking numerical gradients (to the split decimal!) but forgot the most important thing a measuring instrument can have: A UNIT OF MEASURE! That is like building a car without putting in an engine!
Your theories about emotions having a “primary wavelength” and “harmonics” isn’t a matter relevant to this conversation as I’m talking about what is explicit in Hubbard’s Scale. Your theories are interesting but I notice you kept them very abstract and didn’t offer any concrete examples of what you’re talking about.
Okay, now I see what you mean about “instrument of measure.”
As regards “a unit of measure” – that would be wavelength, wouldn’t it?
Incidentally, it is not difficult nowadays to find many others besides LRH who consider emotions to have vibrations. I just did a Google search and found a lot on the subject. An article titled “The Vibrational Universe,” which is a paradigm of quantum physics, does a good job of explaining how emotions fit into this new paradigm. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
“Now, we extend the vibrational universe concept a little further to include emotions, and thought itself. If you believe in the biological basis for consciousness (what I call the “Man is Meat” theory) this is a no–brainer, for you believe that thought and emotion is essentially electro–chemical in nature. And if you believe that consciousness is spiritually based, it does not require too much of a leap of the imagination to understand that emotions –– energy in motion–– are vibrational, and that thought is vibrational as well….
“One of the most powerful tools for understanding life is the scale of vibrations that compose human emotions. In fact, we can arrange a scale of emotion / vibration, from lowest to highest. All of us understand this scale, for when we are in the lower emotions, we feel bad, and when we are happy and cheerful, we feel good. Emotions are nature’s way of telling us whether we are headed in the right direction! Emotions are our unfailing guide, our North Star, to tell us whether we have abandoned the path of True Self. Any time I mention the word ‘vibration,’ you can probably substitute the word “emotion,” for emotions are vibrations! We may not be able to prove this scientifically, but we don’t have to. All of us can FEEL the vibrational component of emotions.” http://www.kjmaclean.com/VibrationalUniverseLessons.html
Of course, it’s obvious that this man “stole” (ahem) many of his ideas from Hubbard and gives no credit as far as I can tell from my Google searches – and his tone scale is almost identical (you can scroll down the page to see it). But he aligns it all with modern science, which is his own contribution as it makes it all easier to understand.
I’m going to have to just let this go before it turns into something Mike has to manually shut down. I will say this, however, about the quote you offered which stated emotion is our ‘guiding light’. Well, emotion is NOT our guiding light and it does NOT inform us of whether we’re on the right path.
Emotion informs us of nothing other than what we like and don’t like. It’s our reasoning faculty, our intellect which is our informative “North Star”. Emotion simply compels us into MOTION. It gets us off our ass and it steers us in the direction toward an object of desire or away from a feared object. Reason steers or overrides that base impulse. “Listen to reason!” is the timeless advice. My reasoning, not my emotion, tells me to let go of the lengthy objections I have to your ’emotional vibrations’ theory and just say, “thank you, Marildi, for another fun tour!”
Maybe Mike would be so good as to give us a sort of “two-minute warning” – the way it’s done at some of the other friendly neighborhood meeting places. 🙂 Seriously, though, when he gets tired of reading the comments on a particular exchange, he could let us know that we each have one more comment to post on that topic, and that’s it. That way we could give it one last shot.
I’ll just comment on what you wrote here:
“Emotion simply compels us into MOTION. It gets us off our ass and it steers us in the direction toward an object of desire or away from a feared object. Reason steers or overrides that base impulse.”
I think LRH would agree with you on that. The man who wrote that article seemed to be conflating emotion with what some of the nondualty teachers might call “the will of the universe.” But in a different part of his article, he seemed to be describing emotion the way you just did.
Anyway, thank you too for “another fun tour.” I usually learn something from them.
Mincing words.
love is not an emotion? 🙁 it is an “ability”? I strongly disagree with you, My2Cents. Love is an emotion. One does not have to work to ‘gain the ability’ to love.
love
noun
1.
an intense feeling of deep affection.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/love
Yea, you have to be careful when you categorize a broad spectrum of traits from a single “tone level”. I don’t have the chart in front of me, but I recall, for instance, an apathetic person is also supposed to have abberated sexual tendencies, does not communicate well, won’t deliver a correct message, is unethical etc etc. Many of these are generalities. (talk about A=A=A). My mom was pretty depressed. Got caught up in the psychiatric bullshit, shock therapy, heavy psyche drugs etc, but she was also one of the most ethical, honest person I ever knew. So if you were to attribute all of the other “traits” to her because she was apathetic, then you’d be incorrect to do so. And it would be a witch hunt.
Yes, having psychological problems and being unethical or evil are two different things.
” For instance, a person might be in the chronic tone level of Controlling Bodies but appear Enthusiastic when addressing small auditoriums of people at quarterly events.” LOL!
In my view, one of the most telling facts of L Ron Hubbard’s distorted and twisted psychological state is his putting sympathy below hate on the tone scale.
Only a man who is disassociated from his emotions could think like this.
I am also astounded, amazed and profoundly troubled that people have defended this and somehow allowed Hubbard’s fallacious scientist to redefine terms that are commonly known.
Hate is 1.4 and sympathy is .9
Read these standard definitions below of hate and sympathy.
Inherent in this twisted and sick numerical positioning of hate and sympathy is a perfect mirror of the state of Scientology and the mentally unstable and dangerous mental state of the man who considered hate a higher tone than sympathy.
No wonder they can destroy families, friends and lives with great arrogance and self righteousness. To have sympathy for others pain is considered low toned, not cause.
No wonder Ron could be pissed at Quintin for killing himself
No wonder Ron could toss out his wife like a used rag
No wonder Ron could put little children in chain lockers
No wonder Ron could seek destruction of Paulette Cooper
No wonder Ron could write Fair Game
L Ron Hubbard was a hater. An angry hater. He was also always in hiding.
We can go no further than this numerical positioning of hate and sympathy to know the sick and twisted philosophy that L Ron Hubbard imprinted on his students.
Well trained Scientologists demonstrate this twisted diabolical “logic” regarding the tone scale with their hate towards criticism and seeing family loss and pain through disconnection as low toned.
Read these definitions, these real definitions and marvel at the dangerous doctrines and attitudes that are taught by this.
DEFINITION OF HATE
1) to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2) to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
—verb (used without object), hat·ed, hat·ing.
3) to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.
—noun
intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.
the object of extreme aversion or hostility.
DEFINITION OF SYMPATHY
1) harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another.
2) the harmony of feeling naturally existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions.
3) the fact or power of sharing the feelings of another, especially in sorrow or trouble; fellow feeling, compassion, or commiseration.
And……………
One of the practices, mind filters, that I was very very very very glad to get rid of was always judging people and evaluating people via the tone scale.
It was like I was always fitting people into one of Ron’s mental boxes. There is no science to it.
I was so relieved to trash this bad habit of seeing people through Ron’s damaged mental state.
On these sites, highly trained trained Scientologists, when I judged Ron, would always assume that I was 1.1.
Foolproof, Marildi and others put me into the numerical mind boxes because I was freely expressing my views.
So tell me, how useful is this thing when decades long adherence to the subject makes people stick others in the category of 1.1 just for disagreeing.
L Ron Hubbard was not qualified to understand human emotions. L Ron Hubbard was not qualified to evaluate human beings because L Ron Hubbard was an emotionally u stable person.
How in God’s name can you expect to find truth from a man who was a congenital liar???????????????????????????????????????????
As with all things Scientology, there is some truth mixed with falsehoods. No doubt serenity of beingness is higher than resentment.
But tell me……….. how and why did Ron put sympathy below hate.
That revelation disqualifies L Ron Hubbard from evaluating human beings: straight up!
And…. I will tell you, I have been extremely successful in helping others from depressed emotions, low toned, by being…………………..
SYMPATHETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brian, good point. And where’s empathy on the tone scale.
Empathy and compassion are obviously too low on the scale and therefore were not included. That Ron sure is a genius.
IMO empathy doesn’t exist in Scientology. No room in Ron’s universe for folks who genuinely cared for others and could “walk a mile in their shoes”.
Hubbard is dead and long gone. Take a stress pill and relax.
Hubbard is alive and well and haunts the minds of his disciples.
Good point.
My reply of “Good point” was for NotClear2me’s advice to “Take a stress pill and relax.”
To all the Indies:
There will not be a time, here in Woglandia, that you will not be met with people freely expressing criticism of Ron.
Defining critics as simply not understanding Scientology will be quite a task for you.
Your greatest barrier to teaching people “real” Scientology is the founder himself.
And the greatest obstacle to teaching people that Scientology frees people is the fact that the founder chose suicide while running BTs.
This fact causes a deep denial for the “Ron Says” people.
Ron’s desire for suicide is magically made into a heroic OT discarding a body into the sacrifice of OT research.
In fact, one needs to go no further than Ron’s wishing for suicide when arguing the validity of Scientology.
The truth will set you free
Relating everything in scn to the “evil nature” of LRH detracts from the analytical discussion of a model of human emotions to be used in counselling/auditing.
Using such a model to sit in judgement of others is the outpoint, the often shared viewpoint of ex-scn’ists that they felt superior to others and have already or are currently ridding themselves of such notion.
No Sympathy would be the counselling viewpoint to a person saying they never got a break in life, but certainly not to a personal tradgedy.
The model could also be looked at in a reverse position, placing oneself at a tone level and feeling less than others above.
The mind of Ron is essential to understanding Scientology.
“Relating everything in scn to the “evil nature” of LRH detracts from the analytical discussion of a model of human emotions to be used in counselling/auditing.”
That’s true, but the even more fundamental point here is that Elron at no time encouraged or allowed an open, analytic discussion of his model; he presented it as infallible Truth and himself as infallible Source (note the capital “S” used by there).
Concluding that Elron was an evil sociopath or that his entire cosmology was a mostly fraudulent attempt by him to enrich and aggrandize himself is just a shorthand way of cutting to the chase. For folks who have not already come to those same overarching conclusions on their own, we can certainly take the time and make the effort to fill in all the details there by, for instance, citing the many, many examples taken from throughout his life where Elron blatantly lied about his past accomplishments and crimes to justify the conclusion that he was a narcissistic sociopath.
Deconstructing his pseudo-science approach to emotion is just one of very many avenues along which his hyperbolic claims and unsubstantiated achievements can be examined. So, whether he was actually evil is much less important to come to an agreement on than confronting the objective facts of his failure to establish some sort of “beyond science” level of credibility and authoritative status for himself and for $cn. He failed miserably in each and only succeeded in smashing his name in history in the way that other authoritarian leaders and cult founders have in the past.
“So tell me, how useful is this thing when decades long adherence to the subject makes people stick others in the category of 1.1 just for disagreeing.”
Oops, hit “post” accidentally there.
“So tell me, how useful is this thing when decades long adherence to the subject makes people stick others in the category of 1.1 just for disagreeing.”
Not useful at all! Indeed, that fallacious method of argument has long ago been identified for what it is and discredited in every different form that it crops up in. Ad hominem attacks are by definition invalid and usually reflect the inability of those who engage in using them to mount a valid argument based on objective facts and logic.
Mr. or Ms. Frittata, you are patently 1.1 for asking. Please do your A-E.
Can I do my A&E instead, this coming Tues. at 10 p.m.?
CSWP.
Brian: “Foolproof, Marildi and others put me into the numerical mind boxes because I was freely expressing my views.”
I don’t believe I ever put you “into the numerical mind boxes.” This is typical of how you misquote me and probably Foolproof too – as well as Ron.
Then falsifying him shouldn’t be that difficult, marilidi. Just like Foolproof’s claim that the tech works, this is something that can easily be demonstrated or disproven, using Google and an elementary understanding of how to use a search engine.
Ouch.
The claim that the tech works … is something that can be easily be demonstrated or disproven, USING GOOGLE …!!!!!!!! This is almost exactly the technique many people in the CoS use to make less valid or true or real any idea, opinion or personal reality that someone has that is contrary to LRH’s or COB’s.
See, if doesn’t REALLY matter if I say I had great gains in training and processing (or anyone else says such) … that “claim”, my OWN reality, my PERSONAL OPINION AND EXPERIENCE, means nothing really compared to what shows up on a search engine. I am simply WRONG or not yet enlightened enough, having these viewpoints, because I am not in agreement with what “the group” has agreed is real (one sub-group on this blog being of the heavily asserted viewpoint, that all of Scientology was a scam and that everything LRH wrote can be explained away as BS).
“This is almost exactly the technique many people in the CoS use to make less valid or true or real any idea, opinion or personal reality that someone has that is contrary to LRH’s or COB’s.”
Right you are, Joe. The posters in the sub-group you mentioned do not realize that their approach is just as cultishly authoritarian as the one they are opposing. Maybe when they do realize this, they will have more understanding of how LRH and others could have sunk to that level. We can learn that lesson, at least.
If the tech works so well, why aren’t there more Scientologists?
There are. They just don’t know it yet. ?
Ah, my dear Marildi, I remember the rants well my friend. You have gotten better though.
First you said I had put you “into the numerical mind boxes,” and when I disputed that you changed it to “rants.” You really should work on being more accurate in what you say, including with your LRH so-called quotes – my friend. 🙂
So far, in this particular discussion, I’ve found you pretty “rantless”, Marildi. 🙂
For me, scio stands or falls on the applicability of specific information, rather than as a complete package. Did he steal from others? Quite possibly. Was the stolen information correct and useable? Only by applying it for myself can that be answered. And because something has been claimed by more than one person does not mean that one or the other “stole” it. It seems that minds working in the same areas often come up with similar thoughts. I found much that was useful in scio, much that I rejected as useless. (I just got very good at hiding the rejections. LOL) As I’ve said here many times, anything I got from scio which I applied and found useful was MINE, not LRH’s, the C/S’s, the auditors or anyone elses.
I personally benefited greatly from it, contributed a fair amount to others and, when I saw no further gains possible, quietly retired from the fray about 1982. No one noticed my absence! Just the way I wanted it.
Marildi use to be pretty negative to me on Marty’s blog years ago. That is what I am referring to. I would criticize Ron and she and Oracle would go ballistic.
She is not doing that now.
I guess you have sort of grown on me, Brian – like a wart, as the saying goes. 😛 🙂
thegman77: “And because something has been claimed by more than one person does not mean that one or the other ‘stole’ it. It seems that minds working in the same areas often come up with similar thoughts.”
Agreed. And I would add that it tends to show there is truth to their mutual findings, since they independently came up with the same ideas.
Even if LRH did “steal” from others, we would at the least have to give him credit for making the choices he did!
Btw, gman, I find your comments overall to be a breath of fresh air. Thanks for contributing.
Ha ha ha! That was a good one Marildi!
Glad you are still here:-)
You too. 😉
” How in God’s name can you expect to find truth from a man who was a congenital liar???????????????????????????????????????????”
Amen Brian.
Simple. Every word out of his mouth was not a lie. Some things proved out to be true and useful. The trick was to try things out for oneself, then decide.
The virtue of that thinking was non existent in the church Thegman.
It was promoted. But once demonstrated it became a punishable offense.
Brian, do you have any idea how many still-practicing indie $cilon auditors there are out there? There were four of five who regularly chimed in on Marty’s heavily censored blog the last time I was following it during his ASC rant period, and there are three of four folks here who seem to still be actively engaged in auditing, but that’s only about ten or less which is a very small number.
Are there other sites like this one where folks representing the entire continuum of $cn believer/non-believer views can civilly express themselves without being blocked or censored? I ask because it’s fairly easy to get a decent ballpark estimate of the size that the official cherch has dwindled down to, but much harder to get any kind of handle on how many True Believer, “upholders of the tech in exile” folks like Marildi there might be.
What I find endlessly fascinating in discussing $cn with folks who continue to believe strongly in the efficacy of the tech is how difficult they find it to step out of the $cn bubble and try and analyze it from the perspective of an open-minded skeptic, which is exactly the stance that science takes with respect to any truth claim. Obviously, citing more $cn to confirm $cn assertions and positions isn’t go to find any traction with those who do not share those same fundamental assumptions.
So, at some point in time before the corporate cherch implodes completely, you’d expect indie folks to try and do their best to interface with and seek to reconcile their views with the only folks who stand any chance of seeing that any portion of $cn survives, which would be the mainstream science fields that ground psychotherapy, learning, memory, traumatic experience, brain development, etc.. Yet, instead of dropping the $cientologese and circular argument strategy, they just engage in more of the same and chime in to provide each other with moral support.
NOTE TO INDIES: $cn is dying! The many reasons for its rapidly dwindling spiral could be discussed for weeks, but if you truly value certain aspects of it and believe that Elron made some unique and valuable contributions, then you’re going to have to work extremely hard to avoid going down with the corporate cherch ship.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve also made gains in auditing that I wouldn’t ever disavow, so I’m more than open to examining which aspects of $cn actually stand a chance of being preserved and incorporated as effective counseling techniques. But what has to be fully taken on board here is that whatever chance $cn had of igniting the world and expanding across the earth to supplant every other counseling method has long since passed and there is no possible way that it will ever gain some sort of alt “Higher Science” status. As a result, folks who are believers can either make their peace with mainstream science and submit their claims of efficacy to its standard scientific method of truth claim evaluation or just fold up their tents and skulk into the underbrush, never more to be seen. I just don’t see any other alternatives for them here, do you?
We already ran the informal experiment that Elron devised, and we’re now some six decades on in evaluating his many extraordinary claims. Unfortunately for $cn as either a new world religion or highly efficacious counseling method, the results are not just bad, they’re catastrophically bad, as evidenced by $cn’s world-wide collapse in membership, as well as in the key stats that Ron designated as measuring progress toward clearing the planet…way past time to face reality here for the Indie crew, imo.
Very well expressed Harpoona as well as Brian’s follow-up to yours.
We are no longer in the church, Brian. That’s the basic key to these discussions.
I think you are responding to the illustrious Harpoona, Marildi.
And Harpoona, these “still in” folks are defaulting to real realizations that they are having.
They hear us being negative Nancy’s but their experience is that they are looking within with Ron’s thinking techniques and seeing things that help them.
In my view, as a meditator, it’s nearly impossible to look within and not find things to cognate on.
It’s our nature to “know things” and discover.
I’m all for people having fun and learning about the mind. Even with Ron’s regimented thinking processes.
But my criticism is that Scientology puts you on a mind journey that does not stop.
The mind, pain, reasons for pain, chains of associated experiences never stop. It’s infinite. The past is infinite.
Scientologists get stuck in the mind and never really get to the Spirit. The Spirit, who we are, is pure stillness, and filled with joy.
The other tragedy is the delusional nature of the OT levels. That’s where they get trapped.
And when you mention that the creator of BT therapy wanted to kill himself, a wall of denial covers them.
That is the danger.
But what sticks true believers is two things in my view:
1) positive experiences of cognition
2) attachment, identifying themselves with the practice whereby they assume an identity. Identities are a bitch to neutralize when the emotions attach themselves to something.
That is why they get angry. The anger is evidence of attachment.
Confidence in one’s knowledge does not give a hoot if people agree or not.
But belief systems get very upset when the shaky foundation is uncovered.
That’s why Foolproof called me an idiot. That’s emotion talking.
On your other point: I do not know of other sites that have the quality of Mike’s. Marty is probably burned out dealing with it.
I don’t blame him.
I would say these Indies are all auditing daily and have a strong sense of mission to show the positive side of auditing.
And to know about it how you and I do would cause them to unmock Scientology.
They don’t want to do that. So you and I assume the role of fools to them.
If they got how we thought, they would not be who they are right now, and we would all not be having so much fun.
“We are hypnotized by our surroundings, and we cannot see anything beyond the horizon of our experience”
Sri Yukteswar
We are all expressing our views within the boundaries and limits of our knowledge and experience.
BTW, I am a fan of your posts Harpoona!
OM
“In my view, one of the most telling facts of L Ron Hubbard’s distorted and twisted psychological state is his putting sympathy below hate on the tone scale.”
Very telling indeed, and a direct insight into how Elron framed the world in his own mind as well. Another even more telling fact there is Elron’s complete omission of “Love” and “Compassion” as emotions at all, which also seemed to parallel his own attitude towards those higher, pro-social emotions.
Hate and fear, along with their various shadings – such as resentment, vengeance, suspicion and paranoia – are the dominant emotional tones that are structurally embedded in the $cn belief system and implemented through its official policies of Fair Game and coerced disconnection by the cult’s secret police arm.
HF: “Another even more telling fact there is Elron’s complete omission of ‘Love’ and ‘Compassion’ as emotions at all, which also seemed to parallel his own attitude towards those higher, pro-social emotions.”
On the Chart of Human Evaluation, at the highest level (4.0) in the Affinity column, it states: “Love – strong, outgoing.”
I was looking at the Tone Scale, which has Enthusiasm at 4.0 and I couldn’t find love or compassion anywhere on it. Is the Chart of Human Evaluation that you mention related to the Tone Scale or something entirely different? It’s been a long long time since I was current on all things scientological.
The Chart of Human Evaluation has been around since 1951 (ahem) when it was published as part of the book *Science of Survival*. It is built around the Tone Scale and is a sort of outline of the whole book. On the chart are various columns of abilities, behaviors and attitudes that correspond to each tone level.
In the book (SOS), Hubbard uses the word “affinity” instead of “love” to be clear as to which definition of love is meant (since there are several), and rather than love being a single emotion the whole tone scale represents affinity in all its high and low, positive and negative, manifestations.
At 4.0, the highest point of Affinity on the chart, it says “Love – strong, outgoing,” which I understand to be an attitude and behavior in life whose emotion is one of high affinity – specifically, enthusiasm.
Thanks, I remember it well now! And I also remember understanding then that affinity – in all its different manifestations and degrees – was what the entire tone scale was based on. I read it, cover to cover, several times back in the day and considered it his most coherent;y organized and well-written book on $cn.
You seem very well-read in and current in your knowledge of $cn theory and practice. I asked once before if you continue to audit others and yourself, but never received an answer there. If you don’t want to say, then I understand.
HF: “I asked once before if you continue to audit others and yourself, but never received an answer there.”
Yes, to both. And I also use other teachings that I have found to be beneficial. This is the self-determined approach to truth and spiritual freedom that Ron originally advocated – regardless of his later approach.
On that point, HF, you should realize that the comeback of “But you can’t do that – it has been forbidden!” is a Straw Man argument since no one here is arguing in favor of that type of fundamentalism.
“On that point, HF, you should realize that the comeback of “But you can’t do that – it has been forbidden!” is a Straw Man argument since no one here is arguing in favor of that type of fundamentalism.”
Marildi, I recognize that you and other indies aren’t advocating or defending that absolutist approach. I’m merely saying that, according to KSW and any other of a vast number of Elron scriptures, that is a demand that has been placed on anyone who would call herself a scientologist by the founder himself who did so in a very clear and emphatic manner. So, you can’t very well cite the infallible Word of Elron as support for your $cn argument without implicitly buying into the “infallible Word of Elron” belief, can you?
Every time that you or Foolproof or M2C use some Hubbardism to support your $cn argument it becomes circular and therefore unconvincing to the rest of us. And, as I mentioned before, if your intent here is just to preach to the ever-dwindling choir of folks who share your same fundamental assumptions, then the “$cn-centric” manner of discussion and argument works fine. But that’s NOT the milieu that you and I find ourselves in here, is it?
I can follow the $cn perspective quite well because I used to be a True Believer $cilon, just like you folks. However, you don’t seem to be able to deconstruct and analyze Dn and $cn from the multiple perspectives, such as clinical psychology and neuroscience, that I can. I don’t mention that to seem superior or dismissive, but merely to note that there are valid, objective and very sophisticated ways of analyzing the subject that, as $cn continues to collapse, will become increasingly the only route that folks like you have of potentially preserving whatever aspects of $cn that actually could be demonstrated to have value.
HF: “Every time that you or Foolproof or M2C use some Hubbardism to support your $cn argument it becomes circular and therefore unconvincing to the rest of us.”
I only use “Hubbardisms” when filling in the missing data, or clarifying the misquotes and misunderstandings that have been forwarded.
HF: “I’m merely saying that, according to KSW and any other of a vast number of Elron scriptures, that is a demand that has been placed on anyone who would call herself a scientologist by the founder himself who did so in a very clear and emphatic manner.:
The point you keep missing is that we are now free to decide for ourselves what is workable and what isn’t. This means you too no longer need to be locked in an all-or-nothing-at-all mental state – that’s fundamentalist think and you need to lose it.
”Is the Chart Of Human Evaluation that you mention related to the Tone Scale?”
It’s virtually the same thing. Chart Of Human Evaluation is an explanation of the Tone Scale and how to use it. The entire book Science Of Survival is based on the Tone Scale and Chart Of Human Evaluation.
This is some of the most basic teaching in Scientology.
This was one of my all time favorite books. The first time I went exterior in Scientology was reading this book.
Kind of like Dave, huh?
Another common misunderstanding of Scientology, this time based on confusion between sympathy and empathy.
Empathy is an ability, not an emotion. It’s the ability to feel what others are feeling, have compassion for them, and grant them beingness without sacrificing one’s own self determinism. It’s weak low on the Tone Scale and strong high on the Tone Scale.
Sympathy is an emotion, sitting below fear and above grief on the Tone Scale.
To understand this placement one has to understand how emotion is created by the interaction between a person and his environment. Emotion is the energy between thought and effort. Whatever a person is doing, he is trying to cause some effect on his environment. Success results in happiness. Failure results in unhappiness. The various emotions listed on the Tone Scale are the details of this.
As a person fails at something he falls through the levels. At fear he’s still trying to win but feels that he’s probably going to lose. At grief he considers that he has lost.
In between fear and grief, there’s sympathy and propitiation. At sympathy the person’s intention to win has weakened markedly, and his empathy has become corrupted to “I feel for my opposition, so I won’t hurt it or them anymore, even though that’s sacrificing my self-determinism.” Just below that is propitiation, where sympathy is supplemented by active support of the opposition in an effort to buy mercy.
This is a somewhat specialized definition of sympathy, but in the full context of the Tone Scale it’s correct and quite useful. No one using the definitions for empathy and sympathy found in general dictionaries can be faulted for not understanding this, as the definitions found there don’t differentiate between sympathy and empathy. I hope this explanatiion has helped.
“I am just as wise was I was before.”
Time to start thinking for yourself dude.
Time to understand before you criticize, dude.
Understanding in Scientology is proportional to money donated.
No, it’s not, and that’s the problem.
Problems are handled on Grade One and it costs money, whereby one’s understanding increases. ?
My Two Cents says:
“Sympathy is an emotion, sitting below fear and above grief on the Tone Scale.”
Sorry, that is a falsehood. When someone is in trouble and they come to me as a friend and I feel sympathy for them and help them, I am not below fear.
That idea is the essence of stupidity and evidence of a man who was not well in the cabana.
And the fact that people can agree with this is evidence of the effectiveness of Altitude Instruction: being hypnotized
And grief!!!!!!!
What a perversion to equate grief with low toned. That is why it is easy for cult minions to discard family ties.
“Oh, you poor little iddy biddy thetan, you are grief charging. Don’t you know that your feeling of loss for you loved one comes from an engram”
THAT IS A CROOK OF SHIT, AND BORDERLINE EVIL
GRIEF CAN BE HEALING
GRIEF CAN BE THERAPUTIC
GRIEF IS THE INCREDABLE POWER OF BEING VULNERABLE AND OPEN
The emotional tone scale is an admixture of reality and Ron’s DISASSOCIATION FROM REALITY
And vulnerability is a power that was absent from Ron.
I doubt he was able to truly be intimate.
How intimate can a husband be to discard his wife like a piece of garbage after the FBI found her doing her husbands bidding.
What man, here, on this site, could or would do this to a loved one.
No, Ron did not have the power of vulnerability or intimacy.
In that regard, there was something wrong with him emotionally and mentally.
And the pinnacle of judgements against Ron:
Seeking electro shock suicide running BTs.
“Ron Says” people……….. sit with that one for a while.
Put in your TRs and confront this historical fact……………
If you have the courage and confront.
Sympathy? We don’t need no stinking sympathy!
Sympathy is for wieners. Iddy Biddy thetans.
Big thetans like hate. It’s more cause and higher on the tone scale.
And just like the words “reasonable” and “open minded”, Hubbard redefined them to fit his mental deficiency.
And create thought slaves.
Sympathy below hate is a sick perversion of redefinition.
Sorry My Two Cents, its twisted and a symptom of Ron’s disassociation from reality.
You didn’t understand what I wrote about empathy and sympathy.
I have no sympathy for your explanations.
My post did not mention empathy. Please see my post above which pulled one of your quotes.
Compassion is for cowards, hate is for heroes. Now where the hell is my Macallans? Lou!!!
Sympathy and Empathy are two different things. I once had an MAA tell me I was in Sympathy Tone Level. She was Italian and could hardly speak English. I told her to go clear the word “Empathy” and that I exhibited empathy often, which is good, but was not in the tone level of Sympathy, which is bad. When LRH wrote about Sympathy on the Tone Scale he was talking about a person trying to inflow sympathy from another, as in , “feel sorry for me.” It is the manipulative things someone does to garner sympathy from others around them and in my humble opinion is low toned. Sympathy in that sense is an inflow. Empathy is different. Empathy is an outflow. Empathy is the ability to understand and commiserate with someone as in “walk a mile in his shoes”. To empathize with someone is to want to duplicate and understand them and what they’re going through, and you may then decide whether or not to give sympathy to them based on your understanding.
Sorry, that is neediness. Not sympathy.
And just like the words grief, open minded, reasonable, karma, reincarnation, Jesus:
L Ron Hubbard bastardized important human traits with his ignorance by redefining these words to fit his madness.
The “Levels of Awareness” on the Grade Chart are a mystery to me and never discussed. Do you have a take on them?
I have a take on them, Paul. They are a mystery because they don’t make sense. Hubbard knew at least intuitively that people tend to think authoritatively stated assertions are over their head when they can’t understand them. Hubbard loved to speak on a level of abstraction, (never using one word when fifteen would do) to disguise the most mundane statements as cryptic truths to be fully understood only after you’ve attained the required advancement.
There’s a Briefing Course lecture titled “Awareness Levels.” Here’s a link for the transcript:
http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/Tapes&Lect/SHSBC%20Course/SHSBC%20HTM%20pre-release%201961-1966/_PDF/1965/6504C27.PDF
Definition from the tech dictionary:
AWARENESS SCALE, there are fifty-two levels of awareness from Unexistence up to the state of Clear. By “level of awareness” is meant that of which a being is aware. A being who is at a level on this scale is aware only of that level and the others below it. (HCO PL 5 May 65)
And of course it’s true because Ron said it.
Yes, Ron, the man of truth, the man whose last OT research led him to wish to be electro shocked to death, something he warred against his whole life against psychiatry………………..
Should be referred to and quoted to set things straight.
“Ron Says” is evidence of second hand knowing. Which is not directly perceived truth, but is “know about.”
But I do give you credit Marildi for your sense of loyalty.
Where is Foolproof when we need him?
Is that what he meant when he said even heroes need lice?
I thought that was so when he was nit picking about his laundry only being rinsed 35 times in pure Venusian spring water he could blame the lice…
Talk about cleaning a clean!
“Remember how he had to have his clothes washed 50 times to get the smell of detergent out? Well, I found the reference in the occult. Perfumes were used in ancient Kabal to ward off evil demons. They had other scents which attracted evil demons.” (posted by George M. White/Path of Buddha on Nov. 23, 2016 on Mark Rathbun’s blog)
George has been researching and posting Elron’s occult sources over the last few months. He says he now has over 150 from Crowley, Madame Blavatsky and the rest of the occult crew – laughter
P.S. Occultism is not the same as Satanism, a common misunderstanding.
NotClear2me, L Con probably got confused and thought perfume was attracting BTs. 😉
These articles are excellent, thank you so much for writing them! I think they are very helpful.
The tone scale and most of Hubbard’s so-called research and discovery, is based solely on one man’s opinion. When you’re under the influence of this level of control, the factor of social proof enters in and then anything written or spoken by Ron is blindly accepted as fact. I could easily produce other emotions with a completely different scale. Now, the law of gravity is a whole other story.
See my response to Wynski.
I did. ?
Applying a hierarchy of order to something as complex as human emotion and behavior is just silly. It is hard to believe that people fell for it, but LRH sold many more destructive ideas.
I think that the loss of ability to have sympathy or compassion may be related to “compassion fatigue” the numbing that comes when our ability to handle the troubles around us is exhausted, and when no compassion is displayed to us when we experience our own troubles.
Eileen, People fall for different stuff all the time. Many people fall for stuff far worse than Scientology eg. heroin, alcohol abuse, tobacco, hate groups, abusive partners, porn addiction, consumerism, etc.. I’m not proud of falling for Scientology but I’m not ashamed of it either. I’ve met no perfect people in my life and I don’t plan on meeting any in the near future.
Sorry for being overly emotional but I get tired of the arrogant ‘no-sympathy’ comments. Guess it’s time for me to move on. Farewell to all the contributors who made this site often helpful, compassionate, and interesting.
VERY sorry to see you go!
Me too.
Hey Good People – The philosophical discussions here, in contrast to exposing injustices or stupidities in the current CoS, are just conversation on a blog. Thank you to Mike for providing the forum. I have no need to change anyone’s opinions. Most or all of the people commenting are out of scn proper and investigating previous or current understandings of scn or whatever. I often find contradictions to my own viewpoints and benefit from them. Stick around. 🙂
Good People, you are, as your name implies, good people. I hope you stick around. We need even more good people with sane viewpoints on the blog. Your voice matters.
The problem with Hubbard’s Tone levels (the scale) and the Chart of Human Eval is that it is NOT based on ANY type of real research and testing. It was invented by him out of whole cloth. Partially based on his hates and fears. Usable by him to condemn and control people.
THUS, there exists NO WHERE any recorded scientific research by Hubbard leading to these finished products that he wrote in stone.
Therefore, to apply this crap to humans is either ignorant at best or knowing it is NOT scientific, malicious.
No, Wynski, there WAS research that led to the Tone Scale. LRH observed his preclears going down through a sequence of emotional levels as they put more attention on their troubles, and coming up through the reverse sequence of emotional levels as they bled charge out of incidents while reliving them in session. And he observed which behaviors occured at each of these emotional levels.
He may have used logic and educated guesses to fill in some of the details, as nearly all previous psychologists and philosophers did in developing their systems. But the basics of the Tone Scale came from his observations while auditing people.
This is not to say that the Chart of Human Evaluation was 100% correct. The idea that all gay people are at 1.1 Covert Hostility is a case in point. It doesn’t line up with my own observations in life. But in 1950 most gays felt forced by society to remain in the closet, and that suppression undoubtedly pushed many of them down the Tone Scale much more than gays experience today.
Re “real research,” nearly all psychotherapeutic systems were developed by practitioners through anecdotal clinical experience, not full-blown formal, double blind, placebo controlled, peer reviewed experiments.
By the way, prior to getting into Scientology I got 6 months of psychotherapy from a direct personal disciple of Carl Rogers. I’d already read “Client Centered Therapy” and “On Becoming a Person,” so I was very familiar with Rogers’ theories. My therapist implemented his technique faithfully for 6 months and then began evaluating (telling me what to think). I objected, and she said that when she was with Rogers working on her Ph.D most of his students eventually came to the conclusion that evaluation was necessary after his method was used to open the case. A couple of weeks later I ended our relationship.
M2C, you continue to use the term “research” to describe the the type of investigation, inquiry and experimentation that Elron undertook in creating his very elaborate and intricate cosmology. The problem there is that reputable scientist or scholar would recognize his efforts there as conforming to any of the standard practices that are entailed by the mainstream definition of that word.
His is a colloquial usage, just like the way folks use the word “theory” to describe their speculative musings about the causal basis of this or that phenomena. Elron did NO actual empirical research and his early efforts to get mainstream researchers of his time to look into his claims for Dn ended badly for his hyperbolic claims and he parted ways with scientific research at that time. $cn has never circled back to reconcile itself with science while continuing to try to appear “sciencey” to the uninformed.
Indeed, he even abandoned his early claims for the state of Clear that could be objectively evaluated (e.g., eidetic memory recall; immunity to communicable diseases) after his public demonstration of the abilities of a clear failed so catastrophically. To fail to understand the difference between the kind “research” that Elron conducted and the standard practice of the scientific method in conduct of formal research is at the heart of many folks complete confusion about what the scientific method is and why it’s invaluable in sorting out the kind of wild claims that Elron continued to make for his methods.
“Re “real research,” nearly all psychotherapeutic systems were developed by practitioners through anecdotal clinical experience, not full-blown formal, double blind, placebo controlled, peer reviewed experiments.”
That’s an excellent point to consider in more detail and as a basis for evaluating $cn to these comparable psychotherapies. While it’s completely true that most of these clinical approaches in counseling were developed through case studies and anecdotal data. However, for at least the last thirty years or so, the efficacy of these various psychotherapeutic models have been evaluated relative to each other using standardized measurement instruments and applying standard statistical analysis. Of the many mainstream psychotherapeutic models out there, $cn is alone in describing itself as !00% effective, while continuing to be unwilling to prove its claims by subjecting itself to standard scientific methods of objective evaluation.
So, while $cn followed a similar course of historical development as other psychotherapy models, it is alone among them to avoid any and all attempts to validate its efficacy relative to other those other models.
“The problem there is that reputable scientist or scholar would recognize his efforts there as conforming to any of the standard practices that are entailed by the mainstream definition of that word.”
Edit to add the word “no” before “reputable scientist”.
Harpoona, you keep repeating your same talking points as though we’re in some political campaign. I’ve answered you more than once on what constitutes valid research in the fields of psychology and philosophy, and you’ve agreed. Despite that. you seem to see your function as keeping your talking points in easy view for new visitors to this blog, while relying on the likelihood that people like Marildi and myself just won’t take the time to keep rebutting you. Well, congratulations. I won’t.
M2C, they are not talking points, they are a coherently organized set of facts and lines of logical reasoning which constitute an argument. In this case, an argument against lending much if any credence to a body of work which was the result of one man’s work which has not been subjected to any kind of objective evaluation since the early 50’s, when it was not found to be effective as claimed.
When I mention that your use of term “research” is not one that anyone who actually does empirical research would accept as a valid means of determining objective facts, I’m not giving you my opinion; I’m telling you that you’re conflating two very different senses of the word, as if what Elron was up to had the same kind of authoritative basis as actual scientific research. It doesn’t!
So, for you to continue to fail to grasp that easy to confirm fact and correct your mistake here, and at earlier points in time when it was also spelled out for you in detail, appears to demonstrate a willingness to only look at the topics raised here from a scientological perspective, as if it DID have the weight of empirical evidence to support, which it very clearly does not.
If you were speaking to a group of fellow believers in Hubbardism, then you’d be making perfect sense to them because they would share all of your fundamental assumptions. But you’re in a mixed group of folks, many of whom no longer accept the infallible Word of Elron as truth here. So, if you want to persuade, enlighten and engage with folks who don’t share your unquestioned assumptions about $cn, then you’re going to need to find a way of doing so that doesn’t rely on $cn to verify and confirm $cn.
I’d argue that the best way to do so is approach the subject at a logical level of analysis and reasoning which keeps close track of things like the difference between the colloquial use of the term “research” and what every trained investigator in any field that you might care to name understands the methods and practice of formal research to be.
Please, do your very best to rebut the argument that I just made here and in my original post! We can both agree that the subject that Elron was investigating was of great significance and potential worth, so it’s completely logical to assume that something of that importance should be investigated by numerous individuals, using the most rigorous of methods. The fact that actual formal empirical research into the efficacy of auditing has not been done is a fact.
And when you dig down into the various reasons that Elron mumbled his way through in trying to explain that glaring omission, you very quickly begin to become suspicious about his true motives. Then, when you hear the actual facts of his biography, rather than the whoppers he regularly told about his past, there’s an unmistakable pattern of lies, purposeful deceit and failure to subject his extraordinary claims to objective evaluation. If there’s anything left of $cn that’s worthwhile keeping, then it really is incumbent on those who hold that view to quit trying to snow us as Elron did and get with the program of actually subjecting it to the kind of objective, empirical research that would actual establish those claims as valid and objectively verifiable.
Ron didn’t have sufficient funding for full-blown formal research. But he DID experiment, albeit informally. He tested his ideas on his preclears, and had other auditors do the same. In that way he learned what worked and what didn’t at a practical level.
He was trying to develop something workable as fast as possible, not prove it to the scientific community. He didn’t get everything right, but he did develop a lot of workable principles and procedures.
Other psychologists and philosophers also skipped formal scientific method. Carl Rogers, for example, did run formal experiments but only years after he’d developed his technique through anecdotal clinical experience. Freud, Jung, and Reich never bothered with full blown formal research. Neither did Lao-tzu, Buddha, or Patanjali.
Your repeated complaint about Clears not having eidetic recall is illogical. The outpoint is omitted time. Eidetic recall for Clears wasn’t claimed after 1950. It was theoretical but didn’t pan out in practice, so Ron kept going without it. Likewise with other absolutist claims having to do with Clear and OT.
Harpoona Frittata: “I’m telling you that you’re conflating two very different senses of the word [research], as if what Elron was up to had the same kind of authoritative basis as actual scientific research.”
Sorry to say, HF, but I understand why My 2 Cents has given up on trying to have a discussion with you. He has made it clear that he does not (to quote) “need some university psychology department to tell me that the subject works or doesn’t work. You have made it all far too complex. The proof is above the level of formal logic. The proof is in doing it and seeing what happens. You can’t ‘figure it out’ without doing it, and doing it correctly.” https://www.mikerindersblog.org/clear-schmear/#comment-151102
You never responded to the above or similar comments of his, and neither did you ever respond to my comments countering your view that the only valid evidence is objective. In the same comment thread as the one quoted above quote, I wrote:
“. . . mainstream science does use subjective experiences when it comes to the testing of anything that is influenced by the human factor, or consciousness. It does so by the use of statistics of multiple reliable experiences – and they consider this to be as “objective” as they can get. For example, what better way to test the efficacy of a medication for pain than to tabulate subjective responses to “an absence of something” – in this case, pain. . .
“I’m in agreement with My 2 Cents that, for the individual, what counts is one’s own experience. Unless of course, one has been indoctrinated too heavily into the belief system of orthodox science – with its insistence on objective evidence only. Like any religion, orthodox science has its own beliefs – which are really only assumptions.” https://www.mikerindersblog.org/clear-schmear/#comment-151096
My Two cents, please explain hate above sympathy. Please clear that up for me.
See my comment on this above.
Brian, it just is, okay?! Sheesh!!!
My 2 Cents, I am talking about actual SCIENTIFIC research. Using scientific methodology.
As I stated, it didn’t happen. No matter how many times you want to lie about it.
I’m truly sorry that you lack any type of education that would allow you to understand what I’m saying. smh
So Mike, I take it you won’t be elevating your IAS status in the near future? ?
Meph, thank God I never purchased anything IAS. They didn’t get one thin dime from me.
Good for you. I gave a bit till their greed turned me off. Hip, hip no way!
Meph you should write ad copy. Good stuff.
Scientology: We give the phrase ‘take it to the bank’ a whole new meaning.
For instance, a person might be in the chronic tone level of Controlling Bodies but appear Enthusiastic when addressing small auditoriums of people at quarterly events.That was funny.
Indeed it was.
Snark is strong in this one.
It certainly would not apply to Anyone in the cherches upper management strata and absolutely not to He who has no equal!
Yo frickin Dave,
Take a bow.
The Tone Scale is RUBBISH….
Here is how you debunk and discredit the “Tone Scale” by L Ron Hubbard….
For starters…”TRUST”is NOT at the top of the tone scale…think about that and work it out in clay…How to bamboozle people: by A CHURCH. “tell them your teachings are a “science” then tell them to TRUST them while they manipulate and deceive your out of your money and shatter your family and dreams.
There is no such thing as a “spiritual tone level” and a “social tone level” of beings…
There is emotions that run up and down, depending on situations.
Homo Saps emote.
Scientologist’s fake it – and they typically emote only positive emotions in front of others (but when they are alone – they are miserable and suffering)
Scientologist’s are “misemotional”. When they should cry and be angry – they are suppressed and show no emotions…they also interrupt these emotions as “bad” and not desirable.
Stay away from L Ron Hubbard and his “tech” – it messes with your head.
“L Ron Hubbard and his tech messes with your head.”
Especially when you don’t understand it.
Oh believe me – I totally understand L Ron Hubbard’s tech –
I am trained as high as they go and what L Ron Hubbard’s tech is – is stolen material from others (the good stuff – to get you trapped coupled with stolen material from mind control tactics).
Idle, I believe your stealing M2C’s moniker by giving your two cents.
Apparently the old man didn’t understand it either, seeing as how he died in hiding with an assful of Vistaril, himself the end product of his own “research” and “development.”
He didn’t have “an assful of Vistaril” – he had “traces” of it. And it was prescribed for the pain of pancreatitis, which can be extremely painful.
So, do you favor Sarge’s version of Elron’s last days or side more with cherch version of Elron, the world’s savior, returning home to the stars?
How he died ends up saying a lot about how OaTy he actually was. If he just died the same kind of normal human death that anyone older who hasn’t taken care of his health could be expected to, then in the end it sure didn’t seem to do him much good at all, despite all his very extraordinary claims for its efficacy.
This is yet another reason NOT to create a rigid, insular cult around your work because it will die with you and only carry on in little fringe areas of the internet like this blog, the Milestone Two folks and other minor splinter groups.
No, Vistaril is not a pain medicine. L.Ron Hubbard was not prescribed Vistaril for pain.
https://www.drugs.com/vistaril.html
Vistaril
Generic Name: hydroxyzine (hye DROX ee zeen)
What is Vistaril?
Vistaril (hydroxyzine) reduces activity in the central nervous system. It also acts as an antihistamine that reduces the effects of natural chemical histamine in the body. Histamine can produce symptoms of itching, or hives on the skin.
Vistaril is used as a sedative to treat anxiety and tension. It is also used together with other medications given during and after general anesthesia.
Vistaril is also used to treat allergic skin reactions such as hives or contact dermatitis.
There are other sites on the internet that do reference the use of Vistaril (generic name – hydroxyzine) as a pain medication. Here’s a quote from one of the:
“This drug may be sold under the name of Vistaril. Hydroxyzine can be used for anxiety, pruritus, nausea, pain or sedation.”
LRH’s doctor, Dr. Denk, was the one who stated that he had prescribed Vistaril for pancreatitis pain.
Even when you do.
Classic “do as I say, not as I do”
More accurately, do whatever the fuck I say or else!
Xenu’s maybe it was a typo and was supposed to read: Controlling Boobies
Controlling Boobies is the emotion experienced when you’re nearing the condition of tits up. ?
😆
Dave’s social tone is masked resentment but his chronic tone is controlling cash.