Emotions III: The Tone Scale

Someone posted here once a lecture reference where L. Ron Hubbard pronounced that ‘action’ and ‘games’, were the places to aim for in terms of chronic emotion or state of consciousness (see Real Emotions for how Scientology tends to collapse the two ideas).  The idea was that the top of the scale ‘serenity of beingness’ was far too boring for a being to stay with for very long. For those who made those ‘emotions’ their chronic targets, or their aspired to states of consciousness, here is something to think about.  Games and Action are not emotions.  They are activities.  One could and does engage in ‘games’ and ‘action’ at every level of emotion. The next higher ‘emotion’ on the Scientology emotional tone scale, Postulates, too is not an emotion – and like ‘games’ and ‘action’ is engaged in during all manner of actual emotion.  While ‘Serenity’ may well be an emotion, ‘serenity of beingness’ is probably something else entirely (more on that at another time).  Perhaps the placement of activities on the emotional tone scale contributed to some of the confusion that occurs in Scientology with respect to the role and purpose and worth of emotion.

This begs the question, are there emotions higher than exhilaration (perhaps the highest Scientology tone scale position that is fairly sure to be an emotion)?  I think it is a worthwhile exercise for people to work out for themselves how the emotional tone scale should or could or can be logically and intuitively seen to be.  That is particularly so for those who have set their life goals around the achievement of the non-emotions placed at the top of the Scientology tone scale. It can be a liberating exercise.  I have done a lot of work on it myself – by self-observation and observation of others.  I share some of my notes on it below.  This sharing is not for the purposes of indoctrinating or selling an idea.  Instead it is provided in order to stimulate thought and conversation and input.  The plain type items accompanied by numbers are from the original Hubbard Tone Scale In Full.  The italicized typed items are tones on the existing scale that I question as being emotions in the first place (as noted above).  The bold-faced, italicized entries are emotions I added by observation in their relative positions to the existing Tone Scale In Full.

 

Bliss, Pan-equilibrium (Non-Duality)

Serenity, equilibrium (Justice)

40.0  Serenity of  Beingness                                          Know

Compassion (Responsibility)

Care  (Nurturing)

Empathy (Transcendence of ego/pan-emotion)

Appreciation (Acknowledgment)

Release (Letting go)

30.0  Postulates                                                                Not Know

22.0  Games                                                                       Know About

20.0  Action                                                                         Look

8      Exhilaration                                                              Plus Emotion

6      Aesthetics

4      Enthusiasm

3.5  Cheerfulness

3.3  Strong Interest

3.0  Conservatism

2.9  Mild Interest

2.8  Contented

2.6  Disinterested

2.5  Boredom

2.4  Monotony

190 responses to “Emotions III: The Tone Scale

  1. Brilliant!
    This brings the tone scale back a guidepost to moving up a little higher. It makes it a personal tool again, to be used for myself to see where I’m at, not on others to dominate them. I could never figure out how postulates, games or action were emotions or had certain wave characteristics. I did used to think Serenity of Beingness was an emotion. Looking forward to your article on that one!

    However, I also feel that such scales tend to be two-dimensional in that people can be at so many levels on different subjects at any given time. Maybe we do only feel one at a time and then many in extremely fast succession, but… I can be angry about the church, frustrated about not having fully let go yet, obsessed and sick of reading about it, exhilarated about this new journey, bored with my work… all at once. Scales are a guideline but not the truth. Life is messy, it is not all neat and clinical. Use the scale in a session if it really helps the practitioner to help the client, yes.

    It might also help to know how on Earth LRH arrived at the wavelengths for the various tones. Is this information available?

    • Letting go, I think you make a very significant point here. A lot of the ultimate value that Scientology has for any one individual depends on how its idea are being USED. Yes, Scientology scales are guidelines. Any one of them CAN be a truth for an individual or not be. Or any one scale can be a partial truth. Any given Scientology datum can be looked at, contemplated, accepted, rejected; such datum can provide countless cognitions and help one understand life and play the game of life to more desirable results for the individual doing the looking/cogniting/acting. None of the scales need be accepted as fixed, total truths, or truths for everyone. I like what Marty has added to the tone scale. I can look over what he has done, decide for myself what meets what I have experienced in life and decide what is my truth. Even if I should reject one of his ideas or accept it partially, I benefit from the act of looking and deciding. And maybe I don’t even have enough experience to look at to decide full about a suggested datum, so now I can check it out in life and see if it works for me as a truth.

      This is free thought, free postulate, free viewpoint. It is theta action on a high level. When Scientology was moved strongly in the direction of fixed “in concrete” datums (when Ron veered away from his early 50s talks on education and the right of an individual to inspect and reject data), it moved slowly from dealing with individuals in a very high affinity way to dealing with people as mest driven (considering them as too reactive to betruly independent beings). And yes, moving AWAY from compassion, care, love, caring, empathy.

      Always good to be moving TOWARD those things, whether they are called “emotions” or something else.

      • Thanks for your thoughts. I agree, particularly on an individual’s perspective and use of tools, although I am not sure about the datums and cognitions. Right now I feel that, removed from their god-like status, LRH’s observations are his viewpoint. Not necessarily fact or truth. You can use the data to align life, but also use other data from other people, “true” or “false”, to align life. The thetan may basically be an abstract model to think with an intangible concept, and as such may not be entirely accurate.
        My point being, is it better to live in a fortress of stable data or to live constantly in the question? Could not the question be a stabla datum? Twice in the last year I’ve experienced a sudden revelation, where I realised I did not actually KNOW things I previously considered fundamental truths. Each instance has left me knowing that I didn’t know in that area. Instead of instantly grasping new data, I have been happy to have “knowing I don’t know” as “stable data” if you will. It feels liberating, and I feel more relaxed about other people having their viewpoint, as I don’t feel the need (in that area) to “make them see the error of their ways and convert”😉 I like this discourse and I like all the viewpoints I see here. They enrich my life.

        I believe that technically, anyone can take any datum/tool and see/use it from any viewpoint. This makes life so incredibly variable. It also makes organisation and “undiluted” application of the datums less easy, I guess.

        Compassion, caring, nurtering, love, bliss… those I feel instinctively drawn to, so I will move toward them. Right now I wouldn’t want to speak for others and make it their truth and claim it is so, whether they agree or not.

        So the above is just a reflection of where I stand now. It is my question, not my truth – I really don’t know what that is😉

        Thanks, Marty, for pointing the way. What I read on this blog inspires me to ask new questions and get new answers – none of which are necessarily THE truth.

        P.S.: I really would love to hear of any sources (LRH or otherwise) where emotions have been measured as having a specific frequency. Actually measured and demonstrated and recorded and findings published (I am already aware of HeartMath, is there anyone else who has done this?).

      • Joe, please accept my apologies. Re-reading your response, I realised you described the questioning viewpoint very well. Thanks for that.

        I guess we need stable data, but I enjoy living without it right now🙂

  2. Extending from a comment I made on your first post about Emotions, that they are a *quality*, or perhaps *frequency* of energy vibration the Being exerts towards achievement of some goal or concept, I would contend that Postulates, Games, and even Action could be thought of as appropriate descriptives; maybe not the best, but they could work. Yes, those words also apply to activities, but I would submit they need not be limited to only that. Also, in my universe anyway, the sequence from Appreciation to Serenity, goes: Care- Compassion- Empathy. I really like the Equilibrium- Pan-Equilibrium too. Good insights.

  3. In 1959 there was the Emotional Tone Scale Expanded, which went from 40.0 to -8.0. But the final tone scale did not have the word “emotion” in it. The name of it is “The Tone Scale in Full” and it goes from 40.0 to -40.0. It’s plotted against the Know to Mystery Scale – which shows that emotions start at 8.0 Exhilaration and continue down to -1.3 Regret. In fact Emotion is broken down to Plus Emotion, starting at 8.0, and Minus Emotion, which starts at 2.0.

    Just below the emotion range is the band of Effort and all the Know to Mystery levels below that. Above the range of emotion are the higher levels of the Know to Mystery Scale: Know, Not-know, Know about, and Look,

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks. As noted in previous posts, you have contributed to the notion that Scientology attempts to attain toward an emotionless state of existence.

      • I don’t see how that scale implies one can’t have emotions, or needs to be fixed at a certain level or range.

        • martyrathbun09

          Keep studying

          • Marty, I’m not as fixed in my viewpoint about Scientology as it might look. In fact, I am highly interested and willing to look at LRH references as well as non-LRH data that contradicts the understandings I’ve gotten thus far on the basics in Scientology. Seriously, I have no wish or need to hang on to some idea that isn’t the way it actually works in life.

            This reminds me, I’m about 3/4 of the way through your Memoirs book and have greatly appreciated how well you documented the changes in LRH’s viewpoint and writings as the years went on. Your whole experience is truly amazing! And just that fact that you could organize all that detail and get it down in writing is amazing – let alone how polished as a writer you are in itself. I would be surprised if as time goes on your book isn’t recognized by others besides former Scientologists, as a significant part of the story of the Scientology movement, and as having great insight into it. I was going to wait until I finished the book to acknowledge you in a post, but I’ve read more than enough now and figured it’s as good a time as any. An outstanding contribution and great writing to boot.🙂

            • martyrathbun09

              Sorry for being curt with you. As I noted to somebody who noted that, playing the quote Ron to discredit another Ron from another era game is precisely the game I am trying to point out Scientology is rigged to be. What about the emotions I have posited?

              • Now I duplicate what you were saying to me. I didn’t think that Marildi was trying to actually “dead agent” Ron with his own writings like you said. I get what you were saying now. It is true that Scientologists often do not notice that Ron evolved and integrated quite a bit himself as he lived his life and developed Scientology. He also made some mistakes and omitted things from time to time some of which he noticed and acknowledged, and many of which he was able to correct before he kicked off. Some which he probably did not. His work may not have be completed, but it is his work and we should all hope to do so well.

                • martyrathbun09

                  So, do you consider that the evolution of the work died with his death then?

                  • I started posting here about a year and a half ago. And my view then was I think it would be valuable if someone continued to evolve this subject. Of course relegating the angry delusional dangerous stuff to history and advancing the spiritual side of therapy.
                    It’s going to happen anyway as we are moving in that direction. Soul consciousness is quite accepted in many spheres.
                    But it is also my opinion that the totality of Ron’s psychological state must be confortably dealt with without flinching or denial or needing to defend or attack back.
                    These reactions to any constructive criticism will only reinforce the perception of ‘old school attack scientology’ and engender mistrust.

                    Good luck in your quest!

                  • Sorry about the delay in answering. Some days I am only on line once per day.
                    Before I answer your question, I have one for you:
                    Do you consider that LRH died when his body died?
                    Knowing you as much as I do, I am reasonably sure that this is a rhetorical question. I only ask it to provoke thought and clarify my answers to your questions.

                    Now here are the answers to your questions for me:
                    My short answer is “no”, his work did not die when his body died. And I would be very surprised if he was not at this moment working to improve what he has wrought. However, it is HIS work. The name of his work is “Scientology”. It is LRH’s work.

                    My long answer is: Other people can and do develop their own works, but in my opinion they should not call them Scientology. Doing that would be disrespectful to a great genius. It would be kind of like adding a chapter to Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica as if it was somehow part of that genius’s work.
                    For the most part, you have not done this. You have said that you no longer call what you do “Scientology”. I am not sure if I think it was necessary for you to go that far because from what I have heard you are one hell of a skilled Scientology practitioner. I think it is sufficient just to identify what is and what ain’t LRH.
                    For myself, when studying Scientology I like to clearly separate what is LRH and what is something else or someone else. Ron did make room in his tech for people to write APPLICATIONS for use by others and issue them. These issues were called Board Technical Bulletins (BTBs) and were authorized by HCOPL 24 Sept 1970R, “Issues, Types of”. There were quite a few of these in circulation at one time until DM unilaterally decided to cancel that line with his statement “There are no more BTBs” at an event when latest Tech Volumes were released. Ron also recognized BTBs in 1978 as legitimate source of Tech in the bulletin Tech Correction Roundup while at the same time stating that BTBs do not override HCOBs. Also, Scientologists were not REQUIRED to follow them.

                    And of course people are also free to originate their own stuff and call it whatever they please.
                    So that’s my LONG answer.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Got it. To answer your question, I am not awaiting for Ron to re-appear and make any further pronouncements. And even if he did, I wouldn’t withdraw my essay.

                    • OK.
                      I didn’t ask if you were waiting for Ron to return to finish his work.
                      And didn’t suggest that you should “withdraw” your essay.
                      I don’t advise that you do either one.
                      I was just commenting upon your thoughts about the subject of Scientology, just like you were commenting upon Hubbards thoughts.
                      Take it easy. It’s all good.

          • Warren Marston

            Marildi is entirely correct, but leaves out the fact that the Tone Scale in Full has to do with the thetan, not the body. The body is always between 0.0 and 4.0, and is incapable of levels outside of that range. Thus the thetan could be in Games, while the body is in Fear, Boredom, or any other level in its narrow range. A Real Scientologist would fully experience his own level and that of his body.

            The italicized “emotions” you inserted in the Scale ( justice, compassion, responsibility, care, nurturing, empathy, appreciation, letting go, etc.) are not emotions, but rather abilities. They should be columns similar to those on the Chart of Human Evaluation.

            The so-called unemotionalism of the followers of Corrupted Scientology is really a combination of the body being at 1.3 No Sympathy, while the thetan is out of valence and therefore at Unexistence.

            • The emotions you posit could very well extend what LRH worked out. They are things I’ll want to think more about. I admit that a lot of how I view the tone scale is based on LRH’s statements about it, which I consider to be a set of directions telling where to look and when I do so I find it poretty workable. I also have my own intuitive sense about tones, which is that we as beings do “vibrate” at given frequencies. both chronically (our typical, usual, common wavelength) and acutely (momentary).

              I think the constrictions of language has a lot to do with why LRH called a certain band of wavelengths “emotions”, as well as why he singled out and named the most common emotions and left out others. That could be the reason why when a person is at a higher level than the emotion band and what is normally called an “emotion” by the culture we’re grooved into, it doesn’t seem right to call it an emotion. But probably every one of the technical definitions of “emotion” could fit tones that aren’t actually in the emotion band:

              EMOTION, 1. a response by a wave-length affecting an individual or another which produces a sensation and a state of mind. (SH Spec 83, 6612C06) 2. emotion is three things—engramic response to situations, endocrine metering of the body to meet situations on an analytical level and the inhibition or the furtherance of life force. (Scn 0-8, p. 66) 3 . a manifestation, a condition of beingness which is the connector between thought and effort. The tone scale is a direct index of emotion. (5203CM05B) 4 . the intention to exert effort bridges into the body by emotion. In other words, the physical-mental bridge is emotion. Emotion is motion. (5203CM04B) 5. emotion could be called the energy manifestation of affinity. As used in Dn, emotion could be called the index of the state of being. In the English language, “emotional” is often considered synonymous with “irrational.” This would seem to assume that if one is emotional one cannot be reasonable. No more unreasonable assumption could possibly be made. (SOS, p. 48) 6 . this word is redefined in Dn and is given an opposite for comparison, “misemotion.” Previously the word emotion was never satisfactorily defined. Now it is defined as an organism manifestation of position on the tone scale which is rationality appropriate to the present time environment and which truly represents the present time position on the tone scale. Rational effect. (SOS Gloss)

              • Oops. The above was a reply to Marty.

                Warren, yes that’s right, I was talking about the thetan tone, not the body plus thetan.

              • Hi marildi. Your post finally brought to a head some feelings(emotions? no.) I have had about the Scientology Tech Dictionary. I think it has been a kind of stop gap piece of work that sometimes may cause more problems than it solves. This is because it is largely composed of brief snippets from different lectures over a period of time and thus involves LRH’s changing perspective on things.

                I like the book myself and it often is right on the mark and does clarify things for me. But sometimes it is a hodge-podge of definitions taken out of the context of the lectures they were snipped from. Then it is up to us to take a fresh look. I think “emotion” as used by LRH is one of those words. I appreciate your wading through all those definitions seeking the clarity of it.

                • martyrathbun09

                  Exactly. The source of a lot of mental dissonance for Scientologists who are trained to differentiate every definition from any other.

                  • Marty, the definition of emotion in the Tech Dictionary that may apply to the OP and resolve some of the issues is the first one: “a response by wave-length affecting an individual or another which produces a sensation and a state of mind”. I would say that even the tones above and below the emotion band on the Tone Scale in Full would fit into this idea of “a sensation” plus ” a state of mind”.

                • Hi Val,

                  I agree with your comments about the Tech Dictionary and you inspired an idea of the approach to it that should probably be taken by Independents – which is to say that it shouldn’t even be called a dictionary! As you indicated, it’s actually just a conglomeration of quotes from LRH lectures and writings where he made some comment or statement about the word, and most of those quotes aren’t even actual definitions. Thus they should be viewed as you said, as “snippets” of information, which can then be followed up by going to the reference itself as needed.

                  You are so right about the fact that the context and time period need to be taken into consideration. Actually, this is a good example of what LRH meant when he stated in “The Misunderstood Word Defined” HCOB that one of the ways a word or symbol can be misunderstood has to do with its “status”.

                  I have to say, though, that as regards the definition of “emotion” I didn’t find that any of them were in conflict with each other or that were “outdated” by the concepts of later research – except for the fact that the emotion band was differentiated on the latest scale to have come out, The Tone Scale in Full. Even so, I go back to the idea I expressed in my comment above as regards it being more of a function of language and culture to consider that a certain range of wavelengths is essentially different from other wavelengths on the scale.

                  • What you said is an excellent observation and excellent advice for use of the Tech Dictionary:
                    “As you indicated, it’s actually just a conglomeration of quotes from LRH lectures and writings where he made some comment or statement about the word, and most of those quotes aren’t even actual definitions. Thus they should be viewed as you said, as “snippets” of information, which can then be followed up by going to the reference itself as needed.”

              • Hi,

                It seems to be turning into a bit of a revelation (at least for me) that there needs to be a concerted effort to dig quite deeply into the information to bring out some important “further” information in Scientology.

                And there needs to be a lot of serious data comparison both within and outside of itself.

                It reminds me of an earlier discussion here, where it was noted that love was defined by Hubbard as being either very high on the tone scale (admiration + sympathy) or very low (the sympathy component alone).

                The presence of love in Scientology seems to be a question on a lot of people’s minds and probably something important to emphasise. But in order to find just that one definition, you have to find a couple of lines within hours of a series of lectures on just one subject!

                And yet it may be just the thing to make something “click” for an individual.

                The problem is that some real nuggets of information, sometimes probably quite vital, are so deeply buried or scattered throughout the different lectures that you’d have to be very well-studied to even find them.

                I think this is a problem in that a lot of things haven’t really been brought out in a way that they could have been. Some of the codifications, and the idea of a singular “definitive presentation” has, over time, contributed to a culture of intellectual laziness and insularity.

                And despite all that is known and all of the attested benefits as well as various disputations, I actually don’t believe that a full picture of Scientology has emerged yet.

                • Good observation.
                  And add to this, that the culture of Corporate Scientology is markedly minted by the people who run the organisation.
                  They very often don’t know shit. They are operating not on a intelectual basis, but by mimicry.
                  This is, when your senior is not versed in tech he will emphasize only what he himself has understood or what he thinks is workable because his seniors act or speak a certain way.
                  And also, Tech is mixed with data from policy letters and other LRH resources.
                  Imagine what happens to the culture if you have someone like DM at the helm. I don’t think he really understands Scientology from a deeper look or from a spiritual angle.
                  Thus, although there are diamonds in the tech, the resulting culture is a different thing.
                  It’s nothing new in the field of religion.
                  Many Christians don’t understand the basics of the gospel. Their culture is coined by the organization. History is proof for this.

                  • SKM,

                    Yes, I also think that the most difficult thing is that there hasn’t been very much in the way of breathing room.

                    I believe this to have been the case even with the formulation of the Freezone. Once again, Scientology was re-directed down a different pathway altogether without much of a chance to be taken “as it is”. However percipient they were in noticing the dark clouds forming, they just weren’t able to carry things through sensibly.

                    So there really hasn’t been much luck except for perhaps the early times and possibly whatever lies ahead.

                    I agree that it is quite similar to what happened in Christianity and its early councils. It looks to be very hard to establish a religion on this planet without an extreme amount of resistance, distortion, and suffering. And more often than not, the manifestation of ignorance takes hold through its force and overwhelms the teachings of wisdom.

                    It’s an interesting debate to talk about what the Tech is mixed with, what it can be separated from, and so forth. I have also seen how LRH’s own opinions and personal viewpoints are adopted and parroted blindly as though they are somehow cornerstones of the faith – apparently a “take it from me” on any subject is enough for people to allow someone else to do their opining for them.

                    What this leads to is a “there’s no real use in looking there; I’ve already heard about it” attitude. It stifles the knowledge of any subject you could ever want to understand and is actually anti-intellectual.

                    • “I believe this to have been the case even with the formulation of the Freezone. Once again, Scientology was re-directed down a different pathway altogether without much of a chance to be taken “as it is”. “
                      Agree, that’s why I said often on this blog and different places, that it is important to “go exterior” to Scientology’s time track. Just look at the teaching as it is, or, as you see it – independently from all other meanings, reports, experiences, cultural idoctrination.
                      I can see you do it to a large degree. It’s fascinating to read your ideas on this blog.

                    • Thanks SKM. 🙂

                      I like the idea of going exterior in that sense – and just looking at the material that LRH gave alone. That’s a great way of looking at things. I do want to know Scientology as it was originally conceived.

                      I think that he did go through periods of startling insight and inspiration – anything which comes from that is sure to be valuable, or at least something important to learn from.

                      I am not beyond comparing and contrasting though. 🙂

                    • Nice viewpoint, RainBodhi.
                      How we view (and value) Scientology is highly dependent on our experience with its results.
                      The Scientology Experience is different for each person, as it were.
                      And also, how we use Scientology is very much dependent on ourself.

                      Scientology was “work in progress” and it never reached the state of completion.
                      Maybe therein lies its biggest blessing. We have something to figure out ourselves.
                      I think the final test is, will the experience make you a better person?
                      And this does not depend on Scientology but only on the single individual and what he will do with the data he recieved.

                • Hi rainbodhi,

                  Yes, as with any other body of knowledge, “further” information than what is in Scientology should absolutely be brought out. And I would imagine that if LRH had lived longer (and perhaps also, that personal circumstances for him had been different), he would have continued his research and improved upon Scientology himself. He was dedicatedly doing that for a number of decades.

                  I was taken struck what you wrote here: “And despite all that is known and all of the attested benefits as well as various disputations, I actually don’t believe that a full picture of Scientology has emerged yet.”

                  Like you, I continue to find valuable insights, not just with lectures or writings that I get into for the first time but with the ones I’ve studied before. When I re-study them I get a lot more out of them than I had.

                  I do hope that you continue to contribute to the “full picture of Scientology”. It may very well be that those whose view of it is brand new can see much more and more clearly than those of us who experienced it with the CoS, even in the earlier years.

                  ARC, marildi🙂

                  • Correction on 2nd paragraph, which begins “I was taken struck what you…”. It should read: “I was struck by what you…”

                  • Hi. 🙂

                    I made that statement because, even with its wealth of information, there is still a lot to encompass and address.

                    I see Scientology as working from viable spiritual principles not dissimilar to other eastern philosophies (not just buddhism but also samkhya, etc). It has its own particular views, positions, tenets and so on. And, it has undercurrents about whether we are (or should be) “all one” or not, whether final realisation is individuated, and so on.

                    And it should be able to be examined and debated on that level.

                    As to what people are actually obliged to accept of these views, LRH outlined a system for dealing with this early on by creating a designation of “Para-Scientology” for things that are speculative for the individual until experience is gained. It could’ve also been extended to speculation surrounding other religions. That never seemed to take hold as a system, but sticking to it could’ve solved a lot of problems and changed perceptions on the subject quite strongly.

                    Regardless, the whole thing’s only been around for 60 years. Some of the most important final materials were released less than 30 years ago. The ACCs were released around 3 years ago. There’s a lifetime of content just in those. Also, you see things like “the best teaching on ARC ever given” – in a lecture first recovered and released only fairly recently, too.

                    So from that point of view, perhaps some of the most profound and edifying knowledge is yet to be fully and openly presented.

                    • Hi again rainbodhi,

                      I really like the point you bring up that LRH at one point categorized the majority of what he had discovered and developed under the heading of “para-Scientology”. As you probably know, that was in Creation of Human Ability, for one place. Basically, it was up to the individual (pc) to determine for himself what was true and real, by direct perception – via auditing. That’s closer to Buddhist “tech”, from the little I know about it.

                      As for the general subject of “all one”, “individual soul”, etc, I personally had to work a good bit on differentiating “theta” from “thetan”. And in my experience as a word clearer I found that it wasn’t uncommon for students to feel they didn’t quite grasp the difference in concepts. Both words are defined as Static although in some places LRH indicates that a thetan is close to. but not, a Static. In fact, in the Phoenix lectures he says a thetan is “in a very, very small amount of mass.”

                      Here’s a quote I came across not that long ago that seemed to resolve it fully for me:

                      “NOTE: A thetan located in a space is less than theta itself, but a thetan located is greater than Homo sapiens.” (COHA)

                      It also occurred to me that the above aligns with the Factors, specifically the one that states “The first action of beingness is to assume a viewpoint.”

                      Anyway, that was my cognition – it may not work for everybody!🙂

                    • Hi Marildi,

                      Please excuse me for the slow response, I haven’t been able to access my computer very well, lately. There have been some good posts coming up here lately, too.

                      It looks as though your experience as a word clearer has really paid off. 🙂 Your comments about theta vs thetan are helpful and I’ve noticed something similar going on with that, as well as with other topics. I think this is why fuller explanations require quite a lot of piecing together from here and there to get the complete gist of something.

                      I’m also finding the tech dictionary to be quite helpful. I’m using the one from 1975 and there are some interesting selections there. 🙂

                      Regarding Para-Scientology, there are earlier references from 1953 (quite an open and fertile period in my view) wherein he basically stated that all unobserved phenomena (often paranormal, but even including engrams) do not belong on the main line. That’s actually quite a radical position, although he did further qualify it as mostly being in relation to the individual. And again I question how much of that had permeated.

                      It also does pose a potential problem when coming to the advanced materials, even if they turn out to be 100% true, since one begins to be expected to accept data more readily without question. Of course there are a couple of caveats, as by that time one should have had a reasonable amount of confirmed experience, and at least one shouldn’t be so surprised about it, in light of already available information, which people really should be investigating early on (e.g. “History of Man”).

                      And yes, I do believe that, fundamentally, Buddhism has the same sort of investigative spirit, and this is mostly what LRH identified with. However I have seen similar things happen there quite a bit as well. As soon as people have some experiences, they start to swallow everything else wholesale, and “check their brains at the door” as it were. The problem is that if you fall in line with a bad teacher or a certain group with their own collective spin, your positive personal experience might be keeping you there all the while you are accepting things that you should still be questioning and investigating.

                      There might be some relative progress but you are also left with a bevy of limitations and unanswered questions. And this is why a scholarly approach is important.

                    • Hi rainbodhi,

                      Not a problem about the delay in your reply. Currently, I’m also behind on replies because of work demands, and my replies will need to be fewer and briefer for a while.

                      As usual, you made some great comments, On the paragraph regarding any group – not just Scientology but others, including even those of Buddhism – being susceptible to individuals “checking their brains at the door” seems to be the actual crux of the problem with Scientology, in a nutshell.🙂

                      On the subject of a scholarly approach to Scn, which you see as important and which I agree with, a couple days ago I found an article written by a former Scientologist who did just that. I thought of you when I posted the link on another thread, and here it is again for you: http://www.larabell.org/ladder.html

                      I’m sure you’ll appreciate it. Btw, I found that article while searching the Internet on the subject of Scn as it relates to the human potential movement, and in so doing I found that there have been more scholarly articles written than I would have imagined.

                    • Hi,

                      Thanks for the link; I will keep my eye out for other such articles.

                      It’s quite an interesting read in some ways, particularly to look at the value of the theoretical developments in and of themselves. However I find him to be making a number of assumptions that I think somewhat undermines the piece in parts. But at least these sorts of attempts to look at the underlying philosophy sensibly (and not merely as a means to ridicule) are out there.

                      I do find it curious that he considers Scientology to be the foremost influence on New Age thought. I don’t think it can be traced quite like that. Personally, I see Scn to be a sidestream to New Age with some strong parallels, yet having a totally different approach. There is a philosophical similarity between them as they both cite an array of world religions as their sources, but New Age is universalist (even though it may see individual religions as limiting), whereas Scn is more exclusivist (depending on which assertions by Ron one takes as paramount).

                      The former is quite a bit more open and accepts practically everything, whereas the latter is focused, methodological, and rejecting of a lot of what New Age takes in its stride. I find there to be quite a strong divide, actually. But both of them have something to teach and learn from. In both cases, their source is in esoteric teachings, brought to the masses for everyone’s own personal spiritual empowerment.

                      I know that I’m just focusing on one part of the article, but I find this to be an interesting discussion in its own right.

                • LRH once said “what we are trying to do is be effective”. That was said in the 50s, I think, and perhaps it was his principle, try it out and determine if it helped. If yes, improve, if not, troubleshoot or discard. The problem with a full picture of Scientology is there really is a lot – an overwhelming amount to sift for basic principles.

                  I encountered the “LRH said” game once in a file when I was helping out in the CF (Central Files, where correspondence is sorted per person to keep in touch and help them up the Bridge). I read some of the correspondence while sorting them (files are structured and include invoices, a grade chart, letters, etc.) and it went something like:

                  Registrar: LRH said in this lecture…
                  Parishioner: Yes, but LRH said the opposite in this Bulletin
                  Regustrar: Ah yes, but did you know that LRH overruled what you just quoted in X lecture because Y is more important than Z?

                  And so on, until parishioner finally said: Look, we can go on forever in a quote slinging match. I’ll always find a quote to prove my point and you’ll always find a quote to prove yours. I’m not playing that game.

                  It was an eye-opener. What would a full picture of Scientology lead to? More clarity, or academia who have become expert in finding supporting quotes and arguing into eternity, while the world goes to hell in a handbasket? (Sorry, couldn’t resist that one – I really no longer subscribe to that idea.)

                  • Jesus said, love your enemies.
                    SCNR

                    Groups will be groups.

                  • LG,

                    I understand that there’s a lot of information there, but I don’t like the idea of “going in blind” at all.

                    That may have been okay had things turned out differently, where people might’ve been free to come and go as they please, while able to investigate the subject on their own terms, without worry of obligation, expense, or even just the “hard sell”.

                    The kind of “just accept it and see if it pans out” view is potentially reckless, particularly in this sort of situation, and shouldn’t be advocated for the sake of posterity. We just don’t know how many problems will remanifest later on down the track.

                    More to the point, there’s all sorts of stuff to look at. A lot of what LRH communicated was expressed colloquially. A number of the things he’s said actually requires diligent data comparison to verify, e.g. “nobody in the history of the universe has ever developed any workable technology”.

                    That is an important one to check for those not interested in becoming True Believers.

                    There are also times when, in his more visible works, he holds a harsh or strong opinion of an issue that’s considered important to people, and yet sometimes he expresses a softer or more liberal approach in a lecture that’s more obscure. So yes, it is important to have a more complete picture.

                    On top of that, I don’t think it’s wise to leave it all philosophically unexamined. All of the metaphysical theory should be studied closely between the myriad works until a self-consistency arises and can be expressed with logic and clarity.

                    So really it’s not so much about quoting Ron, it’s about examining.

                    • RB, thanks. Good response. Perhaps the time of the true believer is over? It worked to carry views and information through time, but will it work in future? I hope not, at least not if it is borne out in fanaticism.

                      I understand what you suggest, but would have to surrender there. As noted above in the conversation between Joe Pendleton and myself, there are myriad views one can assume on each datum. What would self-consistency mean? That it makes sense? That it works consistently? That it produces the results claimed, or any results at all? That it can honestly compare to other endeavours of spiritual development? That be is ‘fool-proof’?

                      It would be the work of very astute and learned people over several life times to sift it all. And how much of it is truly valuable? I really don’t know – I think you are in a better position to judge, as you seem to have studied much of LRH as well as other fields, thus have something of similar magnitude to compare to, so on this point I don’t believe I can contribute to the conversation.

                      I do see man’s progress, spiritual or not, as an unstoppable movement. It’s only a hunch, not a fact, but I don’t consider Scientology to be a once-in-eternity opportunity. As has been argued elsewhere, to state this is the only workable technology ever developed, anywhere, one would need to know all technology (workable or not). Rather bold. Perhaps a set of criteria for evaluation would need to be agreed on: one of them would definitely be to allow that LRH may have projected his own case onto his tech and other people.

      • Marty,
        Your response to the data Marildi offered appears to be non-sequitur and invalidating. The Tone Scale in Full referred to was published in 1975 in, among other places, the Tech Dictionary. Also, your cryptic response of “keep studying” in response to Marildi’s request for clarification as to “how that scale implies one can’t have emotions or needs to be fixed at a certain level or range” also seems invalidating as well as kind of arrogant. It sounds like you are saying that yours is the only valid viewpoint and that anyone who looks at things differently is kind of ignorant.

        • martyrathbun09

          Sorry, I’ve lost patience with playing the quote Ron to dead agent Ron game.

          • Warren Marston

            It’s easy to find LRH quotes that sound bad, just as it’s easy to find others that sound good. One has to put them all together with judgment. The game is really “understand Ron in the context of everything he said, and why he said what he did when he did, so you can determine the relative importances of the different things he said.”

          • Thank you for putting it so succinctly — quote Ron to dead agent Ron. That’s the game our local HCO was playing with me during my whole last two years ‘in’ — quoting some suspicious, vengeful LRH they had mocked up with the benevolent LRH I knew. Just a couple examples: HCO countered my reference to the Justice HCOPL (on being faced by your accuser with the real accusation) with the Miscellaneous Reports reference (allowing back-channel traffic). HCO countered my reference to the HCOPL on cleaning your Ethics file with the “Do The Usual” reference (their point being that my request to see the contents of my ethics file was not “doing the usual”).

          • Patience……. sometimes I am also impatient with the lesson of impatience. I am being real here not snarky:-)

    • Just asking, was this when he still was in England or had to left ?

      • CD, from what I’ve read I believe he had just bought St. Hill Manor in 1959, and lived there until he left and started the Sea Project, which became the Sea Org.

  4. Here is a great example of where the meddling by DM and crew screws things up. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the “Tone Scale in Full” is not the same as the Emotional Tone Scale. There are lots of scales in Scientology. If you look into the disaster that is the new release of “Scientology 0-8” you will find eight copies of the “emotional tone scale” and a shitload of versions of other scales as well.

    If you look in my copy of 0-8, 1970 edition, you will see a better picture of what is really the “Emotional Tone Scale.” Gone are “Postulates,” “Games,” and “Action” – which on the expanded tone scale are NOT labeled as emotions. Rather you go from 8.0 Exhilaration to 40.0 Serenity of Beingness.

    Your upper-level items on the scale are interesting – I haven’t had a chance to look into it too deeply, but I agree that they exist and belong somewhere.

    From a purely emotional point of view, one of the things I realized in my studies is that you can go up and down the tone scale at different states of beingness or awareness or consciousness. For example, dogs can be really enthusiastic, but they are still dogs. Some people get true joy out of shooting animals or beating people at basketball, or wiping out a battalion, or creating great music, or getting a cheeseburger.

    Some people are truly emotionally touched by the plight of orphans or kids or animals in various parts of the world, and others are completely unfazed by this, and others are happy in life, but completely oblivious to the sufferings of others. Etc.

    So, to me, it looks like there is a scale orthogonal to the Emotional Tone Scale of increasing awareness and responsibility. I think that as you grow as a person, your awareness of the world and people besides yourself grows, and your ability to feel true emotions grows as well. The sadness you feel is real sadness, for real reasons. The enthusiasm you feel is not just enthusiasm because it’s Friday and time to get laid or drunk (or both) but enthusiasm to build something truly great, or help people in a truly great way.

    In other words, the scales are not two-dimensional but multidimensional.

    Mark

    • “In other words, the scales are not two-dimensional but multidimensional.”

      Thanks, I found this to be one of the most insightful statements here. Following along this direction begs the question, just how many dimensions are there?

      Well, if you observe how varied both individuals and life contexts can really be, you will start to see the grey between the lines. The question then becomes, do scales attempting to quantify emotion in absolute terms make any real sense at all?

      • Thanks, W. I think there are dimensions and layers. There’s the chronic tone vs. the acute tone – usually bored, but temporarily pissed-off.

        Ron loved scales and dichotomies. Some are in alignment, and some are related, and some are situational. Like the Havingness Scale. “Have” is just above “Waste” which is just above “Substitute.” Now think about the first thing you do when you walk into a casino – trade your cash for chips – a substitute. You have to go through “Waste” to hopefully get some of your cash back!

        I like the Responsibility scale – which I think is a better indicator of where people are in life. As people grow, I believe they rise on this scale:

        No previous or current contact – Out of the game entirely.
        Pan Determinism – Full responsibility for both side of game.
        Other Determinism – No resp for other side of game.
        Self Determinism – Full resp for self, no resp for “them”
        Valence/Circuit – No resp at all across the board. Just a pawn.

        This can be situational – your relationship with your job, or spouse, and it can be across the boards in this life.

        Responsibility seems to be a concept lost on the current regime.

  5. Roger from Switzerland Thought

    To be honest, I never had any problem to understand the scale up to exhilaration and from then on I just was confused and didn’t get it.
    In the beginning when I was very young, I was able to work very fast and have my whole attention on that what I was doing, but this lasted only for some years, as it became more and more difficult to just work in a Scientology environment as one being constantly introverted on nonsense like conditions, ethics-Interview subjective talks with execs about motivation etc…purpose clearing or whatever…just insane, confusing and diverting !
    So the rest of my life I was dreaming of this state of action I had in the beginning and felt quite inferior to cold blooded Scientologist that just were doing and working without any great emotions, and that were just rational in anything they did and to the the other people that were just smiling and demonstrating that life isn’t a problem at all, just a game they were playing and everything is so easy when playing !!!!
    I never was able to experience such emotions or state of mind in my auditing. It was mostly happiness, relief, Serenity of beingness, Joy and laughter but never action or games !
    I have seen artists, workers, normal people in action on Tone 20 and constantly asked myself why are they so uptone when they aren’t Clear or OT , as LRH said only clears can experience the higher emotions !

    In the moment I feel like having handled a crashing MU !

    I had those abilities before starting in Scientology and no considerations about it, as being a normal thing that anybody can experience and doesn’t need to be drilled on it or brought up to it. Look at kids playing, look at a waiter or a cook that love his Job or look at a music band or a dance group or artists ..they are in action, they are playing games and enjoy it to the fullest and have fun !

    So, my natural abilities were heavy invalidated and I was teached that by only doing the OT-Levels I can get it back ! I was sold something I already had ! Hahahha , how funny, it’s quite a joke ! But it’s not to laugh about but rather cry !

    Is that conditioning ?

    Marty you should stop to ask so funny questions that lead to me to think and find out that I behaved like an idiot ! Who do you think you are ?🙂

    Thanks for it !
    Have a good day !

  6. All I know is what I experienced after a lot of superb processing. Being at serenity of beingness for several months, I felt love for everything and all. My postulates became reality like magic. It was amazing to me and most others around me.
    When the church calls me, I usually tell them I don’t want auditing right now as I am pleased with my case state and do not want to lose it. This is true.

    I really like your comments on the tone scale. Postulates, games, and action are not emotions, for sure.

    • I do think that postulates, games, and action somehow may have particular “emotions” or “tones” associated with them, if they are indeed existing states of being that involve emanations and can be plotted on a scale.

      The whole idea of a “tone scale” may reflect a reality a existence, just as a musical scale does.

      Somehow the idea of “emotion” being involved with creating “motion” makes sense to me.

  7. Still mulling it over, but it rings pretty true. I would take exception though to putting Aesthetics in italics. That is a loaded word and perhaps not the best label, but as an artist I can assure you there is a specific emotional response that goes with the aesthetic frame of mind. It’s higher than enthusiasm and it’s not exhiliration exactly, but it’s right in that band.

    Whenever I start feeling too buffeted around by the gusts of daily living, I grab my camera and head someplace scenic. It works every time.

    • martyrathbun09

      I hear ya. Getting out into nature with my dog and camera was important therapy for when just after leaving c of s. I am mulling it too. I considered engaging in aesthetic activity led to the higher emotions. Thanks for the great food for thought.

      • Marty,

        I’ve felt for a long time that before we became all bunged-up, the whole of it was aesthetics, i.e., universally created and recognized “beauty”.

        For what it’s worth, that’s my pretty penny. Pun absolutely intended!

  8. Roger from Switzerland Thought

    Just to add some more confusions to it;

    In the beginning I had no problem to work, put my attention on a thing and just do it. This is a not very complicated process. If you understand what you have to do, you do it ¨
    Millions of people on the planet have this native ability and use it every day.

    But this became very complicated as I was teached that I should first name it , want it, and only then get it;introvert about if I really want to get it, and if not sure about, then do some purpose clearing or conditions and also I could have some H&R that hinders me to produce and so should be angry with myself and should really confront and I really have to think about that and then it could be that I have some Mu’s about the product or perhaps even a crashing MU. This was so confusing so the best was to do the OT-Levels to get rid of those confusions ! I still had them after the OT-levels ! Hahahahah
    This nonsense I was teached as a young boy, nevertheless I survived !

    There are billions of people on this planet that are producing on a daily basis without all these complicated remedies !
    Surely it can help perhaps people that in a very bad mental state…….

  9. Interesting. In the name of discourse, I’ll share a few thoughts on emotions:

    – I’m not entirely sure an emotion is an emotion until its ‘decided’ by the brain (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_theory_of_emotion). I don’t think this always holds, but in my own analysis and observation, I’ve found it to hold a lot of explanatory value
    – I really enjoyed reading “An Emotional Brain” by Joseph LeDoux. In it, he basically explains the twopathways signals can take in the brain (fast and dirty or slow and clean) depending on whether you unconsciously perceive danger signals. Of course, there are degrees of overlap, but when you factor everything in, emotion seems to be a rather fluid concept based on several parameters, including your own perception (which is linked to your past experiences in life, natural inclination, temperament, etc).
    – IMHO a better analogy than a linear scale is playing the piano.
    – I have to agree with the post in that those things that are actions aren’t really emotions, but of course there are well established links between action and emotion. Maybe the positioning of actions on the Tone Scale are there to act a sort of bridge between emotional states? If exhilaration leads to action, then games, then postulates, maybe this helps you ‘up’ the scale?
    – Here’s an interesting point: the history of the word ‘sublime’, I believe, was a combination of wonder and terror – standing on the edge of a steep cliff, for example. A combination of emotions. If emotions are so complex and nuanced, can a linear scale ever really do that justice?
    – I would have to hear some really good arguments as to why ‘aesthetics’ is an emotion. I am a little familiar with the subject of aesthetics, but I have no idea how that would translate to emotion?

    Nice article🙂

  10. Roger from Switzerland Thought

    Sorry for going off topic. But your post unleashed lots of emotions !

    But, if all those evals of LRH about our civilization of being illiterate, aberrated, everybody on drugs, only electing idiots as our leaders, then we wouldn’t be able to live the good lives, most of us are living, but daily there would be catastrophes produced by the DB’s of this planet, oh yes there was a catastrophe Leah Remini said: “thank for your support” to her fans !

    She must be on drugs, very abberated and probably also illiterate !

    No, no I must be wrong …The world is going down while we are going up and have 5x expansion with rockets going up into the air !

    Where have I been the last 40 years ? Was thinking of saving the world while the rest of the world did more for it and I didn’t see it !

    Talk about being conditioned to live in a thought prison that I willingly accepted without consulting my real feelings and emotions but just putting it aside !

    Sometimes in my auditng I was expressing my real feelings about those things and I had pity with the auditors that then expressed their real feelings and emotions too ( I could see it in their eyes) and were puzzled as they thought the same way ! So, I learned to keep those thoughts and emotions for myself as i didn’t want the auditor to be confused ! ……

    Many abilities and wins I expressed having gotten from the tech/admin were in fact native abilities and are normal things for millions of people. They enjoy their win and success in life and do not not make such a fuss about it !
    In the last years I had many wins in life, but realized I don’t have to say anybody thank you for it as I realized, many other people have similar wins in their lives, can act like OTs or clears without Scientology Tech, So I’m still learning to just develop my native abilities and show my emotions. very interesting !

    I think this blog is a group of gold diggers and diamond searcher. What will be left at the end ? if there will ever be an end to the search ?

    3D scales ! what a (r)evolution ! This is more logical then up or down. In Scientology most scales go just up or down, that’s like black or white !
    like a 2 way logic yes or no !

    Life doesn’t only just go up or down as preached in the conditions.formulas, it may go in all kind of directions at the same time, the same with emotions.
    When my sister died of aids (she had no chances in those times, as she got it in 1984), I was sad but also very happy (nearly enthusiastic) for her that she no more has to endure her miserable life. Where is that on the tone scale ? The same with my father when he decided to no more endure 1 more year in the hospital for nothing and this was also accepted by the doctors (they said we never had this talk), as they knew they just could keep him alive for some more months as a zombie ! So I was very sad, but also very happy and proud about his courage and we really were able to wish him well on his next journey !

    Up or down looks like a very primitive concept to me now !
    It was a good concept as a new idea in the beginning, but it has to evolve further !

  11. Interesting to me though not sure your use of the word “tone” and how I use it “duplicate” but meanings perhaps overlap. Tone basically is a vibration that can be low slow to high fast and is descriptive of everything that exists. On the emotional tone scale in this post, at the bottom is the low slow tones of emotions and going up the list it quickens to the high fast tones of exhilaration. And agreed, the words you bold are not emotions (they should be taken out imho) Then, you come to letting go! So important as a transition. Letting go is what initiates and makes possible the next words you list which are not about individual tones or an individual’s tone but are about a capacity for harmony. On the way to harmony, one is able to be and to “hear” beyond one’s own tone. Appreciation, empathy, care, compassion – these are not single tones but are dynamic self transcendent tonings that emerge from “listening,” mirroring, supporting, enhancing. A harmony achieved may, for moments or forever, become non duality, serenity, bliss.

    These higher words are also aligning with Tao.

    Thank you for provoking thoughts!!!

  12. What is Games? Allow me to take a whack at it without quoting scriptures: It is the condition of accepting randomity with vigor to overcome unknown obstacles. Omitted information is necessary to create any game therefore games as a condition is to accept omitted information which is to accept a form of lies.

    What is Hate? It is the condition of wanting to put distance between self and something or someone else no matter what. (Intention to destroy is a form of wanting to put permanent distance) Hate begins with unwillingness to communicate which results in reduced affinity.

    What is Love? It is the condition of wanting to reduce distance between self and something or someone else no matter what. (Intention to stay connected indefinitely is a permanent form of Love) Love starts with willingness to communicate which brings about affinity. From this view I could say that Games is the emotion of “harmony”. A harmony in which one is in acceptance of all the cards of reality whether they are face up or down. Based on this I could argue that if hate is an emotion then so is games.

    Either I’m missing something or when we look at the conditions from such elemental view then labels such as emotions and conditions lose their meaning. This is why I think LRH was able to successfully mix emotions in with other conditions. It seems however, (to me) that “serenity of beingness” is commonly misinterpreted as the ideal state to be in. If I had to pick I would chose Games as the optimal median of the tone scale for one who wants to optimally survive in the physical world. One can surge up or plummet down temporarily as the cards unfold but would ideally bounce back (up/down) fairly quickly to Games.

    Of course this can also be seen as a personal preference as to where one plots their own optimum median on the tone scale but I think that right around Games makes for the best optimum.

    • Perhaps Games would better be stated as Play. There is such a thing as a playful mood. I think it’s a definite frame of mind and somewhere high on the scale. Just watch kids or animals in a state of play. Banter or flirting too are playful and attractive to others. It has an unserious, non-logical quality.

      • Indeed play is a good way to express it also. The way I see it anyways is that we play as kids as well as adults it’s just that the rules change. Or better yet we become aware of the rules and solidify some of our concepts as opposed to keeping it flexible.

  13. Addition to my previous post: “what is Games if not a form of unconditional Love?”

  14. There are several things which makes no sense.
    First thing: “Justice” is above “Letting go”.
    Second, you say some of the ToneScale positions are not emotions but then you bring new concepts and attitudes which, to me, are not emotions at all (rather attitudes).

    I agree that compassion (real compassion) has to do with responsibility and is to be found in this high realm.
    Bliss is a high emotion, but below 40.0
    40.0 is no emotion at all.

    Spirit of play (games) is a emotion (for me).

    I hope you appreciate my 2 cents.

  15. This is quick and incomplete but I just wanted to get some of my incoherent drivel “down on paper” regarding this subject.

    I was thinking about what makes me happy the other day after reading your post regarding “Real Emotions”. When I thought about it, what I got were the times that I had helped others and seeing that they flourished and prospered afterwards. This dovetails with your observations about Compassion as Responsibility being a higher tone.

    The (seemingly unemotional) converse viewpoint also made me think of the Eastern religious doctrine of the “Cycle of the Universe” where, “The One becomes the Many and the Many return to the One”.

    To illustrate how this works, let’s say that once again the Many have returned to the One and that the only “being” that exists is the “Main Body of Theta”. Let us also say that it exists at “Bliss” (Pan-equilibrium).

    As no time or space would necessarily exist in this state, what happens next is anybody’s guess.

    But let’s say that it manifests itself in a “Big Bang”, where all of this beingness flys apart, scattering itself like diaspora, becoming multple viewpoints and simultaneously creating Matter, Energy, Space and Time. This cycle continues for an indeterminate amount of time, with the beings continuing to fractionalize and the universe continuing to “apparently” expand.

    As the beings fractionalize, yet continue to create, the universe and the majority of beings throughout it become more and more complex, losing the ability to identify and descending the Tone Scale toward becoming MEST. Consequently, more and more MEST appears. In other words, the universe (of beings) becomes more and more massy and (paradoxically) apperently more gigantic in scope.

    Under this scenario, as time marches on, some of the old, heavy MEST ultmately collapses on itself, becoming “black holes” or gravity wells – drawing in all that is corporeal both near and far. Beings that are subject to this “gravity well” effect might well have all of their pictures and masses ripped away in one fell swoop too, sort of an automatic “thetan cleaner”.

    Perhaps some once again choose to dwell as “the One” at this time.

    When this collapse of MEST is once again complete and the Many have returned to the One, what then?

    I have an idea!

    • martyrathbun09

      Really interesting ideas Scott, albeit maybe a tad anchored to the Cartesian school.

    • “To illustrate how this works, let’s say that once again the Many have returned to the One and that the only “being” that exists is the “Main Body of Theta”. Let us also say that it exists at “Bliss” ”

      “If God is the only substance, and (by axiom 1) whatever is, is either a substance or in a substance, then everything else must be in God. “Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God” (Ip15). Those things that are “in” God (or, more precisely, in God’s attributes) are what Spinoza calls modes.”

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNat

      • Thanks CD,

        “Descartes, for example, believed that if the freedom of the human being is to be preserved, the soul must be exempt from the kind of deterministic laws that rule over the material universe.”

        It’s interesting that both Spinoza and Marty used a Cartesian reference to cast doubt upon the validity of the type of thinking I was engaging in.

        What I really think is that no one is truly exempt from participating in or experiencing the endless cycle of life, death and rebirth – not even God.

        • martyrathbun09

          I was referring to the sense of “Cartesian” being defined in some contexts as a purely dualistic view.

        • I hear what you are saying Infinity, cirkle of life, The celtic snake eating its own tail. What was will be again. I don’t see God as a seperate entity. More of a Big light and we are all little flames coming and returning to that big light. Someting like that what you described.

          A circle existing in nature and the idea of the existing circle, which is also in God, are one and the same thing, which is explained through different attributes. Therefore, whether we conceive nature under the attribute of Extension, or under the attribute of Thought, or under any other attribute, we shall find one and the same order, or one and the same connection of causes, i.e., that the same things follow one another. (IIp7s)

          -(2.2) Human Being Spinoza

          Alsoo Spinoza view of the soul reminds one of easteren Philosophies you mentiond, And yes

          Wow Scott that is veryy observant again I will revisit the thing you found that Spinoza criticed, He did a whole critique on Descartes. And to write a critique had not nescercerraly a negative conotation in that day.

          Scott Spinoza wrote a piece on Descartes views, Alsoo Spinoza finally concluded that God = Nature meaning all that encompasses the universe and what is in it.

          And now for Spinoza’s Bombshell !!!!

          Spinoza’s conception of adequate knowledge reveals an unrivaled optimism in the cognitive powers of the human being. Not even Descartes believed that we could know all of Nature and its innermost secrets with the degree of depth and certainty that Spinoza thought possible. Most remarkably, because Spinoza thought that the adequate knowledge of any object, and of Nature as a whole, involves a thorough knowledge of God and of how things related to God and his attributes, he also had no scruples about claiming that we can, at least in principle, know God perfectly and adequately. “The knowledge of God’s eternal and infinite essence that each idea involves is adequate and perfect” (IIp46). “The human Mind has an adequate knowledge of God’s eternal and infinite essence” (IIp47). No other philosopher in history has been willing to make this claim. But, then again, no other philosopher identified God willing to make this claim. But, then again, no other philosopher identified God with Nature.

          -2.3 Knowledge

          http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#HumBei

          • CD, You’re not going to believe this but one night a few years ago, Karry, myself and our two girls were coming back from a barbecue at my sister’s house.

            As we were riding in the car, some question by one of the girls prompted Karry to give a sort of rudimentary explanation of the universe. It was pretty good and to me, seemed understandable from a kids point of view.

            To consult understanding I said, “Ok, now I have a question, Veronica gets to answer first.”

            I said, “How would YOU describe the universe?” (Veronica was 7 years old at the time). After some brief thought, she said “The universe… is like… a giant snake… eating it’s own tail! Hahahaha!”

            As astonished as I was, I acknowledged the wisdom of her answer and couldn’t help but ask the question, “What is the snake called?” Does it have a name?”

            I almost died when this 7 year old girl in the back seat said, “Yeah, it’s called Ouroboros! Hahahaha!”

            Needless to say, I lost my train of thought and didn’t ask my older daughter Sabrina to describe the universe.

            As God is my witness I swear that this is true. Neither my wife Karry nor my other daugter Sabrina was familiar with the term and couldn’t understand why I was so excited. I told them that it was a real name from antiquity. I had to show them what it was on the internet when we got home.

            Karry was pretty nonchalant about it, just saying something like “Yep, we’ve got a smart little Honey-Bear there.” Sabrina looked at her little sister with a new regard and just said, “Wow.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

        • “What I really think is that no one is truly exempt from participating in or experiencing the endless cycle of life, death and rebirth – not even God.”

          Scott, This is in alignment with my own belief. Brahma, the highest God in
          Buddhism, can exist through multiple cosmic cycles. The number is not important but has been interpreted at about forty-eight cycles. Brahma can learn and is ignorant of “the path”. Recenty, I discovered that Dyson, a professor from Princeton, holds a similar view. The idea is that, if God exists, he must learn. Brahma is to me a comical figure since he appears and
          re-appears in various forms beyond his control. He even had to be a frog.
          Could be the origin of a famous fairy tale?

          George M. White

          • Thanks George. It’s nice to get some validation from someone so learned in the modalities of spirituality.

            I don’t like being a frog because there is a chance that a little boy will carry you around in his pocket till you die.

  16. Right. It’s a sort of “frame of reference” thing I need in order to describe the indescribable.

    Here’s something funny. I ran across this after I posted the above when Google-ing “Is the universe still expanding?”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/universe-expanding-cosmologist_n_3606136.html

    • Hi Scott!

      Brian Greene – The Hidden Reality –

      I am not into the subject of physics, but this one about “multi-verses” I find fascinating. And Brian Greene, professor of physics and mathematics, is explaining it so well and in an entertaining discussion.

      • It is always sweet to see people talk with passion about intresting topics like this. Cool that einsteins reservations come over the table.

      • Hi Karola! How are you?

        Good find! This is a fascinating subject which bears further study in my opinion. In the ancient East Indian mystic traditions, ignorance was a demon to be slayed before one could achieve liberation.

        Just as we have the workable aspects of “knowing how to know” at our fingertips, so should we study and practice those things that rediscovered knowledge makes available to us. To remain willfully ignorent is to remain enslaved.

        Btw, I used to read about multiverses and such in the Marvel Superhero comics back in the 60’s and 70’s. Oh that life were so simple.

  17. My experience is that sympathy is just before empathy. Again I think it very important to recognize that Hubbard thought hate higher than sympathy.

    That one needs a good ole psychological looking into. iMo

    Also I agree with you Marty, higher states of being/consciousness are not emotions. To say they are is a revelation of having not attained them either temporarily experienced, as in the student, or stably experienced, as in the sage.

  18. Hi Marty,

    I really like the work you’ve done on this. There seems to be a lot of questions about where love and compassion are placed (and whether they are given high enough emphasis), and this is helpful.

    I look forward to seeing what you have to say on the Serenity of Beingness and its relationship to the emotion of serenity. I’ve seen it included on the top of the Emotional Tone Scale – but it could just be there for reference.

    I’ve also come across serenity on the Motion Scale where it says “Would just sort of drift along” and distinguishes it from apathy, as well as other emotions.

    Perhaps this could be considered similar to the experience of life as a flow?

    Buddhism has the notion of “Nirvana is peace”, which is the last of the four seals. I think it’s something similar to serenity, in that if you experience peace, it’s not necessarily a state of Nirvana but perhaps could be seen as a sort of precursor. For the actual peace of Nirvana to be experienced, the extinguishment of all disturbing emotions needs to occur first.

    Also, I think this could also be related to the idea of happiness, which I’ve seen at 3.0, and would be more of a pleasant state of mind, as compared to perhaps what true unbounded happiness would be like as a result of a continuous Tone 40.

    In the Tone Scale of Awareness, there is a lot of information subsumed under Tone 40, including “Givingness of sensation”, “Letting go”, and “Glowingness” – which all seem to me as being emotionally related in a higher sense.🙂

  19. Marty, thank you for posting.
    2 of my own children have ‘disconnected’ from me.
    Thanks for helping me sort out the ‘miss’ from the ‘is’.
    Cece

  20. It hurts real bad. But I can pull in my huggies. Control my emotions.
    Yup if there is a planet to save. I will.
    But Marty, I think you have done a world to dispel the charge that would have been there. Thanks [and to all your posters :)]
    Cece

  21. I don’t think that there is really a “scale”, up and down , higher and lower etc. I agree to put emotions in some order but I also noticed that it does not work this way always. I know that Ron somewhere gave to that question also an answer that one rushes so quickly through the emotions that one doesn’t even notice it. But I think that is not correct. Sometimes I see e.g. a movie and cry about somebody dying, at the same time I feel happy to sit at home, I feel love for people I know and compassion for all those people loosing somebody in real life etc.
    And if somebody interrupts me seeing the movie and makes a joke I can laugh immediatly about it. I think as everything is in motion so it is also with emotions – there’s no scale, there are just situations (motions) and emtions for it.

  22. Some Scientologists think that fast is good and up is good. So they speed read through the material and think everything considered up is good and they want to be up.
    The emotional tone scale is simply a scale of frequencies and wavelenght of energies. The scale is from -40 to 0 to +40. But -40 is zero and +40 is also zero. But that would not work with mathematics (division through zero is not defined) so it is called -40 and +40.
    In order to have an effect on or be effect of you have to be in resonance with the thing you want to have an effect on or be effect of. If you want to go through a force screen and be near the frequency range of that force screen you cannot walk through. Thus you have to be more „up tone“ or „down tone“. Then you can walk through without being effect.
    As up is always good people do not want to be at zero or below zero.
    Frequencies above zero are outflowing and frequencies below zero are inflowing. That has nothing to do with good or bad. Then Scientologists are taught tone 40 (+40) is the tone level you can be OT and you are in full control of something. But tone 40 is in fact zero so you have zero effect on your environment. Lets say you want to have an effect on some piece of matter. You „go up“ to tone 40 and wonder that this piece of matter does not change. Maybe you invalidate yourself.
    You have to be (just as a wild guess) at tone -20, then you can have an effect on that matter.
    Background info on that in the book Scientology 8-80.

  23. “Serenity of Beingness” is a state, IMO.
    And “action” can also be at a very low tone level, e.g. at “hate”; people who are hating can be very active in destroying.

  24. “There is a great space in which this moment takes place. There’s a great silence that is listening to the thoughts”
    Adyashanti

  25. I found something Intresting

  26. Very interesting point of view
    Thanks for sharing it

  27. Thanks, Marty or Mark. Which do you prefer??? Really appreciate your thoughts, and your whole site.

    It’s so important to separate the gems from the efforts to brainwash (substitute your will for that of the group) and hypnotize (make a person totally suggestible) in Scientology. I hope one of your projects is analyze the Grades and NED fully.

    I’m not a terribly experienced auditor, but I think there is validity to the Grades. I’d have to really read them and determine what the intention was behind each process before I would receive auditing again.

    I’m not sure about NED – if it’s healthy to relive past life experiences, especially if Clear is not a permanent state. Couldn’t one get the postulate off from recalls? How about out-int? Is that a valid thing to address? I agree with L&N laws, but I think very few things should be listed. Wrong indications are very harmful.

    Hope this in your plans. You have a lot of experience and I agree that the OT Levels are not valid and contradict the laws from lower auditing. Thanks for your books. I’ve read them all and will read more.

  28. WTF? Facing the imminent chance of soliciting something curt and patronizing in reply, I want it to be known that to me this series on Emotion is misleading in that it is not leading toward the truth and confuses the matters and it is harmful to the degree that it is leading down and away from the Truth. The truth I am referring to is that as Thetans, spirits, souls we CREATE. Thats the direction toward the Truth. We belong in the realm of magic. Are we there yet? No but thats the direction up. The direction up is to CREATE our own happiness. CREATED happiness will create happy action toward goal attainment or toward no goal at all and no attainment. Its a lie that happiness is attainment of goals. Happiness is a WAVELENGTH. Happiness may well be the goal attainment and may well require action and effort but even then effort alone will not produce happiness, its just too low on the previously insulted Tone Scale. Effort is not the ultimate necessity. We do not have to toil, we do not have to howlingly charge over the ramparts (unless we are bodies), we do not have to exert, struggle, grunt, creak and fart to get anywhere. We can CREATE. We are simply dealing with the THOUGHT, EMOTIONS and EFFORT and we are dealing with the wavelength we emanate. Do we want to emanate in the Effort band? Postulates is not an emotional state, true, but it is a certain wave length in the THOUGHT band. Quoting psychiatric texts that emotions are created by glandular secretions is harmful because it is not really the Truth, it is just one of many lower harmonics of the truth on the Effort level. Bashing the Tone Scale and attacking Scientology as an attempt to create a totally emotionless state are all harmful EFFORTS far removed from any real BLISS, COMPASSION, CARE, EMPATHY and APPRECIATION. Hello? What I want to know is WTF?

    • martyrathbun09

      You will receive a non-curt, non-patronizing response when you demonstrate the courtesy and integrity of not blatantly mischaracterizing what I wrote in the first place in order to justify your own condemnation. I guess someone straightened you out with a yank recently.

    • Emotions can guide you

      Emotions are natural reactions to occurrences in life. I know I’m PTS by the way someone is making me feel. When I’m having those weird, introverted, embarrassed feelings, I look around to see who’s trying to make me feel bad.

      Once I was in a situation where a man was not leaving me alone, I got very afraid, I acknowledged my fear, took action, and SAVED MYSELF FROM BEING RAPED – long story short.

      I love to imagine and create and dream of infinite possibilities. I consider that to be a separate action than reacting to life.

      If you know what’s making you sad you can fix it. But you have to be aware that you are sad first. I wouldn’t take antidepressants to erase sadness. I wouldn’t pretend it wasn’t there, either. I would try to fix whatever I could, and that can take time, rational thought and effort, but it is rewarding and one learns.

      If you know what makes you happy, you can do it more. I love to bake bread. It makes me happy. It’s beautiful. I give bread to people. It makes them very happy.

      Who wants some homemade bread out there??

    • “we do not have to howlingly charge over the ramparts”

      -Micheal Priv

      “There is only one way, really, to get into a state of living, and that’s live! There is no substitute for an all-out, over-the-ramparts, howling charge against life. That’s living. Living does not consist of sitting in a temple in the shadows and getting rheumatism from the cold stones. Living is hot, it’s fast, it’s often brutal! It has a terrific gamut of emotional reactions.
      If you are really willing to live, you first have to be willing to do anything that consists of living. Weird. But it’s one of those awfully true things that you wonder why one has to say it. And yet it has to be said.”

      – L. Ron Hubbard

      “To be happy, one only must be able to confront, which is to say, experience, those things that are. Unhappiness is only this: the inability to confront that which is.”

      -L. Ron Hubbard

    • “Happiness is a WAVELENGTH.”

      Speaking for myself and myself alone : Happines creates a Wavelenght and wavelenghts can be measured in the “MEST” universe

  29. I’ve been chewing this over. It’s all just words, really. What does this scale really measure? A spiritual being’s/life’s return/proximity or departure/distance to the oneness of existence? Does it measure degrees of separation and wholeness? What does “Letting go” mean? Non-attachment? Relief of unburdening? If one says up is good and down is bad, is one not attached to either state? If it is a guidepost, where does it point to? Anywhere we want it to point? Can it be deemed a more precise meter for the emotional guidance system Abraham (Esther Hicks) talks about? WHAT IS IT’S USE??

    You’ll be disassembling the ARC triangle next. What will from the rafters then?😉

  30. Compassion, care, empathy in my mind emphasises the ‘yin’ aspect of the tone scale and rebalances the ‘scale’ to a kinder model.

  31. Hi;

    Wavelengths, various energy forms, have harmonics. I don’t know it that is relevant to this discussion, but isn’t it possible that the wavelength for a certain emotion has harmonics, so it tends to echo up and down the scale and so has an appearance that approximates that emotion, but is not actually it?

    Also, couldn’t these energy manifestations transcend to and from conditions of existence where there are no ’emotions’, but where that phenomena still exists in some way, much as CCHs transcend into ARC and that in turn into KRC?

    Just thoughts.

    b

  32. This is the forum where this will be given free air. JFK’s best. And ours.

    Emotions address reality. Reality prompts emotions.

  33. MICHAEL FAIRMAN

    Here’s my two pennies worth regarding the tone scale. When I was first subjected to it, and the tone scale film, I had been acting for almost 30 years. One of the major tools of an actor is emotional response. The cut and dried labeling of each emotion and its illustration in the film, I found patently ridiculous. From my perspective, experiencing an emotion in life as well as through a character cannot be characterized and defined as in the scale. Each emotion has subtleties of other emotions flowing within it. The emotion is also influenced by the context which brings it about. Also the same emotion will differ to a greater or lesser extent with each person expressing it. “Mocking up” emotions for an actor is a silly exercise unless one is extraordinarily skilled – Olivier, for example. Most of the actors used in the tone scale film are not, and the emotions they convey do not ring true. They are forced and one dimensional.

    • Michael Fairman I just saw you on TV in a rerun of “Darhma and Greg” What’s your take on Peter O’Toole’s acting in Lawrence of Arabia ? It always fascinated me since I was a young boy. And it still does

      Niels Martens

      • MICHAEL FAIRMAN

        Niels
        I think O’Toole’s performance is rich and subtle. First consider the English culture, where emotion is restrained and the period in which the story takes place; then the fact that he is a military man which adds another kind of governor. Then, thirdly, the character of Lawrence, who is more sensitive and intelligent than the average officer. Watch the scene in which he gets carried away with killing; or when one of his boys gets sucked into the sand, or when he has to kill the thief; or when the Turkish officer is about to rape him. He brings so much depth and truth to the character – a very complex one, yet we are able to begin to understand him. A remarkable performance.

        Then regarding the tone scale: is possible to assign a number to the emotions that are running through Lawrence in each of those circumstances?

        • It is my favorit movie wich I watch in full every 3 years or so. All the scenes you talk to are edged in my memory. It’s like the actor goes through more emotional nuances than some people in a lifetime.

          I think the tonescale is a pointer, but has nothing on “a terrific gamut of emotional reactions.”As Hubbard stated in a book or lecture.

          look at this face

        • I know you ment the scene with the train though that was the quintensess of the movie

    • Thanks for your thoughts. Your description reminds me of painting. A colour chart does not make a picture.

    • Yes. That is why I think this business of sort of treating them as static states of consciousness in Scientology leads to a lot of acting in the Scientology community.

    • Michael,
      Thanks for the information. Now I understand why Battlefield Earth
      tanked.
      George M. White

  34. The definition of misemotion made sense to me — emotion not appropriate to the present situation. Thus, feeling grief with no loss and when surrounded by a happy state of affairs would be a misemotion. Conversely, not feeling grief at a great loss would — I believe — be misemotion.

    Somehow, in my experience with Scn, that clearly got altered into a practice of concluding that _anything_ “low-toned” was misemotion. Period. No matter the context. That’s BS. And it is unhealthy as it represses and in Scn terms, it creates an “alter-is” (an alteration or lie regarding the truth), and that then makes the suppressed emotion persist in one way or another.

    I always wondered about some of the Tone Scale and emotions vs. actions. I’m good with serenity-of-beingness as an emotion. And it made sense when LRH depicted emotions as the instigators of action (after all, the roots of the word go back to “move out of”).

    And it is obvious that emotions can be “acted” in the sense of portrayed, but that does not make them invalid or unreal necessarily. For example, if I were acting, I could create emotions like grief, anger, boredom, etc. that would be quite real in the sense that I would truly be feeling them. And that does involve the capacity we all have to be causative over our emotions.

    But that sort of causative, genuine acting becomes a very strained thing in Scn. It was strained because it was based on a lie. The lie is that “I am uptone and display it through body language and facial expression — and I do this in spite of having unresolved issues or emotions that would be unacceptable to the group, and therefore I will conceal even from myself that I have doubts, worries, concerns, disagreements, etc.” What you end up with is a very repressed individual who has assassinated his or her own critical thinking and authenticity in order to be accepted by the group. That is why the smile is rightly detected as a false mask or persona by so many when they refer to Rondroids, Ronbots, and so on.

    In a way, it is all rather Jungian — even Christian — in the symbology. There is the thetan who is like God of the Trinity. The thetan can indeed create universes through postulate, the belief goes. Then there is the analytical mind. This is the good mind, the right mind of being in one’s “right mind,” the unaberrated mind. It is perhaps like the Jesus of the Trinity — purified and above evil. Which brings us to the reactive mind. It is the distorter of reality, the Loki of lies, the permanently held down key on the keyboard forcing wrong answers to new situations. Is it like the Adversary, the Satan?

    Well, you say, that’s not the Trinity — the Father God, Jesus, and Satan! Your objection is correct. The Trinity might invoke theta itself as the holy spirit, but is there a place for Satan in the analogy? I believe so. Some traditions have it that Jesus had an older brother, Satanaël (or Sammaël). Presumably the reactive mind evolved earlier than the analytical mind, and so would have been a sort of older “brother.”

    But more to the point of Jungian comparison, the reactive mind has some interesting parallels to Jung’s “shadow” conception.And the more one tries to suppress or destroy the “shadow” the stronger it gets — this is why Christian evangelists sometimes end up in cheap motels with sleazy hookers, or priests end up as pedophiles. The more they insist that their “shadow” does not exist, that they are pure and holy, the more they alter reality — lie — and the more the deep, troubled waters of the “shadow” persist and remain repressed.

    So too with Scientology. The “shadow” is seen in part as misemotion — anything below a certain point on the Tone Scale. Those “lower” tones must be purged so that the “good self” can rise unfettered to soar up the bridge and reach the place of gods. The problem with that is that — in my understanding and opinion — the shadow cannot be destroyed by being split off from the self. That creates self-delusion. It must be integrated and understood.

    That in a way is exactly what auditing aims for — the integration of the repressed mind (the engrams and secondaries) into the conscious narrative and sense of self. How much healthier would it be for a Scientologist, when asked “How are you today?” to say, “I’m handling a threat of loss — my brother was in a wreck and is in a coma” — than for the Scientologist to repress reality, conclude that the sadness must be a “misemotion” (and therefore case, which cannot be talked about outside of session — another isolating dynamic) even though it sadness and worry would be perfectly appropriate emotions to a situation where a loved one is in the hospital — and then after repressing the real emotion, pretend to be fine and say “I’m great! How are you today?”

    Finally, while Scientology may have this down to a controlled extreme, this phenomenon is not limited to Scientology. In general society, we also try to keep up a pleasant appearance, a professional face, a trustworthy demeanor and all that — even when we might be feeling like crap for any number of reasons. Therefore I believe that Scientology’s application of the Tone Scale in the organization has indeed led to the Truman Show / Stepford syndrome mentioned in Marty’s insightful analysis.

    • There is a deeper lie. “We grant beingness.” And there is the trap of impossible ideals that no one can measure up to.

      The difference between society and Scientology Inc. (in my view) is that society does not pretend it has all the solutions and need look no further. And in general society I have been consistently amazed at how many truly caring people there are. They exist in Scientology Inc. too, only they are not permitted to care unless some money can be made. Granting beingness.

      • “Freedom is for honest people. No man who is not himself honest can be free – he is his own trap.”

        – L. Ron Hubbard

        • What is honesty, if you really believe what you are saying?

          • It was not an Invalidation, If you turn your back on socïety you loose a lot of valuable input. for growing as a human being.

            • My apologies, I believe I didn’t write clearly. I’ll explain what I meant by way of example: LRH wrote the OT3 narrative. Perhaps he truly and honestly believed it. Does that make him or it honest? What does your quote really mean? Honesty is plastic. And what does the quote have to do with my earlier observation? Anything?

              • Science fiction writer, Oh god you are s naïve.

                OT 3 is his most perfect implant into your mind

                • Naïve? Is this ad hominem?
                  I never did OT3. It was, as I said, an example.
                  And you have still failed to address my original point – the lie of granting beingness. Do you have any thoughts on that?

                  • No Ad hominem, I learned by the way OT3 is different for everybody not because of the person but when it was “thaught” and by whom Many varënces, Granting Beingnees maybe compassion or listening to another person Emphaty. Sorry i offended you.

                    Niels

  35. Also, the below zero zone of the Tone Scale also struck me as actions, not emotions. How is punishing or controlling bodies an emotion, for example? Would the emotions be sadism / masochism of some sort? I don’t know, but it makes sense to me to get clarity on what’s an emotion, and what’s an action /act.

    • Good point FOTF2012

      Good point, FOTF2012. Why the F was that below zero stuff there?

      For one thing, the Cof$ is at “controlling bodies” but they are alive. Well, I’m going to guess here – maybe the below body death zone was to scare us into going up the Pier to Nowhere. Who wants to be dead and stuck in those depraved tone levels?

      Personally, I’m getting huge case gain analyzing LRH newly. There’s some good stuff and then a big mind fuck combined in most of it. But overall my experience in Scientology was a net gain, and believe me, I got my share of trashing from the Cof$. Things aren’t that great in the wog world.

      My wins, my understanding are mine to keep.

  36. Hubbard stated in the PDC lectures that the first version of the tone scale appears in the book Dianetics. That is a scale of survival from Succumb to Immortality. The Tone Scale of Scientology is expanding the original scale of Dianetics and is still a scale of survival.

    That comes from the goal assigned to man: survival, the very beginning of the book Dianetics. That is some kind of a basic-basic of Scientology, many of the failures of Scientology come from this assigned goal that is not the correct one. I believe now that the proper goal of man is Happiness, as stated by Buddhism.

    According to the PDC lectures, Thought, Effort, Emotion repeat in cycles along the Tone Scale. So the tone scale is not only about emotions, but also about thought and effort.

    Flow, dispersal and ridges repeat also in cycles along the Tone Scale.

    The numbers were chosen so that they indicate the harmonic relationship. For example Conservatism at 3.0 is a ridge, so the lower harmonic at 1.5 (Anger) is still a ridge, etc.

    Thus, when expanding the Tone Scale, it could be checked whether the added tones still follow the cyclic arrangement.

    Marty is placing Compassion close to the top of the scale, so that is aligned with Buddhism. In order to be better aligned with Buddhism, Love should be placed at the top.

    There are also missing emotions on the Tone Scale, that are considered as main mental poisons by Buddhism, such as ignorance, desire, jealousy, and pride. Ignorance of our true nature is considered by Buddhism as the mother of a whole set of negative and destructive emotions that are the main causes of our sufferings.

    • martyrathbun09

      While I did not do it ‘so that it is aligned with Buddhism'(instead it was done by observation), I agree that the lower scale has omissions and inaccuracies too.

      • Sorry, my English is not good enough.

        I wanted to say that by placing compassion almost at the top, the Tone Scale is better aligned with the Buddhist scale of emotions.

        What about placing Love at the top?

        The Buddhist definitions are:
        Love: wanting others to be happy
        Compassion: wanting others to be free from suffering.

        Love and Compassion are at the top of the Buddhist scale.

    • Curiosus, you said: “That comes from the goal assigned to man: survival, the very beginning of the book Dianetics. That is some kind of a basic-basic of Scientology, many of the failures of Scientology come from this assigned goal that is not the correct one. I believe now that the proper goal of man is Happiness, as stated by Buddhism.”
      I don’t know. In book one LRH wrote about pleasure and pain. And this alignes pretty well with the Buddhist concept. In fact I read a book by the Dalai Lama (about 15 yrs ago) where he uses exact the same words: pleasure and pain. This was an interesting book, with the Title “Das Auge der Weisheit” (in german, “The Eye of Wisdom”, may have a different title in English, though).

      • Survival and Happiness may appear as similar goals, as being aligned.

        But they are not aligned. Sometimes, when people suffer too much, they commit suicide. They prefer to die than to live unhappy.

        My quest for survival according to Scientology tenets eventually made me unhappy, for example the obsession of getting enough money in order to advance on the Bridge.

        As the scientologists are survival-oriented, they are often short of compassion: people with low statistics don’t deserve any help.

        On the other hand Buddhism insists on the goal of happiness, not only for oneself but also for others. According to the Dalai Lama, spiritual improvement is impossible without universal love and compassion for others.

        Buddhism is also differentiating between pleasure and happiness:

        “Happiness is often equated with a maximization of pleasure, and some imagine that true happiness would consist of an interrupted succession of pleasurable experiences. This sounds more like a recipe for exhaustion than for genuine happiness. There is no reason to deprive ourselves of the enjoyment of a magnificent landscape, of swimming in the sea or of the scent of a rose, but we must understand that the experience of pleasure is dependent upon circumstance, on a specific location or moment in time. It is unstable by nature, and the sensation it evokes can soon become neutral or even unpleasant.

        Unlike pleasure, genuine happiness may be influenced by circumstance, but it isn’t dependent on it. It actually gives us the inner resources to deal better with those circumstances.

        Thus, happiness is rather an optimal way of being, an exceptionally healthy state of mind that underlies and suffuses all emotional states, that embraces all the joys and sorrows that come one’s way. This way of being comes together with a cluster of human qualities, such as altruistic love, compassion, inner peace, inner strength, and wisdom, which can be cultivated. Happiness is a skill that requires effort and time.”

        From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthieu-ricard/pleasure-happiness-difference_b_771048.html

        • Are the scientologists really survival oriented? If so, they are doing a piss-poor job of surviving!

          They pay lip service to “survival”, but in fact they are in many ways “self” oriented. True survival involves the survival of as many dynamics as possible, not just the self, dynamic one. Whose “eternity” is the average scientologist concernedabout. The loss of whose eternity keeps them tied to the church? Today’s scientologists pay lip servie to a lot of things, but they are succumbing rapidly for the most part.

        • “On the other hand Buddhism insists on the goal of happiness, not only for oneself but also for others. According to the Dalai Lama, spiritual improvement is impossible without universal love and compassion for others.”

          While I agree with the Dalai Lama on this particular point, I wish to point out that, as a Theravada Buddhist, I do not follow the teaching of the Dalai Lama.
          Theravadins don’t “insist” on anything not even a goal of happiness.

          Much loving-kindness (Metta)
          George M. White

          • I am not fully Buddhist, but with Buddhism I found a way to continue clearing beyond Scientology.

            I do prefer Tibetan Buddhism, as the Dalai Lama gives equal attention to analytic meditation and to placed meditation.

            Analytic meditation and observation allow obtaining certainties about life. I can check that many of the Buddhist tenets are true, by finding many examples.

            Placed meditation allow developing attention, concentration, improves the immune response, etc.

            I am also interested by the Buddhist advice and techniques to handle the issue of death.

            • Wow. Thanks for this data about the two types of meditation, analytic and placed. They seem to be two different ways of arriving at truth, both through direct observation rather than on the via of knowledge (which would be another route, however). I would guess that auditing is analytic meditation, and OT TR 0 and TR 0 are placed.

              • Actually OT TR 0 and TR 0 are drills to give an auditor the ability to conduct a session.

                • Yes, of course. It was just an idea I had about another purpose they could be used for. And even as drills they might have a benefit that is the same as a certain type of meditation. It was just speculating on my part, as I know very little about meditation.

                  • Yes. Similar process to meditation, and similar potential benefits, but not as prescribed.

                    • Right.The TRs have their own purpose and point at which you end off. And I’m definitely not saying they aren’t invaluable used as prescribed. In fact, if I had to choose one piece of tech to salvage, I think it would be TRs.

                  • Placed meditation (or concentration meditation) bears some similarity with TR0, but there are differences:
                    – The purpose of TR0 is to train auditors so that they can handle a session, when concentration meditation is used to develop attention, to gain a deeper insight into the nature of objects, to gain deeper insights into our mental states, our thought and emotion processes, etc.
                    – TR0 is done with a coach, when meditation is done solo.
                    – Instructions about TR0 don’t tell us how to handle wandering thoughts, they just tell us to be here, when instructions about meditation explain how to handle distracting thoughts (bring back our attention to the object of the concentration).
                    – TR0 is done up to a pass, when meditation is done daily until the end of this lifetime (and beyond, I hope)
                    – Advanced forms of meditation involve visualisations (mock-ups), that is not the case with TR0.
                    – Both TR0 and meditation have therapeutic effects. I remember a student on the academy who was always volunteering to coach the TR0 for 2 hours, as she said that was improving her health. Beneficial effects of meditation have been demonstrated by a number of medical studies (improvement of the immune system, etc.)

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Neat differentiation. Thanks for posting it.

                    • Thanks for the additional data! The stuff you said about TR 0 I did know but not some of the differences that you noted between it and concentration meditation including its purpose. “to gain a deeper insight into the nature of objects, to gain deeper insights into our mental states, our thought and emotion processes, etc.” From that I get the idea that it’s a kind of TR 0 on objects, or on thought or emotion.

                      However, I don’t know if what you say about TR 0 not telling us how to handle wandering or distracting thoughts is correct. My understanding is that when we observe such occurring we are to go back to just confronting – which seems like the same thing as what you (and others) say is done in concentration meditation, i.e. “bring back our attention to the object of the concentration”.

                      What you said about the therapeutic effects of TR 0 is the reason I came up with the idea on a blog discussion one time that it might be a good idea to have a service (in the Independent field) where anyone who had done a TRs course had the right to come back anytime, even daily, and drill them – especially TR 0. This would be something like what other religions and practices do where you can always go in and “pray” or “meditate” and get the continuing benefits such things can give. Radical, though this may be.🙂 It would also accomplish the incidental effect of having the additional inflow of “bodies in the shop” pulling in more bodies per LRH (if my understanding of that principle is correct).

                    • Back when I was involved with Scientology, people on courses often need a twin to work with them on some drill, and sometimes there was actually no way other than pulling another student away from whatever s/he was studying, to provide such a twin. The sups were always nice about it, and always asked “would you be willing to….?”, but it would have been great if there were people there who were there primarily for this purpose, and could just study whatever, if they were not immediately needed for twinning. That could be considered a kind of “internship” I think.

                    • Valkov, thanks for your input. You brought up another good reason to have the “extras” in the course room – which is that sometimes it’s tough for the Sup to find another student to coach a drill. And I also like your idea that in between coaching students – or drilling with other “extras” who are there for the same purpose – they could be studying something of their choice. I think this would be a wonderful way for a person to continue getting benefits from additional drilling, and also getting more of the data. If it included Supervisor help on whatever was chosen to study, it could even be a paid service – possibly by the week, somewhat like intensives of auditing apparently once were.

                      I know from some of your posts that you, for example, got a lot out of listening to a good many LRH lectures. Maybe some of the new, Independent Scientology “sects” will incorporate this sort of activity. I think it would go over big and benefit all concerned.

  37. Marty,
    I’ve been mulling this over. I can see that some of the emotions that you added to the list could also be considered States and Activities, but that is due in part to the nature of the beast: The Tone scale is a scale of ARC, which is itself the action and behavior of energy and the considerations of Theta interacting in the universe.

    The important point to me is that we as human beings are a composite, and as such we are deeply inter- related to each other and the universe. We are much more complex in actuality than the simplistic idea that Theta is totally unaffected, above and beyond any energy interactions.

    And that idea as many Scientological UNINSPECTED ideas, has a spin and a potential negative effect on us, by giving the impression that Scientologists could totally be out of the range and reach of the universe, unaffected by any emotions while still holding to a body off course, and heavily interiorized working on and accumulating MEST.

    It sounds more like a wet dream to me!

    • I think you are onto something with this.

    • Recently I’ve been studying “The Wisdom of the Enneagram” by Don Riso and Russ Hudson.

      This paragraph, to me, speaks what Conan mentions about our interconnectedness and complexity …

      “It is also important to distinguish Essences, or spirt, for “soul.” The fundamental ground of our Being is Essence or Spirit, but it takes a dynamic form we call “the soul.” Our personality is a particular aspect of our soul. Our soul is “made of” Essence or Spirit. If Spirit were water, soul would be a particular lake or river, and personality would be waves on its surface — or frozen chunks of ice in the river.” (Wisdom of the Enneagram page 27)

      Marty has done a masterful job at continuing to present possibilities as well as attempt to help to break up some of those frozen chunks of ice …

      Christine

      • Drat — typos —

        It is also important to distinguish Essences, or spirit, FROM “soul.”

      • Windhorse, the Enneagram figures heavily in the Gurdjieff/Ouspensky system of self development, which on an intellectual level has some good ideas, many derivatives of Buddhism as I see it, but set in a monotheistic setting. But that’s a tangent. On her blog Sylvia has recently been posting some good quotes of Ouspensky, remindingme of something the Gotama Buddha said: “strenuousness is the path to immortality.”

        http://silviakusada.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/the-hobby-of-spiritual-freedom/

        The Gurdjieff system was interesting to me because it attempts to analyze all the important parts of the human composite being, and identifying the different “types”.

        Ouspenky’s book “in Search of the Miraculous” is pretty good. For a much shorter intro there is a little book, about 99 pages, of 4 lectures titled “The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution” which summarizes the main features of the system in a kind of overview. This is available for free as a PDF here:
        http://www.baytallaah.com/bookspdf/86.pdf

        • Here is the Google Books blurb about it:
          The psychology of man’s possible evolution
          Studies man in view of what he may become. Describes how a man must work simultaneously on his knowledge and his being to find inner unity.Google Books
          Author: P. D. Ouspensky

          In Ouspensky’s terms, Scientology as originally conceived, would almost certainly be called a “Fourth Way School”. The first 3 Ways referring to “schools” appropriate to each of the 3 basic types of human being – 1. intellectual, 2. emotional/devotional, 3. physically oriented.

          Schools of the 4th Way attempt a more balanced or “harmonious” development of a human being, integrating his/her Intellectuial, Emotional, and Moving “centers”.

          Well we kinda know how that has turned out so far…. as far as the CoS is concerned…..

  38. I ran across this video of a friend taking his afraid-of-flying friend up in an aerobatic airplane. It’s a great example of how two people can experience the same event in completely different ways. The pilot is there, doing his thing – in control and having fun, and his friend is a wreck. Any danger there is almost exactly the same for each person. Yet the reactions are very different.

    http://jalopnik.com/what-happens-you-put-someone-afraid-of-flying-in-a-stun-1057404008

  39. I think I have found the point of change thanks to Phil Spickler. An unhanndled emotional shock.

    • martyrathbun09

      I don’t believe there is any one ‘the’. Like with all folk, it is a more complex equation.

      • Maybe i should listen to the words I borrowed that the onley certainty is change. But their it goes changing on me again, There is alsoo a saying The more things change the more they stay the same. I think that is on a bigger scale though

        Food for thaught.

      • +1

        It is called the fallacy of the single cause.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause

        A change in a complex system usually is due (causal relation) to a group of factors. (A human being, like LRH, is a complex system).
        http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Factor
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System

        Also, correlation does not imply causal relationship.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_relationships

        By the way, Scientology is also a complex system. Marty’s approach to analyze it as a complex system is over the head of some people.

        • “Marty’s approach to analyze it as a complex system is over the head of some people.”

          With that said, there’s a whole bunch of truth MaBű.

          I would append it to ‘most people’ based on my observations, unfortunately.

        • Psychoanalytically oriented psychiatrists and psychoanalysts tend to view many of an individual human’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as “overdetermined”, meaning having more than one cause.

        • MaBű, you mentioned that Marty is doing an analysis of the complex system of Scientology, and we could also say he is extending it. This reminds me of Ken Ogger’s extension of the 8 dynamics to 16. (It’s a funny coincidence that you were the one who wrote about this work of Ogger’s one time and that’s how I learned about it.)

          I think there may be a correlation between what Marty did with the tone scale and Ogger did with the dynamics, as both systems relate to higher states of being of the thetan.

          For anyone else interested, Ogger points out that the lower 8 have to do with survival in the physical universe and that the upper 8 reflect the creative or theta band. He started this system with what LRH noted in the PDC lectures as regards Ethics being the 9th and Aesthetics the 10th dynamic, and then he worked out from there the remainder of the upper 8 – aligning each of them with the lower 8 as follows.

          1. self as a body…………………9. Ethics
          2. Sex/Children/Family……….10. Aesthetics
          3. Groups ………………………..11. Construction
          4. Governments/Mankind……12. Reason
          5. Lifeforms………………………13. Change
          6. MEST…………………………..14. Games
          7. Spirits…………………………..15. Knowingness
          8. Worship………………………..16. Creation

          Here’s the link where he describes each of the upper 8 dynamics and its relationship to the corresponding lower 8 dynamic: http://timecops.biz/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=824

  40. To be quite honest, the tone scale really only mattered to me when I first got in as a Book One auditor and needed to know that my PC was actually getting better if he went from crying to being mad to being bored. Of course this applied in higher training as well, in making sure the processes were making the guy better.
    But in life and living in the church on staff, which was just about 24/7 for me for 12 years, it mostly was used by others to put a datum where just plain and simple interaction with the being should be.
    I sat in exec meetings where the ED plotted some staff member on the tone scale. How evaluative is that? Really fkin 1.1 in actuality and really had nothing to do with that person being on post and doing their job! The OT8 ED was 1.1 towards staff almost always and it was always based on this presumption of how low toned they were. Who fkin cares outside of session?! Yes, it made me mad.
    The scale was used as a separation and elevation tool – I’ve done all this auditing and a little training and I know how to plot people on the tone scale and I’m sooooooo high on the scale while you low-lifes, see, this is where LRH puts you (insert label).

    I like and can see what you’re saying about those higher tones. I guess I’m grappling with what’s the point outside of session, for me.

    • martyrathbun09

      Tara,
      You hit on something important in my view. Many tools developed for the auditing session were converted into ‘Scientology philosophy’ to be used outside of it. Part of the result was the development of a culture of 1950esque psychiatrists/psychoanalysts walking around in a state of obsessive judmentalism, merrily stereotyping and attempting to micro-manage the lives of others.

    • Tara,
      Absolutely. That is how I came to know and use the tone scale, as a Dianetics auditor.

      The way this tool got perverted, like many things in Scientology, is to use it as a control mechanism, to fuck with people, and as an excuse NOT to get in comm with the being, but with a synthetic valence instead.
      The mocked up valences were authorized by LRH, so we must therefore evaluate. How moronic can you get!

    • Beautiful insight, Tara. Kaboom!

  41. One more word about Compassion, to the attention of French speaking scientologists.

    In French materials, the tone Sympathy (0.9 on the tone scale) has been translated as “Compassion”.

    As a result French speaking scientologists consider that Compassion is a low-toned emotion, something to avoid, when actually it should be placed almost at the top of the tone scale. That is a very high degree of affinity, the basic impulse to help others.

    Sympathy at 0.9 on the tone scale is something different: the action of offering reward and validation to persons who are in a difficult situation, in a way that tends to make them believe that being a victim is valuable.

    This identification of compassion with sympathy creates a huge ARC break between the French speaking scientologist and people who suffer and who experience low conditions. Charity and social security are considered as degraded activities. When a friend scientologist is in despair, a common attitude is to no more associate with him.

    As far as I am concerned, I believe now that it was a “crashing misunderstood”.

    Do English speaking scientologists make also this identification, or do they differentiate?

  42. It is my opinion that most of your additions to the tone scale are things that are in the realm of human human/composite existence, not spiritual, and in any case certainly fall below the level of games.

    I would put non-duality at 40 (know)

    “Serenity, equilibrium (Justice)” at 6 Aesthetics

    and…

    Compassion (Responsibility), Care (Nurturing), Empathy (Transcendence of ego/pan-emotion), Appreciation (Acknowledgment), Release (Letting go)

    in the 3-6 range. High human emotion.

    In the range approaching non-duality those things simply have no reason to matter.

    Dave

    (PS Did you ever get around to reading The End of Suffering: Fearless Living in Troubled Times
    by Russel Targ, That I had gifted you?)

    • http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/14/spinoza-understanding-emotions
      “Spinoza regards joy and sadness as the two basic emotions, and he suggests that all other emotional states are variations of these, combined with ideas of particular objects that cause them. For example, love is a feeling of joy – and hatred a feeling of sadness – joined with an idea of its cause. Spinoza emphasises that such feelings may well have more to do with the imagination than with reality: the person I love may in fact weaken my essence – especially if this love is anxious or obsessive – even though I mistakenly believe that he or she enhances my life.”

  43. Very interesting! I like this! Just the other day i had an experience, and i felt bliss. Complete unity, and one with all life. Pan-equilibrium/non-duality is a perfect description of the experience! Working as a nurse, i find myself bouncing between 20 and 39, sometimes having to BE 20-39 all at once! Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.

  44. Marty, these posts of yours on emotion have really been productive for me. Thank you for facilitating this exploration. Of course, I must also thank all those who comment on your posts since the perspectives they share I find to be more than a little beneficial.

    As a result of the exploration of thought that these blogs on emotion have prompted, I am now viewing LRH’s tone scale quite differently than I was a short while ago. This modified interpretation I now have has so much more meaning and viablility for me. There are many aspects of this that I could comment on but I’ll just pick a few and try to be brief.

    Serenity of beingness…what the heck is that? REALLY! What the heck is it? While I ask the question I don’t expect an answer. I suffice to say that it is one of those abstract concepts that defies words. Nevertheless, the concept IS there just as the concept of Non-Duality and Know ARE there. Concepts too abstract to explain yet many somehow ‘know’ or at least strongly suspect that they ARE.

    I never encountered the concept of serenity of beingness until I encountered SC. And except for what you mention Marty i.e., “The idea was that the top of the scale ‘serenity of beingness’ was far too boring for a being to stay with for very long.”…I have no idea of how else LRH might have interpreted that concept. I must say that I find it more than a little amusing that the concept of serenity of beingness and the concept of boring can be in the same sentence as if they somehow belong together. LOL! For me, the two concepts are irreconcilable. However, from what I was informed of by others who comment on your blogs (many blog posts ago), this idea of an ‘all knowing’ state being ‘boring’ is not a Johnny-come-lately notion. I find this idea particularly interesting and odd. Although, in recent times, this idea is one I had accepted without question. Consequently, the idea of being in such an advance state of being where I would be ‘all knowing’ or in ‘serenity of beingness’ was not desirable to me as a state to obtain spiritually. In other words, it wasn’t on my spiritual goal list. Instead, give me ACTION and a GAME! But….

    Obviously, in order to have action and a game one must first be in a state of not know and there needs to be a subject and an object (a duality).

    If I pretend that I was in a spiritual state of serenity of beingness and/or total Cause and that, for whatever the reason, separated from this state into a state of Not Know (an effect). Of course, for me to go from a state of Know to a state of Not Know I would have to first deceive myself. But let’s pretend that I did deceive myself and seemingly moved myself into a state of Not Know. In a state of Not Know, what do I have?

    I think what I would instantly have is a void (a question). A void that I would want to instantly fill (answer). Therefore, the state of Not-Know begets the question (I want to know about) and the question begets the action (I start looking), the action then begets projection (I put out points, including their opposites, to look at), the projection begets perception, the perception begets emotions, the emotions influence interpretation, the interpretation begets belief systems and learning. Learning influences behavior, influences projections, influences emotions, influences interpretations and…well, I’m sure you get the the idea. In any case, the downward spiral is thus made.

    What is it exactly that I want to know about? I want to know the fundamentals e.g. where am I, why am I here, who am I, what am I, whats the truth and so on. Problem is, what I want to know about cannot ever be found in perception because what I really want to know about is that which I separated from (only seems like I separated from). Not realizing this, though, I keep on keeping on looking, looking, looking and looking. Meaning, I keep on (without any awareness) projecting things to look at and learn about. I believe what I am perceiving is being generated by something or someone outside of myself (not my cause). The more I project, the more I perceive, the more I learn…the deeper into self-deception I go.

    If I want to return to the state I was in (Know, Serenity of Beingness, Love, Peace, Non-Duality) before I supposedly separated, I have to stop looking in order to learn and start looking in order to unlearn. For example, look to unlearn such concepts as; being a body, sin, guilt, fear, loss, suffering, pain, blame, attack, defense, enemy, failure, misery, revenge, evil, death, etc.

  45. Compassion (Responsibility)
    Care (Nurturing)
    Empathy (Transcendence of ego/pan-emotion)
    Appreciation (Acknowledgment)
    Release (Letting go)

    I love these additions and their placement. Very strong emotions connected to them which I found I was more able to experience as a result of the auditing I received.

    Enjoying this series of posts.

  46. Madora Pennington

    In studying Scientology, I never swallowed data wholesale. I didn’t know other people did that. I never understood the viewpoint of Scientology as “the only solution to anything” when it clearly was limited.

    To accept a datum like “All ARCXs are MWHs” just put people in their own prison, shut down their emotions and made themselves wrong and bad for any upset in life. Very sad way to live. Turn someone against himself, and turn off his compassion for others. When I read that, I thought, “Well then why is there Grade 3? Okay, whatever. Don’t think so.”

    Many Scientologists were impossible to bond with emotionally and were very shut down to the experience of life. Accepting these simplistic and sweeping ideas makes life easy is some ways – you don’t have to look, think, experience your own emotions, or even take responsibility for others, because any sadness they have is their fault.

    I thought I had the right to examine every datum and decide for myself. I found data over and over that was contradictory. I would think, “Okay, well, sometimes this is true and obviously there is other times when it is not.” Or I would think, “Wow, this is so extreme, he must have been in a bad mood when he wrote that, or responding to a very specific thing that just happened, and so …. whatever.” This made leaving Scientology (when I’d received all the abuse I was willing to take) very simple. No de-programming required. I didn’t understand why the CofS was so different from what they said they were, and hoped they would sort themselves out (yeah right!). I had no idea what was being to others, especially staff.

    I just went right on with trying to figure out my life and solve my problems. There are many smart and observant people in the world, and one good idea can change your life. There’s tons of help in the world.

    Good luck to everyone detoxing Scientology and becoming a real human.

  47. Pingback: Emotions IV: The Top Of The Tone Scale | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  48. In comparing tone 30.0 Postulates with tone 0.9 sympathy; this is what someone actually is saying when he is giving sympathy(or anything symbolizing a sympathy with/) to another: Here,have some sympathy,it’s NEVER going to be allright(with you|) again! That might be the reason why wanting or giving sympathy is aberrative.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s