The past two weeks have been the busiest ever on this blog. I have been blogging like crazy and some 4000 people have been reading. Lots and lots of comments. And through the many concurrent discussions on half a dozen threads, I have seen a shift in how people here view Scientology. Save for a few commenters, the majority seem to have expressed a rather pragmatic view on Scientology. That Scientology as a whole is indefensible and that one must use what valuable tools there are, combined with any other tools, to serve an individual’s own goals and purposes. That it is wise to not abide by Hubbard’s own goals for you and instead seek to fulfill your own.

Personally, I have clearly expressed that I am not interested in salvaging Scientology as a subject. I want to instead focus on the personal goals of those crossing my paths – using whatever tools needed to help them reach those.

It would be interesting to hear from you what you consider to be the reason for this shift in atmosphere (or if I’m totally off the mark here).

I have had this idea that it should be possible to improve Scientology through public discussions. That discussions on this blog could be used to sift the good from the bad until we end up with elements that are worth proper testing.

But my idea was misguided – as evident from recent discussions.

There is no hope for improving Scientology through public discussion. The only hope there can ever be for Scientology as a subject is via strict scientific testing. Because discussions in the presence of beliefs break the hope for rational outcomes.

For Scientology to survive as a positive contribution to Man, it needs its valuable parts properly validated. There is now 63 years since Hubbard got the show on the road. And today the number of Scientologists worldwide is less than 40000. It is an abysmal state for this body of knowledge. One may argue that the Church of Scientology is all bad and has done nothing but destroying any chance for expansion of this subject. But there has always been splinter groups that could have expanded outside of the church. And especially in the last decade since the church has stopped bothering those who practice it freely. And even the free use of Scientology does not invoke any visible expansion.

Something serious needs to be done to salvage the good in Scientology – the good that I personally have experienced in so many ways. I have a lot to thank Scientology for, and I would like others to have similar gains as mine. But at the rate we are seeing today, the vast majority of people on this planet will never have a chance to experience it. Not until the subject wanders off into oblivion.

Instead of playing this minor game where everyone looses – I believe proper scientific testing is the only way to ensure all those who can benefit from Scientology may have a chance to do so.

And so this blog returns to a place for interesting discussions with no overall purpose and a safe sounding board for many, at least until I change my mind about that too.

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:

Because die hard proponents are so blind.

It goes like this:

• Hubbard makes outlandish claims of Scientology’s perfection, infallibility and being the Only True Path.
• Someone counters the claims by finding errors in the work
• Hubbard and the church goes defensive by attacking
• The critic tries to enforce the criticism

As long as there are proponents of Scientology that refuses to see its obvious faults, there will be vehement critics.

If Scientologists would instead openly admit faults in Scientology, the polarization would subside and more constructive discussions on the subject may ensue.

There is less polarization where there is more chill. Witness Islam vs. Buddhism.