The emotional Tone Scale is a central concept in Scientology. The main application of this scale is presented as the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation in the book, “Science of Survival” from 1951. Here Hubbard goes into details of how a person operates based on where he is to be found on the Tone Scale.
Hubbard presents 44 different columns/scales in his chart corresponding to the various Tone Levels and describes what each level means in terms of a person’s behavior. The book, “Self Analysis” is a distilled and simpler book where the chart is presented with 24 columns, as in the link provided above.
Much of Scientology is based on the Emotional Tone Scale and the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation. In the discussions on Scientology on this blog I believe this part of the philosophy itself warrants serious evaluation. Let’s find out if this chart is true, valuable and useful. If there are errors or faults in it, then lets find them. Let’s salvage what is useful and conclude with something better if possible.
Hubbard makes some important statements about this scale that is worth scrutinizing:
- You can examine the chart and you will find in the boxes as you go across it, the various characteristics of people at these levels. Horribly enough these characteristics have been found to be constant. If you have a 3.0 as your rating, then you will carry across the whole chart at 3.0.
- This scale has a chronic or an acute aspect. A person can be brought down the tone scale to a low level for ten minutes and then go back up, or he can be brought down it for ten years and not go back up. A man who has suffered too many losses, too much pain, tends to become fixed at some lower level of the scale and, with only slight fluctuations, stay there. Then his general and common behavior will be at that level of the tone scale.
- The only mistake you can make in evaluating somebody else on this tone scale is to assume that he departs from it somewhere and is higher in one department than he is in another. The characteristic may be masked to which you object—but it is there.
- Of course, as good news and bad, happy days and sad ones strike a person, there are momentary raises and lowerings on this tone scale. But there is a chronic level, an average behavior for each individual.
- The position of an individual on this Tone Scale varies through the day and throughout the years but is fairly stable for given periods. One’s position on the chart will rise on receipt of good news, sink with bad news. This is the usual give and take with life. Everyone however has a chronic position on the chart which is unalterable save for processing.
- s tone scale is also valid for groups. A business or a nation can be examined as to its various standard reactions and these can be plotted. This will give the survival potential of a business or a nation.
- This chart can also be used in employing people or in choosing partners. It is an accurate index of what to expect and gives you a chance to predict what people will do before you have any great experience with them.
Geir Isene - uncut 
I can’t get into deep discussion to find and eliminate inconsistencies now, so I’ll just add a couple of sources where interesting ideas can be found.
Actually the best take on the tone scale I’ve read is Ruth Minshull’s “How to Choose Your People” (online at http://www.whale.to/a/minshull_b.html)
And Roger Boswarva held a nice talk on his own take of the scale recently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRTq5GImhyw
I just watched Roger Boswarva’s video series. He nailed it for me. I have been top down auditing for some time now because I encountered exactly what he describes. I ascend, then view what is present and run with it. I have had some really intense adventures doing this! Are you in communication with Roger? Do you have access to any of his materials?
No, I’m not. He occasionally posts on ESMB.
I don’t know about any other materials of his than those that can be googled out.
I see that you have been working on a project on extricating what is useful from your past studies — have you been working along this line offered by Roger?
The problem is I never get to watching the whole of the video. I read his text describing it on ESMB and I found it good. I’ll probably have to finally get around to it. 🙂
Hi profant. Very Thanks for the link towards the vid. We’ve seen the series of five ans have very very much appreciated. ML Didier.
In Book 1 (Dianetics), Hubbard says:
“The sexual pervert (and by this term dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in Dynamic II such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc. and all down the catalogue of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is actually quite ill physically. Perversion as an illness has so many manifestations that it must be spread through the entire gamut of classes from (1) to (5) above. Over-development of sexual organs, underdevelopment, seminal inhibition or magnification, etc. are found some in one pervert, some in another. And the sum of it is that the pervert is always a very ill person in one way or another, whether he is conscious of it or not. He is very far from culpable for his condition, but he is also so far from normal and so extremely dangerous to society that the tolerance of perversion is as thoroughly bad for society as punishment for it.”
So, he clearly puts a homosexual on the 1.1 level of the tone scale. And as the person is invariably found on that level of the Chart of Human Evaluation (quotes from Science of Survival), we can know that homosexual also:
Is this true?
Yes and no. Yes, because it is true that the effort is to enforce submission. No because it is also true that the effort is to experience submission. And vice versa on the polarity of domination. But more to the point, by anchoring in those activities, the individual anchors in to matrices of degradation and as it becomes the predominating matrix, the individual’s life manifests a paradigm that is concerned with submission and domination.
Quarantining or Institutionalizing these individuals will not address the matrices that are being dramatized and manifested. All that does is puts them where no one else can physically see them. Oddly, it may very be what that paradigm actually requires, so one is dramatizing along with them by doing that! Not very workable at all.
As I see it, it is the submit/dominate paradigm that is at the heart of this, whether or not it has a sexual component. That’s just frosting.
Are they truly destructive and a source of infection? No. If one is seeing them and one is responding to them then one is participating anyway. But that is just another way for saying that one is creating the very situation one is seeking to address. i.e. there is no doctor without a patient and there is no patient without a doctor. The doctor needs patients he can cure. The patient is obligingly being sick so the doctor can cure him.
The doctor can claim to be above it all, but in fact, his activity alone requires creating it. But the doctor would not be quarantined because he is “higher” on the tone scale. Is he really?
Well, it goes something like that anyway.
Maria: “The patient is obligingly being sick so the doctor can cure him.” -> Even when no doctor around and the person is dying in Africa or else where with an infection of some sort? like VIH. What is for you the other terminal in that case?
For the rest, I see your point of view very interesting any way about the the responsibility on two sides, dear Maria.
This question was beaten to death on IFA chat many years ago. I’m unfortunately not a member any more and have thus not access to those discussions. An argument I remember is that in Hubbard’s day homosexuals were not much tolerated in society, so they actually were pressed into 1.1. But times changed considerably ever since for gay people.
I have known gay people who are high on the Tone Scale. Heck, I’ve known other sexual perverts (crazy shit) that are not 1.1
Geir, I have come to doubt this high/low model. I think it may or may not be their predominating matrix/complex anyway.
The theory is, paraphrased, that as more and more attention units become fixed and unavailable, the individual’s drive and dynamic is lessened until at last all attention units are driven into submission to the MEST universe and the individual dies.
So if that is the case, then an individual with a tremendous number of attention units has tremendous drive and and dynamic. So many, in fact, that the presence of an individual with no or low attention units should be of little consequence. So why would you need to quarantine them if the theory is that by bringing a huge source of free attention units into their vicinity, they disenturbulate automatically. Quarantining them would defeat that mechanism, wouldn’t it?
Also, are these individuals in fact lacking in drive and dynamic? I find it odd that Elton John, for example, had enough drive and dynamic and sheer aesthetic to write pieces that have heavily influenced and shaped our very culture. Freddy Mercury and Queen? Same is true of Liberace. How about Alexander the Great, the Greek philosophers such as Plato? The list goes on and on. Very long list. Huge amount of drive and dynamic on every of these people. By theory they should not have had enough drive and dynamic to amount to anything. But they sure did.
Maria: Very long list.
Chris: Including L Ron Hubbard.
Maria: “…the presence of an individual with no or low attention units should be of little consequence. So why would you need to quarantine them if the theory is that by bringing a huge source of free attention units into their vicinity, they disenturbulate automatically.”
See if you think this question is answered in the passage from SOS that I quoted below, which begins with “The constant position on the tone scale is determined by three factors…”
I don’t think it is about the sphere of the dynamic drive or “power” of that person. If that were the case we wouldn’t have Hitler and other dictators. Maybe it’s more are they constructive or destructive.
Geir: “Is this true?”
Me: No, it is not true. But not for the obvious reason.
I tend with the idea that gay people were heavily suppressed in the 50s and as a result showed up as covert. Of course they were covert, they had to keep something hidden to be able to get by in that society! And that’s about as much as I feel needs be said on that subject.
The chart is not true because of the last bullet point, and what it produces. This is not Hubbard recording his observations, this is Hubbard pontificating and driving his personal opinion on others. He simply claims that 1.1s are dangerous and must be removed. No evidence. No data. Just a bald statement presented as truth with nothing to back it up. And his solution is to simply get rid of them. Note that the book starts of with grand statements about how it is just a record of observations, and here he is offering blanket solutions.
This was in 1951. Today in 2013 we have a highly intolerant church built on Hubbard’s work. I see a correlation. The correlation is so strong that it casts doubt on the entire work.
Alan.
Splog: I see a correlation. The correlation is so strong that it casts doubt on the entire work.
Whoa, good post!
Hi Alan,
You wrote: “He simply claims that 1.1s are dangerous and must be removed. No evidence. No data. Just a bald statement presented as truth with nothing to back it up.”
Actually, if you read the whole book in a new unit of time, I think you’ll see that he gives a ton of data as to why he comes to the conclusion that 1.1’s are dangerous. Another pertinent point is that readers should be looking at the data and determining for themselves if they’ve seen that in life (this is even according to LRH’s advice on how to study Scientology).
However, let me also say that his solution to permanently quarantine 1.1’s is pretty unreal at best – how would that even be done, in practical terms? How would you begin to even determine who was at that tone level? It makes me wonder how literal he was being – especially when he ends the quarantine recommendation with “…or processing such persons until they have attained a level on the tone scale which gives them value.” See what I mean?
Hi marildi. Very thanks for sharing your level of differentiation and expertise.
If I remember well, Ron had differentiated the “volume” from the ton level on the Tone Scale, and even warning us to not confuse with the awareness scale. Would you confirm my present understanding?
ML, Didier.
Hi Didear,
This point you bring up about “volume” is another important aspect. In addition to that, there is another factor LRH calls “quality”, which concerns having the “structure with which to be intelligent”.
——————————————————
“It should also be recognized in viewing this and in understanding secondary engrams that 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.
“It is much the same on the tone scale of human reaction and behavior. The position on the tone scale of a momentary circumstance or of a chronic state tells us only the “pitch” of the individual’s or the group’s or the environment’s tone. Volume is the second factor which must be studied in considering the tone scale. An individual may be bored but not, as the saying is, “to any degree.” He is bored only a minor amount. He may at another time be bored a major amount. In the lower tones, he may be afraid, but only slightly afraid. Or he may be so greatly afraid that the fear is terror. The amount or volume of enturbulence might be read in another dimension, extending from the face of the chart out toward its peruser. There might be a little bit of grief or a great deal of grief but the position on the tone scale would be the same. There is also the matter of quality of enturbulence. The quality of the fear or the anger or the quality of the happiness is important. But this would be a factor which would be different from pitch or volume on the tone scale. The amount of free theta with which an individual is endowed is enormously important.
“The amount of free theta has a great deal to do with the persistence or reasoning force of the individual along any course. This would be the volume of a person. The quality of a person would be more a structural thing. To make this clearer, a person may have an enormous volume of endowed theta, and yet not have the structure with which to be intelligent. Or he may have a quality index which is very high and yet not have sufficient endowment of theta to execute the plans which he can conceive. We have all known the individual who received A’s in every course and yet who was never able to do anything with his education. And we have known the individual who received nothing in the way of grades and who, indeed, never seemed even to comprehend elementary subjects, and yet who, by power of personality, forged ahead to a high position in life. A study of this matter gives a useful evaluation of human potentiality and behavior. More importantly, it gives some understanding of what happens to the individual in the process of becoming aberrated. Aberration, considered as pitch or tone, is theoretically independent of quality (structure, probably) and volume (theta endowment). The factors of quality and volume would account in part for the individual differences which may be found in aberrated persons at similar levels of the tone scale.”
(Science of Survival)
marildi: “This point you bring up about “volume” is another important aspect.”…
Very thanks, dear marildi to remember me this quotation of the book 🙂 I would be happy if one day I could just give any reference by memory! can only help for ARC creation while it put a BIG “R” 🙂
Did you realise that a “clever” highly destructive person, when brought up the scale, will bring more Theta in the world than a still destructive person brought at the same level,but not so much intelligent (so not so “vicious” 😉 ) and not so powerful? 😉
Just by curiosity, and if you’re a trained auditor : what would be the easiest case to handle, the first or the second?
ML.
idealgoal Didier: “Did you realise that a “clever” highly destructive person, when brought up the scale, will bring more Theta in the world than a still destructive person brought at the same level,but not so much intelligent (so not so “vicious” 😉 ) and not so powerful? ;)”
Yes. 😉
Didier: “Just by curiosity, and if you’re a trained auditor : what would be the easiest case to handle, the first or the second?”
The second. (I have a moderate amount of auditor training :))
Here’s a reference for both of your questions:
“The thinking on this subject in the past has been entirely too short. The strange belief has been held in the past that a great deal of aberration meant a great deal of thrust and drive and, therefore, that an individual who was neurotic could be expected to perform in the arts and in other directions more ably than a person who was sane. This, by derivation and observation and much experience, is an outright fallacy. The individual with a great deal of free theta is apt to be more robust than his fellows. He may or may not have more engrams; but he tries, from his earliest days, to take in more area than his fellows and to adjust his environment to him rather than follow the sheep-like course of trying to adjust himself to the environment. He is, therefore, continually rebuffed, and his engrams will gradually charge up, by the process of affinity, reality, and communication breaks, until he responds rather neurotically to his environment. Such a person is, normally, rather thoroughly shut off so far as sonic and visio are concerned. His theta, what is left of it in a free state, operating in what small portion of his analyzer is still available, is still greater than the theta available to the average human being. When we take this individual and dianetically process him and turn the entheta into theta, he becomes more and more powerful and able to cope with and adjust his environment. He will not have sonic and visio until he reaches a released or a cleared state. Such individuals are difficult to process only because the mind has so expertly walled itself in from the charge on the case. However, such an individual is very worthwhile to process, since when the auditor has finished, or even if the auditor never does finish, one has left a strong, creative asset to the society. The auditor who, because they seem easy, works near-psychotic or psychotic cases which have sonic, may have when he is through an individual who, no matter if structurally intelligent, is yet possessed of so little theta that his
worth to the society is small. These conclusions are highly generalized, but have been borne out in a large number of cases.” (Science of Survival)
marildi: “Yes. ;)”
– It’s all right! thanks for having specified, dear marildi.
“Didier: “Just by curiosity, and if you’re a trained auditor : what would be the easiest case to handle, the first or the second?””
“marildi:”The second. (I have a moderate amount of auditor training :))”
– lol, it’s ok with me while you very refers to logic and bring many pertinent references 🙂
“marildi: Here’s a reference for both of your questions:
“The thinking on this subject in the past has been entirely too short. …/… He may or may not have more engrams; but he tries, from his earliest days, to take in more area than his fellows and to adjust his environment to him rather than follow the sheep-like course of trying to adjust himself to the environment. He is, therefore, continually rebuffed, and his engrams will gradually charge up, by the process of affinity, reality, and communication breaks, until he responds rather neurotically to his environment.”
– I like this paragraph I knew, but very thanks any way, don’t stop posting references! ❤ ❤ ❤ I like to read them in a new unit of time 😉 just like now 🙂 And wish I'm not already responding neurotically to the environment despite my (near useless in the PT at least) efforts to change it 😉 lol
marildi:"…/… These conclusions are highly generalized, but have been borne out in a large number of cases." (Science of Survival)"
– What we had noticed already, both of us here, is that Ron made hus conclusions on many real cases? … 😉 (yeah, of course, hu just say so, so can't check if it's true or not hu did! So that why the only real test is if hus technology works or not, and on this again, at my level of reality at least, it works for me or people I knew, pretty good, thanks to you Ron!).
ML, Didier.
marildi: “Actually, if you read the whole book in a new unit of time, I think you’ll see that he gives a ton of data as to why he comes to the conclusion that 1.1’s are dangerous.”
me: I disagree with this statement, Hubbard does not do that. He gives no data on WHY he comes to that conclusion; he provides the conclusion and then seeks to justify it cloaked as data. He does not provide observations, he provides his own conclusions and calls them observations. But we never get to see the observations; all we ever get is a statement to go look for ourselves.
It’s maddening trying to read this man’s works. He uses circular logic (like in this case), gets data, opinions and conclusion intermixed, all delivered in a bombastic hypnotic style that brooks no other interpretation but his. It’s hypnotic.
Regarding quarantine, yes indeed we will never know what he really meant. but sit back a bit and look at the style of writing. Pages and pages and pages of how terrible 1.1s are and how we should do this thing and that thing. And finally a one sentence that perhaps actually what we should do is process them.
Now, do an honest assessment. With which opinion will the average reader come away? Don’t overthink this, don’t analyze it. Just read it and get soemthing out of it; then look what you got out. Do keep in mind that we individuals don’t seem to operate on logic much (logic being a thought process we do later to revise or verify our conclusion). We seem much more to form instant opinions on receipt of data and it’s that opinion whcih in large part drives us. This of course, is mostly my own opinion.
I do think Hubbard was literal here, or at least wishfully thinking. Or maybe drunk. Richard deMille was with him in Cuba when SOS was written transcribing the spoken recordings to paper, and reported Hubbard routinely getting through a bottle of rum overnight.
Incidentally, where would you assess that “forced imprisonment of others” falls on the Tone Scale?
slog:” I disagree with this statement, Hubbard does not do that. He gives no data on WHY he comes to that conclusion; he provides the conclusion and then seeks to justify it cloaked as data. He does not provide observations, he provides his own conclusions and calls them observations. But we never get to see the observations; all we ever get is a statement to go look for ourselves.”
– Doesn’t hu said hu took these data from hus experience of the cases hu has worked on? Did you see the volume of the book? Would you interested to buy a 10 volumes more of pieces of folders to satisfy your interest?
– But yes, on an epistemological point of view, it would have been great that he could keep a record of hus own C/Sing and researches, while the Blue Volumes looks to me not very accurate for this: to draw conclusions in hus public book, but having the precise data available.
– Now, in a very practical point of view, IMO he was simply true to invite each person to look for huself, while looks to me it was for hum something an auditor will see very rapidly in and out of session while using it.
“I do think Hubbard was literal here, or at least wishfully thinking. Or maybe drunk. Richard deMille was with him in Cuba when SOS was written transcribing the spoken recordings to paper, and reported Hubbard routinely getting through a bottle of rum overnight.”
– What makes your sure that this statement is true and not done by someone who as overts again Hubbard and a need to justify hus decision to leave the Hubbard? I mean, I DO NOT KNOW MYSELF IF IT’S UNTRUE, I just still ask the same question: “How to be sure of data that comes form opponents?”
Splog,
Sorry, I should have been more specific in my statement about LRH’s observations. His conclusions were based on his observations of pc’s – their behavior in session as well as the kinds of incidents that came up in their sessions, and what he knew about their behavior outside of session, including how they related to the auditor outside of sessions. Here’s an example of his providing observations:
“When one comes down to the 1.1, a great deal of care must be used because of the tremendous amount of entheta which exists on the case in proportion to the free theta. A 1.1 may have enough theta endowment originally to want to be processed. His desire to be processed, however, is very tentative and he is intensely critical of his auditor. He is afraid, and with good reason, for he has so little free theta left in comparison to the entheta on his case that bad auditing can bring about a much worsened condition. The 1.1 may not, however, be interested in processing and may consider himself in good condition, despite a very bad record in dealing with life. He is, quite commonly, chronically ill from one somatic or another. He may be diffident about his food. What free theta he has left is in such combat with the entheta, that he is continually on a border line. The auditor must recognize this. The auditor must recognize as well that a 1.1 can be insulting, can be sullen, can be thoroughly unwilling to be processed, and can be extremely trying. The patience of an auditor is easily exhausted when dealing with a 1.1, for the 1.1 may lie down on the couch and knowingly run complete imaginary incidents, reporting somatics and perceptics which he does not have. He may manufacture for the auditor an entire past life. Further, he may unknowingly advance data which is wrong. He may consider, for instance, and believe that he is telling the truth, that he was beaten a thousand times by his father, whereas his father laid hands on him but twice in his whole life. Or he may believe that he was treated royally by his parents, when actually they were extremely non-survival in their attitude toward him. The auditor must remember that in both the 1.5 and the 1.1, truth is not regarded as a very valuable commodity and is hard for the preclear to contact. Although the 1.1 may continually advance protests and evidences as to his honesty and open-heartedness, the auditor is dealing with a level where trickery is automatic.” (Science of Survival)
p.s. In answer to your other points, for one thing I think the level of literacy of his writing style in SOS is pretty high for the average reader. Another thought I had is that LRH seems to write at different tone levels in different writings, and I have suspected that he does so knowingly, at least at times. The reason I say that is because he explained somewhere that Hitler (as an example) was able to bring the country under his control was that he was just a half tone level higher (1.5) than the average of citizens.
As for LRH’s tone level in talking about “forced imprisonment of others”, to answer your question – I think it was obviously 1.5. And I’ve had the same thought about his tone being 1.5 at other points in SOS. Perhaps his intention was to meet the R of the majority of readers. (I say that knowing I’ll probably be criticized by various people as simply rationalizing LRH’s outpoints. ;))
Marildi: I think it was obviously 1.5. And I’ve had the same thought about his tone being 1.5 at other points in SOS. Perhaps his intention was to meet the R of the majority of readers. (I say that knowing I’ll probably be criticized by various people as simply rationalizing LRH’s outpoints. ;))
Chris: It is not just a rationalization but out-Tech according to SOS. Cases below 2.0 are easily restimulated and therefore an auditor must be high-toned so as not to be an additional source of restimulation. Teaching this through the materials themselves, LRH would not have been using “low tone to create reality.”
Chris: It is not just a rationalization but out-Tech according to SOS. Cases below 2.0 are easily restimulated and therefore an auditor must be high-toned so as not to be an additional source of restimulation. Teaching this through the materials themselves, LRH would not have been using “low tone to create reality.”
Me: If the chart is a tool for auditors he would not be talking from 1.5 either
Al: If the chart is a tool for auditors he would not be talking from 1.5 either
Chris: Precisely.
marildi: “p.s. In answer to your other points, for one thing I think the level of literacy of his writing style in SOS is pretty high for the average reader. Another thought” …/…
– Thanks dear marildi for sharing this interesting observations and extrapolations. ML, Didier.
Marildi,
See, this is one of the maddening things about Hubbard’s writing and announcements. I can fully accept the he came to some conclusions based on observations in session and published them. Of necessity, the details cannot be releases (sancitity of session trumps all else).
BUT IT IS ALL LIKE THAT (caps deliberate).
Every single thing the man wrote about Scientology falls back on that same excuse (or hopes the listener will buy it as a substitute).
Every single time. Even the things that are subjective and could be verified are not. The Tone Scale. The Purif. Objectives. Mission into Time. Exteriorization.
The subject is presented as the most important thing ever produced on Earth, something upon which ones entire existence depends, and the reader is expected to just take it on face value and go off and verify it for themselves somehow. Policy demands one verify and that juniors produce evidence that program actions are in fact done. So evidence is required for the ordinary routine things. But for the big collossal things (like your entire existence), Hubbard gets a free pass on providing no evidence at all.
Does that not sound a little outpointy to you?
Alan.
Alan, I do understand what you’re saying. How LRH sometimes presenting things and other outpoints is why I’ve come to a couple of conclusions, which I’ve commented on a few times but you are relatively new to the blog and probably haven’t seen those posts.
One is that I think various things in Scn indeed could be scientifically tested – and should be – as that would “communicate” to a lot of people. The other conclusion is that in this day and age of the internet its quick and widespread word-of-mouth, all that needs to occur is that trained auditors, C/S’s, Sups, etc. simply practice Scientology. And those who are using something highly workable (whether strictly orthodox tech or a refined version), and who wisely eliminate the wrong turns that have been taken in the past, will get results. Where there is high workability, it will spread. Not everybody. but many are looking for this type of path to truth or freedom or well being or whatever they want to call it.
marildi: “One is that I think various things in Scn indeed could be scientifically tested – and should be – as that would “communicate” to a lot of people. The other conclusion is that in this day and age of the internet its quick and widespread word-of-mouth, all that needs to occur is that trained auditors, C/S’s, Sups, etc. simply practice Scientology. And those who are using something highly workable (whether strictly orthodox tech or a refined version), and who wisely eliminate the wrong turns that have been taken in the past, will get results. Where there is high workability, it will spread. Not everybody. but many are looking for this type of path to truth or freedom or well being or whatever they want to call it.”
Me: I think you misunderstand what scientific testing actually is.
Assuming you know how proper testing works and are familiar with logic, please explain to me how “something highly workable” “could be scientifically tested”.
Your observer bias is showing; you have already concluded it is workable (most likely for no other reason than Hubbard said so). How would you test the subject? It itself makes no predictions so what would you test against? Success stories? This is a subject that claims to have solved the riddle of existence and yet does not actually define what it is supposed to produce. To come up with a testable hypothesis, you would have to make one up as you go along, Hubbard is no help.
Here is a succinct summary of how Hubbard’s method works, exactly per the book with all the outpointy crap of CoS removed. This is the so-called “highly workable technology”:
Desired EP: Ability to talk to anyone on any subject.
Process:
Deliver Grade 0
If little progress made, undercut with lower processes and return to Grade 0
If result achieved, attest based on a success story and e-meter reactions
If result not achieved, do a correction list
If result still not achieved, send pc to qual for review
If result still not achieved, send pc to Ethics
If result still not achieved, conclude pc is NCG and issue SP declare. By definition an SP is someone who could not benefit from the tech and this is not the Tech’s fault.
Do you see that the subject is carefully rigged so that it cannot lose and that all tests by that method must necessarily result in favour of the Tech?
Remarkable.
If you ever stop posting on my blog, I will come and get you, then strap you in front of a chair and glue your fingers to the keyboard.
Thank you 🙂
To be honest, the process list isn’t originally mine, I lifted it from someone else’s post (either here, Marty’s blog or ESMB. I forget which and by whom).
Splog, looks like my comment to you ended up in the wrong place. Here it is again, hopefully in the right place and showing which comment of yours I was referring to:
Alan, on the quote of me and your comment on it, it doesn’t seem that you got that the first sentence was one idea and the second began an entirely separate one. Please read that second idea again and I think you’ll see that all I was saying was that if there is workability to the tech and it is practiced without the previous grave errors, it will spread by word of mouth – which is very fast and far reaching because of the internet.
On the first sentence you quoted: Admittedly, I don’t know a lot about scientific testing but I know enough to understand there are ways different parts of the tech could be tested and a variety of “gains” could be determined (or not) by one means or another. As a side note, this is a good example of where certain critics here who have also stated that Scn could and should be tested might have jumped in and helped explain my viewpoint – but they didn’t, which should tell us something about the type of dialogue that is typical here on the subject of Scn, i.e. not one that is fully interested in getting at the truth.
A further reply to marildi, the other side of the coin:
I don’t want to create the impression that I think every effort with Scientology should be tossed aside and binned. That would be absolutist and nothing in this world is completely right or completely wrong.
If people want to validate Hubbard’s approach to auditing (a different thing from his Tech), then they should do so. They would have to put the necessary controls in place and resist the temptation to declare something tested just becuase Hubbard said so. The world at large and researchers in particular just don’t believe a word of Scientology anymore, and none of them are going to validate it. They will not touch the subject in its current form with a 10 foot pole. But existing auditors could.
However, they would have to be willing to reinvent the entire subject if that’s what it takes and not be scared to throw away any and all of Hubbard’s sacred cows. Don’t do this becuase it placates researchers out there, do it because it’s the correct thing to do in a quest for workability.
Validation could start with the e-meter. This electronic device doesn’t lie, it’s just a machine and there is an observable strong correlation between what the needle does and what the auditor/pc team do. Then use that to find auditing processes that work and can be shown to work.
I won’t be doing that research myself (I’m over that) but I’d support a genuine effort to do the job properly.
Alan (splog),
This is yet another fair comment. And honest to god, all you’ve said is basically what I’ve been saying too, including the unique value of the e-meter for validation since it actually measures something objective – energy.
marildi: “And honest to god, all you’ve said is basically what I’ve been saying too, including the unique value of the e-meter for validation since it actually measures something objective – energy.”
Me: I noticed that 🙂 I wanted you to have the chance to point it out, to teach me some humility. I’m very much Yang and you have much more Yin than I do.
I’m working hard on learning to appreciate Yin and these debates are valuable – they teach me that both can get to the top of the same mountain by different routes.
Wow, Alan, I’m with Geir – you are to remain a fixture here! 🙂
You wrote, “I’m working hard on learning to appreciate Yin and these debates are valuable – they teach me that both can get to the top of the same mountain by different routes.”
That is so ironic. I’ve been thinking lately my life is too yang and I need to get more yin into it – but I my idea was that in order to do so I’ve got to spend less time on the blogs! Which I have failed miserably at doing. Still working out that little conundrum. 😉
marildi: “That is so ironic. I’ve been thinking lately my life is too yang and I need to get more yin into it – but I my idea was that in order to do so I’ve got to spend less time on the blogs! Which I have failed miserably at doing. Still working out that little conundrum. ;)”
😉 <—- big smile goes here
I'll tell you a little story. When I was much younger, I was a nice, pleasant kind of guy, with a reasonable amount of empathy and a latent tendency to hang around in Mom's basement (I'm a geek). In my 20s two major things happened – the military and finding Scientology. Those two things and a few other minor ones turned me into an arrogant know-it-all unpleasant prick. I allowed this to happen even after I was in a position to know better. Oops, my bad.
I wouldn't want to go back in time and change it though – that path got me to this point in life, and I like this point.
But there was a price to pay – I must now peel off the layers of this onion, keep the valuable bits and discard the bad, just like everyone else.
p.s. I like you too – I find these discussions stimulating. You've taught me plenty, probably more than you realise 🙂
Alan: “I wouldn’t want to go back in time and change it though – that path got me to this point in life, and I like this point. But there was a price to pay – I must now peel off the layers of this onion, keep the valuable bits and discard the bad, just like everyone else.”
I wouldn’t change it either, And I say the price was worth it. In fact, I’ve thought at times that the hard lessons learned about how easily one can be deceived may have been as great a gain as the positive things I got out of Scn. Actually, even the “peeling” teaches a lot.
And OMG, thanks for the compliment! You’ve made my day. 🙂
marildi: “Sorry, I should have been more specific in my statement about LRH’s observations. His conclusions were based on his observations of pc’s – their behavior in session as well as the kinds of incidents that came up in their sessions, and what he knew about their behavior outside of session, including how they related to the auditor outside of sessions. Here’s an example of his providing observations:” …./…
– Dear marildi, once again: So Very Thanks for your Always So Very Relevant Quotes, IMO. This one I very didn’t know so I very appreciate it and been very interesting to me for both the data and realising that obviously you’re aware already of that sort of difficulties in auditing practice.
– I completely agree to with you about the fact that Ron based his conclusions much on hus own practice of auditing, hus practice of C/Sing and as discoverer and corrector while checking the folders of thousands of PCs internationality; even if for my won test, I would have prefer that the copies of the folders hu had worked on, but with no name, would be available for further studies and checking. IMO, Ron was not at all a “scientist” but a “philosopher” and a “discoverer”, and IMO too, it was worthier he discovered useful stuff for all of us, more than to care about scientific records. Any way, hus lectures like on the SHBC, where much about fresh results in present time, it would be interesting to know why around some looks to forget/not-ising all this; don’t you think so?
Didier: “…IMO too, it was worthier he discovered useful stuff for all of us, more than to care about scientific records. Anyway, hus lectures like on the SHBC, where much about fresh results in present time, it would be interesting to know why around some looks to forget/not-ising all this; don’t you think so?
Yes, I do think so. And I especially agree about the greater worth of his “useful stuff for all of us”. That should be the thing given a much greater share of attention than all the ways it became perverted. 😉
Alan: Regarding quarantine, yes indeed we will never know what he really meant. but sit back a bit and look at the style of writing. Pages and pages and pages of how terrible 1.1s are and how we should do this thing and that thing.
Chris: Agree LRH was literal and the evidence is his creation of the RPF – please notice my comments to Marildi on this topic of literalness.
Marildi: “It makes me wonder how literal he was being – especially when he ends the quarantine recommendation with “…or processing such persons until they have attained a level on the tone scale which gives them value.” See what I mean?
Chris: Yup. That is precisely what the RPF is for. LRH’s opinion of the RPF is that they are higher than the rest of society. Very literal. See what I mean?
No. ya lost me.
Marildi: “No. ya lost me.”
Chris: Spelled out, the RPF is a quarantine. The RPF is Hubbard’s literal application of the datum that 1.1’s should be quarantined. You do understand that all RPF’ers are 1.1s, don’t you?
No, I never heard that LRH called all RPF’ers 1.1. What’s your point, though? I mean. where do you want to take this line of talk? Let’s not beat around the bush – what do you want to achieve. Just some venting? Or do you want to get me to see what a dirty, rotten excuse for a human being LRH was. Or…what?
Marildi: No, I never heard that LRH called all RPF’ers 1.1. What’s your point, though? I mean. where do you want to take this line of talk? Let’s not beat around the bush – what do you want to achieve. Just some venting? Or do you want to get me to see what a dirty, rotten excuse for a human being LRH was. Or…what?
Chris: You said LRH wasn’t literal when he said 1.1’s should be quarantined. I am responding to that using Standard Scientology Technology. Maybe you are missing data on RPF. RPF’ers are chronic 1.1 this is why they white mutiny, non-perform, overt product makers, and outright saboteurs. The RPF was humanely thought up by the good grace of Hubbard to allow these low-life 1.1’s an opportunity to be rehabilitated. I am responding that Hubbard indeed was literal when he said and meant that 1.1’s were dangerous and should be quarantined. What do I hope to achieve? I want you to apply Scientology Standardly as LRH intended or I want you to squirrel it any way you please and say that is what you are doing. I can and do attest that LRH would not appreciate and absolutely would not tolerate your reasonable attitude as expressed in this and many comments toward The Standard Tech.
Chris: ” I can and do attest that LRH would not appreciate and absolutely would not tolerate your reasonable attitude as expressed in this and many comments toward The Standard Tech.”
Anyone looking for clarity on how Standard tech is supposed to be used should listen to the recorded lecture “Standard Tech Defined”.
It was recorded in 1968 for the Class VIII course, after 18 years or research. Supposedly by this point Hubbard would have worked out all the major wrinkles (he’d had enough time) and had a subject that is universally applicable.
In the tape, this is indeed the claim he makes. He clearly lays out that his writings on tech are literal, that they are not subject to interpretation, that every extant HCOB means exactly what it says, they are all valid and that Standard Tech is to be used 100% by the book always.
Furthermore Standard Tech itself is clearly defined as a body of technology that can and should be applied by a Class VIII with no attention or consideration paid to the results in session, as those are invariant and guaranteed to occur. The only factor to be taken into account when applying Standard Tech is to ascertain if Standard Tech was standardly applied, the results being inevitable and not in question.
Interestingly enough and tangential to the point, the entire lecture is delivered in a tone that can only be described as fury.
So there it is. Any question about how much wiggle room the auditor has in applying Standard Tech is fully and completely answered. There is no wiggle room.
Part of Standard Tech is that the Tone Scale is complete and virtually infallible and that it is by far the most accurate description of human behaviour and unsurpassed as a tool for predicting human behaviour. Again, there is no wiggle room in how you are supposed to interpret the CoHE. It literally means what it says.
I will grant that quarantining 1.1s might be an illustrative example, along the same lines as the bit about lepers on a boat. But there is no doubt that Hubbard really did mean we should find ways to remove 1.1s from our midst.
And in this LRH is demonstrably wrong – because you cannot have a fixed process yielding a fixed result as long as you have unknown input. So, either LRH was wrong in stating this, or he was wrong if he believed a person possesses free will. Pick your choice.
I will check the transcript for exact wording.
Geir: And in this LRH is demonstrably wrong – because you cannot have a fixed process yielding a fixed result as long as you have unknown input.
Chris: And yet if we consider that the input is “known” because all aspects of what a PC is are defined by works like this Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation, we can begin to see the Scientology is truly consistent within its own carefully defined frame of reference. Axiom #1 might be something like “Everything is in its place and there is a place for everything.” No matter how I write it, it is a study in “circularity” and “completeness” and “consistency.”
Chris: “No matter how I write it, it is a study in “circularity” and “completeness” and “consistency.”
2x. The more data we put together the more I’m seeing a looping / circular pattern emerging that could apply to a majority of cases, all hinging on this idea of identities and the influence of a matrix of identities:
(Let’s first assume a truly non-invalidative auditing, C/S’ing, ethics and administrative environment. Utopia, yes…)
Then:
– properly hatted pc ends up with
– limited gains or realizations
– due to unaddressed identity influences (which do not appear in a way that can be dealt with at lower levels by lower levels auditors).
– A means of case address (repair) is formulated that can provide the pc with observation and understanding of the identity influences.
– PC begins to make gain on the standard path.
– Other needs handled as necessary.
– PC gets to point of being able to address identities in a complete manner (OT levels).
Similary someone could get through any number of OT levels and go back and get unflat objectives, or grades if there was sufficient need, or if the pre-OT had attention returned to one of those areas. Sort of like cleaning up a missed patch of dirt on your car spotted after just washing it. This could lead to a pc Q&A (jumping around to all sorts of processes) but not if understood as a means of handling a need.
Geir, you keep repeating that the tech is fixed but as I keep saying, within that apparent “fixedness” (actually a precise discipline) there is flexibility in terms of such things as TRs, D of P interviews, correction lists, etc. when a pc does not respond in the expected way..
You should take that quarrel between yourself and that Class VIII tape.
Geir, I haven’t listened to that tape for years but I am sure there isn’t anything in it that eliminates the ways tech can be fitted to the pc.
Here’s a few quotes from that tape that proves LRH is dead wrong in this arena:
“You don’t know that you’re dealing with an invariable science. It has no variabilities. It is absolutely clank. You have to begin by finding this out. If you don’t find this out you will never make a Class VIII auditor. It’s a marvelous discovery.”
“And the road through all of the untruths of a person, from all the way south to all the way north has been mapped. It exists. It has been on a chart for years. There have been bulletins which announced its’ processes. The doingness of those processes are exact, precise. There aren’t two ways to do them. There is one way to do them.”
“You are not learning this wide subject of philosophy. You’re not learning every student’s got a chance to think his own opinion right now. You’re not learning that right now. You’re learning the technical application of exactly how it is done, exactly to whom it is done, exactly and precisely the steps and actions taken to an exact, precise results And that’s what you’re learning.”
“And they wind up at the other end in a total result.”
marildi: “Geir, I haven’t listened to that tape for years but I am sure there isn’t anything in it that eliminates the ways tech can be fitted to the pc.”
In terms of the theorem that gives the rule “you cannot have a fixed process yielding a fixed result as long as you have unknown input”, the entire body of tech IS a fixed process. Sure, it has internal decision points but as a complete body it still has a single entry point and a single exit point. The input is the pc/auditor team the process is the Tech, the unknown input is the pc’s case, the result claimed is a more well and more happy pc.
That is demonstrably not true as “NCG expelled” is an outcome already observed to happen (and allowed for in the tech itself). That is not a more well and more happy pc, therefore the outcome is not fixed by definition.
But that’s not all. Not only is it not a variable outcome (choice between case gain vs NCG), it is an uncertain outcome as you have no way of predicting which way it could go.
Hubbard neatly sidestepped this entire issue by repeatedly claiming his tech was certain whilst never defining the outcome, and also claiming invalid outcomes (NCG) were valid.
OK – duck for blatant love bombing; Will you marry me?
Flunk!
Can’t I be just a little bit gay… No, I mean 1.1?
You were definitely being gay – the now obsolete definition. Much higher than 1.1. 😉
I’ll marry him in all our gaydom. To hell with the chart!
“OK – duck for blatant love bombing; Will you marry me?”
bwahahahaha 🙂
How about we tap fists instead, nod our heads and say “Yo dude”?
Our respective lady friends might object if we do more!
Probably sound advice
Alan, if I duplicated your post, all that says to me is that LRH did narrow down (a bit) what the input would need to be (which would exclude ncg cases). Wouldn’t that be true of any example of input-process-output?
Except the input is still an unknown (free will)
isene: “Except the input is still an unknown (free will)”
Actually the input has to be (HAS TO BE) “desire to change”. “Free will” would be the output.
Nope – the input is a pc with a desire to change and possessing free will. The free will part makes the input unknown and invalidates the notion that there can be a fixed process yielding a fixed output such as a happy pc or a Clear or an OT or whatever one tries to fix.
isene: “Nope – the input is a pc with a desire to change and possessing free will.”
The primary point is “desire to change”. If that is there then there will be times when “free will” will have to take second priority to desire to change. This happens whenever the pc hits something that will cause him to want to rabbit from the process. At that point the pc has to be especially willing to let the auditor help control along the formula pc + auditor > bank.
Geir: “Nope – the input is a pc with a desire to change and possessing free will. The free will part makes the input unknown and invalidates the notion that there can be a fixed process yielding a fixed output such as a happy pc or a Clear or an OT or whatever one tries to fix.”
I see free will as part of the input – along with reactivity – and increased free will as the basic output of all EPs.
marildi: “I see free will as part of the input – along with reactivity – and increased free will as the basic output of all EPs.”
Increased free will is the desired output, not necessarily the given output.
Which strengthens the argument, it is now an uncertain input AND an uncertain output. Two reasons why the process cannot be a fixed process.
Do you see what we just did here? In one evening we invalidated the basic premise on which Standard Tech is built and opened the door to application of intelligence and judgement. For my money that is how it should be.
Do not underestimate a True Scientologist’s ability to justify and rationalize anything Scientology. It may not be 2ndxmr or Marildi right here, but there will Always be a True Scientologist that will come along and refuse to agree with a pointing out of even the most obvious and blatant inconsistencies or lies uttered by one Holy Hubbard.
I have lately come to the conclusion that Scientology will breed fanaticism more often than I was willing to let myself believe before.
It is something I would like to get to the exact root cause of.
“I have lately come to the conclusion that Scientology will breed fanaticism more often than I was willing to let myself believe before.
It is something I would like to get to the exact root cause of.”
I concur.
Whatever it is, it’s not isolated to just Scientologists, and Scientology doesn’t handle it. Humans have always been prone to this, we see it in faith-based religions, gangs, societies at war and many other places.
Making progress toward truth is damn hard in the presence of beliefs.
Geir: It is something I would like to get to the exact root cause of.
Chris: I am looking at “thought within sets of thought” and a fixed idea that there is some finite set of thought somewhere which is both complete and consistent.
Alan, yes, I get you on that. That’s why I’m all for supplementing the tech (as Marty does) or refining it (as David St Lawrence does).
That said, I have come to the conclusion, on various flows, that the tech just as it as (without all the alterations that came along) is very workable the vast majority of the time and gets a relatively fixed result of charge off the case, and to that degree a rise in tone, and to that degree greater self-determinisim, i.e. greater free will.
marildi: “Alan, if I duplicated your post, all that says to me is that LRH did narrow down (a bit) what the input would need to be (which would exclude ncg cases). Wouldn’t that be true of any example of input-process-output?”
As I see it, yes and no.
One can always try to fudge the theorem and adjust it after the fact to suit. But that’s just intellectual fraud. Normally the input into any system is what it is and it’s not under your direct control so you can’t adjust it. Which means the process must account for it.
In Scientology terms, if you control the process then input puts you at Effect and the output puts you at Cause, exactly like the Comm Formula.
There is one other option, you *can* validly reject unknown input but it doesn’t just disappear. It has to go somewhere, often back into the process that produced it to be re-processed. All that really accomplishes is you must account for the input somewhere else but you still need to account for it. At some point the output is going to be uncertain.
What Hubbard should have done throughout is what I think you are advocating – apply intelligence and judgement to the case and have the courage to admit failure if it happens.
Sorry, but you don’t get my point. As long as there is a component of free will, there is a fundamental difference in each and every pc that no fixed process can accommodate for. Thus, Scientology is not for everyone – even though LRH claims it is in that Class VIII lecture. This is very plain and simple, really.
Yes, Scientology is not for everyone. But for those people for whom it is for, it is for them. The proof is whether or not they are for Scientology. The “unknown” input is the amount of enturbulated theta which may overwhelm a person at a random moment rendering them illegal as a PC. (Not my idea, a Scientology idea). Therefore a person is IN because of their free theta and they are not in, leaving or possibly gone out due to their disproportionate enturbulated theta. This is true within the bounds of Scientology and it cannot be successfully refuted because Scientology is defined this way.
It IS quite simple really. And tautological, circular, recursive, and self similar… For me Scientology is simply a carefully defined bubble; a certain set within prescribed limits. What is in there is in there and whoever is in there sees that set as consistent because it is defined; asserted that way. There doesn’t seem to be any other consistency to Scientology than that. All religion seems to have these characteristics. Each is defined as consistent from within the bubble of any ideology.
I am going to make some food, a cup of tea with milk and honey, kiss my loved one and enjoy the meal. Cheers!
Good idea. And I am going outside to check on my “carpet cleaning project” and enjoy the sunset. Cheers!
@Chris
Yes, that “bubble” would include people who are interested in change and willing to be helped. That is definitely a definitive boundary fencing off the perimeter of the zone.
A person who has no desire for change is definitely outside the bubble.
A person who has a desire to change in a way that is not predefined in Scientology is also outside.
isene: “A person who has a desire to change in a way that is not predefined in Scientology is also outside.”
Yes.
2X: A person who has no desire for change is definitely outside the bubble.
Chris: Are they? Are SO members examples of people who have a desire for change? Or are SO examples of people who proselytize for their religion and have a burning desire to preserve the status quo within their group? Or written another way, is that their only quality that glues them to the SO? And does the entire planet save these last 7,500 (if that — my number) have no desire for change?
I always liked those “awareness characteristics” to which you refer. I am simply challenging them for this discussion. It seems that all social constructs are examples of a second layer of constructs just after the layer of personal identity construction. There may not be any particular validity to any construct taken out of the context of the set; outside the bubble for which it was designed. An example might be the blood of Christ outside the Christian religion; or a prayer for intercession to Mother Mary outside the Catholic religion. Another example might be Op Pro by Dup outside the Scientology religion.
Someone might exclaim, “Oh! But that’s different!” . . . Is it? Is the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation so different than another statement of belief such as the Nicene Creed?
Chris T: “It IS quite simple really. And tautological, circular, recursive, and self similar… For me Scientology is simply a carefully defined bubble; a certain set within prescribed limits. What is in there is in there and whoever is in there sees that set as consistent because it is defined; asserted that way.”
Playing Devil’s Advocate a little:
It seems to me those are the same conditions to create an entire universe, such as this one for example.
So where does that leave us?
Alan: So where does that leave us?
Chris: On the treadmill in spheres within spheres with an inkling that we are being played. Speaking for myself, of course.
Chris T: “Chris: On the treadmill in spheres within spheres with an inkling that we are being played. Speaking for myself, of course.”
🙂
You might have gone over my head in what you were saying, but it seems to me that any attempt to produce a product would set parameters on what is allowed as input. If I were going to collect interesting looking stones (input) and shine them up (process) to achieve a product of stones that others would fine beautiful and buy, I certainly wouldn’t accept as input any old rock.
This was good: “What Hubbard should have done throughout is what I think you are advocating – apply intelligence and judgement to the case and have the courage to admit failure if it happens.”
I think he did a lot of that, especially in the earlier years. And yes you, have duplicated what I am at least attempting to do. Thanks for that. 🙂
Marildi: A PERSON as part of an input to a process WILL ALWAYS MAKE FOR UNKNOWN INPUT and thus YOU CANNOT HAVE A FIXED PROCESS that results in a FIXED OR PREDETERMINED RESULT.
Geir, you keep repeating the process of tech is fixed and I keep repeating it isn’t. Our repeating isn’t going to make either viewpoint more true. But the thing I would ask you is why in the earlier years there was so much success (even if not total), based on many of your posters statements alone, and why there is still so much success that some Independents are getting, if what you are saying has that much validity to it?
It isn’t me that is insisting the tech is a fixed path, IT IS LRH. SEE THE QUOTE FROM THAT CLASS VII COURSE.
I give up
Geir, is it not possible to have as part of a fixed method the precise measures that are to be taken to handle an unexpected input of whatever kind – BASED on certain fundamental principles about the responses of beings in this universe? That’s how I understand the tech and what LRH means by Standard Tech.
No. because such precise measures are part of the whole process which then becomes fixed.
What you need to mitigate unknown input is unknown responses – creativity from free will agents.
No policy, procedure, plans or dictations can fully supplant that.
Do you understand?
Geir: “What you need to mitigate unknown input is unknown responses – creativity from free will agents.”
If I understand that, my reply is that the creativity of auditors (free will agents) through the means of TRs, for example, is what mitigates the unknown input.
Geir: “No policy, procedure, plans or dictations can fully supplant that.”
True. And as with my example of TRs, no set procedure can supplant doing them in a way that achieves the result they achieve. Instead of a set procedure for them, there has to be understanding of the purposes of the TRs.
Consider this statement by LRH: “There is no substitute for understanding”. That’s part of the tech and isn’t something fixed.
I have been persuaded by another back-channel to further bother to discuss along this line, so here goes:
The service provider in Scientology, be it the auditor, the supervisor, the C/S, anyone – must be able and allowed to freely break any rule or procedure in order to get the fixed result intended. ANY RULE OR PROCEDURE. Including the ones that LRH forbids the breaking of. Which means LRH WAS WRONG in the above quoted tape.
Understand?
Geir: “The service provider in Scientology, be it the auditor, the supervisor, the C/S, anyone – must be able and allowed to freely break any rule or procedure in order to get the fixed result intended. ANY RULE OR PROCEDURE. Including the ones that LRH forbids the breaking of. Which means LRH WAS WRONG in the above quoted tape.”
Well, obviously, breaking “ANY RULE OR PROCEDURE” is a very hypothetical and broad generality and would include the most gross auditing errors, which would not be likely to get the intended fixed result anyway. But being more realistic about it, consider the viewpoint LRH must have had when he wrote the following in HCOB 5 Mar 71 “The Fantastic New HGC Line”
“If the Exam form F/Ned, but the Admin is not okay and the session actions were not okay the C/S writes “Well Done by Exams” on his own new C/S in its proper place and ignores the form and subtracts the Admin time in his book to subtract the Admin from the Auditor’s week’s stat.”
That’s evidence of LRH’s attitude as regards “session actions were not okay” (i.e. breaking the so-called “fixed process” rules) in comparison to getting the fixed result intended. Basically, he gives it a mere slap on the wrist.
However, being even more realistic, I will quote 2ndxmr: “When a pc isn’t running smoothly there are many ways to find out why: session 2WayComms, GF40, CS53, DofP’s, Qual Consultancies and even Ethics interviews which if done well will find MOST of the problems a pc can encounter factors can demand an alteration of a defined path… only takes understanding (ability to play the piano) by the tech and Qual delivery people..”
In his long-term experience on tech lines 2x found “MOST” problems were handled. And he indicated that the refinements to the tech that David St Lawrence has developed would handle what he apparently witnessed as the reason for auditing difficulties that are not taken into account in Standard Tech (i.e. BT influences on lower-level cases).
Correction: In the quote of 2ndxmr, there should have been ellipses between “encounter” and “demand” – like so: “encounter…demand”
isene: “What you need to mitigate unknown input is unknown responses – creativity from free will agents.”
I fully agree with that and I feel I can also say that those means exist to a large part in Standard Scientology. When a pc isn’t running smoothly there are many ways to find out why: session 2WayComms, GF40, CS53, DofP’s, Qual Consultancies and even Ethics interviews which if done well will find MOST of the problems a pc can encounter.
Indie auditors like David St. Lawrence have taken it a step further to look at the influences and effects of the entity case.
I have said repeatedly that the biggest problem I ever saw was ensuring that the untrained pc really understood his part in the process. It is truly essential that the pc be willing and able to look and find the answer to a reading auditing question. That action alone will markedly reduce the variability in attaining a result.
As Maria said in an earlier post, the result attained will differ between the new, the untrained and the trained but the point is cognitions will be had from processes that have pc interest and willingness to explore.
I understand free will and unknown input. I understand those factors can demand an alteration of a defined path. I also understand that the majority of the means are already there to accomodate that and that only takes understanding (ability to play the piano) by the tech and Qual delivery people.
But what do you do if the pc wants to just be a pc, doesn’t want to train, spends $25,000 trying to get through ARCSW or some grade and gets to a point he says he got no gain? Simple. Highly recommend getting trained up to the level where trouble began and then re-audit for free an equivalent number of hours to what had been previously delivered, OR give the money back, shake his hand and wish him the best in finding something that will work.
Many financial variants of the above could be worked out. The point is to find a route that will preserve respect and ARC on both sides.
The fallacy that is obvious to me is that according to that Class VIII tape, LRH trained his best auditors to follow rotely Standard Tech instead of insisting on loyalty to the intended result. That says a great deal about the actual issue at hand.
It is part and parcel of creating a cult.
isene: “The fallacy that is obvious to me is that according to that Class VIII tape, LRH trained his best auditors to follow rotely Standard Tech instead of insisting on loyalty to the intended result.”
What I can give as an answer and observation similar to your statement is that the best C/Ses were Grad V’s trained at the org level. The Flag trained V’s were not as good and the VIII C/Ses had the most difficulty because (I would say – from obsevation) their programs were rote.
That would be an indicator that someone trained on Cl VIII could have lost the ability to play the piano.
Yep. And it is dictated by LRH.
And, this needs to be fixed.
“Yep. And it is dictated by LRH. And, this needs to be fixed.”
Geir, you make it sound like you haven’t heard what is being said in the comments. Rest assured – we do recognize that the tech should not be a fixed process and we have pointed out that (1) there are means within standard tech itself of fitting it to the individual pc – means which work most of the time but not always – and (2) we are open to improvements that would ultimately make the tech workable on any pc who is interested in Scn.
You also keep making a point of “but LRH dictated…” – as if that is has any relevance to what we now have the complete freedom to do. It’s time for us to take a win, forget how we were fettered in the past, and look in a forward direction.
So – was Hubbard wrong in that Class VIII tape quote? Yes or No? (Only Yes or No)
Sorry, but I don’t remember what you quoted. What did he say again?
Do you see that Hubbard was wrong here:
https://isene.me/2013/03/22/evaluating-scientology-hubbard-chart-of-human-evaluation/#comment-35069
Yes or No? (No other words in the reply, please)
Yes, he was wrong. He even varied it himself in the years that followed that lecture. And I am pretty sure had he lived longer he would have varied it further.
What happened to only Yes or No?
That was an embroidered yes. but let me rephrase:
Yes.
Now, please look over the above exchange here between you, me, Chris, splog and 2ndxmr. It took a hell of a lot of effort to get to this conclusion, And this was very similar to the ARC discussion we had, only at that time I actually gave up and stopped responding – not because I didn’t have any good arguments left, but because the effort to get across my point from a dozen or so different angels became too great. This time, however, I got an e-mail from someone who urged me to not give up. And lo and behold, a few more exchanges and you got to this point. But this is just too much. Perhaps you can now appreciate this answer on another thread:
https://isene.me/2013/03/17/hubbard-lied/#comment-34525
Apart from the last exchanges between Chris and Alanzo, I can’t see how we can use a medium like this to sift out what works and what doesn’t in Scientology.
The only thing left is scientific testing.
Geir: “Now, please look over the above exchange here between you, me, Chris, splog and 2ndxmr. It took a hell of a lot of effort to get to this conclusion.”
To which conclusion? That LRH said the tech was a fixed process? The discussion wasn’t actually on WHETHER OR NOT LRH SAID SO but whether in fact the tech was or wasn’t a fixed process. And the discussion WAS fruitful in that it pointed up the fact that there is a lot more flexibility than many readers may have been aware of – including you, apparently. I pointed out some of the ways and 2ndxmr listed quite a few others where the tech involves a flexibility of “tailoring” it to the individual pc. And you also seem to want to not-is that both of us have stated that it is a matter of MOST of the time that pc’s are handled by the tech – and that refinements and improvements have already been done and should be continued.
However, the above apparently wasn’t what you were actually looking for in the discussion. Instead, it seems you prefer to focus on something LRH said about it – in one particular instance – with the aim of getting people to admit that LRH WAS WRONG.
There is no hope for improving Scientology through any discussion. The only hope there can ever be for Scientology as a subject is via strict scientific testing. All else is wankery.
Marildi; my main point is that Hubbard taught people METHOD OVER RESULT. And that is what needs to be rooted out.
Case closed.
Geir, you wrote “There is no hope for improving Scientology through any discussion.”
But you apparently do have “hope for improving Scientology through discussion” when the discussion is about outpoints. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be routinely promoting such discussions in a large percentage of your blog posts, as well as doing so in your comments on the threads.
As an example, you wanted to discuss how “Hubbard taught people METHOD OVER
RESULT”. However, right when we actually had a discussion going about that, rather than taking up the opposing arguments being made, you basically ended the discussion with an argument YOU made that you deemed to be the deciding factor – an argument based on one particular LRH lecture. That is the very kind of thinking that Class XII Pierre Ethier described as the “root” (he even used the same word you do) of Scientology’s faltering:
“Technically the key element explaining the causes behind the true Golden age of Scientology – the 1960s and 1970s – and those at the root of its subsequent faltering in the 1980s onward is the same one that differentiates the structure of the Analytical Mind and that of the Reactive Mind. The Formers (Scientology’s True Golden Age and the Analytical Mind) are based on Reason, Differentiation and a Creative Integration of complex assortments of Data. The others are characterized by preset behavior (either through Stimuli-response or Indoctrination), Simplistic Association (A=A) and the proscription of anything that does not come from a literal interpretation of Data within one’s immediate reach.”
Actually, I posted a comment not long ago where I too said I didn’t think we could improve Scientology through blog discussions, because I agree with Pierre that it takes “integration of complex assortments of data”, rather than “simplistic association and literal interpretation of data.” But I still had hope that discussions on individual principles of Scientology would help sort out some of the correct data from the incorrect. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be your interest.
Btw, another indicator that you yourself may still be in the valence of a CoS Scientologist is the way you ended your post above – i.e. “Case Closed.” You’ve done that kind of thing in other posts as well and it is the same kind of authoritarian attitude that you criticize LRH for. Perhaps the gentleman doth protest too much?
“Case closed” as in “I am done discussing this with you”.
Then, see my latest blog post:
https://isene.me/2013/03/26/improving-upon-scientology/
“Case closed” as in “I am done discussing this with you”.
Yes, Geir, that’s another phrase you use to “dismiss” (in all senses) the person you’re discussing with, and it’s those ways of cutting off discussion that come across as authoritarian and condescending. What could account for such brushoffs, other than the viewpoint that if the other person isn’t convinced by what you have to say then they are obviously operating from incorrigible stupidity based on “beliefs”.
You don’t seem to be able to conceive of the possibility that you yourself could be operating on beliefs. And when it comes to core Scn, it seems to me you are in fact doing so, possibly because you don’t have a broad enough understanding of the whole or maybe because your “back-channel” circle of friends are in your ear.
Brushoffs such as the above also show a lack of looking at your own responsibility in a discussion – which is to be adequately duplicateable as well as to sufficiently duplicate others. As an example, when you continue to throw in my face the ARC triangle discussion it clearly indicates that you take no responsibility for what occurred. You can’t see how you had as great a responsibility for how that thread went as I did. Not just in an idealistic and ultimate sense of responsibility but directly, practically and literally so.
And the reason I speculate as I do in all of the above is that in other contexts I see the intelligent and kind side of you just as well.
As for your new posts, I will definitely get to both of them a little later on.
Sorry Marildi, I simply gave up discussing with you on this thread, something I think many readers here will understand. It simply took too much time and effort. No bad feelings. I’m simply done on this thread.
I can understand. At this point, I feel it’s done too. And no bad feelings here either.
Additionally, your insisting that I give you a yes or no answer was a logical fallacy called The Complex Question, which involves the following:
“…applies to situations where one is forced to either accept or reject complex standpoints or propositions containing both acceptable and unacceptable parts” http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm
However, rather than making you wrong by saying that you were committing a logical fallacy, I gave what I called an “embroidered yes”. But that didn’t fit your interest in keeping the topic very simplistic – and keeping it to your specific topic of interest, which was what LRH SAID about it.
I could easily draw the conclusion that you are still brainwashed in terms of looking at everything from the standpoint of what LRH said, even though you now disclaim what he said rather that blindly accepting it. Are you still PTS to LRH? That’s what PTSes do – they take orders “if only in opposites” (HCOB 10 May 72 “Robotism”)
To make my point more clear, you didn’t want to hear a word about LRH himself later varying the tech, or my suggestion that he would undoubtedly have continued to do so if he had lived longer. You want to give all importance to his admittedly excessive statements in a lecture in 1968, when he was clearly angry with auditors for their gross auditing errors.
And you never bothered to even acknowledge my post where I made the point that a few years later (1971) he gave evidence of his viewpoint about not always rigidly following the tech. Specifically, that he would only subtract the auditor’s admin time from his stat if the session was “not okay” per standard tech – but he would not subtract the session time, which would only occur if there had not been an F/N at exams. Here’s the link to that post of mine: https://isene.me/2013/03/22/evaluating-scientology-hubbard-chart-of-human-evaluation/#comment-35147
Only yes or no drowned in quantum ideas of yes and no or both or neither at the same time…
in response to isene: Do you see that Hubbard was wrong here: https://isene.me/2013/03/22/evaluating-scientology-hubbard-chart-of-human-evaluation/#comment-35069 Yes or No? (No other words in the reply, please)
Marildi: Yes, he was wrong. He even varied it himself in the years that followed that lecture. And I am pretty sure had he lived longer he would have varied it further.
Chris: (shaking head, pushing send, getting up from computer desk and going to work.)
Dear marildi, could you send me a m a i l a: m a h a l k o d i d i e r at y a h o o d o t c o m? That I could have your address for further communications? ML, Didier.
Dear Didier, I sent an email to you yesterday or the day before, but it was returned stating that “this user does not have a yahoo.com account”. Did I get the first part of your email address wrong – I wrote mahalkodidier@…
ml, marildi 🙂
Marildi: Sorry, but I don’t remember what you quoted. What did he say again?
Chris: Should 1.1’s be removed from society?
Marildi: You also keep making a point of “but LRH dictated…” – as if that is has any relevance to what we now have the complete freedom to do. It’s time for us to take a win, forget how we were fettered in the past, and look in a forward direction.
Chris: Does the question boil down to whether or not we want to practice Scientology?
Chris: “Does the question boil down to whether or not we want to practice Scientology?”
My comment was to Geir and he has stated that he wants to improve Scientology.
Chris: “Does the question boil down to whether or not we want to practice Scientology?”
Marildi: My comment was to Geir and he has stated that he wants to improve Scientology.
Chris: Well, I understand, but my question is to you. Your writing gives the impression that you are for changing Scientology in squirrel ways that seem sensible to you but when another proposes changing Scientology you balk. To be clear, and in the framework of Class 8 Scientology being practiced rigidly and without squirreling, LRH intends for there to be ONE kind; one brand of Scientology.
You seem to sanction your own brand of Scientology, one which conforms to your own understanding whether or not it is the true Scientology which conforms to HCOBs which in my opinion is the true Scientology. I am trying to understand but failing to see a real difference between your squirreling and others squirreling. I do not understand LRH to grant you this leeway and that is the root of my question whether the choice is to practice Scientology or not.
Chris: “To be clear, and in the framework of Class 8 Scientology being practiced rigidly and without squirreling, LRH intends for there to be ONE kind; one brand of Scientology.”
Have you seen my other comments as to why I do not see that practicing Scientology “rigidly” (so-called) means that it is a fixed process? To summarize, I think that in the tech itself is lots of leeway (many examples were given) to adapt auditing to the individual pc, and the *preciseness* in the various methods of leeway is not the same thing as it being *rigid*. And it does handle the vast majority of pcs so it should be practiced “precisely” (i.e. not “rigidly”) including the methods that allow leeway. Additionally, I wouldn’t want to change those things that have already been found to be workable most of the time – but where they aren’t, then there is room for improvement to make the tech even more flexible, enough so to accommodate all pcs.
We agree. Except for you don’t want to own up to the idea that you are squirreling to arrive at your own version of Scientology. I had thought you were arguing for Scientology when it seems that you’ve been arguing for your own opinion of Scientology just like the rest of us. I cannot see how you are more a Scientologist than I am. I don’t care about this difference mind you. Just pointing out the inconsistency.
“I had thought you were arguing for Scientology when it seems that you’ve been arguing for your own opinion of Scientology just like the rest of us.”
Chris, IMO the relevant issue isn’t a matter of “opinion of Scientology” as such but whether or not one is for or against its practice and to what degree – and also quite relevant is the question of WHICH practice. That varies across a large spectrum – from those practicing extremely revised versions to those adhering to the strictly “orthodox”, i.e. Standard Tech as LRH finalized it before he died. As for me, I’m “arguing for Scientology” (if you want to put it that way) in the latter form since, based on the data I have up to now, that version has proven to be incredibly workable for the majority of people.
However, (a) since there apparently does exist a small percentage for whom the tech doesn’t work that well and (b) since I believe anything could be improved upon, I am also in favor of any and all efforts to make improvements. You can call that “squirrel” if you want to, but for me that way of describing it would indicate a “letter of the law” kind of viewpoint rather than “spirit of the law” when you consider LRH’s actual lifelong approach to a workable technology – which was always from the standpoint of improvement and which was why he continued to refine it even after writing KSW 1 in 1965 and giving the lecture “Standard Tech Defined in 1968. In fact, he continued improving it virtually up to his death.
You also said, “I cannot see how you are more a Scientologist than I am.”
Your turn to tell me how you are a Scientologist.
Marildi: Chris, IMO the relevant issue isn’t a matter of “opinion of Scientology” as such but whether or not one is for or against its practice and to what degree – and also quite relevant is the question of WHICH practice.
Chris: As we have shown with many LRH quotes that there is Scientology, there is squirreling of Scientology, then come the off-beat practices, relitions, and other failed mental practices. This is LRH and it is irrefutable.
That you propose to practice Scientology “to a degree” or propose to splinter it into “which” practice is precisely the point. You can be a Scientologist and practice or you can do what you are doing. But to misidentify yourself with Scientology is more than fallacious, it is blatantly false.
Marildi: That varies across a large spectrum – from those practicing extremely revised versions to those adhering to the strictly “orthodox”, i.e. Standard Tech as LRH finalized it before he died.
Chris: Your “orthodox” Scientology has another name: True Scientology. Other splintered and altered versions are squirrel. This is not my word. It is Hubbard’s final word on the subject and there is no other word, interpretation, mitigating circumstance, or any other hat writeup of any kind before his death. That you assert that Hubbard “finalized” anything before he died is a pure fabrication refuted by dozens accounts of Hubbard’s work and state of mind before he died including the coroner’s report.
Marildi: “As for me, I’m “arguing for Scientology” (if you want to put it that way) in the latter form since, based on the data I have up to now, that version has proven to be incredibly workable for the majority of people.”
Chris: I reject this assertion of yours that you are arguing for Scientology. Your depiction of Scientology as “incredibly workable” (unbelievable – improbable – fabulous – inconceivable) is knowingly or unknowingly accurate.
#1. The majority of people have never heard of Scientology. #2. Almost everyone who has ever practiced Scientology does not do so today. Therefore assertions as to its workability are incredible. #3. Your arguments involve defending your opinion of Scientology and ignoring True Scientology which has been referenced time and again on this blog.
You may practice your splinter version of Scientology however you wish as I do not argue against that. But you may no longer be let off the hook to pretend your are promoting True Scientology but rather your version. This is disputable but irrefutable.
Marildi: “However, (a) since there apparently does exist a small percentage for whom the tech doesn’t work that well and (b) since I believe anything could be improved upon, I am also in favor of any and all efforts to make improvements. You can call that “squirrel” if you want to, . . .”
Chris: I refute your assertion that Scientology doesn’t work that well on a small percentage of people. This is definitely a technical degrade as all case phenomena are accounted for by Standard Scientology Technology and all cases including “psychotics” can be handled therein. Saying the word “squirrel” is not my idea. It is Hubbard’s Standard Scientology Technology which you degrade by refusing to use the Standard Tech definition of squirrel.
Marildi: “. . . but for me that way of describing it would indicate a “letter of the law” kind of viewpoint rather than “spirit of the law” when you consider LRH’s actual lifelong approach to a workable technology – which was always from the standpoint of improvement and which was why he continued to refine it even after writing KSW 1 in 1965 and giving the lecture “Standard Tech Defined in 1968. In fact, he continued improving it virtually up to his death.”
Chris: The Class 8s know what it means to apply Scientology to the “letter of the law” and you should too if you want to practice True Scientology. LRH’s lifelong approach was to change his 100% workable, standard technology by changing it constantly when pressured by failed results, bad results, and no results to do so. Were these changes improvements? Hubbard said they were and so were they? Hubbard was his own worst squirrel and this is irrefutable since he personally signed off on all of the changes. Yet did the results improve? Not by statistic they didn’t. So yes, he constantly changed the 100% workable technology being practiced and delivered by FLAG and then the FLB and always under the PR front; shore story of “updating — new releases — new discoveries” and yet Scientology seems to have been in its heyday in the 50’s and culminating to its peak census at the end of the 70’s and has been long term danger trending since that time of 1979-1980.
Four years before his death, LRH blew from Int Base under imminent indictment for Snow White, so “virtually” he was not improving Scientology but running from the law until his death, thus emulating his hero Simon Bolivar and defining his own squirrel version of “The Responsibilities of Leaders”
Marildi: “You also said, ‘I cannot see how you are more a Scientologist than I am.’ Your turn to tell me how you are a Scientologist.”
Chris: You have been writing for some time demonstrating that you know better than LRH. I’ve been kind of missing that by letting it go over my head. At this point, I am no longer a Scientologist, and in my opinion, neither are you. All this milk cannot be put back into the tube nor should we cry over all this spilt toothpaste. Tomorrow is the first day of the rest of our lives — cheesy but apropos. We should take stock of ourselves, see where we are and just continue on, shall we?
Chris dear, you are so all over the place and in so many different frames of reference in this last half dozen or more replies to my last post that it’s hard for me to know where I would even begin to respond. Just the thought of the effort it would take puts me at numbness.
But your saving grace was what you ended with (including the very funny first line :)): “All this milk cannot be put back into the tube nor should we cry over all this spilt toothpaste. Tomorrow is the first day of the rest of our lives — cheesy but apropos. We should take stock of ourselves, see where we are and just continue on, shall we?”
Yes, lets. 😉
2X: That would be an indicator that someone trained on Cl VIII could have lost the ability to play the piano.
Chris: What are we saying? That the part of Scientology which actually helps the PC is the ingenuity and good will of the auditor and C/S which they brought with them into Scientology is gradually lost the longer they stay?
“Geir, is it not possible to have as part of a fixed method the precise measures that are to be taken to handle an unexpected input of whatever kind – BASED on certain fundamental principles about the responses of beings in this universe? That’s how I understand the tech and what LRH means by Standard Tech.”
No, because the input is infinitely variable. You will always have the case where the pc presents something never seen before that the process cannot account for. So the output is going to be random (or an error condition in terms of machines).
To make your hypothesis true,you would have to make the input somethign finite. And to do that you have to give up on the notion of free will.
Are you prepared to do that? That would mean you are entirely stimulus-response and every action and decision you take is either determinate or random.
Splog: “You will always have the case where the pc presents something never seen before that the process cannot account for.”
Just to review, my understanding of the tech and the reason why it works is that there are certain fundamentals that exist for thetans in this universe and, for the MOST part, the tech is based on those fundamentals, as evidenced by the fact that it works on MOST pcs. Where it can be found not to be working, I reason that there must be some fundamental that is being violated and it (the tech) should be improved accordingly.
That’s my look at it. What would your own answer be to statement of yours quoted above?
THIS is the definition I like and use: Standard Tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70)
Per: THIS is the definition I like and use: Standard Tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70)
Chris: That is a useful contribution.
marildi: “that there are certain fundamentals that exist for thetans in this universe and, for the MOST part, the tech is based on those fundamentals, as evidenced by the fact that it works on MOST pcs. Where it can be found not to be working, I reason that there must be some fundamental that is being violated and it (the tech) should be improved accordingly.
That’s my look at it. What would your own answer be to statement of yours quoted above?”
Me: Well, when you say the tech should be improved accordingly, I would say that is the same thing as allowing the process to be changed. For an auditing session I would use this method:
End the session off standardly, as an educated pc would not be thrown a surprise.
Get a C/s tailored for this pc at this time even if it means going outside Standard Tech, even if you have to wait a bit.
Do the new C/S.
It really comes down to “deliver what we promise” vs “Standard Tech always”. You can’t have both always so one must decide which one is going to give. For me, the answer is clear – I keep “deliver what I promise”.
We should note that method above is the best way for the subject to have evolved and been researched in the first place.
Alan: “Get a C/s tailored for this pc at this time even if it means going outside Standard Tech, even if you have to wait a bit.”
What exactly would it mean to be “going outside Standard Tech”. Surely, you can’t mean the C/S should dream up some process on the spur of the moment, testing it for the first time on that pc?
But what you say about that being the best way for the subject to be researched makes sense to me. However, from what I’ve read that’s basically the idea I got about how it WAS researched by LRH.
marildi: “What exactly would it mean to be “going outside Standard Tech”. Surely, you can’t mean the C/S should dream up some process on the spur of the moment, testing it for the first time on that pc?”
Yes, I mean exactly that. How do you think Hubbard got new processes? How do you think anything ever gets done anywhere in life?
You can perform a test procedure on the side if you want to and if it is indicated, but it is not always necessary.
Marildi;
I urge you to read this article:
http://a-circle.no/wiki/index.php?title=Processes,_Automation_and_Human_Potential
Geir, will you please duplicate that I do get and fully agree that due to unknown input a process cannot be fixed if we want to get an intended fixed result.
The discussion was not about that but on whether or not the tech is a fixed process. You see it as totally fixed, I see it as mostly unfixed but that it could be improved upon for cases (a relatively small minority) that are not accommodated for in terms of unknown input.
Alan: “How do you think Hubbard got new processes?”
Didn’t I just say that in my last comment? 😉 However, he didn’t base them on just one pc, as I think you would agree.
Anyway, it seems that the two of us were talking about two different frames of reference. One is research and the other is the delivery of an already researched and proven tech. And as you pointed out in an earlier comment, an important thing as regards the latter is to “deliver what we promise”. That would be unlikely if you mixed in haphazard research in that context. That’s all I was saying when you seemed to be talking about mixing in research with delivery.
Nothing wrong with you crafting what you know of Scientology in your own image. It just is not Scientology anymore.
Marildi: when a pc does not respond in the expected way..
Chris: When a pc does not respond in the expected way he is interrogated and investigated to match him up to a technically expected way of responding. This is complete. PC is expected to make gains but PC doesn’t, correction list. Still doesn’t make gains? Qual. FES, etc.,. PC still doesn’t make gains? An “ethics reason” is looked for and found. PC is then handled in ethics and either returned to the HGC or ultimately routed off lines as a PTS.
When the PC doesn’t respond in the expected way, then either he is handled until he responds in the expected way or his auditor is handled until the PC responds in the expected way. And if neither of these avenues cause the PC to respond in the expected way then the PC is declared an illegal PC. Simple as that. The reason that the PC is not responding in the expected way is because there is problem with the PC or the auditor, but not the Tech.
Alan: But there is no doubt that Hubbard really did mean we should find ways to remove 1.1s from our midst.
Chris: Does anyone within earshot have access to the RPF issues? These are necessary and will be very illuminating to this discussion.
Alan, on the quote of me and your comment on it, it doesn’t seem that you got that the first sentence was one idea and the second began an entirely separate one. Please read that second idea again and I think you’ll see that all I was saying was that if there is workability to the tech and it is practiced without the previous grave errors, it will spread by word of mouth – which is very fast and far reaching because of the internet.
On the first sentence you quoted: Admittedly, I don’t know a lot about scientific testing but I know enough to understand there are ways different parts of the tech could be tested and a variety of “gains” could be determined (or not) by one means or another. As a side note, this is a good example of where certain critics here who have also stated that Scn could and should be tested might have jumped in and helped explain my viewpoint – but they didn’t, which should tell us something about the type of dialogue that is typical here on the subject of Scn, i.e. not one that is fully interested in getting at the truth.
marildi: “Alan, on the quote of me and your comment on it, it doesn’t seem that you got that the first sentence was one idea and the second began an entirely separate one.”
Me: Yes, you are correct, I did misread it that way.
I think we concluded elsewhere that we came to the same conclusion about this. Is that correct?
Yes, indeedy. 🙂
Alan: “I will grant that quarantining 1.1s might be an illustrative example, along the same lines as the bit about lepers on a boat. But there is no doubt that Hubbard really did mean we should find ways to remove 1.1s from our midst.”
A very fair comment. You may be the most rational and fair-minded “critic” here.
And I agree that he did mean we should find ways to “remove” 1.1’s from our midst.
Marildi: And I agree that he did mean we should find ways to “remove” 1.1′s from our midst.
Chris: How does this strike you?
Based on my experiences with 1.1’s it strikes me as a very good idea to avoid them if I can’t directly do anything for them.
Marildi: Based on my experiences with 1.1′s it strikes me as a very good idea to avoid them if I can’t directly do anything for them.
Chris: Remove them?
Did you notice I had put “remove” in quotes. That was because it isn’t meant in some literal way.
Marildi: Did you notice I had put “remove” in quotes. That was because it isn’t meant in some literal way.
Chris: I noticed LRH said to remove them and he meant it and he went about doing it. But you don’t agree? Because if I’ve learned some things about you from these discussions, I don’t think you agree with that.
Chris, from what I understand the RPF did “quarantine” in a sense, but more for the purpose of the alternative that LRH gave in SOS, i.e. to process them. At least that was how it was in the beginning, from what I got.
I need to go off and fry some other fish for awhile. But I’ll look for your rebuttal later. 😉
Is this because your intended result is a full vindication of Scientology?
Geir: “Is this because your intended result is a full vindication of Scientology?”
Why would you say such a thing after all the things I’ve said that indicate otherwise? Is it because I still don’t find enough wrong with the tech and still find that it is mostly right if the ways it went wrong were avoided?
“Chris, from what I understand the RPF did “quarantine” in a sense, but more for the purpose of the alternative that LRH gave in SOS, i.e. to process them. At least that was how it was in the beginning, from what I got.”
Look. Don’t listen.
Just because Hubbard said it was so doesn’t mean it was so.
Splog: “Just because Hubbard said it was so doesn’t mean it was so.”
And we could also say that just because Hubbard said it was so doesn’t mean it wasn’t so. 😉
marildi: “Splog: “Just because Hubbard said it was so doesn’t mean it was so.”
And we could also say that just because Hubbard said it was so doesn’t mean it wasn’t so. ;)”
Indeed. Which is why we should test things for ourselves, and come to our own conclusions.
Splog: “Indeed. Which is why we should test things for ourselves, and come to our own conclusions.”
Did I give you the impression that I have a different viewpoint?
Splog: “Indeed. Which is why we should test things for ourselves, and come to our own conclusions.”
Marildi: Did I give you the impression that I have a different viewpoint?
Chris: Yes, you gave a different impression when you wrote: “What exactly would it mean to be “going outside Standard Tech”. Surely, you can’t mean the C/S should dream up some process on the spur of the moment, testing it for the first time on that pc?”
Chris, see my reply to Alan.
Alan: Just because Hubbard said it was so doesn’t mean it was so.
Chris: Those RPF issues would be so helpful for this discussion, . . . anyone have them?
Marildi: “Chris, from what I understand the RPF did “quarantine” in a sense. . . ”
Chris: You write like a person who was never there. I do not believe that you turned that blind an eye to the processes going on during your time in the SO. Or if you did then, we are considering these processes and their underlying ideology now.
RPF weren’t “quarantined in a sense,” they were quarantined for real. And not just physically separated but disenfranchised from the group of Sea Org members mentally, spiritually, utterly.
How does the idea of “remove them” strike you at this present time?
Marildi: No. ya lost me.
Chris: Do you understand that a “Hubbard World” would have the whole of society on RPF – who wouldn’t tow the SO party line? And those who wouldn’t comply would be quietly disposed of without remorse, don’t you understand this? This is Hubbard’s literal application of his Chart of Human Evaluation. This is Scientology.
Geir: Is this true?
Chris: Seems to fit COS as chronic.
Class XII Pierre Ethier’s opinion:
July 21, 2011 – Briefing #110, Riga – Homosexuality
The 8th Deadly Sin
http://classxii.wordpress.com/articles/the-8th-deadly-sin/
Hi Ferenc 🙂
That writeup by Pierre at the link you provided was very informative. Here are a couple of paragraphs I thought were applicable to any discussion of Scientology:
“Technically the key element explaining the causes behind the true Golden age of Scientology – the 1960s and 1970s – and those at the root of its subsequent faltering in the 1980s onward is the same one that differentiates the structure of the Analytical Mind and that of the Reactive Mind. The Formers (Scientology’s True Golden Age and the Analytical Mind) are based on Reason, Differentiation and a Creative Integration of complex assortments of Data. The others are characterized by preset behavior (either through Stimuli-response or Indoctrination), Simplistic Association (A=A) and the proscription of anything that does not come from a literal interpretation of Data within one’s immediate reach.”
“Loss on them [current Church leadership] is the awareness that Scientology is actually a vastly complex body of knowledge that can only be fully understood by integrating its numerous components.”
Thanks for posting the link! 🙂
I got this from Per Schiøttz and was asked to post it here (to include the image):
Dear Geir,
March 22, 2013
On your blok you ask for comments regarding the validity and use of the Tone Scale by Mr. Hubbard. To me The Tone Scale is one of the most basic things in all of Scientology, and I do not really care where it came from, if it was Ron’s ideas or others, I am NOT discussing that. I am mainly discussing my own use of the Tone Scale as a person and as an auditor.
First a few explanations. You (Ron) mention what is called a “Chronic Tone Level” and that this can be handled only by processing. A chronic Tone Level is that level on the Tone Scale which a person uses to control others and it is additionally often used as a Ser. Fac., It is often created as a survival mechanism at a very young age.
Example: Peter (4 years old) happily wants an ice cream in the super market. Mom says NO, you had 3 already today. Peter rather quickly drops down the Tone Scale ending up at antagonizing his mother scolding her for not giving him the 4th ice cream. She tries to hold position and explains something why it’s enough with 3 ice creams. Now Peter starts making noise and people around them start looking. Their eyes say: Why can’t you handle your kid? You’re a bad mother!! Somehow Peter feels that there are other people “on his side” so now he starts really misbehaving rolling on the floor in mixed anger and grief and this is too much for the mother who then in order to get piece gives Peter the 4th ice cream. Peter is no dumb kid. Where do you think he starts on the Tone Scale next time he wants something from Mom? See how he controls his Mom? He has created a chronic Tone Level. It will become part of his subconscious way of behaving and might control HIM for the rest of his life.
Few days after I heard about the tone scale for the first time, I had a chance to see how and if it worked. On my drawing you can see communication plotted against Tone Levels. You can plot many other things against the Tone Scale like Reality, Responsibility, Havingness etc. etc. Here is communication. It shows that the higher a person is on the Tone Scale, the higher his ability to communicate is. The lower the worse. A stable datum which you have surely observed in life is that levels of communications tend to meet. They tend to find a place on the curve where equal amount of communication can be given and received. If you are high on the Tone Scale and someone comes along in Anger, you might have a slight tendency to drop tone. If a guy is in Grief it doesn’t help to just be Happy and Cheerful and start telling jokes, this is far too high on the Tone Scale. Anyway, I was going to give a lecture at a school about “Why does sail boats not capsize”? About ship stability. I had arranged to meet the teacher in the school yard, and rightly so, there he was, sitting on a bench, his head between his legs in complete Apathy. Now, I was going to test the Tone Scale, so I sat down next to him, my head between my legs, pretending Apathy. I sat there 1 – 2 minutes, and then he lifted his head and said: ”What’s the matter with you”? I gave some comments and soon enough he was back up around Interest and we could walk to the class and do the lesson. Very real to me. The Tone Scale can be used to help people UP by applying the correct amount of communication.
There is a consideration that whatever is in the area below the curve from Tone Level 2,0 is from the subconscious and what is above is analytically determined. This is used in auditing. You observe the client and work with him on the Tone Scale. You ask him a question and by his response you can see if you have found something in his “bank” worth working with. Keep working and when he finally comes up-scale again it will be safe to end off and he will probably voice a win or a gain. This Tone Scale is very valuable in my opinion and work.
Everlove
Pe-er
I really like how you have set up your chart with the ability to communication along the bottom of the chart! That really makes sense to me.
I agree, when you need to connect with others, approximating their tone level makes quite a difference, especially when one’s intention is to assist them to come out of a particular tone or emotional state. I’ve had the same experience as you with the fellow in apathy.
I also like your take on the ser fac aspect with the little boy. It seems to me that babies and small children are susceptible to forming such habitual patterns as they don’t have a fully grown analyzer function until they are at least 5-6 years old. So that makes sense to me too.
What doesn’t make sense to me is the derogatory attitude and statements to the effect that the tone level found on one area is indicative of the person’s entire state. Nor do I see people in one “homogeneous” tone level. I am not convinced that you can plot someone on the tone scale like that except as an assessment of current conditions and environmental response.
I am very much in agreement with Maria about the non-homogeniety of the tone scale. I was always quite athletic but when I entered Scientology I saw that virtually everyone had a very low opinion about body rudiments and exercise and athletic skills. When I read SoS I was amazed at the amount of sense it made, overall, but there were a number of things – such as athleticism – that didn’t jibe at all, or at least not on average.
My own conclusion was that there were multiple tone levels active on a case at any time and these were chronically active. That makes much more sense once one factors in these matrixed identity influences.
This matrix influence may make it seem impossible to apply the CoHE to a case but in reality it makes it easier because one can really look at each column and assess the actual level in THAT column. If the case is to be addressed using the CoHE, then auditing processes or life actions can be tailored to the individual starting at the appropriate level for each column. If the counseling process is simply done with the idea of benefit for the person, and processes and actions are selected with that in mind, the CoHE could be quite valuable. I had forgotten about this but my favorite C/S (Mayo trained) programmed that way. Very successfully. For both the pc’s and the auditors.
So in summary, the CoHE has many valid points, could use revision on some, and is most applicable, IMO, if used in a manner that considers the individual as a complex sum of parts. I would further distinguish “complex” from the idea of “complicated”. If the idea of a sum-of-parts, or matrix is understood, the “complicated” aspect diminishes because one can begin to address issues from the point of view of the real needs and wants of the pc. When pc and auditor are working together on an item of interest, rapid and significant gains are possible.
*CoHE – Chart of Human Evaluation
You think we should do away with the notion that wherever we find the person on a few columns, he will be found on that same level across the chart?
Geir: “You think we should do away with the notion that wherever we find the person on a few columns, he will be found on that same level across the chart?”
Me: Yes.
The Chart is entirely objective but none of it is proven nor has any attempt been made to do so. Of all Hubbard’s writings on Scientology this is the most objective one of all.
I think any correlation between columns can be ascribed to coincidence, or a very weak link at best.
Alan
Thank you.
I think this is a VERY important point, and I would really like to see other readers comment on this exact point.
Geir, you are right to the extent that it takes a pretty well-trained person to be able to actually use the Chart with any certainty of accuracy. Even LRH knew that and in fairness we shouldn’t forget that he intended it to be specifically for auditors.
Here’s one reference:
“The tone scale chart is a delicate and somewhat complex tool. The auditor who, by practice and alert observation of results, learns to use it well will find both his abilities and his understanding immeasurably increased.” (Science of Survival)
Here’s another, more explicit:
“Learning to use the chart and to locate the preclear on it may take the auditor some time, for the chart is complicated in that it contains several elements. There are at least five different ways that tone may be said to vary. The auditor is looking, mainly, for the chronic reactive tone of the preclear, in order to know at what level it will be safe to process him. Some high-theta auditors can successfully use methods on preclears which are above their chronic reactive tone level. They do this by bringing the preclear temporarily up the tone scale with very high ARC. But this is, unfortunately, an unusual ability, and the auditor who wishes to make sure that he will not enturbulate the preclear should be very careful not to use methods which are above the preclear’s level on the tone scale. Five things which affect the tone manifestations which the preclear is showing are (1) the theta-entheta ratio on the case, the relative amount of “frozen” entheta in locks, secondaries, and engrams, (2) the present-time environment of the preclear, its tone and volume, (3) the tone of the particular engram in which the preclear happens to be stuck, if he is stuck, (4) the tone commanded by a particular engram command phrase or series of phrases which are in restimulation, either acute or chronic, (5) the general environmental background of the preclear, the tone of his education, family, group, and so on. It may be a somewhat difficult job for the auditor to separate these various elements in the preclear’s manifested tone, in order to discover the one thing which is most important to the level of processing to be used on the preclear, namely the theta-entheta ratio on the case.” (Science of Survival)
marildi: “Geir, you are right to the extent that it takes a pretty well-trained person to be able to actually use the Chart with any certainty of accuracy. Even LRH knew that and in fairness we shouldn’t forget that he intended it to be specifically for auditors.
Here’s one reference:
“The tone scale chart is a delicate and somewhat complex tool. The auditor who, by practice and alert observation of results, learns to use it well will find both his abilities and his understanding immeasurably increased.” (Science of Survival)
Here’s another, more explicit:
“Learning to use the chart and to locate the preclear on it may take the auditor some time, for the chart is complicated in that it contains several elements. …/…”
– Thanks for these references two! 🙂
ML Didier.
Geir, can you please at least give me an ack on the above comment. I thought you would really like it since it pretty much clarifies your query. Doesn’t it?
Marildi; It doesn’t clear much – because I have seen so many examples of people with very varying levels on the columns or even within a column. I have seen people who are excellent at communicating on certain subjects or to certain people and display totally different levels on the communication column depending on all kind of conditions to be able to pin them down like Hubbard wants me to. And I have missed the good in people by trusting Hubbard on this, and I have missed the bad in people for the same reason. I find the chart dangerous to trust as a tool for evaluation. By actual personal examples – and thousands of them. And I did the Human Evaluation Course, and I have studied more on the OCA test than perhaps anyone else on Earth. And let this be my warning sign.
But there are good points in there, and I would like to salvage the objective value therein. But right now I have a bit of trouble sifting out the pearls from the crap.
Yes, I got that and I can believe it based on those references I quoted. Simply put. the Chart is to be used by auditors and was devised for THEM. And that’s because it takes lots of experience with pcs in session to actually learn how to use the Chart. In other words, I think that you are right that it’s not a tool for just anybody’s use.
But with the lack of correlation between columns or even within columns, I think LRH was wrong to conclude as he did and the tool could be even dangerous inside the confines of Scientology. It tends to polarize people’s views of others – something I can see in the average level of intolerance among the scientologists I have met. The haughtiness is nauseating at times.
So – as a tool for prediction, I think it is dicey. And it immediately contradicts the other tool used for prediction in auditing, the OCA. I have found no one who can reconcile these two main tools for human evaluation.
Marildi: I think that you are right that it’s not a tool for just anybody’s use.
Chris: Again? You know full well from your previous posts that The Tech is contained in HCOBs. Not in tapes and not in books. Books are written and published by LRH for broad public consumption — for the everyday man. Now you want to create an esoteric group that the SOS is made for? It would not be right of me to let that slide. Scientology is for the common man to give him a leg up and not for some imagined priesthood. If you want to say that SOS is not for anyone’s use, then maybe, but to create the impression of a hidden data line and to say that is Scientology? I don’t think that is a standard approach.
That Chart was written for auditors’ use. And in those days, everybody in Scientology was an auditor – no such thing as professional pcs.
Actually, I think LRH said what it’s good for here:
“Also, it gives you some clue as to what can happen to you in certain environments or around certain people, for they can drag you down or boost you high.” (Self Analysis)
The operative word is “clue”. That’s the approach that needs to be taken, and that’s the good that can be gotten.
I agree.
Then we can conclude that his statement here is wrong: “The only mistake you can make in evaluating somebody else on this tone scale is to assume that he departs from it somewhere and is higher in one department than he is in another. The characteristic may be masked to which you object—but it is there.”
I can’t help thinking of the tone scale as mathematical and a matter of the laws of energy – but those energies come from a variety of sources and that’s what makes it a complex matter to evaluate.
So that statement by LRH has to be looked at in the context of the other statements he made about what it takes to really be able to use the Chart to predict. In other words, use with caution and realize from the statement in Self Analysis that it CAN be a clue. That’s how I use it, while keeping my mind open as best I can.
But surely we can’t have it three ways: Both that there is a hard link between the columns and that we can observe that this is not true in actual life and that both the CoHE that says a person is stuck on one level is used in evaluating people and also the OCA is used, and this test is based on the premise that people have very different levels in these areas in life.
My sense of it is that the hard link is there even when it doesn’t seem to be because of the various “energy” elements that come into play, some of which were mentioned in those quotes – e.g. PT environment (both tone and volume); the tone of a particular engram the person may have in restim; environmental background (education, etc.). Any of these things could affect a particular column on the Chart but not others. So those things would disguise what would be there otherwise.
I probably don’t know enough about the OCA to quite get your point about it.
So you dismiss the notion that a pain could have genuinely different time levels on different subjects or areas of life, then?
I’m not sure what you’re saying. Elaborate please?
What you want to know when evaluating and predicting human behaviour is what will be displayed in real life, not what would be there if the things that are there wouldn’t have been there.
“What you want to know when evaluating and predicting human behaviour is what will be displayed in real life, not what would be there if the things that are there wouldn’t have been there.”
Yes, right. Now that you got me thinking about it more I’ll say this: When I’ve known a person for a while and observed him or her in a variety of circumstances, I do see a usual tone level that they go to when they’re not being social, or are not particularly enturbulated nor elated by PT circumstances. I get a sense of the being, the thetan tone, not the body-plus thetan social training tone, but the latter can be seen as pretty much a constant too.
No – even that is demonstrably wrong. I am on very different tone levels on different subjects – all on my own without any social influence or any enturbulation or PT circumstances. When I do HP calculators, I am on top of the scale. When I just sit there and think of my HP-calculators, I am pretty much up there. When I think about my kids, even more so. Thinking about biology, less so. Mathematics; high. French; low. Etc. etc. There is no CONSTANT level. There is an average as with all statistical data, but no CONSTANT as claimed by Hubbard.
Geir: “There is an average as with all statistical data, but no CONSTANT as claimed by Hubbard.”
– Read a little better Ron’s writing and make the difference with your idea of what Ron has written and how you have interpreted it, and find why you didn’t not interpret it correctly.
– Ron’s true main claim is indeed that this is THIS ///// AVERAGE VALUE to be constant, indeed, and says it can move above and down it on columns (re-read the quotations brought by marildi).
– To help you to differentiate too: if I invite you to make to differentiate this point, it doesn’t mean that I think this claim is true! I have the proof of that until now.
– As I see it since I came here, I can’t except from most of you here to make this differentiation, as you obviously dramatize an A=A with some others who could have in your past here blindly defend any critic on Ron and his work. I’m more like a neutral position of questioning the validity of your conclusions on a logical ans seismological viewpoint. The day you will differentiate me and them, you will surely experience a certain realise, I’m near sure of that.
– I do not care you see me with no words because I post again despite my “bye bye” post yesterday; but sorry, I couldn’t read these obviously dishonest statements all around and not show an other reality, not for you, as you don’t look to care of, but for any future student in the future who will study our words and how we assumed our responsibility for the future.
I am talking about CONSTANT ACROSS THE COLUMNS. And I do believe the average do fluctuate as well – even that is not constant. It all depends on what the person focuses on.
Your AdHoms are not appreciated ( I can’t except from most of you here to make this differentiation, as you obviously dramatize an A=A with some others who could have in your past here blindly defend any critic on Ron and his work.)
Dear Idealgoal, I would like to invite your sweet undivided attention to the fact that there might be more than one truth and more than one way to interpret Rons materials. This might come as a chock to you (when you really realize this) but I am sure that this will be the only way for you to gain understanding in a universe which is not running on one-way or two-way logics but mor like multi way logig. I invite you to join the quantum way of looking at things being yes or no or both or neither – at the same time thatb is.. can you fathom this? . This might chock you, but the day you get this under your belt will be a much happier and less one directed day in your life which will change dramatically acordingly… believe you me, I have been where you live and know what you are talking about… but I am afraid I have to let a secret out of the bag for you IT IS A TRAP !!
Everlove, Per
Per,
Perhaps he needs to do an earlier step first, which is to express what he really thinks on any subject.
He has yet to do this simple step here. It’s maddening trying to have a discussion with someone who will not tell you what he himself thinks, it’s like shadow boxing.
Alan.
Yes – it is the continuing polarizing practice of fault finding with some while love bombing others.
Geir: “Yes – it is the continuing polarizing practice of fault finding with some while love bombing others.”
Have YOU ever done anything like that? 🙂
Sure. And I truly hope people tell me straight when I do. Have you done something like that?
Bet the point is rather when it is done almost all the time, it becomes a bit trite, don’t you think?
🙂 I was prepared for you to ask. And the answer is the same as yours – sure.
You point is my point too – when it is done almost all the time, or even too much, it really becomes ridiculous. And there has been a lot of that “too much” going on. The good news is that I think it might be lessening a bit, IMHO.
It would be great if you could talk to idealgoal abot this and give him a nudge in the right direction.
I mostly get from idealgoal that he is pointing out what he considers to be assumptions and other illogics. At times he may be missing data, but other times I think he is right. However, that’s a good idea. I’ll keep my eye on him and help him out if I can, if I see an outpoint in his comments, because I like who he is. Btw, he has also disagreed with statements I’ve made, so I think he is honest and trying his best to be fair.
OK Alan, but I can only respond to what he DOES say (read). Havn’t seen enough of that yet to get what’s between the lines…
Love
Pe-er
Geir: “There is no CONSTANT level. There is an average as with all statistical data, but no CONSTANT as claimed by Hubbard.”
Here is some context for LRH’s use of the word “constant”:
“We are interested in the average level for the individual for the period of life we are addressing. The average is fairly constant. An individual’s average place on the chart can be gauged by inspecting the other columns. Thus he may be an average 2.7 on the tone scale and yet reach 3.5 on occasion, and yet sink to 0.5 on other occasions but only for a short time.” (Science of Survival)
But it isn’t “fairly constant”. One example is Maria’s. I have lots. I myself being one. It all depends on a person’s interest in various areas of life and then what he chooses to focus on. People have different tone levels for different interest areas and different tone levels for different columns of this chart. And different tone levels for different times. And, and, and the chart misses all that, and therefore it is void as a tool for human evaluation. It is a hunch tool, and that is what it should be marketed as, not a universal tool for human evaluation (check the Human Evaluation tapes for that last one.)
isene: “…And different tone levels for different times. And, and, and the chart misses all that, and therefore it is void as a tool for human evaluation.”
Generally true if used in the absolutist sense that you’re talking about, but back in the early ’80’s that was not how we used it. We used it – sccessfully – along the lines that I described earlier – which happens to align pretty well with the references Marildi is finding and posting. These references show much less of an absolutist viewpoint than what I’m gathering you feel the whole of SoS demands.
You mean less absolutist than what LRH said in the quotes in the OP?
Yes, I do understand he is inconsistent.
Marildi: So that statement by LRH has to be looked at in the context of the other statements he made about what it takes to really be able to use the Chart to predict. In other words, use with caution and realize from the statement in Self Analysis that it CAN be a clue. That’s how I use it, while keeping my mind open as best I can
Chris: Not according to LRH.
Marildi: The operative word is “clue”. That’s the approach that needs to be taken, and that’s the good that can be gotten.
Chris: That is a very reasonable attitude to take toward something which has been so carefully and scientifically worked out. Remember, this was not derived but was worked out objectively using the results of auditing thousands of PCs. For you to cherry pick those parts which that you like and cast off parts which you don’t understand is not a standard approach.
Chris, you need to re-read my various posts as I’ve already answered these points you’re bringing up.
Marildi: Chris, you need to re-read my various posts as I’ve already answered these points you’re bringing up.
Chris: Or you could respond to my claim that you cherry pick what you like of Scientology, change meanings that are indefensible into more reasonable and defensible meanings, yet extol Scientology as “consistent.” This is not a standard approach to teaching and practicing Scientology Sometimes it seems to me that you say you are defending the workable Tech of Scientology when in fact you are more genuinely defending your personal opinions and disguising them as Scientology.
Geir: “But there are good points in there, and I would like to salvage the objective value therein. But right now I have a bit of trouble sifting out the pearls from the crap.”
Me: How about we give this a shot: each column taken as a single scale does seem to have some validity from dead at the bottom to really alive at the top and everything in between extrapolated (I still haven’t found the reference where Hubbard says that’s how he filled in the blanks).
The error is in drawing causal links horizontally and assuming the chart is largely true used that way. of course, this removes most of the charts advertised predictive power…
Alan
splog: The Chart is entirely objective but none of it is proven nor has any attempt been made to do so.
I concur.
No Geir, I do not think so, because I have used that notion in work shops to find and blow peoples chronic tone levels and that could not be done without that notion. I don’t care weather it’s philosophically correct, but it works like mad… believe you me..
But I have done mis-recruitments due to that notion. And it may be harder to see when something doesn’t work than when it does – especially in recruitment where you dismiss fantastic candidates and hires the OK ones instead.
isene: “You think we should do away with the notion that wherever we find the person on a few columns, he will be found on that same level across the chart?”
2x. Overall, yes. I think it is possible a person could be mostly along one row, but may be below on some (call that due to abberation or lack of interest, or training, or ability) and above on others(call that due to extra interest or ability).
It may not even be possible – for the above reasons of training, interest, ability and abberation – for a person to ever squarely land on one row as the different aspects may change or evolve independently, or at least at different rates.
Given this, it seems wrong, or even outright dangerous at times, to evaluate people on the basis of this notion from LRH. If I look at a person and see only four of his “bad columns” I will conclude he is at that level across the chart and miss his excellent points – or even work toward quarantining him, or do away with him without sorrow. While on the other hand, I may only see a few of a person’s great columns and miss the fact that he may in two weeks end up raping my child.
I got that LRH found by observation, not just theory, that – for the most part – people will be seen to behave on the same level of the Chart. Per also found this to be true in his practical application of it, according to this comment he made:
“I have used that notion in work shops to find and blow peoples chronic tone levels and that could not be done without that notion. I don’t care weather it’s philosophically correct, but it works like mad… believe you me..”
The point I’d like to make is that it’s a GENERAL rule and the following stipulation should always be kept in mind – or we will miss:
“Any one column or characteristic of the chart can be altered by a pattern of engrams or severe education, but the other portions of the chart will remain constant for that level.” (Science of Survival)
marildi: “I got that LRH found by observation, not just theory, that – ”
– Thanks for this new enlightenment for me on this looks to me rather complex subject when its complete catch.
Nice to read you one of these days m a h a l k o d i d i e r at y a h o o dot c o m,
ML Didier.
Maria and 2ndxmr, this is a related comment I posted on Marty’s blog not long ago:
I think a person often does have more than one tone level at a time in that he may have attention on more than one thing at a time. As a simple example, he may have heard some bad news earlier in the day which still has some of his attention units, while at the same time he is enjoying a funny movie he’s now watching. Those two tone levels might be grief and cheerfulness.
I’ve personally experienced this kind of thing many times – there’s a sort of undercurrent of one tone and yet an entirely different tone level going on at the same time but more “on the surface”. And I’m sure there can be more than just two things that one has attention on, and thus more than two tone levels going on in a being’s space,
But I think that there’s probably a predominant tone that can be spotted, most likely the one that corresponds to where most of the attention units are. When I did the drill to spot tone levels, I got pretty confident about it. And now that I think of it, I was probably spotting the predominant tone and just not putting attention on (or not-is’ing) any undercurrent of tones.
This may also relate to the datum that “Any being is a viewpoint, he is as much a being as he is able to assume viewpoints.” (Scn 8-8008)
Yes, a being himself can be at one Tone Scale level and manifest another to the environment. This is often evident when a person is out of balance, saying one thing and vibrating something else. On one of the tapes on the SHSBC Ron talks about one time where he was suddenly crying and crying and crying and he could not find out why until he realized he had come up to Grief as a thetan !!
Love,
Pe-er
Thanks, Per. I’m familiar with that point about the tone of a thetan as opposed to the body-plus-thetan tone. Here’s a reference for that:
“It has been quite commonly observed that there are two positions for any individual on the tone-scale. This occurs because there is a position for the composite of the thetan plus his MEST body operating in a state of unknowingness that he is not a MEST body, and behaving according to social patterns, which give him some semblance of sanity. The other position on the tone-scale is the position of the thetan himself, and it is necessary for us to demonstrate a negative scale in order to find the thetan at all.” (Scn 8-8008)
marildi: “Thanks, Per. I’m familiar with that point about the tone of a thetan as opposed to the body-plus-thetan tone. Here’s a reference for that: ….”
Thanks for that reference too, dear marildi. ML, Didier.
marildi: “I think a person often does have more than one tone level at a time “…
Very thanks for this interesting point of view, IMO, dear marildi.
While working on the Tone Scale, I’ve seen for myself that it is a fractal spiral: a spiral of very probably infinite spirals, according the the changes of kind of flows: flows, ridges, dispersals, and that all works as harmonics.
Like around 20.0 a being could run harmonics of antagonism or grief or any other lower levels, so that it could give the like if the being is on several levels or not on hus main one (even it could be too!).
In some other cases, we could find e.g. “enthusiasm” taken for a “antagonism”, as a “conservatism” could do, and fight against the “enthusiasm”, while we could consider the tone 4.0 and 2.0 as main harmonics, like 1.5 and 3.0 would be to.
Did you observe such a things yourself?
ML, Didier.
Dider, LRH does talk about flows, ridges, dispersals and harmonics as they relate to the tone scale. Interesting that you express it in terms of fractals and spirals – I hadn’t looked at it that way but it makes so much sense!
Here’s a reference on flows, ridges, dispersals and harmonics as they relate to the tone scale:
“Affinity is wave characteristic and is the range of human emotions. Human emotions manifest themselves in energy flows, dispersals and ridges. As the emotions drop down from high on the scale to low on the scale, they are found to follow a cycle of dispersals, flows and ridges. Each dispersal has a harmonic on the scale, each flow has a harmonic and each ridge has a harmonic. Looking up the scale from zero one finds death as a ridge and, in human emotion, an apathy. Apathy reaches up some extent from death but at this end the harmonics are very close together and there are two unnamed human emotions immediately above apathy. One of them, next above apathy, is a flow; immediately above that there is a fearlike dispersal. The next named emotion above apathy is grief. Grief is a ridge and is occasioned by loss. Immediately above grief there is a flow. The next named emotion, however, is the next level, the dispersal called fear which is a drawing away. There is a flow immediately above this called covert hostility. Above covert hostility is anger which is a solid ridge. Between anger at 1.5 and antagonism at 2.0 there is a dispersal — unnamed but visible in behavior. At 2.0 we have the flow outgoing called antagonism. Above this at 2.5 there is an idle dispersal known as boredom. Above boredom at 3.0 is a ridge called conservatism. At 4.0 we have another flow called enthusiasm. Each one of these points is a harmonic of a lower point. The characteristic of energy whether a flow, dispersal or ridge, expresses itself in human emotion in terms of affinity. Affinity is the cohesiveness of human relationships, and can be acceptance or rejection of such relationships. Affinity as here used is a degree of emotion. Its equivalent in the MEST universe is the cohesion and adhesion or revulsion from matter and energy itself as found in positive and negative currents, and in forms of matter.” (Scn 8-8008)
marildi: “Dider, LRH does talk about flows, ridges, dispersals and harmonics as they relate to the tone scale. Interesting that you express it in terms of fractals and spirals – I hadn’t looked at it that way but it makes so much sense! …..”
Lol, yes indeed! it is with this reference and few others I have build the frame of my fractal tone scale 🙂 If you send me a mail a mail to the address I’ve already provided in the discussion, I will send you later some charts and/or spreadsheets, to see it will speak to you.
ML Didier.
Okay, will do so soon. 🙂
ml, marildi
Marildi: about spotting the predominant tone.
We have a family member who is very skilled with working with people and has mastered the art of persuasion, charm and manners. She is impeccable in public – predominantly 3.5. She is so good at it that the local org decided that she was a “theta potato” and often referred to her that way. She was completely believable.
What they didn’t know and couldn’t know and would never see was her behavior around people who “didn’t matter” and in close or familial relationships. No more 3.5. It was unexpressed resentment, bad manners, put-downs, lying, rants about the org, lots of broken promises, and so on. Short of making videos of her, there was no way anyone believed this who didn’t encounter it. The org concluded that the rest of family was low-toned and that was why she was different in those situations. In fact, it was the opposite — she was an absolute misery to have around!
She got into a conflict with another family member and it all ended up on ethics lines. The Ethics Officer simply did not believe the other family member, pegged her as lower toned and therefore not to be believed. In fact, the E.O. refused any information to the contrary from her “low-toned” family. We finally had to put her on written communication only because she was causing so much upset by lying to the E.O. This went on until she lied again, but this time her lying was documented in the emails she had sent. When confronted with this, she went after the E.O., and for the first time, the org got a taste of what her tone level was when she wasn’t applying her people skills.
What it came down to was that if she thought that someone was important, then she “pulled up her britches” so to speak and conducted herself in a truly up-tone fashion. With people who didn’t count or people that she was close to, she was truly ill-mannered, critical, and horrible to be around. She felt that she was justified in this because now that she was “at home” she could relax.
My point is that unless you knew her very well, and observed her in various environments, you would never, ever be able to spot her Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde behavior shifts.
And if I could just jump in here….
There is so much in Scientology which presents a false choice, and creates false dilemmas. Your description of this family member to a person observing through the Hubbard tone scale, would peg her at “1.1 Covert Hostility”.
But seeing her behavior that way would be so simple-minded that it would leave out what is actually going on. This woman has learned a skill. She has learned to handle people to get what she wants out of them. And that’s all. She isn’t necessarily “hostile” and trying to destroy people like a “snake in the grass”. She is just putting on a show to get what she wants. And this can take many forms, and even be very constructive at times.
It’s all the infinite variables that are being left out, which the Scientologist becomes blind to, once he begins thinking with the tone scale.
This is what is wrong with seeing other people through the tone scale. Emotions do not fit on a scale with “higher and “lower”.
Hell, they don’t even really fit to the regular English words that we assign to them!
The tone scale can block a person’s ability to see what is really there. It can stultify a person’s progress in really evaluating why people act the way they act. It can cause disasters in understanding other people and in maintaining healthy relationships.
You can’t let an ideology do your thinking for you. And the tone scale in Scientology is one of the stupidest, crudest set of blinders a person could ever adopt.
Alanzo
Yes, she would be thought to be 1.1, but in real life she is a treasured employee where she works and they wouldn’t dream of firing her — and she deserves that status, for she has worked hard to hone her skill and become very accomplished at what she does. She is truly competent and worth a lot of income to the company she works for.
At home, she’s ornery and not much fun to have around, but no one thinks she is trying to destroy them, nor has she destroyed anyone other than being a real party pooper and getting all up in arms if she thinks she’s hard done by or somehow wronged.
She wanted to get her way and that’s how the problem ended up at the org. She nearly did, and in the meantime, the E.O. by acting on tone scale to decide what was true or right, brought upset to the scene, prolonged it and unjustly targeted the other family member as being low-toned. I should also note that the E.O. tried to order both of them to sec checking on their own dime, to get their ethics in. She ended up having to do conditions and buy a set of basics. OMG, it was crazy. The other family member never stepped foot in an org again after all that.
And then you begin to see the logical fallacy inherent in Hubbard’s coaching on how to apply the Tone Scale – it’s not what they did or said, it is who they are.
Remember, he said that “people below 2.0 on the tone scale” should have no rights of any kind in society.
Not for what they did – but for who they are.
The Tone Scale is an incredibly crippling way to see the world and other people.
It causes disaster after disaster for people who adopt it, and for those close to them.
Alanzo
hmmm…
So let see, Scientologists do not have the right of regular citizens to legal process or constitutional rights. Individuals below 2.0 do not have the right to legal process or constitutional rights. Ex Scientologists are SPs or low-toned, out ethics, etc. so they do not have rights either. Who does that leave?
And that is an excellent point about its based on “who they are” not what they did. And the “who they are” is a subjective analysis, without benefit of due process. I never thought of it from this point of view. This is guilty and no process or way or even need of proving innocence except by successfully getting auditing until the subjective analysis proves one has changed. Wow.
Yeah. I’ve often wondered about the Tone Scale Police who would wander around checking peoples’ tone levels and haul people in for being below 2.0.
What evidence would be presented in court, and under what evidentiary rules, to determine the person’s tone level so that all their civil rights could be taken away in our “thinking society” where no one under 2.0 should have any civil rights of any kind?
Trial by personality,,, I think we can come up with some horrific historical examples of this.
A sI have said before, a Scientology World would be a nightmare worse than 1984.
Wow Geir, that’s it exactly — trial by personality!
Maria: Wow Geir, that’s it exactly — trial by personality!
Chris: And why not? It seems to be what I do more often than I care to divulge!
Maria, what you describe sounds like the difference between someone’s well-honed social tone and their chronic tone. Would you agree?
Pe-err: Everlove
Just to take a moment to tell you that I found you somehow in my first researches while leaving scientology and wondering what was wrong. Your many briefings helped me tremendously. Thank you very much. 🙂
Dear Geir, Very Thanks for having shared Per’s technical viewpoint as a practitioner. ML, Didier.
Thanks Maria for your comment.
What doesn’t make sense to you, your last paragraph, I think was already answered in Geirs first qotations of Rons comments, the last point was:
The position of an individual on this Tone Scale varies through the day and throughout the years but is fairly stable for given periods. One’s position on the chart will rise on receipt of good news, sink with bad news. This is the usual give and take with life. Everyone however has a chronic position on the chart which is unalterable save for processing.
Love,
Per
Hi Geir!
Just a small perspective from an outsider:
I remember back in the day you tried to teach me the principles of the tone scale. It didn’t sound right to me then, and still does not now, a quarter of a century later. I have no problem seeing some people (not all) tend to fluctuate more or less evenly around a certain type of emotional state, but the set scale itself seems off to me. There’s nothing self evident about someone going through the emotions in the order listed when changing mood. In my experience people can go from fear to indifference without swinging by anger, or from interest to indifference without going through conservatism. Perhaps some do, but I haven’t met anyone who did so systematically.
Hi there 🙂
I’ll invite some of the others here to answer this as I am myself on the fence as to the accuracy of the tone scale.
Here’s a reference about that from Science of Survival, Chapter 7 “Emotion”:
“The tone scale is not a derived scale, but one which has been constructed after observation of many preclears. An auditor can very easily observe this. Suppose he discovers his preclear to be in an anger tone as he runs an incident. The auditor can expect that the anger will generally, on one recounting, abate; and on the second recounting, that the preclear will begin to express resentment; on the third recounting, or fourth, or fifth, the preclear may come to boredom; then to indifference; and on subsequent recountings, rise up to perfect cheerfulness about the incident,\…
“Not all incidents, of course, find the preclear going up the scale step by step. He follows exactly the same scale, but he may skip or omit various stages of the emotion. Starting an incident at grief, the preclear may come to boredom, and thus to complete carelessness about the incident. Thus, the tone scale is based upon observation.”
Here’s a related one from Advance Procedure and Axioms:
“The emotional curve is the drop from any position above 2.0 to a position below 2.0 on the realization of failure or inadequacy…The reverse curve is the emotional curve rising from below 2.0 to above 2.0. It happens in a short space of time.”
marildi: “Here’s a related one from Advance Procedure and Axioms:”…
Thanks, dear marildi, for these new specifications on the subject. ML Didier.
It is important to note that he says the tone scale is based on observation of preclears who are getting Dianetic auditing. This is reflected in the chart. More than half of the columns can only be observed in session DURING AUDITING SESSIONS.
Of course, he also notes that this step by step rise in tone DURING AUDITING SESSIONS is NOT a consistent phenomena at all. It can manifest as a jump from grief to boredom. That’s a big jump according to this chart.
These observations used to formulate the chart are based on the above and are NOT based on people living their lives.
The auditor is advised that he can personally observe the scale IN AUDITING SESSIONS.
“We are interested in the average level for the individual for the period of life we are addressing. The average is fairly constant. An individual’s average place on the chart can be gauged by inspecting the other columns. Thus he may be an average 2.7 on the tone scale and yet reach 3.5 on occasion, and yet sink to 0.5 on other occasions but only for a short time.”
So this is an arbitrary constant. A mathematical average. And it makes no sense at all taken with the following information:
“From 0.0 to 2.0 we have the band of operation of the reactive mind. Between these points on the tone scale, the reactive mind is in command of the organism. The reactive mind, in this band, directs the organism according to stored engrams and the analytical equivalent of
the engram, the lock.
From 2.0 to 4.0 we have the band of operation of the analytical mind.
Above 4.0 we could postulate other mind levels such as the aesthetic mind, through other minds, to the free theta mind, if such things exist.”
The above three paragraphs are not based on observation of life and living. They are based on the observations made DURING AUDITING SESSIONS, when the individual has NO OTHER FOCUS or activity.
He makes it very clear that the reactive mind IS IN COMMAND from 0 to 2.0, and locks ARE the analytical function. If this is so, then it is only at 2.0 we see the analytical mind operating. But this obviously is not true, otherwise the preclear could not access, evaluate, unburden and reduce or erase anything from the reactive mind. No analysis would be possible. In real life, the individual would be institutionalized if he ran only on locks.
He goes on to say in level of mind alert:
“Many more mind levels apparently exist above the analytical level. There is, for instance, clear evidence that there is an aesthetic mind level, which is probably immediately above the analytical mind level. The aesthetic mind would be that mind which, by an interplay of the dynamics, deals with the nebulous field of art and creation. It is a strange thing that the shut-down of the analytical mind and the aberration of the reactive mind may still leave in fairly
good working order the aesthetic mind.”
[…]
“The more theta, whether in terms of free theta or entheta, an individual has, the more forceful will be his demonstration of all factors, both analytical and reactive.”
Obviously this mind is functioning continually.
“Somewhere, possibly on the fifth level, lies the functioning mind of the spiritual or religious man who has passed over the border of a consideration of MEST or of organisms and is turned toward an understanding of and a co-operation with both the theta universe and the Supreme Being.”
Then we have the somatic mind, which is functioning continually.
“The somatic mind would be that mind which takes care of the automatic mechanisms of the body, the regulation of the minutiae which keep the organism running. Here is a vast system of valves and meterings. However, the reactive mind can work against the analytical and somatic minds to enforce and inhibit all these regulative functions and throw them out of adjustment, bringing about various non-optimum physical conditions.
As has been stated, other levels of mind can be postulated. One could consider as many as eight or ten mind levels. The somatic mind level would be that which concerned body cells. These seem to run on a theta-MEST union which gives to each cell an organism life of its own.
Science for many years believed that the life of the whole organism was only the composite life of the cells. This is extremely unworkable, and the discovery of the point field of energy of the body by recent scientific workers gave the most precise kind of evidence as to the existence of an overall organism life. A body composed simply of cells, each one with a life of its own, would not have a point field. The overall organism, however, does have a point field. Here is a measurable aura which evidently is in addition to and, according to work in Dianetics, independent of the cellular life of the body.”
It is obvious that the somatic mind is in continuous operation.
So his mind model includes:
1. Somatic mind
2. Reactive mind
3. Analytical mind
4. Aesthetic mind
5. Spiritual mind
6. Unnamed
7.Unnamed
8. Unnamed
9. Unnamed
10. Unnamed
The only mind that has been observed and mapped in terms of tone level in Science of Survival is the reactive mind as it is exhausted DURING AUDITING.
He then ASSUMES that this observation holds true in real life as an arbitrary average or constant. Yet, he simultaneously assumes that the aesthetic mind is quite capable of functioning even when the reactive mind is supposedly in command. And that is the mind of the creative impulse. As well the somatic mind runs constantly no matter which mind happens to be dominating. This is obvious. The heart beats, the blood flows, senses function, etc., even when a person is running a heavy engram.
Maria: The only mind that has been observed and mapped in terms of tone level in Science of Survival is the reactive mind as it is exhausted DURING AUDITING.
Thank you, excellent info.
Thank you, Maria. Very interesting!
In support of what I have just outlined, that the chart is an artificial construct based on observations of preclears running dianetics processes and NOT real life, this is the findings of a researcher who painstakingly followed the lives of people recovering from the death and loss of a loved one. He notes that there are no stages of grief recovery, and that people do not follow the various stages suggested by different therapy modalities in REAL life.
Thank you for this Maria. I did much study and have experience on the subject and this is a new perspective. I enjoyed it and passed it on to help others. 🙂
I didn’t find it particularly helpful in a long run. Yes, want to evaluate someone, go by these sparse offerings, but then people change all the time, even by minutes. How the heck can one lay an evaluation on someone who they have no experience with. Ruth Minshall was the easiest and best and was fun. Who got rid of that and why? Had to remain complicated. I just don’t bother with it myself anymore and use my own common sense, grant beingness. My own evaluation also changes with knowledge in present time, so why labels?
deElizabethan (+ All): “I didn’t find it particularly helpful in a long run. ” …
Hi deElizabethan. There is at least one reference I had studied in the Mini-Flag Reg-Course (approximated naming), about to spot the tone scale of somebody while observing hus* eyes while asking a question which create a “comm-lag” to take rid of the “social tone”. Looks to me the easiest way to do until now when we can observe the body.
To All:
– If someone still remember this reference about this way to evaluate “the chronic tone level”, could hu* share it?
– Would it be the “body+thetan” ton level (as per eyes observation)? but not the “thetan only scale”?
– The CoHE describes many behaviours, and stop at 4.0 really in its descriptions, but would you agree to say that is in not the “thetan scale” in any way, so that when we evaluate by the chart we invalidate the thetan while confusing hum* with the mixture of hum* and a body? There is for example a thetan I know, very trained in scientology auditing, I think very high on the tone scale IMO as a being, but having a permanent very messy office, probably because hu doesn’t really cares about MEST. But if we just refer to the CoHE as “hus true tone level as being”, wouldn’t be a very miss-evaluation?
ML, Didier.
(*: neutral gender pronouns for else than objects, standing for ordinary uses of “his/her”, “him/her” and “his/hers”, in the purpose to not confuse a spiritual being with the mest form hu could use – sorry for the explanation if you got it already, it is for those of Us who need that kind of “R” – http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/general-language-discussions/1462-hu-human-pronoun.html).
Idealgoala: “comm-lag” to take rid of the “social tone”. Looks to me the easiest way to do until now when we can observe the body.
Thanks! And yes I think the comm-lag is much more useful in life, tho it’s only a small part.
I can see the tone scale as helping an auditor understand, observe his PC and what to expect. I’ve seen it used and fail with regular people and result in ARCx.
Me too De E.
LRH ordered all non LRH materials to be removed from Scientology bookstores.
I should add, any books based on or explaining or talking about Scientology. Big League Sales was still allowed.
Maria: Big League Sales was still allowed.
Of course, since that is their main interest/purpose. #1 priority!
There is a lot of truth on these scales except by the nasty LRH assumption that he is on the top of these .
I have always seen the tone scale as too absolutist. The human personality seems far to multi-faceted and multi-layered to as “dyed in the wool” as hubbard lays out in his scale.
Here is a link to a kaleidoscope. If one plays it with one’s computer ‘mouse’ and imagines the mouse is a person’s center of interaction with the world,, then we only begin to get the possibilities. This computer ‘animation’ is yet only 2 dimensional, imagine if it was 3 or more dimensional and then we can ‘see/observe/imagine’ a mathematicians set of much greater magnitude/variances.
Hubbard’s rigid scale is too confined to be other than vaguely resembling the truth of human personalities. It’s like saying the only good computer programming language is PERL. http://inoyan.narod.ru/kaleidoskop.swf
Dear dchoice, did you notice it could have harmonics to care and that the ton scale is fractal? That they are several tone scales we can observe? like the “social one”, the “body+thetan” one, the “thetan only” one? That these ton levels could vary in the day (could be not so much for the “thetan scale” if not by process or very specific actions bringing realisations? And could be having different tone level in function of the Dynamics or sub-dynamics involved? Because it is not because we don’t see clearly something, how it works and so on, it doesn’t exist, isn’t it? and the complexity of these intricate tone levels could very confuse any of us very easy if not deep trained, IMO.
What do you think?
ML Didier.
The Chart of Human Evaluation is based on the tone scale – which is a scale of wave lengths going from lower to higher frequencies as the scale is ascended. Included on the Chart are columns for the three most basics attributes – Affinity, Reality and Communication – ARC. These three, A,R and C, are the components of theta – and with that description of theta in mind, here’s a passage from Science of Survival that I think answers many questions related to the Chart:
———————————————
“The constant position on the tone scale is determined by three factors. The first is the accumulated entheta in the person — how much of his theta is enturbulated in engrams and analytical locks and so strikes back against him, forcing him into non-survival activities or compelling him or inhibiting him in environments containing imagined dangers.
“The second factor is the amount of theta the person has as life force. This would be his volume of theta. It is another dimension on the chart. Terror is fear with lots of volume. One person has more volume of theta than another and can thus stand to have more enturbulence, more engrams. One may have so little native theta that half a dozen engrams will convert it all into entheta, leaving the person insane. Another may have so much theta that thousands of engrams still leave him with enough actual theta to go on living a productive life in the 2.0-plus zone.
“The third factor is a ratio between the analytical mind and the reactive mind. An individual may have a reactive level of 1.0 and an analytical level of 3.5. The result is that when he is in a restimulative environment he may be covertly hostile but in a more favorable environment he may be analytically very productive. These two minds average out to a constant. All the person doing processing — an auditor, he is called in Dianetics — needs to know about this tone scale is that it gives the percentage of theta of the case which by engrams and locks has become hronically entheta.
“To raise a person on this tone scale it is only necessary to recover or convert theta from entheta. Remove, in other words, the stores of turbulence from a person’s life or render them unrestimulated.
“An auditor is not trying to cure anything. He is simply raising tone. Incidental to a raised tone, psychosomatic ills commonly vanish and aberrations disappear. But this is incidental. The task is to make a human being happier, more effective, better able to accept responsibility and aid his fellow man. That the person being processed gets ‘well’ in the period and stays ‘well’ is a bonus. Anything which raises a person’s tone can be considered legitimate processing. This includes, of course, nutrition, environment, and education, as well as processing. Simply taking the person to see a movie he wants to see may raise his tone. Processing achieves permanent rises in tone. If it is illegal anywhere to process people, then it must also, sequitur, be illegal to make people happy.”
——————————————–
(Science of Survival, Chapter 1, The Tone Scale)
These are the heart of the matter. My understanding of this book was that it was intended to be a chart to select appropriate processes that a preclear could successfully run, that would not “overwhump” the preclear.
However, in my experience with working with people from the post of ethics officer, the inclusion of the inflammatory statements about these tone levels was disastrous. 90% of the time on a PTS type situation, the preclear had created and was continuing to create the antagonism, usually by plotting the other person on the tone scale using this book, and then granting them the beingness asserted in the book. i.e. finds the person to be 1.1, accepts the information that the person is 1.1 across the boards no matter what other “uptone” behavior may be present and then bases their actions on that evaluation. The result of such evaluation and judgment is disastrous. Even worse, I found that the preclear would now decide they were the effect of the terrible 1.1 they had found and would decide that they needed to get rid of them immediately because no matter what evidence to the contrary, the 1.1 was worse than having an adder in one’s bed.
I wouldn’t say this if I hadn’t worked with at least 1 person a day over a period of 18 months.
If I could get the preclear to let go of the “truth” they had discovered about their “1.1” wife, brother, friend, etc. then we could get somewhere. I should note that 1.1. was the favorite tone level to select when the preclear couldn’t figure out what the tone was!
I even went to preclears homes and met with their dreadful 1.1s, who very often turned out to be much higher toned than the preclear. It was the preclear who was causing the trouble by treating their 1.1 as a 1.1, very often telling them they were 1.1! Just trying telling someone they are low-toned or 1.1 or 1.5 or whatever, and I guarantee there is going to be trouble! They literally granted their 1.1 the beingness of a 1.1!
The person being labeled 1.1 did not respond well to such evaluation, typically showing up as an attitude towards them. Worse, if they read the book and found out what that meant about them and how they should be treated i.e., being quarantined, gotten rid, stripped of rights, and so on, they never responded well but saw this as a condemnation. And they were right. It was a condemnation, often a scathing condemnation. For a wife or husband, they would definitely read it as the end of their marriage and when I would go to meet them, this is exactly what they thought was going on. Consequently, they were very opposed to their spouse’s participation in Scientology. No big surprise there!
The worst of it is that the preclears I worked with were the usually the ones that did have people who really cared about them. I can’t tell you how many I discovered that had read this book and simply disconnected from people in their lives as belonging to the better off dead club. I hate to think how much antagonism they left in their wake.
The topic of this post is to determine what could be kept and what could be thrown out in a review and upgrade of these materials. I think that the inflammatory rhetoric serves no useful purpose and it creates antagonism, and produces a state of mind that sees dreadful people all around. I also believe that LRH’s opinions should be deep sixed and put into a volume carefully labeled: “Opinions of L. Ron Hubbard.” I would also take the paragraphs you have selected, Marildi, and I would work them into every single chapter, along with cautions about using them to make self right and others wrong.
Maria: Thanks for having shared your personal reality on the subject.
Maria: I also believe that LRH’s opinions should be deep sixed and put into a volume carefully labeled: “Opinions of L. Ron Hubbard.”
Good post. Cheers!
marildi: “The Chart of Human Evaluation is based on the tone scale – which is a scale of wave lengths going from lower to higher frequencies as the scale is ascended. Included on the Chart are columns for the three most basics attributes – Affinity, Reality and Communication – ARC. These three, A,R and C, are the components of theta – and with that description of theta in mind, here’s a passage from Science of Survival that I think answers many questions related to the Chart:”…
Dear marildi,
If “A,R and C, are the components of theta”, what about when no special universe, I mean “before” the creation of any?
I mean:
While considering it exists a “sublimation” of Communication, “Infinite Communication”, which would be just “TO BE” what ever reality or viewpoint, “Affinity” and “Responsibility” wouldn’t be “infinite” too?
But if All Of Us is “One” with not yet any game at this (no) time (at the very “first time” or in our fundamental quality), not having any differentiation and point to view , the “Reality” isn’t it “sublimed” too, or more accurately IMO: not existent?
So, couldn’t we consider that “Theta” is just “Infinite ARC”, fundamentally?
But as it is a “sublimation”, isn’t it equal to “zero ARC” (the “circle” pattern)?
Could you agree dear marildi that we could differentiate a “Theta state” of ARC not having really a sense , while “Communication” (= transmission of particle through a space) has no sense where Infinite Affinity and Responsibly stand (= Infinite Beingness = NO CONSIDERATION OF DISTANCE (=> NO CONSIDERATION OF DIFFERENCE)) and that when the “Primary Cause”, the “Power of Decision/Consideration/Creation” differentiates itself in an infinite number of viewpoints, it goes on the ARC matters because “Communication”, thanks to space creation (consideration of distance), is indeed created now?
It’s like for me about to differentiate “Theta” as “Life”, that I do not approve this interpretation (cause see it less workable), and Theta as “source of Life” (LIFE = THE TOTALITY OF THE EXISTING LIVING ORGANISMS = THETA + MEST = “LAMBDA”), while the first 1954 Ron’s Axiom speak “Life” as a static and so confuses the both.
In the tow case above, the cause and its materialisation (its actuality as EFFECT), aren’t they confused? Dear marildi.
To summ-up: wouldn’t there a scale of the very fundamental concepts working like this:
“POWER OF CONSIDERATION” > THETA > LAMBDA > MEST?
What do you think?
ML Didier.
Idealgoal: ““POWER OF CONSIDERATION” > THETA > LAMBDA > MEST?”
Interesting thoughts. A little off the CoHE line we’re on, but here is something else for you to ponder:
Theta likely created mest and had to create mest before there could be lambda.
Theta as lambda may degrade (become abberated and enturbulated) to the point of being unable to animate mest. Is that theta then less than mest or just sideways from mest (no longer able to play in the game of mest: out of the sandbox)?
2mdxmr: “Interesting thoughts. A little off the CoHE line we’re on, but here is something else for you to ponder:
Theta likely created mest and had to create mest before there could be lambda.
Theta as lambda may degrade (become abberated and enturbulated) to the point of being unable to animate mest. Is that theta then less than mest or just sideways from mest (no longer able to play in the game of mest: out of the sandbox)?”
Well, thanks, dear 2mdxmr.
For “POWER OF CONSIDERATION” > THETA > LAMBDA > MEST” I very agree with you that we can view the scale like you do. I have set it only from the viewpoint of degree of causality, but yes, it was not clear at all like I have written it.
Very thanks for having shared your reality with me while granting me it could be not a complete non-sense, even at the first read.
ML Didier.
Didier: “To sum-up: wouldn’t there be a scale of the very fundamental concepts working like this: POWER OF CONSIDERATION” > THETA > LAMBDA > MEST? What do you think?
Dear Didier, I think you have it exactly right. 🙂 We know that considerations are senior to mechanics, and we also have to keep in mind that ARC is a matter of mechanics – and that the mechanics of ARC are themselves considerations, per LRH in The Phoenix Lectures:
“There is a level lying between considerations and A, R and C and this is Is-ness. It’s the consideration of Is-ness. Things are because you consider that they are and therefore something that is, is considered is. If you don’t consider that it is, it of course can be considered to be something else. But if you recognize that it is a consideration you only have to recognize that it is. And if you recognize that something is, then you have recognized merely that it is a consideration. As soon as you have recognized that something is, IS, you have reduced it to a consideration, and that’s that. One has affinity because he considers he has affinity. One has reality because he considers he has reality. One has agreement because he considers he has agreement. One has disagreement because he considers he has disagreement. One has a Dynamic because one considers he has a Dynamic.”
ml, marildi 🙂
p.s. Did you get my email?
I’ve seen similar scales offered up in a some variants of psychological counselling. At least one of these I suspect, but do not know, of having been written by a former scientologist.
An individual involved as a Metapsychology/TIR counsellor recently posted another of these via a link on the ESMB board. It is one used among practitioners of Metapsychology and members of TIRA (http://www.tir.org/).
Here’s a link to the chart …
Click to access TableOfAttitudesSAMPLE.pdf
You may find it of interest for purposes of comparison.
There is also this chart, developed by David Hawkins, extrapolated using muscle testing:
http://lifexp.in/2012/11/emotions-are-my-friends/
Maria: Thanks for this, IMO, interesting chart, Dear Maria. ML, Didier.
The Tone Scale
Applications
Ways to KNOW have also been plottet against the Tone Scale creating a new scale called the KNOW to MYSTERY Scale. Some of the Expanded Know to Mystery scale looks like this:
Know
Look
Emotion
Effort
Think
Symbol
Eat
Sex
Mystery
Waiting
Unconscious
On top is straight Knowing. Like your name. You don’t need to think to know your name or to read your birth certificate (symbols). Babies often use Eat to know about things. They taste all toys to know them. In business it is common to leave the big decisions to after lunch: THEN we will decide. Couples often want to “sleep on it” (unconscious) before they make big decisions.
It has been discussed weather you move up and down these scales or are fixed at ONE point. Here you can see how I see us moving up and down most all the time, but let’s take an example, f.inst. GOING TO BED.
You LOOK at the clock and note: “It’s bed-time”.
Maybe you feel good about going to bed, or bad, or nothing.
You make the bed ready, change into pajamas… efforts
You go to bed and start thinking the day through or think ‘why can’t I sleep’?
Pick up a book and read some symbols (letters/words) and don’t fall asleep.
Go check the fridge and make a sandwich.
Wife or husband is sound asleep or absent, so, no sex
You lie in bed thinking it is a mystery: “Why can’t I sleep”?
You wait
And finally fall asleep (go unconscious).
Next morning you go through the same levels in the reversed sequence. Sometimes you do not go through all the levels. Some people go to bed and the second their head hits the pillow they sleep. IF they go true all the levels it goes lightening fast. Some end off the day with a good round of sex and exhaust themselves and go straight to sleep afterwards. Some keep reading (symbols) half the night and then have no problem sleeping.
So to me all the different scales are kinds of energy levels. You can create them using different kind and amount of energy. You can also create your own scales. You can use other important energies. Like the 8 dynamics are ONE way of grouping survival. You could have others like: 1. People 2. all else alive 3. all MEST and 4. all that is spiritual. You would do with 4 dynamics. You could also have 1. Red 2. Green 3. Blue 4. Black 5. White etc etc.. It’s actually and really up to YOU !!! But if you can use other peoples scales, then of course go ahead and have fun !!
Per + marildi
Hi Per, nice to see you so easy create on scales 🙂
Just concerning the scale of awareness, Ron said they don’t fit together at all around 1953 if I remember well (marildi, could you confirm that point?), but looks like it very fits with the Org Board and the Bridge 😉
ML Didier.
Possible, maybe he changed his mind too – at least I did.
Per, which “scale of awareness” are you referring to?
Tone Scale and Expanded Know to Mystery Scale…
Okay, so I guess you are saying that it DOES fit with the tone scale, whereas I got from Didier that he thought Ron said they don’t “fit together”. Maybe he is referring to some other scale. Or, as you said, if Ron did say something different in ’53, he may have changed his mind.
Right. And how much did Ron work with it really – do you know. I think he had the tendency to work something ut in his ‘head’ and teh see it work in ONE case and then call it a breakthrough… wheras the next case might have told him something else….my 2Cs
I have heard and read that from several sources, some of which worked with Ron on his research.
That would put his work into the category of religion rather than science.
Be that as it may, Per, in the case of the Chart of Human Evaluations, I got that you found it to be workable – even though LRH did himself basically say that all the variables involved had to be well understood and that understanding would only come about by working with the Chart as an auditor. I got that LRH himself discoved it (the Chart) through his and others’ experiences with pcs. Did you see those quotes I posted for Geir?
Yes, but remember, I am ONLY talking out of what I experienced MYSELF by using the stuff, privately, with clients and in work shops of which I have done quite a few.. I love to make stuff work for me no matter how crazy it might look from the beginning. Too much theorizing is not really my cup of tea.. I am the practical guy. I can make things work, but I can’t always tell you why or how it works, but you can see the results, and that is what counts in my book… Sometimes I also get something to work and AFTEWARDS I see that I didn’t do exactly as Ron said, I had changed something a bit.. but who cares really? Yea.. I know I am a squirrel… but honestly I like my squirreldom…
Gotcha. Well, if you read some of the passages I’ve quoted on this thread you will see that LRH states that he drew his conclusions from observations of many pcs, and that is what he built his theory on.
In any case, may your reign in Squirreldom be long and glorious. 🙂
Per: Yea.. I know I am a squirrel
Chris: kudos for honesty . . . the reformation is under way. I wonder where it will lead and what this landscape we are discussing will look like in 10 and 20 and 50 years? I wonder if this little detour in human religion will be remembered and if it is, in what context?
Dear Didier, I did find an actual “Tone Scale of Awareness” that I think you will like. I also thought of others too as I read different parts of it – like Marianne, Maria, 2ndxmr, Chris, Per, Elizabeth, Rafael, etc.):
———————————————————
“There is a downward spiral on the tone scale and an upward spiral. These spirals are marked by decreasing or increasing awareness. To go up scale one must increase his power to observe with certainty; to go down scale one must decrease his power to observe.
“There are two certainties here. One is a complete certainty of total awareness which would be at 40.0 on the tone scale, and the other is a certainty of total unawareness which would be 0.0 on the tone scale or nearly so. Neither end, however, is itself an absolute for the analytical mind, and the analytical mind can go below 0.0 of the reactive mind. However, these two classes of certainty are very wide in their satisfaction of the qualifications of a certainty. Because the two extremes of the scale are both zeroes in terms of space, it is possible to confuse one for the other and so make it appear that total awareness would be total unawareness. Experience and observation can disabuse one of this idea. The scale is not circular.
“The characteristics and potentiality of the top of the scale or near the top of the scale are unbounded creation, outflow, certainty, going-awayness, explosion, holding apart, spreading apart, letting go, reaching, goals of a causative nature, widening space, freedom from time, separateness, differentiation, givingness of sensation, vaporizingness, glowingness, lightness, whiteness, desolidifyingness, total awareness, total understanding, total ARC.
“The bottom of the scale and the vicinity around it includes death, inflow, certainty, coming-backness, implosion, letting-come-together, pulling together, holding together, withdrawing, effect goals (ambition to be an effect rather than a cause), contracting space, no time or infinite time in a moment, connectingness, identification, identity, receivingness of sensation, condensation, blackness, solidification, no awareness, no understanding, no ARC.
“These various characteristics or intentions are observable for any dynamic and any universe.
“Between these two extremes is the mean of action where complete freedom to do any of these things of the top or bottom of the scale is exercised. Therefore, somewhere between 3.5 on the tone scale and 36.5 there is action.
“The above conditions of top and bottom of the scale, of course, reach away from the extremes and toward each other.”
———————————————————–
(The Journal of Scientology, Issue 16-G [1953, ca. mid-June])
p.s. I believe in the above reference, LRH was using the following definition of “analytical mind”:
5. we say the analytical mind is kind of a misnomer because most people think it’s some kind of computing machine, and it’s not, it’s just the pc, the thetan. (SH Spec 23, 6106C29)
Marildi: p.s. I believe in the above reference, LRH was using the following definition of “analytical mind”:
Chris: Ah! So the thetan is an analytical mind therefore the analytical mind has no location, mass or wavelength. Very clear.
Just as with any dictionary of terms, a word has different meanings and each fits a different context.
Chris: Ah! So the thetan is an analytical mind therefore the analytical mind has no location, mass or wavelength. Very clear.
Marildi: Just as with any dictionary of terms, a word has different meanings and each fits a different context.
Chris: I don’t agree. These are classically inconsistent definitions for something at the very heart of understanding Scientology. This is simply called making it up as you go. Where problems pop up, just attack the student and push for his Mis-U and not finding any, send him to Qual and not repairing him, send him to ethics, and not rehabilitating him, off-load. Now disagree if you must but do it by reconciling these Standard Tech definitions.
Per: 1. People 2. all else alive 3. all MEST and 4. all that is spiritual. You would do with 4 dynamics. You could also have 1. Red 2. Green 3. Blue 4. Black 5. White etc etc.. It’s actually and really up to YOU !!!
Sounds like you simplify. I like that!
One major problem I have with the “hard link” between all the columns in the chart is that it doesn’t jive with the OCA test. The OCA (personality) test is an assessment of the person across several of the columns on the CoHE. But the test may show widely varying levels that flies in the face of the “hard link”-notion of the chart.
Someone up for an explanation?
I think that if you are trying to establish what process a preclear can successfully run, then you need to select the lowest tone as the guiding or overall tone. That way you do not run the risk of overwhelming the preclear with processes that are above his tone.
But in the social, political, and work areas, it is not useful and in fact, a false and destructive premise. I simply have not seen it to be true that if you find a 1.5 characteristic prevailing in one column over a very long period of time, then all columns are at 1.5 no matter what other evidence is present.
Under that arbitrary edict, a person who is going through an extended period of grief after the death of a spouse of 35 years should be immediately removed from the workplace as a destructive element until the grief is handled. It just isn’t true that such a person cannot work well, do their jobs, and handle their responsibilities.
Maria: ” I simply have not seen it to be true that if you find a 1.5 characteristic prevailing in one column over a very long period of time, then all columns are at 1.5 no matter what other evidence is present.”
– Where Ron has written “if you find a 1.5 characteristic prevailing in one column over a very long period of time,” it is enough to place the person at this level?
“Under that arbitrary edict, a person who is going through an extended period of grief after the death of a spouse of 35 years should be immediately removed from the workplace as a destructive element until the grief is handled. It just isn’t true that such a person cannot work well, do their jobs, and handle their responsibilities.”
– So, this is a restimulation that can end, the tone level of an usual “service-fac” to “handle” a situation…What is the difference between “constant” and “temporally”?
– Then, I’ve remember there was an other LRH trick to spot the tone scale of an individual, it was about what will create the biggest response in terms of communication while sending in a specific way to the tested person some communication too. I don’t remember too the reference so I don’t want to detail the trick. (Even if few will say here that I’m of course a liar as I don’t demonstrate it, except that any trained in at least green volumes 2 should know that I think and could attest it here.)
Any way, looks to me that you have, you and you other guys here, decided to apply what you advised for 1.1: to ignore my communication (“not granting attention”). Well, it’s your very karma to all of you! Even it is mine too, while We are any way! and that I am responsible too for not succeeding to create positive and mainly constructive ARC with you.
When I used the neutral form “hu/hum/hus/huself”, it is not especially for us right now, but for me that I would not reproach me at least having made an overt by omission of having not encouraged to do so. then it’s your responsibility to follow me and others, or not.
I can recognize that could be is not the best method but at least it is something having been done.
You want to turn in circle, not having disturbance while someone notice some weaknesses in your assertions, well, it’s still all your right, I’ve just made my possible for now. But you could too very ignore yourself when I have knowledge too, to coherent reality when I saw it as such.
So bye bye! and have fun in your lives, while just hopping for you that here the critics I’ve much read on Ron’s work, words and life, was not just justifications for owns overts (by commission or commission); and the problem for me is: how I can be certain of that point?
But honestly, when I read for example this last post of you, dear Maria, I can imagine you’re sincere in your views and communication of reality.
As I said once a time, the conclusion for is: the discussions here are rather none pertinent in my view to know for example “the true intentions of Mr Hubbard” or hus possible inconsistencies, and think the best way will been able to read our minds to get certainty on what is going on “over-there”, before to judge anyone; would be me, you or LRH.
ML any way for all those who seek the truth here and want The Greatest Good For All Of Us, would Ron has been a “bad” man or not, or LRH’s scientology has error or not.
The reason why I ignore what you have to say idealgoal, is because you keep bringing up an idea that I am trying to establish a “case” for demonstrating that LRH is BAD and Scientology is BAD. I can’t answer your posts because that is not what I am doing, it is what you think I am doing. I can’t argue what I don’t think.
I respond to other posts because they contain information I can respond to and discuss. I cannot discuss LRH is bad or good, because that has to do with speculating on his intentions. There is an old platitude that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In Scientology that hell is called “the hole” or the “RPFs RPF,” and a great deal of actual misery experienced by people resulting from the practice of disconnection or quarantine. It is, factually, LRH that built that particular road, whether he had good or bad intentions. If you don’t believe me, then get the SOEDs that outline the RPF and see for yourself.
I do not think for one moment that LRH was infallible. In fact, I think he was very fallible and often very, very 1.1, seeking to survive by hiding his real anger and hostility along the way, engaging in covert intelligence operations, and hiding critical information from the people involved in Scientology over the years. I personally would not have supported those activities no matter how thoroughly justified.
Another thing I am doing here is seeing how his own premises fit when they are applied to his own activities and statements — judging him by his own criteria as he judges others. These are NOT my criteria and they are NOT how I think about all this. They are HIS criteria for passing judgments, and so far he doesn’t fare very well in certain areas of his actions and statements if I very thoroughly apply his own judgments to him.
Dear Geir, the only explanation I have is very like marildi brought with hus quotations of Ron:
– We have a “chronic ton level” said here “a constant” by Ron: “An individual may have a reactive level of 1.0 and an analytical level of 3.5. The result is that when he is in a restimulative environment he may be covertly hostile but in a more favorable environment he may be analytically very productive. These two minds average out to a constant.”
– Around this level, and depending of the attention on different kind of problems in life, and so probably mostly about engrams in restimulation, the ton on each column can rather oscillate, but still around the same average axis.
– The OCA test is about what is real for the person tested, so the reg could address hum the tested with a total reality on what the tested considers as minus points, so potentially agreeing about the need to do something about. I don’t remember having read from Ron that it could correspond to the ton scale, but could be other here could…
ML Didier.
This is not an explanation – I’ve never been able to adequately explain that. However, I have to wonder about the admonitions state in the book SOS and the employee testing procedures on the OCA, given that both of these are completing ignored by the policies on statistics. Essentially, if a person is upstat, then ethics chits written on them are ignored. i.e. a high statistic staff member can get away with the most flagrant behavior:
“Ethics actions are often used to handle down individual statistics. A person who is not doing his job becomes an Ethics target.
Conversely, if a person is doing his job (and his statistic will show that) Ethics is considered
to be in and the person is protected by Ethics.
As an example of the proper application of Ethics to the production of an org, let us say the Letter Registrar has a high statistic (gets out lots of effective mail). Somebody reports the Letter Registrar for rudeness, somebody else reports the Letter Registrar for irregular conduct with a student. Somebody else reports the Letter Registrar for leaving all the lights on.
Proper Ethics Officer action = look up the general statistics of the Letter Registrar, and seeing that they average quite high, file the complaints with a yawn.”
From HCOPL 1 Sept 65 Issue VII Ethics Protection
In this issue, behavior and tone level is simply NOT a factor. Only the statistic matters. LRH even cites behavior that is not high toned per SOS — i.e. irregular conduct with a student. Yet, in SOS, irresponsible behavior is indicative of a low tone level. On top of it, these are behaviors that should have resulted in this person being handled as being connected to an SP for all illnesses, accidents and mistakes stem from a connection to an SP.
So really now, which one is it?
Maria: So really now, which one is it?
Chris: And yet one more datum to consider would be in the ESTO Series where there two reasons for someone non-producing 1. Out ethics; and 2. Untrained.
Could be true Geir, but in my experience one has to be very careful to really LOOK befor one disqualifies a level/column. I had a person I was working with to knock out the chronic Tone Level. We came to the column: Attitude towards children and he read: Using children for sadistic purposes. And this one really put him on a heavy denial: NO, NEVER, HOW AWFUL, NOT I,… I got him to look at the posibility. No go. Suppose you could do with those children anything you like, no one woud find out and you would never be punished… oh hooo there came up the ev purp and the incident it had been adopted in… he completly changed when this chronic level blew. I find this chart very exact and a very great tool for many purposes.. really. Try it out. Trying it out gives experience and knowledge about it. Have fun. Love, Per
Yes Geir, and his whole thing DID become more and more a religion, at least seen from the outside: more and more Chuch Image. Tax exempt because of being a religion. Staff wearing clergy like clothes etc etc..you might say, year, but that was The Church, not Ron, but still..I also think he did know what Mary Sue was doing..
I do not have an explanation, and I am not quite sure they HAVE to jive…To me at least it’s two very different tools and I do not see that they work at the same energy levels and therefore do not have to jive.. Could you clarify what you mean with an example?? (Of not jiving).
From Science of Survival Chapter on Handling of Truth
“At 1.1, truth receives her severest drubbing; for here truth is confused, upset, used, twisted and hidden for fear somebody may make retaliation, until one understands that data from this level on the tone scale has only two purposes: to wreak the most harm upon others, and secure the greatest safety for self. Here we have lies used to hide lies amid the most frantic protestations of honesty and a noisy advertising campaign about the ethics of the speaker. Beneath the facade of honor, honesty, ethics, and “one’s sacred word” one is apt to find a writhing cesspool of vicious and malicious lies calculated to do the greatest possible damage.
“Early in the studies of the tone scale which resulted in this chart the lengths to which the 1.1 would go in advertising his virtuous character, while performing his knife-in-the-back tricks, were not wholly understood. Because such persons said so often that they were honest and ethical, it was, for a while, accepted that a person could be at a low level on the tone scale in other columns and still be able to tell the truth. Experience demonstrated that, whatever the advertisement of honesty, the 1.1 is completely incapable of truth, but lies out of some horrible mechanical compulsion. Not one of the people for whom this allowance was made succeeded in being worthy of it; but each was discovered to be so deeply enmeshed in chicanery, all the while appearing honest, that the depths to which aberration can suppress man were for the first time clearly understood.
“Bluntly anyone takes his life and his reputation in his hands when he believes a 1.1, no matter the evidence. In this band we have fantastically accomplished actors, who may weep and plead and decry with contempt and disdain, asserting their honesty and their sincerity, and demonstrating them with such consummate conviction that even the most critical observer may be unable to detect the slightest falsehood; and yet, in the 1.1, a deep and exhaustive inspection of motivations and goals reveals a snake pit of lies and insincerities, of pretenses and unrealities. Such people can turn on tears and other emotions at will and use the language of highest honor to serve the most despicable ends.”
If I apply the information in this chapter to LRH, then I will have to dismiss his writings or take my own life and reputation into my own hands when I believe him. My extensive studies of the actions he hid from sight, actions which were destructive to others to protect his interests pegs him squarely at 1.1 on the tone scale as due the numerous contradictions in his statements, soaring rhetoric such as What is Greatness, compared to sickening statements that a proper follower will take care of detractors without the leader even knowing about it — “those pink legs…”
Maria: “the actions he hid from sight, actions which were destructive to others to protect his interests pegs ” …/… “contradictions in his statements,”
Dear Maria: Could you list them please precisely? with the references towards the evidences of?
ML, Didier.
Nope. Do your own research.
You could start by reading the earlier posts on this blog, Marty’s blog, and so on. You can start by visiting the links on David St. Lawrence’s blog:
http://possiblyhelpfuladvice.com/
If you scroll down the page on that, you will see lists of links on the right hand side that are categorized. As far as I know it is the most comprehensive list that has been compiled.
Then study the HCO PLs, HCOBs, books, lectures, SOEDs, ethics orders, and GO directives and compare the various statements that LRH makes along the way.
If you do that, you won’t have to ask me, and you won’t have to worry that I have “cherry picked” the information.
Slam dunk.
Nice to see you know something about bascket-ball! Dear Geir! lol Have good fun! And be proud!
Maria: “Nope. Do your own research. ”
OK, Maria. I appreciate your neutral response and that you have any away indeed answered to my demand while communicating to me your references.
I do hope I will have time to get a personal certainty on these points, (necessarily by direct observations a of kind) cause very honestly, I have none except that I know LRH’s or even CoS scientology has a great workability and that the corpus of Ron’s Axioms and scale are pretty good pieces of art in the large domain of knowledge, makes so much sense for me and has been proved useful in my life and in the life of many others I could have met; and for this, “good” or “bad”, I can only be eternally thankful to Ron; as per my present reality.
Bye bye any way, and nice to make real high Affinity with you one of these days.
ML, Didier.
Ouch 🙂
Maria: If I apply the information in this chapter to LRH, then I will have to dismiss his writings or take my own life and reputation into my own hands when I believe him. My extensive studies of the actions he hid from sight, actions which were destructive to others to protect his interests pegs him squarely at 1.1 on the tone scale as due the numerous contradictions in his statements, soaring rhetoric such as What is Greatness, compared to sickening statements that a proper follower will take care of detractors without the leader even knowing about it — “those pink legs…”
Chris: This is the only Standard Tech conclusion possible and it is irrefutable. It is also good advice.
Having had a number of homosexual coworkers, I think the idea that they’re 1.1 is wholly wrong. Not true in my observation. They’re humans and have the same problems or abilities as everyone else. Are they automatically sociopaths or psychopaths, which I think equates to a true 1.1? No. Marty Rathbun has a good post about psychopaths and recommends current books on that subject.
That said, I do think the tone scale has some general validity. I know people who are consistently high toned, mid toned or low toned. It works in that general way for me. But when you get into details and try to pinpoint them on various columns, I’ve found it not as precise as LRH claims. I think you can have a general tone but also specific tones on certain subjects or areas at the same time. Humans are really complex and I don’t think they’re always as easily predictable as LRH makes it sound. But in a general way, sure. I immediately recognize high toned people vs lower toned people and think with those observations.
A fascinating and related subject I think is where people fall on the political spectrum. Is a liberal higher toned than a conservative? Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has great observations regarding where people’s political views come from. Google his TED talk.
I think the political spectrum is fascinating too. Here’s what LRH said in Science of Survival back in 1951 (and these points are including in the Chart of Human Evaluation in the column “Command over Environment” but more abbreviated there):
——————————————————–
“At 3.5, we have the liberal. The liberal reasons well, accepts wide responsibilities, and is guided by high ethical principles. He is eager to seize upon any new idea which will improve the society, and he is not suggestible, being swayed this way and that by any propaganda, but reaches conclusions extremely rationally. He has a high regard for individual freedom, for property, and for the right of the powerfully productive person to be allowed to contribute to the society without hindrance, spontaneously and efficiently.
“At 3.0, we have the person who is democratic, but who is somewhat more conservative in his attitudes and more given to social regulations, being more in need of them. The term “democratic” is a somewhat loose one, but at this level it signifies the individual or system which allows personal freedom and has moderate regard for property and productive ability but is not particularly inventive or enthusiastic about refining and improving and enriching the social order along all of the dynamics.
“The next familiar political level is the 1.5 level of fascism. The activities of Hitler and Mussolini and the social orders they produced are, of course, the examples which come to mind. The open declaration of intention to conquer, kill, and control by the most obvious and forceful methods is the mark of fascism. Justification is limited to the bluntest most bald-faced lies. Invalidation of other persons and social orders is straight-forward, angry, and lacking in any subtle pretense of reasonableness or moderation.
“The next political level is the 1.1. level of Communism. The literature of Communism, particularly in the works of Lenin, sets the tone of secret, flexible, deceptive operation which is observable in the methods of Communism throughout the world. In its strongholds such as the Soviet Union, in times and sections where it is not threatened, Communism will sometimes rise for brief periods to the level of 1.5, but in its normal action it partakes of all of the characteristics of the 1.1 level as they are outlined in this present work. The willingness to devote an unlimited amount of time to accomplishing secretly a destructive action which the fascist would accomplish immediately by force is implicit in Communism. Communism has an endless patience in tearing down by subtle propaganda a society or an idea which it never openly opposes in all that time, and an unwillingness ever to use open methods which would betray interest or activity. Communism, like the individual 1.1, makes an initial pretence of giving great assistance and help, and it keeps up this pretence in the face of any and all contradictory evidence, blandly giving forth soothing justifications and assurances of the most sincere and deeply-felt interest in the good of all.
“The reader who will examine these various political manifestations in the light of the tone scale chart will find, undoubtedly, that the sometimes mysterious actions of various political factions will become predictable and understandable.”
(Science of Survival)
Hi Marildi,
I am new to this blog so I’m not familiar with you but from your comments on this particular post, you quote a lot of LRH. I don’t put much value in his words these days. I am well beyond thinking he had all the answers. I guess I am more in Marty’s camp, where we need to look and think for ourselves, meaning, outside what just LRH says. FYI, I did the full Basic Books and Lectures lineup as well as through Level IV, and was in the Sea Org for several years, and was in and around the “Church” for 25 years, so I am pretty familiar with things.
Looking outside LRH, on this subject (political views) and others, I have found data that showed where he was spot on and ahead of his time, or frankly, where he wrong. Other data may show he was almost right and will help clarify what he said. I still believe auditing and training have value, as I experienced undeniable gains, but these days, I am just no longer thinking much about my eternity or afterlife.
Another LRH idea which I think is proven false by modern science/psychologists is rewarding upstats and penalizing downstats. That works for manual work, but not when creativity is involved. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
Hi Obnosis,
Yes, I’m the resident true believer here :). Not really, but some people like to think so because I still consider that Scientology is a great contribution to the world and should be promoted. And yes, I do quote LRH when there’s a question about his writings and I see that there is missing data. I like to quote really interesting stuff too. Actually, though, like most everybody, I’m no longer convinced that he had all the answers. But I do consider that his views in the early materials were pretty consistent, and there again it sometimes takes a quote to see the whole context and tie things together.
Your background and mine are overall about the same, training wise and being in the SO, and being in the CoS for about the same length of time. Interesting, huh?
You wrote, “Looking outside LRH, on this subject (political views) and others, I have found data that showed where he was spot on and ahead of his time, or frankly, where he wrong. Other data may show he was almost right and will help clarify what he said. I still believe auditing and training have value, as I experienced undeniable gains, but these days, I am just no longer thinking much about my eternity or afterlife.”
I concur on every bit of that except maybe the last part about “eternity or afterlife”. I’m still interested in that.
Hey, that was a great TED talk, very funny too. I was already a bit familiar with Dan Pink’s ideas from Geir’s article “Processes, Automation and Human Potential”. Here’s a quote from that article:
“To be able to take responsibility for the achievement of a certain output, the person must have the opportunity, the ability to execute and the purpose to do so. This parallels Dan Pink’s concept of Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose but extends the scope of Autonomy to include all facets of Opportunity and the range of Mastery to include abilities all the way down to a beginner struggling with the first small steps on the way to mediocrity”. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/73825672/process.pdf
Well, I don’t want to get into a big discussion about admin tech, mainly because I think it’s neither here nor there at this point, We can do as we see fit, right? But I will say that although LRH stressed the rewards/penalties system, as I recall he also stressed that execs promote purpose. In any case, I’m sure he made some mistakes and I’m sure he could have benefited from so many things that have been discovered or developed since his time.
Thanks again for the great link. 🙂
Hubbard: “The next political level is the 1.1. level of Communism. The literature of Communism, particularly in the works of Lenin, sets the tone of secret, flexible, deceptive operation which is observable in the methods of Communism throughout the world. In its strongholds such as the Soviet Union, in times and sections where it is not threatened, Communism will sometimes rise for brief periods to the level of 1.5, but in its normal action it partakes of all of the characteristics of the 1.1 level as they are outlined in this present work. The willingness to devote an unlimited amount of time to accomplishing secretly a destructive action which the fascist would accomplish immediately by force is implicit in Communism. Communism has an endless patience in tearing down by subtle propaganda a society or an idea which it never openly opposes in all that time, and an unwillingness ever to use open methods which would betray interest or activity. Communism, like the individual 1.1, makes an initial pretense of giving great assistance and help, and it keeps up this pretense in the face of any and all contradictory evidence, blandly giving forth soothing justifications and assurances of the most sincere and deeply-felt interest in the good of all. “The reader who will examine these various political manifestations in the light of the tone scale chart will find, undoubtedly, that the sometimes mysterious actions of various political factions will become predictable and understandable.”
Chris: Just replace “communism” with Scientology and “Soviet Union” with Int Base, and this paragraph fits verbatim.
Chris: Just replace “communism” with Scientology and “Soviet Union” with Int Base, and this paragraph fits verbatim.
Profound!
And substitute Lenin for Hubbard.
marildi: ” think the political spectrum is fascinating too. Here’s what LRH said in Science of Survival back in 1951 (and these points are including in the Chart of Human Evaluation in the column “Command over Environment” but more abbreviated there):” …/…
– Dear marildi, thanks for this reference too.
– Did you see 4.0 is missing? 😉 Knowing a few of LRH, I wouldn’t be surprised hu could put here monarchy 😉 What do you think?
– IMO, today, the manes of the present political movements not necessary fit with Ron’s evaluation here. Like “liberals”: Are Republicans in USA “liberals” by hus definition? I would say “no”, even they used to use this word for them. Cause indeed, Republicans look to me rather “reactionary”, not very willing to accept new ideas, while “Democrats” in USA look to me very much more willing to.
– Remember, we talked about “harmonics” in the tone scale, I told you about its possible “fractal aspects” and for me Republicans are yes in “the liberal band” but having an high harmonic 1.5 (much interest in “guns” stuff, films of “actions” while it’s not “action” but violence).
– As I see it for now, I draw the scale like this (not complete scale that I do invite anyone to complete it) (notice the total opposed harmonics between the lowest and the highest 😉 ):
1. ANARCHY: Any member of the society has a so high level of Responsibility, and A.R.C. for “the other members”, that no specialized structure in required to organize the whole society. Indeed, the “organisational” concept is in itself “sublimed”. (We find harmonics of this kind in groups of friends working on a project with a total confidence in the skills of each one member).
2. SOCIAL-LIBERAL-DEMOCRATIC MONARCHY: A intern system of organization does exist where the most valuable members of the society are rewarded by giving them responsibilities and facilities, but where these are recognized and elected by the other members while these last are highly enough intelligent and ethic to recognize and spot the best elements of their own kind, and where no privilege is totally permanent but only depends of the worth of the contribution to the community, with no bequeath. This, organize around a “Best Of The Best”, elected as “King” and with laws to regulate and limit the power of, in agreement with the reason as summed-up from the whole society of constructive member all working aliened with the purpose of Life: to experience a maximum of happiness as much as individual than as families, groups, life form, spirits.
3. SOCIAL-LIBERAL-DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC: Very the same of the former but the systems of rewarding, facilities, elections, are so accurate because mostly based on the appearances (P.R.) rather than true skills while members are used to be less responsible for the whole society, more individualist, and selfish.
4. REPUBLIC (e.g.: U.S.A. Republicans): Same as previous but selfishness has again increased and becomes a pretty much characteristic of the society.
5. SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY (European present social-democracies, like France or Germany): The interest on others start to invert. The members think to the “interest of others”, but in a fear band “to be in the same weak situation”, and produce laws in the purpose to protect the weaker members but while doing it reduce the whole level of surviving of the society while preventing the strongest members to contribute effectively to the whole society. (In the SOCIAL-LIBERAL-DEMOCRATIC MONARCHY and above, each members are strong enough to not fear any weakness and members are so co-responsible that they do not need any organisation to sustain each other while they do it permanently any way.)
6. DICTATORSHIP: defined as usual (definition of L. Ron Hubbard can fit).
7. BOLSHEVISM, LENINISM, MAOISM, etc.: defined as usual (definition of L. Ron Hubbard can fit)..
8. NEGATIVE (the inverted one) ANARCHY: Absolute selfishness and no organisation, where the “best” is the one how has the physical force and get is own power only by ones own arbitrary decision. (While in the “positive anarchy”, intelligence, ethic level, altruism, are the criteria of empowerment, and where the “best” not get power only by own decision but because of the decision of the community).
It may be of interest to some that the world’s most successful nation in terms of a combination of both finance and happiness is a social democracy. Whereas the country most into the red (by far) and where happiness was something for the 80’s is a republic.
Strictly speaking Geir, wouldn’t Norway be a social-constitutional-democracy? A strict democracy does not have a constitution.
Yes. But even the constitution is up for democratic grabs given enough votes in the parliament. And it is one of the most socialistic countries in the West.
Isene: “Yes. But even the constitution is up for democratic grabs given enough votes in the parliament. And it is one of the most socialistic countries in the West”
I think the bulk of America is too warm in the winter for a socialist-democracy to ever really take. There is something about nearly freezing your fingers and toes in the winter to make you appreciate someone else’s need of gloves and boots.
Obnosis: “Having had a number of homosexual coworkers, I think the idea that they’re 1.1 is wholly wrong. Not true in my observation. They’re humans and have the same problems or abilities as everyone else. Are they automatically sociopaths or psychopaths, which I think equates to a true 1.1? No. Marty Rathbun has a good post about psychopaths and recommends current books on that subject.”
– I can confirm that I know presently homosexual as friends and know many of them as customers and I could say that in a social viewpoint, they were near all very nice persons, not less than the average numbers of my country and could be even higher, IMO.
– But, I can witness too, by the words of homosexual humself, on a sexual relation viewpoints, yes, indeed, there were many of behaviours that I we could refer to 1.1 on the tone scale, but not more indeed than heterosexuals when these last don’t care if you have already someone in your life or if you’re interest in having a sexual relation with them, like making of many hidden calculations to put you in a situation that favours them while it will destroy someone else.
– So could be, the possible 1.1 tendency is more about the second dynamic.
Obnosis: “That said, I do think the tone scale has some general validity. I know people who are consistently high toned, mid toned or low toned. It works in that general way for me. But when you get into details and try to pinpoint them on various columns, I’ve found it not as precise as LRH claims. I think you can have a general tone but also specific tones on certain subjects or areas at the same time. Humans are really complex and I don’t think they’re always as easily predictable as LRH makes it sound. But in a general way, sure. I immediately recognize high toned people vs lower toned people and think with those observations.
– LRH has not written it was easy to do, it’s all the contrary: “Learning to use the chart and to locate the preclear on it may take the auditor some time, for the chart is complicated in that it contains several elements.” (Science of Survival)
Obnosis: “A fascinating and related subject I think is where people fall on the political spectrum. Is a liberal higher toned than a conservative? Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has great observations regarding where people’s political views come from. Google his TED talk.”
– Tanks, dear Obnosis, for the note 🙂
What could be the core belief on which the NEED to
– evaluate human behaviour
– evaluate anything at all
– predict
is based as a basic consideration?
Marianne: “What could be the core belief on which the NEED to
– evaluate human behaviour
– evaluate anything at all
– predict
is based as a basic consideration?”
Ooooo, awesome question.
I have an answer starting to form in my mind but it’s nowhere near ready to type up yet. In fact, I think this question deserves a blog post all of it’s own.
Alan
If a person studies the Chart and has conceptual understanding of it, will that person produce considerations based on it? Can it happen that these considerations will be evaluative ones which the person will use in life? Can it happen that some considerations will get him into trouble in life? Then the person will meet these considerations either in session or in ethics. Can it happen?
Not only can it happen, it does happen. Unfortunately.
I saw this often when I was an ethics officer at the Mission I worked at. It was the primary situation I had to handle before attempting to actually handle anything else. They literally granted people the beingness associated with the chart, and often adopted the notion that if the person didn’t get formal auditing then they must be disconnected from, feared, etc. The behaviors and responses varied from individual to individual on this.
I also found that the staff would dismiss people — oh, he’s 1.1, what a 1.5! You can’t believe what she is saying — she’s in grief, he pulled it in because he’s low-toned. Knock that shit off. It was rampant. I started a campaign to get them to study other materials such as Granting Beingness, You can be right, What is Greatness — even going so far as to put a pack together and send people to cramming Even when I did that there was still this very evaluative operating basis.
This is the same principle as the experiment where the teachers were told that some poor students were actually geniuses — the result? The students did exceptionally well — they did not know that they had been designated as geniuses. The study concluded that the underlying belief of the teachers was critical to student results.
I know exactly what you were trying to do, Maria. I once tried to get a person to read George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” to prove to him that Scientology is a free thinking group of Bohemian intellectuals who love the unique differences in people. This was as a result of some brainwashing he had received at Flag and I was trying to recover him by convincing him that what he received at Flag was “not Scientology”.
I understand exactly what you were running around in Scientology trying to do.
I was trying to do exactly the same thing.
To the Idealist in you, Maria:
Love, Alanzo
Thank you Alanzo! 😀
“I once tried to get a person to read George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” to prove to him that Scientology is a free thinking group of Bohemian intellectuals who love the unique differences in people.”
Well you know, “individual is wicked!”
I laughed when I read what you tried to do! Its good you remind of my early days at the Mission, a time when that Mission really was a free thinking group of Bohemian intellectuals. Sadly, it was very short lived and so was that Mission when that went out the window.
For the record; Here’s the tone scale that forms the basis for this discussion:
Wow, such splendid art. A saver and printed.
I’ll call it the abilities chart! Life in Full! No mind, I”m just weird.
Thanks. 🙂
Hi Geir,
IMO, the lower tone scale (below body death) is nothing more than bad science fiction. Useless.
In my personal experience:
1) Mirroring another’s emotion is insincere, manipulative and a poor substitute for true compassion. It’s part of the intent to secretly control others without their knowing. Not a good thing.
2) Covert Hostility is not an emotional tone, it’s (usually) just restrained communication for whatever reason, i.e., hurt feelings, uncomfortable subject, attention elsewhere.
3) Serenity of Beingness is not an emotional tone, it is a state, or condition. It has nothing to do with emotion and may not even be an actual state as it is described, just an imagined one.
4) Action is not an emotional tone. It’s adrenaline driven. If we consider it an emotion, then we should consider the sex drive one, too – that’s hormone driven. Action is what one does when one is motivated to act – even if it’s out of rage. Not an emotion.
5) Most people do not have chronic tone levels.
6) One does not easily help another overcome genuine grief or apathy using tone scale or Scientology would not have so many suicides. There are better methods (not by Hubbard)
6) All mammals have emotions, so do most other developed animals (like birds).
I’ve found other tools from other sources much more useful than the tone scale for improving communication. For example, one reference noted that some people are more visual, auditory or feeling oriented. Abraham Maslow did some outstanding, meticulous research on the ideal human being, as well as motivation/drives. He describes peak experiences, self-actualization and even a higher (spiritual) level above that. Those were more useful to me than tone scale.
The useful parts of the tone scale to me were 1.0, 1.5, 2.5 and 2.9. The rest either didn’t fit in as an emotion or might have been interesting and fit, but superfluous for actual use.
The most useful part of the Tone Scale for me is that you should look at the person you are talking to and try to assess how he is feeling, and what emotions he might be experiencing. You should take these emotions into account as you speak with him.
Other than that, the rest of the Tone Scale is unworkably false and will destroy your ability to evaluate other people and maintain healthy relationships.
Other than the concepts I first learned from the Tone Scale in the 1st paragraph above, I think the rest of the Tone Scale should be discarded.
Alanzo
Well said, Alanzo!
Good post and a good contribution.
Well thank you, Chris.
I have found that a lot of things in Scientology exist in this way – the initial concept is useful and constructive, even extremely insightful, built all the crap that follows behind it is a trap.
The conditions formulas are like this. So are the TRs, although I believe there is a greater useful to un-useful ratio with the TRs.
What else?
Stats
Stats!
Excellent point!
Find a way to measure your production and monitor it. USEFUL
The rest – OVERWORK, and DEV-T!
DEV-T! – Useful to a point, then becomes a justification for telling yourself while working “this should not be happening”, which is not a good way to get work done. Then you can “get mad” as an executive, which then RUINS you as an executive.
Alanzo
Alanzo: What else?
Chris: Anyone seen the RPF issues outside COS?
Chris asked cryptically
Anyone seen the RPF issues outside COS?
Why are you asking this question. I do not understand why you are asking if anyone has seen them “outside of CofS”. If you mean are the issues on the Internet? Then yes, they are.
They are here:
http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/key-documents-sp-doctrine/rpf
If you mean something else, then please advise.
Over.
Alanzo
Thank you Alanzo. Yes, I meant where could I find the issues outside the Sea Org and this link was just what I needed.
I found the TR-s done naturally very useful. Self-Analysis is useful and fun. Also the Objectives. I enjoyed helping others with word-clearing. I loved the basic books. Interestingly,
never got caught, fixed in them. I cleared the words, so I don’t think with those words. Actually it worked for me in an interesting way: when I cleared a word, not even the concept remained, just pure theta. Thus it helped perceiving the environment clearly. And it is logical because if I am stuck with a word, it is stuck energy, false concept and less awareness. Concept, energy gone – there is free theta. There seems to be a layer of concepts in consciousness which then me, as a being, has an access to and can use or not use freely in this way. I can do this in many parts of life. Is it clear what mean to say here?
Exactly! Nice post Sheila.
Thanks Geir! Somehow it’s much more understandable for me on the screen than in a book!
Also, art! Much more perceivable and usable for me as a being because it SHOWS what can be SENSED. No effort, no thinking process involved.
There was one thing I didn’t like in scientology: too many words. I preferred the Axioms because of this. When I use the analytical mind, I like precise, concise texts.
I observed something in a recent chain of arguments between bloggers. It is the question of gradient concerning effort, emotion and thought. When there are clear thoughts on both sides, there is a free flow and exchange of ideas. If it is not so, one of the parties is stuck in either emotion, or in effort. Interestingly, it is the person, who has clear ideas who will have to undercut the gradient so as to show a mirror to the other person to get the person out of the fixed position. It can be done by finding the emotional tone, or by exercising enough effort. It seems that it is emotion and/or effort that keeps a fixed idea or belief in place.
What do you think about it?
Sounds correct to me.
This is one reason this blog is priceless: there is the possibility of fast and effective change.
Besides dopamine, friendship, learning and FUN !
Geir
The way I see it, another major shift has happened or is happening to you. If it is true, will you write about it in the blog?
Stay tuned 🙂
Thanks! What else can I do? How else can I be than always in tune? I love the “case closed”. My first awakening was when I saw the Bridge in mid-air (I wrote about it). Another was to wake up from the need to use the analytical mind. Wise people say awakening can happen in steps before the final shift! In my case this is certainly true! What a journey!
Can’t wait to see your next post!
Marianne: “Wise people say awakening can happen in steps before the final shift!”
I’m curious, Marianne, if you understood from me that I think Scientology (done as it was originally intended) takes a person through quite a few of “the steps” and moves him closer to the final shift. And I also wonder if you agree with my idea about that.
What do you think about this kind of metaphysical scientology-like abstractions?
http://www.censorthis.com/ouran/ghosthome.html
I may point that they discuss Hubbard axioms, rigidity on scales (many scales) and missinterpretations on scientology about its own issue. I am not saying anything in favor or against those claims, but I appreciated the effort on correcting and researching concepts beyond the man who brings them down to the shape of a model, wich is the inner core of Scientology’s philosophy. Before asking for a scientific method about some fixed system, what would bring some enlightenment is to find philosophical and epistemological biases on the very roots of the entire model. Wich I assume is the situation. If there any doubt or confusion up there, I can’t figure what pragmatic tools would have been measuring, or even doubting why they exists.
The handle of the human evaluation is like the OCA evaluation. I reserach it and I’ve been trained by “some L.C. guy” who were fanatic with this tool like a baby with a stick (a ruler). I found this partial conclusions so far:
– The OCA is a fixed poll, like the kind of a magazine.
– The OCA is a point-in / point-out of what Hubbard wanted on a fair scientologist.
– The OCA comes from Human Evaluation.
– The OCA works fine (paradoxically), because it accomplish its purpose.
– The OCA is a tool. Like a hammer, is solid, is a close thing, you can do whatever you want with it, but it was created for a purpose and one can figure it out by its shape. I have quite fun at measuring people and even doing reverse with the test, observing somebody and drawing the results before he even answer the questions. The results may vary on some columns (like 30 points), but I was very accurately on the general outcome. ¿WHY? Because I master a tool, a fixed tool, I programmed myself. Then their reactions to their own results, rejecting it or accepting it (most of) by identification. ¿with what? with the fixed point of view of a fair administration as postulated by Hubbard.
What’s wrong?
Who knows what they are measuring?
The claims about the OCA like a “photograph” on wich the same person could see their gains and case evolution are like the claims about the Human Evaluation like an absolute tool on wich everyone could see everyone, and everything, on everywhere, at anytime, and godlike megalomaniac absolutes. IT WORKS! You could grab a lens and see how all the infinite adapts to what are you observing, as previously stated and…it works. But…On wich direction the flow of effectiveness works?
Here is my point:
This tools (like the so many other tools a thetan may find on metaphysics researchs) are intended for the own point of view, of oneself. Not by pointing another beings with judging like, doing “bad science” interpolative, adaptative, subjective biased, dettached, cold, robotic, [insert adjectives you like]…, methods. In human technology, the observer is attached to its observation.
Which part of “AUTO-ANALYSIS” intends to classify people? On wich purpose? On wich direction? On wich personal GOAL?
This is a mess on GPM aberration on the chain of GPM “deviation” of Hubbard himself. Other way, Why would he write some things and created a fixed cult upon them?
So, what is supposed Hubbard says before died? “I won?”, “I achieved my goal and now I’m gonna back to God in a Fire Chariot?” (so, David Miscavige would be Eliseus)
I know that Einstein before dying say something to a nurse who didn’t understand german. 🙂
He said: “I am wasting time, I’m the hell out of here. There are better physicists than me at this point, and God doesnt play dice…” *dies*
The beauty of a perfect system would be its objectivity that trascends the one who postulates it, if that so, Hubbard wouldn’t be the top of his own bridge, and even himself would be classified into his own words and be judged by his own system. So, maybe I’m saying that searching the root of the GPM Scientology condition with the purpose of objective clearness would need to root out Hubbard himself like a big barrier… a very big one.
And let the light shine in!
It would be really cool if you keep the post a bit more concise 🙂
One fact injected: The OCA did not come from the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation. The OCA test predates that work by at least 10 years. It is based on, in fact almost a copy of the old JTA (Johnson Temperament Analysis).
Geir, your last paragraph may be the answer to a question you had one time as to why the results of the OCA and the COHA do not correlate. Perhaps Hubbard simply saw the OCA as workable in terms of its intended use. That would be very much in character for him – to use whatever was workable. And in this case it may have been workable in spite of that fact that it did not actually correlate with anything in Scientology, or at least not directly so.
Well, it contradicts the COHE, and its extensive use in the HCOBs is thus puzzling.
I’m not familiar with its use in HCOBs or else I just don’t recall. Do you mean to say that he does specifically correlate it with the COHE in those issues?
IIRC, yes.
Grave mistake in Hubbard’s statements of the tone scale and its lay-out below 2.0:
This was done before the deeper work on INTENTIONS that is codified in Expanded Dianetics, the L’s Rundowns, and to some extent False Purpose Rundown (where they are more efficiently handled).
One can observe people with good, kind intentions suppressed down the tone scale (including gays) and yet not have ANY of the behavioral characteristics that tend to assign evil intentions to these tone bands.
Now take a look at known suppressive persons dramatizing evil. Let’s take David Miscavige. Reading over many different accounts, this guy experiences joy at the suffering of others. 4.0 enthusiasm. I am sure you can think of other examples – at least those depicted in movies which try to get it right. People with evil intentions are up-tone when they are “winning.”
My conclusion is that the tone scale is mostly valid (I would need to make other comments to register my observations in this for certain points below 2.0) but the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation gets more unreliable as it goes below 2.0 – it does not take INTENTIONS into account.
It does an unacceptable level of A=A on level of tone and a person’s intentions.
Excellent observations
Watchful Navigator, your post brought to mind the chapter in *Science of Survival* titled “Persistence on a Given Course,” with its corresponding column on the Chart. It seems to me that the following excerpt from that chapter takes into account the factor of intention:
“The persistent individual who normally carries forward toward his goal despite environmental suppressors and deviators, in the absence of processing and during the normal course of life because of the dwindling spiral will drop down the tone scale. More of his free theta will become enturbulated and the balance will gradually shift until, most likely, there is far more enturbulated theta than free theta. The persistence of this individual may continue, but the methods he uses to gain his goal will match the various points on the tone scale on the way down.
“The individual may begin with a highly enthusiastic thrust and may through experience become less active and open about his creative and constructive efforts and may assume conservatism and caution. He may enter a stratum where he is bored with the goal and may dawdle on his way toward it. Lower than this he becomes antagonistic toward factors which do not permit him to reach his goal. Below this he becomes angry and destructive toward suppressors, and although he is still apparently going toward his goal, the majority of his time is absorbed in combating suppressors. Losing here and there in his battles, his tone will drop, and he will become more and more covert, even to the point of pretending that he is not any longer persisting toward his goal, while at the same time continuing to do so. Only when he reaches the level of apathy will he give up. When a man has been defeated too often, and too many of his dreams have been broken, he sinks into the apathy band and thereafter no longer struggles toward his goal. Truly enough, he dies with the last of his dreams.”
Thanks, Geir. And nice find, Marildi – thanks. That is quite relevant in relation to the drop in tone that follows a failing intention.
That covers only one aspect of my point on “intention,” however.
It seems that a larger or separate cycle is going on with regards to the being’s dominant intention that Hubbard failed to capture here by glibly assigning practically all evil to 1.1-1.5 on the scale. Evil is found and done by people at all levels of the scale, and the vast majority of people are relatively harmless occupying the lower end of the scale, by my observation.
Perhaps lack of this knowledge is part of the insularity of the cult? People are indoctrinated to believe it is deadly to interact with people failing at life, and so they shrink back from offering charity (thus the church is found in sharp contrast to Christian organizations giving real charity and help).
It is true that some people low on the scale are deadly to help. We all have had such experiences. But does this apply across the boards? Does it, as Hubbard implies in his writings about ridding society of 1.1’s, justify condemning all who are not doing well in life? “Process them or shoot ’em on sight” comes to mind as a shocking outburst on his part that does not seem indicated.
Later on, Hubbard introduces the idea of being suppressed – at least offering an ‘out’ for those down in life, but then offers the solution as blaming the trouble person you are connected to, rather than admitting that human conflict is inherently restimulative and requires thoughtful navigation to resolve.
More fundamentally, a person is ‘down’ on the scale because a purpose has failed. But Scientology abandoned handling one’s own goals around 1963.
Damn insightful post WN.
Some time ago, I fell across a first edition “Self Analysis” in a used book store for six bucks.
COMPLETELY different than later editions. The entire processing focus between the current edition and the first edition is totally different.
Yes, claptrap claims abound in this edition as well. Hubbard’s Hucksterism still rages.
… but …
It’s tone scale actually made better sense than the one in SOS.
It was simple, took better into account what you spoke of and with some modifications from current research can be made to be pretty useful.
I think when Hubbard expanded the tone scale in SOS, he made it too cumbersome and prone to the mistakes you mentioned. He tried to make it be the end-all-be-all instead of a simple, handy tool that wasn’t scientifically based, but could work if you practiced with it a bit.
And get this, what about adapting it to YOUR particular personality?
I think it was still prone to the errors you describe but not as much.
In fact, I think the original Self Analysis was “too good” and Hubbard changed it because it got too good of results on its own.
So instead of the original’s instructions of mocking up fake memories and processing THOSE CREATIONS, he changed it to focusing on real memories so the book would have a limited product life span.
Otherwise, people could mock up their entire “time line” and process those dreams as their own creations for free!
Wow. Looks like I got a deal! This edition is $ 500.00 on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Self-Analysis-Dianetics-Simple-Exercises-Discoveries/dp/B001GZWWDQ/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416343002&sr=1-5&keywords=self+analysis+in+dianetics
Katageek – wow – Thank You!
Hey WN, I saw your profile while snooping over at free and able about a year ago. I’m in DFW if you want to borrow the original. I’m Geir friend on Facebook. Let me know if you want to hit me up for lunch.
WIlliam Harper
Yeah, if someone rewrote the first edition, taking out all the bogus claims and adjusting the scale to align more with current science, the tool could be an effective way to measure “How one is doing” and how one is improving.
Such a simple measure dropped away VERY quickly after that though.
This Original 1952 “Self Analysis in Dianetics” is Hubbards best work IMHO. I say this in spite of the extreme claims like Dianetic auditors are going to empty all asylums.
That is IF he wrote it.
The format seems too cool for Hubbard to have come up with on his own. My guess is that another writer did this. Perhaps a real Scientologist here would know as I’m just a Scientology watcher.
Regardless, the practice of constantly measuring oneself against the original scale could give a person goals to aim for in improving their life in general. Fixed up, it could be a lifetime tool to help people assess themselves and monitor personal growth.
Going from that scale to the SOS scale makes it a LOT more cumbersome from what I can see.
Hubbard crushed his best book. And I know why.
KG: “Otherwise, people could mock up their entire “time line” and process those dreams as their own creations for free!”
Chris: My opinion is that this is what ultimately occurs and is the real root of any kind or type of “creation of human ability” that Scientology might be responsible for. Done persistently, one exercises the mind like a muscle and the mind responds positively to the rigorous use of processing as opposed to stress or atrophy. I find it hard to discuss these positive points, models if you will of which I can make use when talking to Scientologists, who immediately want to ring the bell of confirmation bias and prove what is unprovable or worse – patently false.
Hey, kg, that’s not okay. I never knew about this original SA edition – and you are just a mere “never-in”! 😀
Actually, thanks for that data. I do, however, want to note something about what you wrote here:
“So instead of the original’s instructions of mocking up fake memories and processing THOSE CREATIONS, he changed it to focusing on real memories so the book would have a limited product life span.”
From what I understand, the reason he made that change was that with further research he discovered creative processes were limited in their use in that they began to solidify the bank.
Marildi: “From what I understand, the reason he made that change was that with further research he discovered creative processes were limited in their use in that they began to solidify the bank.”
Chris: Or Hubbard may have realized that creative processing leads one completely out of Scientology as they illuminate what a person is really doing during processing. The sooner one realizes this, the sooner they are gone. This statement for me is not a conjecture. The only conjecture here on my part is my saying that Hubbard could not afford to have people running processes which strengthened their cognitive abilities. My conjecture is that he needed their epiphanies to be carefully steered along a carefully taped path. What “solidifies the bank” is the strengthening of frames of reference and creating imaginary consistencies within. That’s really solid.
Good insights. And balanced.
Hi, WN, and thanks for your meaty reply. Even if I didn’t already know you were an auditor (from your posts on other blogs), I would know it now – based not only on your knowledge but your ARC in presenting it. 🙂
SOS happens to be one of my favorite LRH books, as it contains so much of scientology in at least rudimentary form, so I will have to beat the drum for it a bit more here.
You wrote: “It seems that a larger or separate cycle is going on with regards to the being’s dominant intention that Hubbard failed to capture here by glibly assigning practically all evil to 1.1-1.5 on the scale. Evil is found and done by people at all levels of the scale, and the vast majority of people are relatively harmless occupying the lower end of the scale, by my observation.”
Your observation is probably quite right since, besides engrams, a couple of other major factors are allowed for in SOS – education and environment. Here’s another quote:
“Human conduct, in the absence of engrams, can be considered to be good, from the viewpoint of the individual and his group, as modified by the education and environment of that individual.” (SOS)
The factor of education was detailed further a couple years later in 8-80, where LRH wrote that “Social training and education [is] the sole guarantee of sane conduct.” Thus, we get the social tone vs. the actual tone. Incidentally, the two different tone levels for each individual might explain Geir’s observation that OCA results don’t match certain columns on the Chart – in other words, the OCA is supposedly a reflection of the individual’s own considerations about himself – which would align with his education/indoctrination.
Nice additional information.
I like most of SOS, too. It is packed with useful information – most of the tech is right there. Mostly only procedures have changed.
Apparently, psychs run into a similar dilemma with tests for sociopaths. Some score high even though they are not observably criminal or anti-social. They lack connection to emotional aspects of what we know as ‘conscience,’ but their social training (and perhaps deeper ‘spiritual being’ factors alluded to above as to fundamental intention) keeps them out of trouble.
In a tech film about communication (sorry – forget which) LRH shows a criminal arsonist in prison and comments in the background that missing a read or origination in a confessional can make the difference between relieving this person for the benefit of society, or not.
Despite many other differences with LRH, I have to agree with him on that one. Although he did not perfect the procedures necessarily, he demonstrated to my satisfaction (since I have audited some tough characters, myself) that it was possible to take an evil intention and discharge it – probably permanently.
Doing this kind of auditing the wrong way (sticking good people with searching out their evil, when it is not an important item in their life) has given this auditing technique and skill a bad rap. And that is a shame (the same thing happened to the Introspection Rundown).
Scientology analysis (especially the SOS chart) represents for me a big step forward in understanding human behavior, but it began to hang up on its limitations once it became fixed in KSW and then even reversed in the Sea Org. But I am sure you probably already know that.
Thanks. Great info on your part too. Including this:
“Doing this kind of auditing [confessionals] the wrong way (sticking good people with searching out their evil, when it is not an important item in their life) has given this auditing technique and skill a bad rap. And that is a shame (the same thing happened to the Introspection Rundown).”
The fact that others have perverted those invaluable pieces of tech – even if they do need refining – and changed them into a form of “Black Dianetics” is either ignored or not even known by the harshest critics of LRH. I will remember this post of yours next time the subject comes up. 😉
But I am sure you probably already know that.
Yup.
Also, WN, with respect to “Process them or shoot ‘em on sight,” I always thought LRH was simply expressing a principle rather than it being an actual or literal recommendation. He wrote [emphasis in caps is mine]:
“The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of Clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line — A TASK WHICH, INDEED, IS NOT VERY GREAT, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred — or simply QUARANTINING them [qualifying “sudden and abrupt deletion”] from the society.” (Chapter 27)
And later in the chapter, he stated:
“The processing methods which raise a person on the tone scale are so very simple to apply that one wonders, or perhaps does not wonder, at the continued insistence on destructive ‘therapies’ in institutions.”
Yeah – it’s unfortunate that this quote is sometimes used to prove harmful intent on Hubbard’s part, when I take it that he was just making a point, which probably was not meant to be taken literally.
Taken literally, it would be chilling. But I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. The proof is in the fact that the psychs were ALREADY doing this, and Scientology offered more humane and gentle treatment – (at least for the insane – but there are certainly exceptions as in the reported abuses on the ship and at Flag Land Base).
I too often see scientologists brush away what they don’t like in LRH’s writings as “not to be taken literally” while at the same time taking what they do like quire literally. But I guess that’s part of any religion…
“But I guess that’s part of any religion…”
Yup, and it is always a mistake.
Point well taken!
It is hard to know.
‘Consistency’ is called for, here (where’s Vinay?).
One point of evaluation I use (may or may not be valid) is the assumption that his early work was done with more of an enthusiasm of a fresh start (and younger man). His insouciance “shines through” in other words.
Later writings of his can get a little vengeful, and he even emphasizes (as in the opening lines to KSW re-issue 1970) that he means what he says(!)
“Later writings of his can get a little vengeful, and he even emphasizes (as in the opening lines to KSW re-issue 1970) that he means what he says(!)”
You can take it to the bank. Not to believe him is to do so at your repeated peril.
WN, in response to your last couple replies to me, yes, I do know about the reversal in the SO – I was in it for over a decade, and believe me, even in that particular period of time, there was a radical difference between the first few years I was there and the later ones.
LRH’s apparent “reversal” is something I haven’t been fully able to resolve for myself. As so many others have noted, he seemed to have deemed it necessary at a certain point in time to adopt an “us vs. them” approach.
For all I know, there may have been a “method to his madness.” LRH himself, in the early books, stated that force just begets more force – yet he also stated in the same context that force is sometimes necessary in the physical universe, which happens to be a force universe. He referred to this as a paradox (I should find that reference.)
In relation to this, recently, I’ve gotten interested in Eckhart Tolle’s teachings. Here’s part of a comment I posted recently:
————————————-
Tolle contrasts the egoic mind (the ego) with awareness or consciousness…
The egoic mind (or the ego) is described as the collection of all thoughts and emotions a person has accumulated throughout the course of life, just by virtue of being human and the indoctrination brought about through culture, education, etc. – i.e. it’s an accumulated record of all physical universe experience of any kind.
Incidentally, part of the accumulation is what he calls the “pain-body” – defined as a storage of painful emotion, which is essentially the same concept as the reactive mind, from what I gather. The egoic mind overall is simply “the mind” as opposed to the spirit (using common terminology).
Tolle’s whole message (as I understand it) is that if we can step away from the egoic mind and thereby stop identifying with it, meaning we no longer believe that this mind IS our identity…we will realize more and more that it is not who we are – and when we do so, we can then begin to increase our awareness/consciousness in life.
In fact, consciousness, presence, formlessness, stillness (some of the other terms he uses) IS who/what we really are, and this is the only absolute truth – all else is relative truth and mere illusion.
The only difference I see between these other teachings [Tolle’s and Adnashanti’s as well] and scientology is that in the others there is no individual being/thetan – they teach that we are all one.
——————————–
I would add to the above that Tolle’s “tech” is to have the individual start observing his own thoughts and emotions which arise in a stimulus-response fashion – and see himself as separate from them – he will gradually become more and more cause over them.
I actually don’t see any difference between the doingness of Tolle’s method and TR0. But LRH didn’t really emphasize TR0 in life to the degree that he perhaps should have! I see Tolle’s approach as sort of “training on the job.” 🙂
“Taken literally, it would be chilling. But I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.”
Then we groom ourselves for that “deja vu all over again.”
Excellent. Conceptually, I clay demo’d the tone scale as a conical double-(or more) helical coil with harmonics running up and down its longitudinal axis. Just saying that I find a harmonic to agree with your analysis.
Thank you, Chris.
And for the above comment on Creative Processing, as well – spot on.
And may I add mentioning my great pleasure at finally finding this group of thinkers here today.
Likewise, I’m sure! 🙂
WN, the feeling is mutual!
Also, I’d be interested in what you base your views about creative processing on, if you don’t mind getting into it.
And for everybody, here’s the latest on youtube, which I would say is relevant to this exchange:
“Published on Nov 12, 2014
–Mark Rathbun, the highest ranking whistleblower from the Church of Scientology and former Senior Executive of the Church, joins David to discuss being ambushed by Scientologists at LAX airport, his secret recording of Scientology sessions with Tom Cruise, and how he left the Church.”
What I was specifically curious about was whether it was firsthand experience that led you to the conclusion you came to. But this excerpt from a BC tape pretty well answered my question:
——————————
So therefore, creative processing…[ellipsis in original] I’ve had – I’ve had auditors come, “Why did you ever go off there, I had wonderful results with it,” you know, “Oh, this and that and the other thing and so forth.” Well, all he had to see was one guy go green when his bank started to get totally solid to say, “Well, if that happened [to] one pc out of a hundred, that would be too many times, so therefore, it’s a very dangerous process, the devil with it!” Don’t you see? And at the time it was released, I hadn’t run into that hundredth guy, don’t you see, although I had enough cases to make it look perfectly all right, ran all right on me and ran all right on anybody I audited, and then all of a sudden, started colliding with the person it didn’t run all right on. He was about one out of a hundred or something like that, you see, so we found this stray. So right away, why, we threw it away and didn’t use it any more and so forth… [SHSBC 23 Feb 65 “Level VII”]
—————————-
From the above, it would seem that the odds are pretty good – 99 out of 100 – that a pc would do well with creative processing. So if you’ve used it, I imagine it went quite well.
Just to note, while I’m at it – it’s great to have a trained and experienced auditor in a discussion. Those have been few and far between on blogs!
“Just to note, while I’m at it – it’s great to have a trained and experienced auditor in a discussion. Those have been few and far between on blogs!”
oy vey, Marildi! (sigh, then come “uptone” to phffffft!)
Here are the scales that make up the 1952 Self Analysis Chart of Emotions which is out of print. All of them were averaged to get a “tone level.” As you can see, a person could be in a LOUSY mood and still score quite high. Or a person could be a slob and still score high. It was an average. So many of the problems discussed above by WN are not as pronounced.
In SOS, tones are more absolute and caused false positives on people. This chart is more reasonable IMHO and can easily have ones own columns added to it for their life.
With THIS scale, a person’s weaknesses and strengths are laid bare and it is easy to see what has to be done to improve them. Any FRIEND could help another. For … FREE.
The modern version of this that is Science Based is the book “FYI: For Your Improvement.” That book is an amazing self-assessment tool used a lot by coaches.
Anyway, the 1952 Self Analysis Tone Scale from 0.1 to 4.0.
1. Behavior and Physiology
2. Medical Range
3. Emotion (emotional tone scale of 9 Values)
4. Sexual Behavior/Attitude Toward Children
5. Command Over Environment
6. Actual Worth Compared to Apparent Worth
7. Ethic Level
8. Handling of Truth
9. Courage Level
10. Speech: Talks/Speech: Listens
11. Subjects Handling of Written or Spoken Comm When Acting as a Relay Point
12. Reality (Agreement)
13. Ability to Handle Responsibility
14. Persistence on a Given Course
15. Literalness o Reception of Statements
16. Method Used by Subject to Handle Others
17. Hypnotic Level
18. Ability to Experience Present-Time Pleasure
19. Your Value as a Friend
20. How Much Others Like You
21. State of Your Possessions
22. How Well You are Understood
23. Potential Success
24. Potential Survival
All or most of these were “Real World” and practical skills. The scales had specific values like:
Column #21. State of Your Possessions
4.0 In Excellent Condition
3.5 In Good Condition
3.0 Fairly good
2.5 Shows Some Neglect
2.0 Very Neglected
1.5 Often Broken/Bad Repair
1.1 Poor. In Poor Condition
0.5 In Very Bad Condition Generally
0.1 No Realization of Possession
With such a specific scale a person could change the quality of their possession and go “up.” I don’t think the current scale has this one, but I could be wrong and I’m not going to look it up. Sorry.
“Last week, my stuff was a crappy 1.1 Today, it’s 3.5. By next month it’s 4.0!”
The point is that the chart had CLEAR, SPECIFIC AND MORE MEASURABLE TARGETS than latter versions by Hubbard or Miscaviage. A person could SEE their life go up with measurable criteria. Reaching a “4.0” was actually DOABLE for someone with some hard work and JUST a book.
But … no extra revenue in that.
Precisely KG. When we locate Hubbard on his own chart, it is not flattering.
Yeah, I think you are right Chris.
I’m guessing the writer that came up with Self Analysis was Derrick Ridgeway. His name appears on the bottom of the first edition’s Title Page. It also appears to be published by him.
Anybody know of a Derrick Ridgeway?
The Spine also is printed
L. Ron Hubbard – Self Analysis in Dianetics – Ridgeway
Not “Ridgeway Publishing” but Ridgeway.
So why the first edition is so good is NOT likely the Result of LRH. But the latter editions? OH YEAH. .
Oops. Wrong. “Ridgeway Publishing” is inside the cover. Could still be a self-published though.
Kg, you got me curious. I found online a list of 1953 LRH publications, with the following data about the book *Self Analysis*:
“Published by the Hubbard Association of Scientologists, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 1953. This was a modified version of the original Self Analysis and is now out of print (although its text is contained in the Technical Bulletins volumes). The original 1951 edition of Self Analysis is in use.”
http://www.religio.de/therapie/sc/lrhbook/53.html
The current edition of SA does give the original publication date as 1951, as stated above. But it’s strange that your version says 1952 instead of 1953…
Btw, the column heads of the chart that you listed out is the same as those in the current copy of SA, although the processes are different. But per the above quote, those processes can be found in the tech vols, if anyone is interested.
Check out the entry on amazon above. It’s a DIFFERENT TITLE and lists a date of 1952. The first two words are the same but it ends there. It has a lot more questions, is thinner, and has a sample session with a friend. I also think this was printed in the UK in 1952.
You are right. I also found the quote below in a list of publications that was in the *What is Scientology?* book (the version that was published in 1979). I was going to copy and paste it but any CoS sites prevent copying – so I just now typed it out. I’ve used stars [*] around titles which were in italics, since I haven’t bother to learn ow to do that yet:
*Self Analysis, A Simple Self-Help Volume of Tests and Processes Based on the Discoveries Contained in Dianetics*. This book was modified by L. Ron Hubbard in 1953 for creative processing and called *Self Analysis in Scientology in America*. The original version is, however, the one used currently. Published by the International Library of Arts and Sciences, Wichita, Kansas, August 1951. Translations: Danish, Dutch, French, German Italian Spanish Swedish.”
Click to access 1979-WIS(materials%20list).pdf
.
Note to Geir – I didn’t get a notification for the above post of katageek’s but just saw in the Recent Comments list that he had posted a comment. So this is still happening, where notifications aren’t going out. Would be great if you could fix that.
Well, Amazon seems to have made a liar out of themselves:
http://www.amazon.com/Self-Analysis-Scientology-Self-Help-Exercises-Based-Discoveries/dp/B00460UVKO
Btw, are you going to sell your copy now, since it appears to be authentically LRH? 😛
You could get over $500, apparently. Or you could just keep it as an investment.
Click on that “book cover” and you’ll see that it says 1953 on this one.
p.s. to Geir – My comment above had no email notification either, even though I’ve been getting them for even my own posts because of having changed to a different email address since I posted on this thread. It’s not on the Recent Comments list either, JFYI.
Sooo … three different titles for the SAME book?
SELF ANALYSIS BOOK TITLE # 1: First Edition and US copyright 1951 – The Original
SELF ANALYSIS BOOK TITLE #2: London First Edition by Derricke Ridgeway Publications and US copyright 1952 – my tattered copy)
SELF ANALYSIS BOOK TITLE #3: Rework of 1952 London Edition for Scientology in America (First Edition and Copyright 1953?).
And then we’re back to the 1951 version.
Okay. This is officially wasted time.
Okay, Derricke Ridgeway was probably not a contributor of original content and Hubbard wrote Self Analysis as far as I can tell.
The Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation, upon closer examination, reveals a fascistic “applied philosophy’: in the pages of Science of Survival it’s made plain that anyone who refuses processing, and remains in opposition to the wishes of L. Ron Hubbard (“low toned”), should have no rights, be removed from society and/or disposed of quietly and without sorrow.
The seeds of what Scientology became in the 1960s, and later, can be found in the early 1950s.
Yes – good point. The seeds were there from the very beginning.
Although note that the Group Dianetics essay of Jan 51 (as well as an earlier lecture on the subject and also the opening note in the original Dianetics book by Dr. Joseph Winter) was a powerful argument against authoritarianism and fascism. And the characteristics listed at the top of the tone scale stand as stable data against fascist thinking and were very enlightened for that day.
This duality in Hubbard’s character went on for years, with the freedom-loving, anti-authoritarian approach dominating for most of the time – (vigorous opposition to the “Siberia Bill” being one example).
Starting in mid-1963 (Jack Horner says a militant streak came and went that year – Roger Boswarva points to the abandonment in May 63 of own goals for GPM processing) and really picking up steam with the release of KSW and Ethics Codes in 1965, authoritarian-fascism won the day and soon the Sea Org was born as its expression in a human institutional form.
A good source for the process observed where Hubbard flipped to the dark side, is in the Alan Walter account called The ESMB Posts, and hosted on paulsrabbitt.com
“The seeds of what Scientology became in the 1960s, and later, can be found in the early 1950s.”
Sober and objective evaluations of the written materials seems to repeatedly come to this conclusion.
Here is an indy Mansontologist who is getting married to her prophet. Why is she marrying this man? Well, it’s all about ATWA, the Mansonetics’ tetrahedron of life (even though they have never called it a Tetrahedron) … at 2:15 on the video. . .
TRUE BELIEVER: “Sure he wasn’t perfect, but his TEACHINGS! OMG! They changed my life!”
Yeah. It hurts. I was this grrl once.
Oh, how I could justify my Jesus!
It is a study in the realism with which we experience our abstractions. Valkov, time for you to chime in!
… channelling Valkov …
“The Golden Rule! It changed my life! So what if Jesus wasn’t perfect…”
thud …. thud … thud …
Let me show you my “I’m Stupid” sign …
“They talk many times per week and she physically visits him every Saturday.” Better than a Sea Org schedule for sure!
I know right? And he can never fail her as a spouse because he is never getting out to get the opportunity.