Tech Tripwires

[Zinjifar]

Looks like I lost my first try here, so, here goes again.

For anyone interested.

The 'Tone Scale' is a good first place to look for hidden or unspoken 'sub-text' to Scientology 'Tech', both because its one of the most persistent bits that remains long after much else has been dumped, but, also because the booby-traps (there are multiple) are both obvious and subtle.

First, to 'list':

40. Serenity of beingness
30. Postulates
22. Games
20. Action
8. Exhilaration
6. Aesthetic
4. Enthusiasm
3.5 Cheerfulness
3.3 Strong interest
3. Conservatism
2.9 Mild interest
2.8 Contented
2.6 Disinterested
2.5 Boredom
2.4 Monotony
2. Antagonism
1.9 Hostility
1.8 Pain
1.5 Anger
1.4 Hate
1.3 Resentment
1.2 No sympathy
1.15 Unexpressed resentment
1.1 Covert hostility
1.02 Anxiety
1. Fear
.98 Despair
.96 Terror
.94 Numb
.9 Sympathy
.8 Propitiation
.5 Grief
.375 Making amends
.3 Undeserving
.2 Self-abasement
.1 Victim
.07 Hopeless
.05 Apathy
.03 Useless
.01 Dying
0. Body death
- .01 Pity
- .02 Shame
- .07 Accountable
- 1. Blame
- 1.3 Regret
- 1.5 Controlling bodies
- 2.2 Protecting bodies
- 3. Owning bodies
- 3.5 Approval from bodies
- 4. Needing bodies
- 5. Worshipping bodies
- 6. Sacrifice
- 8. Hiding
-10. Being objects
-20. Being nothing
-30. Can't hide
-40. Total failure

There are numerous 'things' going on here, but, I'll get back to them in a later post. The *first* and most important boobytrap in the 'Tone Scale' is its *existence*.

It's a purely arbitrary listing, by arbitrary ranking of 'human emotions' or 'states', but, there's nothing wrong with that. Anyone could 'create' his own, and, the 'elements' might be different, as would the 'order'.

But, *Hubbard's* 'Tone Scale' is presented as an *absolute*; a 'discovered' relationship and ranking, rather than an arbitrary 'opinion'.

This intended sleight of presentation is further strengthened by the pseudo-scientific 'calibration' of such 'tones' into 'exact' decimal gradiations. The implied sub-text is that 'this has been measured; this is exact'. This is absolute.

So, that's the 'big view', there are even more tendentious elements to both the list itself and the way the 'Tone Scale' is *used* in Scientology, but, I'll address those later.

Zinj

[Dulloldfart]

Not so much

But, since it's you Paul, I'll flesh it out a bit, despite the fact that, thanks to the multifarious nature of Scientology 'courses' and 'processes' and the claims as to 'what they're for' I doubt that we'll reach any 'agreement'.

From *my* perspective, and, not only mine, but numerous other interested outsiders and, yes, even former practitioners, the subtext and common element of all the disparate elements is 'thought stopping', 'agreement', 'acceptance of authority' and paralysis of evaluation and critical examination. Of Scientology.

Possibly what might take it out of the realm of the 'generalized' would be to examine any *single* element; so, if you'd like to suggest some 'lower bridge' course or practice or training, I'll do what I can to give my take on how it serves the general 'thought stopping' goal.

I've done this numerous times before with things like the TRs and Word Clearing or even 'concepts' like the ARC Triangle and the 'Tone Levels', so, if you choose one of those, I'm at least up to speed, but, I'm pretty sure that the same 'thrust' can be found literally anywhere. Generally speaking

Zinj

OK, Zinji, here we are on this nice new thread.

Just as a reminder, you are fleshing out:

1.

I think it's safe to say that practically *anyone* not subjected to Scientology Training is better able to 'evaluate' Scientology than someone who has been.

and 2.

Most of Scientology Training is *about* controlling the ability to evaluate Scientology.

For a lower level subject, let's try something nice and easy like TRs, which you've written up before and I've spent over a thousand hours drilling, have supervised courses on, and have even spent well over a hundred hours putting online as Paul's Robot TRs 0-4.

Over to you....

Paul

[Zinjifar]

OK, Zinji, here we are on this nice new thread.

Just as a reminder, you are fleshing out:

1.
and 2.

For a lower level subject, let's try something nice and easy like TRs, which you've written up before and I've spent over a thousand hours drilling, have supervised courses on, and have even spent well over a hundred hours putting online as Paul's Robot TRs 0-4.

Over to you....

Paul

Gimme a TR, any TR, preferably with a link to what you'd consider an agreeable and 'standard' description of it.

Zinj

[Dulloldfart]

Gimme a TR, any TR, preferably with a link to what you'd consider an agreeable and 'standard' description of it.

Zinj

OK. TR-4. Here's a link to Clearbird's write-up on TRs 0-4, which I hope will be close enough. Also a link to one of my Robot TR-4 pages. Also a link to the video of Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks doing TRs for the benefit of anyone who doesn't have a clue what they are.

Paul

[Alan]

Looks like I lost my first try here, so, here goes again.

For anyone interested.

The 'Tone Scale' is a good first place to look for hidden or unspoken 'sub-text' to Scientology 'Tech', both because its one of the most persistent bits that remains long after much else has been dumped, but, also because the booby-traps (there are multiple) are both obvious and subtle.

First, to 'list':

40. Serenity of beingness
30. Postulates
22. Games
20. Action
8. Exhilaration
6. Aesthetic
4. Enthusiasm
3.5 Cheerfulness
3.3 Strong interest
3. Conservatism
2.9 Mild interest
2.8 Contented
2.6 Disinterested
2.5 Boredom
2.4 Monotony
2. Antagonism
1.9 Hostility
1.8 Pain
1.5 Anger
1.4 Hate
1.3 Resentment
1.2 No sympathy
1.15 Unexpressed resentment
1.1 Covert hostility
1.02 Anxiety
1. Fear
.98 Despair
.96 Terror
.94 Numb
.9 Sympathy
.8 Propitiation
.5 Grief
.375 Making amends
.3 Undeserving
.2 Self-abasement
.1 Victim
.07 Hopeless
.05 Apathy
.03 Useless
.01 Dying
0. Body death
- .01 Pity
- .02 Shame
- .07 Accountable
- 1. Blame
- 1.3 Regret
- 1.5 Controlling bodies
- 2.2 Protecting bodies
- 3. Owning bodies
- 3.5 Approval from bodies
- 4. Needing bodies
- 5. Worshipping bodies
- 6. Sacrifice
- 8. Hiding
-10. Being objects
-20. Being nothing
-30. Can't hide
-40. Total failure

There are numerous 'things' going on here, but, I'll get back to them in a later post. The *first* and most important boobytrap in the 'Tone Scale' is its *existence*.

It's a purely arbitrary listing, by arbitrary ranking of 'human emotions' or 'states', but, there's nothing wrong with that. Anyone could 'create' his own, and, the 'elements' might be different, as would the 'order'.

But, *Hubbard's* 'Tone Scale' is presented as an *absolute*; a 'discovered' relationship and ranking, rather than an arbitrary 'opinion'.

This intended sleight of presentation is further strengthened by the pseudo-scientific 'calibration' of such 'tones' into 'exact' decimal gradiations. The implied sub-text is that 'this has been measured; this is exact'. This is absolute.

So, that's the 'big view', there are even more tendentious elements to both the list itself and the way the 'Tone Scale' is *used* in Scientology, but, I'll address those later.

Zinj

The first m/u is the tone scale is a purpose scale.

The higher the tone the closer to on purpose you are.

Thus you can have a purpose: To enslave the world - and depending how well you are doing be quite up tone about it.

Or your purpose could be: To annoy all cultists.

Etc., etc.

I'm sure the "Ponzi Scheme Guy" was very high toned as he ripped off millions.

How well you are doing on your purpose is what monitors tone level.

It is not a scale of how present, honorable and able are you.

Alan

[Zinjifar]

The first m/u is the tone scale is a purpose scale.

The higher the tone the closer to on purpose you are.

Thus you can have a purpose: To enslave the world - and depending how well you are doing be quite up tone about it.

Or your purpose could be: To annoy all cultists.

Etc., etc.

I'm sure the "Ponzi Scheme Guy" was very high toned as he ripped off millions.

How well you are doing on your purpose is what monitors tone level.

It is not a scale of how present, honorable and able are you.

Alan

All valid points, but, best suited for what I think will be a 'part III'; How the Tone Scale is *Used*

Zinj

[lionheart]

Thanks Zinj

I personally never took any notice of the numbers. They always seemed arbitrary, not necessary and making it look pseudo-scientific. Also the below zero stuff is more theoretical and evaluative. They always struck me as different in nature to the above zero ones.

I would limit myself to the section of Death to Serenity and even in that section I'm not sure about Aesthetic, Games and Postulates as they don't seem to me to be emotions and they were not in the tone scale that I originally learned. I would take you to task about this part of the scale being arbitrary. LRH said it was based upon emotions the PC went through as incidents or charged items were discharged in auditing. And I have certainly observed this rise through those emotions both in Scn auditing, non-Scn counselling and genrally in life situations.

In my experience they do seem to be natural emotions that a person can float through like a bubble rising through water.

I'd be interestedd in how specifically you think the tone scale is "thought-stopping" - I think that was the phraase you used.

[Alan]

LRH said it was based upon emotions the PC went through as incidents or charged items were discharged in auditing. And I have certainly observed this rise through those emotions both in Scn auditing, non-Scn counselling and genrally in life situations.

Agreed - sort of

Alan

[Zinjifar]

I'm getting kind of tied up in 'MEST' work <g> so, it may take me a little time to get to these first two 'projects':

The TRs (specifically TR-4)
The 'Tone Level'

but, I haven't forgotten and hope to have them done by this weekend.

In the meantime, Paul offered Clearbird's description:

http://www.freezoneearth.org/Clearbi...3tr_drills.htm

And, I'll offer a couple of others:

Perry Scott's (not phil) analysis, with which I generally agree, but have some additional comments:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/TR/critique.html

and, the Stacy Young/Jesse Prince 'demonstration' of TRs:

http://www.xenutv.com/trust/trdemo.htm

I think most, but not all of my perspective is covered in those, and, I'll get back to both the TRs and the 'Tone Scale' as soon as I can.

Zinj

[Dulloldfart]

I'm not going to discuss someone else's criticism. I'll pick it up when you get back to it, Zinj.

Paul