Beware - there are SPs on the newsgroup
RolandRB
reading this newsgroup. Your Church has forbidden it and although you
have set out on the "Bridge to Total Freedom(tm)" your "Freedom" does
NOT include disobeying the dictates of your Church. The reason your are
warned not to read the posts here is because there are SPs here trying
to enturbulate you. One type of post you should never read is the ones
where they use the phrase "I am mocking up my own reactive mind" in it
somewhere. You must not read this phrase if you are a preclear. That is
because it is the "Clear Cognition" and reading it and knowing that it
is the Clear Cognition could stall your progress on the Bridge to Total
Freedom. So be warned.
Phil Scott
"Alex" <Asi...@null.edu> wrote in message
news:Asingh-BECCD3....@nntp.charter.net...
> In article
> <1134655311.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> I am not aware of the Church of Scientology forbiding its
> members from
> reading this newsgroup.
>
> Do you have any reference to such? (Other than anecdotal?)
>
> There are SP's out in the world. This, though, is not a
> reason to hide
> from life.
>
> The solution as provided by LRH is to "Decide to flourish
> and prosper!"
>
> Additionally he says: "There is no more deadly way to get
> even with a
> suppressive or an antagonistic person...."
>
> Your attempt to introvert people by your "warning" is simply
> that, an
> attempt to stop or diminish peoples reach for information.
>
> My humble opinion.
>
> Alex.
Alex of course you are correct, with an IQ like yours you
see like a laser through lies and bullshit and SUPPRESSIVE
spin no matter how covertly disguised. Congratulations.
Of course scientology inc wants you to read ARS...thats why
they have sent out the thugs, tried to remove the group from
USENET, sued and tried to ruin its participants for 15 years
now in state and federal courts world wide. It is only
because of your stunning intellectual achievements in
scientology that you have been able to recognise this.
again Alex, congratulations.... job well done.
Kevin Brady
> In article <1134655311.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "RolandRB" <rolan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I am not aware of the Church of Scientology forbiding its members from
> reading this newsgroup.
>
> Do you have any reference to such? (Other than anecdotal?)
You might want to just call your local OSA Rep and ask if they have any
guidance for you regarding this. I'm sure they will have a few things
to say.
> There are SP's out in the world. This, though, is not a reason to hide
> from life.
Damned skippy. Although I think SPs is an over-simplification. There
are definitely people who have adopted the strategy of overwhelming
those they meet who they find a possible threat to them. Sometimes the
overwhelm attempts are violent, sometimes they are covertly hostile
(apparently helpful if not viewed closely).
> The solution as provided by LRH is to "Decide to flourish and prosper!"
Doesn't hurt to know how the mind works, either.
> Additionally he says: "There is no more deadly way to get even with a
> suppressive or an antagonistic person...."
Yep, just going about your business and doing well is perfectly acceptable.
> Your attempt to introvert people by your "warning" is simply that, an
> attempt to stop or diminish peoples reach for information.
Well, he's also right: The Church of Scientology has an enemies list,
and that list includes many of the posters to this forum. I believe the
Church's policy on this is still to handle or disconnect (and only do
the handle step if you are trained and authorized to do so).
> My humble opinion.
Thanks for that!
KGB
Hartley Patterson
> Sir.
>
> I am not aware of the Church of Scientology forbiding its members from
> reading this newsgroup.
>
> Do you have any reference to such? (Other than anecdotal?)
You just failed your Logic 101 spot test. You are permitted to retake it
now. Go back and read Roland's post again :-)
--
Alt.Religion.Scientology FAQ
http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/faq.htm
mad_kow
Alex wrote:
> I am not aware of the Church of Scientology forbiding its members from
> reading this newsgroup.
>
> Do you have any reference to such? (Other than anecdotal?)
>
Several years ago, a scientologist posted on this newsgroup. OSA
contacted them (I think through email) and asked them NOT to post to
ARS, and also said that OSA had several operatives already handling the
newsgroup.
That's the general details. Someone that knows what to google could
maybe find the specific post regarding it.
Mad Kow
Muldoon
Notes re. two types of "suitable guises" long used by the C of S:
1) The fake "ex-Scientologist"-type "reasonable critic," who vaguely
would express disagreement with the C of S, and even Miscavige, yet
would express consternation at "unreasonable critics" also called
"anti-cult cultists."
Many years ago I used (god forbid, may have originated) the term
"anti-cult cultist" to describe what I occasionally perceived as a
cult-like anti-cultism. (It can happen.) Unfortunately, Scientology
PR/Intell picked up on it (from whatever source) and began to use the
term in their "ex-Scientologist" and "reasonable critic"
("Bernie-type") PR ploy.
Since then I abandoned the use of the term "anti-cult cultist" as it
had been co-opted by the cult, and was now useless. Any critic using
the term nowadays is either naive, a dupe, or a "sleeper"
deep-Operative. Of course, it's wise to give the person the benefit of
the doubt. I'm particularly inclined to recommend this amount of
tolerance since I was one of the earlier users (1980s) of the term,
"anti-cult cultist."
2) The "flip side" of the "reasonable coin" PR Op is the "reasonable C
of S member."
This person will demonstrate a sense of humor (sometimes), by being
able to mention the name "Xenu," and make sure that, as a C of S
member, it's known that he has no difficulty with being on ARS. This is
to "prove" that the CofS is not a fanatical cult, after all.
Of course, as already noted, it's wise to give anyone the benefit of
the doubt; however, on occasion, a kick in the cyberspace butt, of
someone obviously lying and manipulating on behalf of the C of S, can
be therapeutic for the person, provided, sometime later, an attempt at
communication is made. (Tough love.)
To put it in Scientologese, don't let anyone "drive in your anchor
points" (reduce your space or reach), or inhibit your communication; at
the same time try to think before responding.
I've always been amazed at the amount of time the C of S will spend on
"007"-type covert PR and Intell activities. It will invest a lot, over
a long period of time, always along multiple channels, and through
multiple methods, to get a barely significant result.
It's so built in to what they do - and are - that I don't think they
can stop doing it. They have a case of Hubbardian "sneak-o-phrenia" and
there is no cure in sight.
Fortunately, it really doesn't interfere in any major way with the
purpose of ARS.
Probably, should also note that there are others in the "guise" of
"kooks" or "extremists," etc. and, of course, there are
people who simply are that way naturally.
Wouldn't worry about it too much.
Just keep communicating.
The vast majority here are cool.
John
> "RolandRB" <rolan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I am not aware of the Church of Scientology forbiding its members from
> reading this newsgroup.
>
> Do you have any reference to such? (Other than anecdotal?)
If you are a member of the CoS, mention that you've been reading a.r.s next
time you are in session. See what happens.
For something more concrete, have a look at;
http://www.xenu.net/archive/events/censorship/
Also, talk to FluffyGirl from this newsgroup concerning what happened to her
as a member when the CoS found out she was reading and posting here.
>
> There are SP's out in the world. This, though, is not a reason to hide
> from life.
>
> The solution as provided by LRH is to "Decide to flourish and prosper!"
This is as deep as "Don't worry, be happy!".
>
> Additionally he says: "There is no more deadly way to get even with a
> suppressive or an antagonistic person...."
than to?
>
> Your attempt to introvert people by your "warning" is simply that, an
> attempt to stop or diminish peoples reach for information.
>
> My humble opinion.
>
> Alex.
Hubbard also said that connection to an SP (by Hubbard's definition, anyone
who is critical of the CoS) would probably deletriously effect your case and
potentially get you disconnected from the CoS.
SweetCh...@hushmail.com
RolandRB schrieb:
> If you are a Scientologist in good standing then you should not be
> reading this newsgroup.
Scientologists can make their own decision, although most consider it
entheta in here and don't want to join the ARS hate mongers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Legal documents on the net prove that Garry Lynn Scarff conspired to
commit murder; was involved in two kidnappings/deprogrammings (one with
sexual abuse); stole funds of a non profit org; stole books from book
stores and libraries; took the 5th on what he did while employed by a
bank; committed perjury (lying under oath for 17 days); made death
threats and threats of violence mainly against Barbara Schwarz but also
others, and forges her and others constantly on Usenet and perhaps also
elsewhere.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
Alex wrote:
> In article <1134655311.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "RolandRB" <rolan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sir.
>
> I am not aware of the Church of Scientology forbiding its members from
> reading this newsgroup.
>
> Do you have any reference to such? (Other than anecdotal?)
>
Whether there is a policy or not is - IMHO - irrelevent, when we can
observe, for instance, Claire Swazey being declared for taking part in
discussions here[1]. You may conside4r that anecdotal, I suggest you ask
her directly.
Anyway, since "purpose is senior policy," the victims of the criminal
organisation known as the "church" <spit> of $cientology don't care whether
there is a policy or not.
> Your attempt to introvert people by your "warning" is simply that, an
> attempt to stop or diminish peoples reach for information.
Yeah, well, you don't get it ;-).
Best Regards
Jens
[1] Message-ID: <3bd0...@news2.lightlink.com>
- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, jens...@tingleff.org
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mdk Linux / odds and ends
http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 211 585
"All day at the office, micro-fishing with chips" Vivian Stanshall
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDonDbimJs3AlyPBIRAu7UAJ9N5JGuZ1Fq8ZBYV2x6GmURXYAbkQCfd23D
i9I8IRg++wvL0wkQ8sNy+8o=
=0DWy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Muldoon
Alex wrote:
> In article <dns6gv$n0t$1...@news.tdl.com>,
-snip-
> My apparent naivette is a matter of choice rather than "klooelessness".
-snip-
> Alex
Inadvertently, Alex admits that his message is bogus.
And, while he may not realize it now, has just taken the first step in
his recovery from the cult.
Muldoon
I think this would qualify as "continued membership in a divergent
group," amongst other things.
It might also be informative to consult the fate of former ARS member
"abc@123."
But then again "abc@123" was just a rank-and-file member, and really
was here on his own volition. (Before being sucked - swoosh! - back
into the cult.)
Alex, however, according to his own description, is here to "handle"
ARS - and also ACT.
But that's OK. As long as he's here, there's a chance of his eventually
having his "Clear of Scientology cognition."
Once that occurs, it's just a matter of time and familiarity before he
is "exterior from Scientology with full perception."
And that would complete his "graduation from Scientology," and be yet
another ARS Success Story.
Ball of Fluff
Alex wrote:
> In article <1134655311.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "RolandRB" <rolan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I am not aware of the Church of Scientology forbiding its members from
> reading this newsgroup.
Oh, believe it.
They don't tell members ahead of time because they do not want to call
attention to this ng by bringing it up.
But I was posting here, and this is long before I thought of posting
one single solitary word of dissent. I was a church member at the time,
I was posting all pro Scn, pro tech (Well, I still am pro tech), pro
CofS commentary.I'd found the ng, lurked awhile and started posting to
it on my own. Jens remembers, as you can see.
I was then brought into the local org for many handlings. OSA Int would
telex the org whenever I'd start posting again and when my husband
posted JPGs to alt.binaries.scientology.
A comment made by OSA to the local DSA was "whose side is she on?"
Since, at the time, I was posting no dissent whatsoever, I thought this
an odd thing to say.
The handlings got successively nastier and nastier. The church implied
that they'd get in between me and my husband since, if I were expelled
for posting here, he couldn't be connected to me.
I went in each time with a list of LRH references, including but not
limited to the creed, and finally they said, "THIS is what we're going
by" which was the Adherence to Suppressive Groups PL. They said they
didn't want to hear about the creed.
Or the other references, either.
OSA Int in LA was calling the shots on this.
I was eventually told I couldn't even ~read~ a.r.s.
But don't let people like Roland use that to intimidate you from not
reading a.r.s. or a.c.t.
In my opinion, all church members should read these ngs at least some
of the time.
But be aware- if you post or allude to your real name (which I have
always done) and are on lines at any Org or Mission, the church will
pitch a fit about it. I am not the only person to whom this has
happened. I have become a cautionary tale here, but when I was first
posting, Heidrun Beer, Clearbaby, was the cautionary tale waved in my
face by many.
Keith Little, posting as Whippersnapper then, also had CofS on his back
about his posting. I said something to the DSA, I said I wasn't the
only one and that Keith was posting. She looked at me sternly and said
"Keith Little is in a LOT of trouble!"
I was also told at one of my handlings "We HAVE people to do that"
(post to a.r.s.) and was told that they only want church members here
if they've sent them here.
So any church member posting here for a goodly length of time- if CofS
knows who they are - then they will either tell them to stop posting or
else the person is an operative of some sort.
Both my husband and I were expelled for posting here, but this was a
year later after I'd walked away in disgust. You can't fire someone
who's ~quit~.
But, still Jens is correct in what he says elsewhere on this thread.
>
> Do you have any reference to such? (Other than anecdotal?)
See above.
>
> There are SP's out in the world. This, though, is not a reason to hide
> from life.
Right. There aren't as many SPs as Hubbard said, anyway.
>
> The solution as provided by LRH is to "Decide to flourish and prosper!"
>
> Additionally he says: "There is no more deadly way to get even with a
> suppressive or an antagonistic person...."
>
> Your attempt to introvert people by your "warning" is simply that, an
> attempt to stop or diminish peoples reach for information.
Oh, he just likes to do that whole J&D thang....he does all this
mocking stuff...it doesn't mean jackshit.
when I was in CofS and was first posting here, he wrote this thing
about how I'd have to disconnect from my husband John and I'd lose my
house or something 'cuz I'd get expelled for posting here, and it was
kind of in a mocking humorous vein. I replied that there were plenty of
fish in the sea and I can get another man. Another regular got really
pissed at that. I guess I was supposed to freak out and knuckle under
or some stupid ass thing.
>
> My humble opinion.
Well, you're right, but you're not entirely informed, either.
C
Zinj
amaflu...@yahoo.com says...
<snip>
> Right. There aren't as many SPs as Hubbard said, anyway.
There are'nt *any*.
At least not the way Hubbard said and meant.
Of course there are people with 'traits' that fit in the description,
and everybody exhibits some sometimes, but there is *no such thing* as
the magical 'category' of beings Hubbard and Scientology call
'suppressives'.
Just like there is no such thing as 'clear' or 'OT' or 'Whole Track' or
'Incident I' or 'Incident II' or 'Body Thetans' or or or...
Zinj
--
Villains! I say to you now! Knock off all that Evil!
- The Tick
Kevin Brady
> In article <1134756848....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> amaflu...@yahoo.com says...
>
> <snip>
>
>>Right. There aren't as many SPs as Hubbard said, anyway.
>
>
> There are'nt *any*.
Bzzt.
> At least not the way Hubbard said and meant.
Which time? Depends on the definition he was using, because it has a
few. One is a dramatizing psychotic. If you don't like that
terminology, I'm perfectly comfortable translating it into english as
someone who sees everyone in his environment as part of some threatening
circumstance that he has to overcome. Such people do exist. Another
definition was more "functional" from an organizational/PR standpoint,
and was applied to "the anti-social personality: the
anti-scientologist". Thus were branded anyone who was opposed to
"command intention".
> Of course there are people with 'traits' that fit in the description,
> and everybody exhibits some sometimes, but there is *no such thing* as
> the magical 'category' of beings Hubbard and Scientology call
> 'suppressives'.
Sure there are. While they may not be emissaries of Xenu, there are
people who employ the strategy of destroying or using everyone around
them to ensure their own safety. Sociopaths.
> Just like there is no such thing as 'clear' or 'OT' or 'Whole Track' or
> 'Incident I' or 'Incident II' or 'Body Thetans' or or or...
All of those things do exist. As concepts if nothing else. A person
can be clear, but you would be right to say that there is no absolute
state of clear, and in saying that all those labeled clear do not share
common traits, other than presently not being restimulated. OTs I
reserve judgment on, in the Jedi sense, but in the sense of capable of
following their own dreams and actualizing them, I think they exist. I
don't know if there are spiritual entities at all, nevermind disembodied
ones who think they're my funnybone, or something, but it COULD be. I
certainly wouldn't stake my life, money or professional reputation on
it, however. IF someone felt they were possessed by BTs, however, I
would be well-advised to know methods of helping them cease feeling that
way.
KGB
Ball of Fluff
Kevin Brady wrote:
> Zinj wrote:
> > In article <1134756848....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > amaflu...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>Right. There aren't as many SPs as Hubbard said, anyway.
> >
> >
> > There are'nt *any*.
>
> Bzzt.
>
> > At least not the way Hubbard said and meant.
>
> Which time? Depends on the definition he was using, because it has a
> few. One is a dramatizing psychotic. If you don't like that
> terminology, I'm perfectly comfortable translating it into english as
> someone who sees everyone in his environment as part of some threatening
> circumstance that he has to overcome. Such people do exist. Another
> definition was more "functional" from an organizational/PR standpoint,
> and was applied to "the anti-social personality: the
> anti-scientologist". Thus were branded anyone who was opposed to
> "command intention".
Hubbard says a lot of interesting things about SPs. basically, he meant
that an SP would be a sociopath. A suppressive is one who compulsively
and consistently suppresses. To get that way, he has to have gone
psychotic and to not be seeing things and people as they really are.
There're people like that.
I don't for one minute believe that there are as many as Hubbard
estimated, but, as he also said, someone who's not an actual SP can
take on the colors of being an SP. I wrote a post on that on a.c.t. a
couple days ago.
>
> > Of course there are people with 'traits' that fit in the description,
> > and everybody exhibits some sometimes, but there is *no such thing* as
> > the magical 'category' of beings Hubbard and Scientology call
> > 'suppressives'.
>
> Sure there are. While they may not be emissaries of Xenu, there are
> people who employ the strategy of destroying or using everyone around
> them to ensure their own safety. Sociopaths.
Sure.
>
> > Just like there is no such thing as 'clear' or 'OT' or 'Whole Track' or
> > 'Incident I' or 'Incident II' or 'Body Thetans' or or or...
>
> All of those things do exist. As concepts if nothing else.
Right. Clears and OTs in Scn aren't as capable as promised, but the
standard and concept exists.
And one can work toward it.
It's what some people call enlightenment.
C
Ball of Fluff
But we don't know his "fate". Not for sure. We can speculate and we may
be correct, but we don't actually know.
>
> But then again "abc@123" was just a rank-and-file member, and really
> was here on his own volition. (Before being sucked - swoosh! - back
> into the cult.)
As was I, originally.
>
> Alex, however, according to his own description, is here to "handle"
> ARS - and also ACT.
Well, when I first got here, as a church member, posting on my own,
yes, I did want to discuss things but there was definitely some
interest in "handling" on my part.
What exactly did Alex say?
C
Muldoon
Fluff, the person in question's postings are not archived.
This person, in my opinion, is not simply a naive disciple of Hubbard
with an interest in dialogue, and in making an honest effort at coaxing
others into "getting back into the fold."
He's playing manipulative games, and for reasons best known to himself.
I'd rather move on to other topics, and - as much as possible - avoid
focusing on any individual.
For adventurous members of the Scientology Organization: Please keep in
mind that ARS is a Forum that specializes in news, exposes,
"criticism," and critiques.
There are Forums, such as ACT, and also "FreeZone" Forums, that have a
different emphasis. By all means lurk, and explore their abundant
archives.
The entirety of the Internet is available to you, and even some old
fashioned things called books.
Best wishes on your increased understanding of this strange and
secretive subject/operation known as "Scientology."
Muldoon
Alex wrote:
> In article <1134778596....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> away from something for fear of running into "suppressives".
>
> A person should use the tools they have to confront it as best they can
> and not become the effect.
>
> Yes. This is a manipulative ideal. I want people to be strong,
> knowledgeable and fearless.
>
> Particularly I want Scientologists to be "mainstream".
>
> I am sure that Ms Swazye would be in agreement that there is no
> advantage to being weak, dumb and afraid. But then she is none of these.
>
> I find it interesting that I have been characterized as manipulative
> when I have stated empowering ideas.
>
> Who am I a danger to?
>
> A.S.
I believe the words were, "Handle or disconnect."
But no problem, handle-away.
L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology is, amongst other things, manipulative.
(One might say, it's sneaky.)
So don't feel defensive - You're "on Source."
Being in the Scientology cult is like being in a room filled with
cigarette smoke. When you walk into another room for a visit, your
clothes still stink of cigarettes.
This is particularly true when you're not only in it; but when it also
gets _in_ you.
You reek of filterless Kools.
Maybe, if you stay in the fresh air long enough, it'll dissipate.
It'll take a while.
Fredric L. Rice
>In article <1134655311.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "RolandRB" <rolan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Sir.
<rofl!> Fucking moron.
>I am not aware of the Church of Scientology forbiding its members from
>reading this newsgroup.
That's because you didn't see the so-called "Scino Sitter" software
exposure several years ago.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
"SUVs don't burn down by themselves." -- Some elf in a bunny suit
John
"Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43a3...@news2.lightlink.com...snip
>
>> Just like there is no such thing as 'clear' or 'OT' or 'Whole Track' or
>> 'Incident I' or 'Incident II' or 'Body Thetans' or or or...
>
> All of those things do exist. As concepts if nothing else. A person can
> be clear, but you would be right to say that there is no absolute state of
> clear, and in saying that all those labeled clear do not share common
> traits, other than presently not being restimulated.
Do those clears present improvements in the areas Hubbard made claims they
would?
Kevin Brady
> "Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:43a3...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
>>Zinj wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1134756848....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>
> snip
>
>>>Just like there is no such thing as 'clear' or 'OT' or 'Whole Track' or
>>>'Incident I' or 'Incident II' or 'Body Thetans' or or or...
>>
>>All of those things do exist. As concepts if nothing else. A person can
>>be clear, but you would be right to say that there is no absolute state of
>>clear, and in saying that all those labeled clear do not share common
>>traits, other than presently not being restimulated.
>
>
> Do those clears present improvements in the areas Hubbard made claims they
> would?
Some of the areas, yes. Universally? NO. If you read what I said, I
don't recognize the State of Clear. Although I do recognize that people
can be "presently" destimulated, or clear without the caps.
KGB
John
> John wrote:
>> "Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:43a3...@news2.lightlink.com...
>>
>>>Zinj wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <1134756848....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>>Just like there is no such thing as 'clear' or 'OT' or 'Whole Track' or
>>>>'Incident I' or 'Incident II' or 'Body Thetans' or or or...
>>>
>>>All of those things do exist. As concepts if nothing else. A person can
>>>be clear, but you would be right to say that there is no absolute state
>>>of clear, and in saying that all those labeled clear do not share common
>>>traits, other than presently not being restimulated.
>>
>>
>> Do those clears present improvements in the areas Hubbard made claims
>> they would?
>
> Some of the areas, yes.
What areas would those be?
terapin Ed
Solid Person?
hell yea I'm a Solid.
Give me 5 on the backside.
Peace
Ed
Kevin Brady
> "Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:43a66c03$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>>"Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:43a3...@news2.lightlink.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Zinj wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <1134756848....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Just like there is no such thing as 'clear' or 'OT' or 'Whole Track' or
>>>>>'Incident I' or 'Incident II' or 'Body Thetans' or or or...
>>>>
>>>>All of those things do exist. As concepts if nothing else. A person can
>>>>be clear, but you would be right to say that there is no absolute state
>>>>of clear, and in saying that all those labeled clear do not share common
>>>>traits, other than presently not being restimulated.
>>>
>>>
>>>Do those clears present improvements in the areas Hubbard made claims
>>>they would?
>>
>>Some of the areas, yes.
>
>
> What areas would those be?
Emotional affect (he called it tone).
John
> John wrote:
>> "Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:43a66c03$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>>
>>>John wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:43a3...@news2.lightlink.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Zinj wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <1134756848....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>
>>>>snip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Just like there is no such thing as 'clear' or 'OT' or 'Whole Track'
>>>>>>or 'Incident I' or 'Incident II' or 'Body Thetans' or or or...
>>>>>
>>>>>All of those things do exist. As concepts if nothing else. A person
>>>>>can be clear, but you would be right to say that there is no absolute
>>>>>state of clear, and in saying that all those labeled clear do not share
>>>>>common traits, other than presently not being restimulated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do those clears present improvements in the areas Hubbard made claims
>>>>they would?
>>>
>>>Some of the areas, yes.
>>
>>
>> What areas would those be?
>
> Emotional affect (he called it tone).
Given the extremely dubious nature of Hubbard's analysis of emotion, and the
prime position of emotion in any attempt to control a person, I can accept
that emotions can be altered through dianetics, but I wonder what your
definition of 'improvement' is? Moving up the tone scale is not improvement.
Kevin Brady
Not being pinned to one tone or another is an improvement: flexibility
of response, rather than conditioned response. Generally tending toward
"higher toned" responses (higher than "2.0").
--
"Our war has been forced to become 'To take over absolutely the field of
mental healing on this planet in all forms.' [...]
By showing him to be brutal, venal and plotting we get him discarded.
Our direct assault will come when they start to arrest his principals
and troops for crimes (already begun).
Our total victory will come when we run his organisations, perform his
functions and obtain his financing and appropriations."
-- L. Ron Hubbard
"The WAR", 2 Dec 69
John
Assuming that there is such as thing as "high toned". The assumption being
that emotions can in any sense be put on a scale.
Kevin Brady
your point is that the scale may not be useful. I find it useful. Do
you consider being enthusiastic a "better mood" than being angry? Not
with regard to a specific circumstance, but just generally being angry,
most of the time, as opposed to mostly feeling enthusiastic?
Just wondering.
--
"Our war has been forced to become 'To take over absolutely the field of
mental healing on this planet in all forms.'
That was not the original purpose. The original purpose was to clear
Earth. The battles suffered developed the data that we had an enemy who
would have to be gotten out of the way and this meant that we were at war …
Zinj
Oh, certainly they *can*, but the question is whether the 'scale'
represents anything other than a purely arbitrary taxonomy, or has any
usefullness.
Scientology's 'Tone Scale' is represented by its 'author'(Source) as
being an absolute 'discovered' relationship, and universally applicable.
Whether it has any *other* usefullness, its primary value is to organize
and stratify and *mandate* a mindset that is consistent with the rest of
Scientology's unscientific and arbitrary belief system.
This is worse; this is better; this is what you should want; this is how
bad you are.
It's hogwash as anything but Hubbard's own skewed perception of value,
but, strangely enough, even for *escaping* Scientologists, the 'Tone
Scale' is generally the last thing to go.
Zinj
--
Remember: Last rat off the ship goes to jail
Howard
>
> John wrote:
> > "Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:43c1e74e$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >
> >>John wrote:
<snippage>
> >>Not being pinned to one tone or another is an improvement: flexibility of
> >>response, rather than conditioned response. Generally tending toward
> >>"higher toned" responses (higher than "2.0").
> >
> >
> > Assuming that there is such as thing as "high toned". The assumption being
> > that emotions can in any sense be put on a scale.
> >
> >
> Right, that's the assumption. Of course they can be put on a scale,
> your point is that the scale may not be useful. I find it useful. Do
> you consider being enthusiastic a "better mood" than being angry? Not
> with regard to a specific circumstance, but just generally being angry,
> most of the time, as opposed to mostly feeling enthusiastic?
>
> Just wondering.
A description of emotion or 'mood' without reference to
circumstances and/or context is flawed an imo inadequate.
For example:
Jill enthusiastically plucked feathers from Jacks live pet chicken.
Jack angrily ran into the garden to stop her.
regards
Howard
--
hedmundoatmacmaildotcom
Kevin Brady
How about:
Jill woke up feeling angry
Jack woke up feeling enthusiastic.
John
> John wrote:
snip
>>
>>
>>
> Right, that's the assumption. Of course they can be put on a scale, your
> point is that the scale may not be useful. I find it useful. Do you
> consider being enthusiastic a "better mood" than being angry? Not with
> regard to a specific circumstance, but just generally being angry, most of
> the time, as opposed to mostly feeling enthusiastic?
>
> Just wondering.
As another poster says, talking about emotion without reference to context
and circumstance is silly.
Someone attacks my family in front of me.. should I endeavour to feel
enthusiastic or angry? Someone close to me dies.. should I mourn? But that
would be downtone.
And assigning relative social (within a group) worth to emotions is a great
way of trying to force people into unnatural emotional patterns, divorcing
them from what they should be feeling. You have to disconnect from your
parents and you feel bad about it? It's your fault.
Once you've defined your downtone state, suddenly it's real easy to say that
downtone = evil = SP = critic = homosexual = cult scapegoat.
The tone scale is just another control mechanism for the CoS.
Howard
>
> Howard wrote:
> > Kevin Brady wrote:
> >
> >>John wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:43c1e74e$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >>>
> >>>>John wrote:
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> >>>>Not being pinned to one tone or another is an improvement: flexibility of
> >>>>response, rather than conditioned response. Generally tending toward
> >>>>"higher toned" responses (higher than "2.0").
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Assuming that there is such as thing as "high toned". The assumption being
> >>>that emotions can in any sense be put on a scale.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Right, that's the assumption. Of course they can be put on a scale,
> >>your point is that the scale may not be useful. I find it useful. Do
> >>you consider being enthusiastic a "better mood" than being angry? Not
> >>with regard to a specific circumstance, but just generally being angry,
> >>most of the time, as opposed to mostly feeling enthusiastic?
> >>
> >>Just wondering.
> >
> >
> > A description of emotion or 'mood' without reference to
> > circumstances and/or context is flawed an imo inadequate.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > Jill enthusiastically plucked feathers from Jacks live pet chicken.
> > Jack angrily ran into the garden to stop her.
>
> How about:
>
> Jill woke up feeling angry
That night, she'd spent hours fending off Jacks amorous advances.
> Jack woke up feeling enthusiastic.
Today he was sure that he'd get his end away with Jill.
regards
Howard
--
hedmundoatmacmaildotcom
Kevin Brady
> "Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:43c7...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
>>John wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>>
>>>
>>Right, that's the assumption. Of course they can be put on a scale, your
>>point is that the scale may not be useful. I find it useful. Do you
>>consider being enthusiastic a "better mood" than being angry? Not with
>>regard to a specific circumstance, but just generally being angry, most of
>>the time, as opposed to mostly feeling enthusiastic?
>>
>>Just wondering.
>
>
> As another poster says, talking about emotion without reference to context
> and circumstance is silly.
Agreed. That doesn't mean we are fully aware of the context we are in.
If you wake up angry, and don't know why, is that a good frame of
mind? Is it appropriate? Perhaps it IS, if we understand that in the
history of this person, morning was when mom hassled them about getting
up and going to school, or whatever morning means to this person.
> Someone attacks my family in front of me.. should I endeavour to feel
> enthusiastic or angry?
You feel how you feel. A healthy response to that might well be anger.
Now: does your anger manifest as screaming and yelling, completely
out of control, or does it manifest as calmly disabling the attacker
(physically or verbally or legally or whatever, whatever is appropriate
and within means) and getting about your business?
How about you are walking down the street, and a girl goes by dressed as
a goth. Is an appropriate response anger? Frustration? Apathy?
Enthusiasm? Aesthetic appreciation? Why are some people angry at punk
rockers without talking to them or seeing them do something harmful?
> Someone close to me dies.. should I mourn? But that
> would be downtone.
Mourning is a natural response. Being stuck in mourning for years,
unable to get on with your life, obsessed with the conditions of their
death... that's downtone.
> And assigning relative social (within a group) worth to emotions is a great
> way of trying to force people into unnatural emotional patterns, divorcing
> them from what they should be feeling. You have to disconnect from your
> parents and you feel bad about it? It's your fault.
It certainly could be employed that way, and such would be despicable.
Of course, the practice of disconnection is usually despicable, unless
the person being disconnected from genuinely has an intention to do you
harm.
> Once you've defined your downtone state, suddenly it's real easy to say that
> downtone = evil = SP = critic = homosexual = cult scapegoat.
Yes, things can be employed according to the intentions of those using them.
> The tone scale is just another control mechanism for the CoS.
The operative term there is "for the CoS", and I agree. That's not the
inherent function of the Tone Scale, however.
Kevin Brady
That would provide a context. How about the entirety of the rest of her
life is going fantastically, but she's continuously angry, and no one is
doing anything to her to make her angry? Such cases exist!
>>Jack woke up feeling enthusiastic.
>
>
> Today he was sure that he'd get his end away with Jill.
Some people are very enthusiastic, despite being in incredibly
overwhelming environments (I met Somali kids who grew up in poverty,
with bullets whizzing around, who were ebullient about their futures,
and others who had given up completely and were completely cynical).
Others are apathetic and depressed because they couldn't find matching
socks that morning, although they make six figures playing professional
tennis on a world-wide stage. Some responses to the environment are
cued by factors that don't make sense with information the person has to
hand. Such cases are prime examples where abreactive therapy could be
employed (of which Dianetics is a brand name).
>
>
> regards
>
> Howard
Howard
In this regard my focus is on normal function. The point you make
is one more relevant to chronic dysfunction, the remedy for which
may be to enlarge awareness of context and circumstance until (in a
safe environment) the 'aha' insight becomes available and useable
and failing that, medication or other practices.
>
> >>Jack woke up feeling enthusiastic.
> >
> >
> > Today he was sure that he'd get his end away with Jill.
>
> Some people are very enthusiastic, despite being in incredibly
> overwhelming environments (I met Somali kids who grew up in poverty,
> with bullets whizzing around, who were ebullient about their futures,
> and others who had given up completely and were completely cynical).
> Others are apathetic and depressed because they couldn't find matching
> socks that morning, although they make six figures playing professional
> tennis on a world-wide stage. Some responses to the environment are
> cued by factors that don't make sense with information the person has to
> hand. Such cases are prime examples where abreactive therapy could be
> employed (of which Dianetics is a brand name).
Enlarged awareness of and insight into ones personal position can
lead to a broader range of individual choices in life. To draw a
distinction between, for example, the manic mode of bi-polar
disorder and that of existential vigour derived from personal and
cultural circumstances seems only reasonable.
Perhaps you should have a look at Maslow's stuff.
And just to get back in focus, 'circumstances alter cases'.
Howard
--
hedmundoatmacmaildotcom
Kevin Brady
Yep. Part of the person's environment is his past, which he keeps with
him as recorded memory. Some of this experience is repressed, do to
aversive content. This content frequently is the trigger for the
emotional state of the person, even if he's not specifically aware of
it. Yes, circumstances do alter cases: they provide triggers, and in
the instance of traumatic circumstances, cause future problems when
those circumstances themselves become the triggers.
I haven't read anything of Maslow. All I'm familiar with is his
heirarchy of needs, as introduced in psych 101 courses. I would do well
to study him, perhaps. We'll see what the curriculum is at my masters
program. Until that is finished, I'm afraid adding more that I hadn't
already intended on reading would be overwhelming. After that point,
there's a long list of authors that will be on the docket. Maslow is
one, as is Wundt and some other classics.
John
> John wrote:
>> "Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:43c7...@news2.lightlink.com...
>>
>>>John wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Right, that's the assumption. Of course they can be put on a scale, your
>>>point is that the scale may not be useful. I find it useful. Do you
>>>consider being enthusiastic a "better mood" than being angry? Not with
>>>regard to a specific circumstance, but just generally being angry, most
>>>of the time, as opposed to mostly feeling enthusiastic?
>>>
>>>Just wondering.
>>
>>
>> As another poster says, talking about emotion without reference to
>> context and circumstance is silly.
>
> Agreed. That doesn't mean we are fully aware of the context we are in. If
> you wake up angry, and don't know why, is that a good frame of mind? Is
> it appropriate? Perhaps it IS, if we understand that in the history of
> this person, morning was when mom hassled them about getting up and going
> to school, or whatever morning means to this person.
Which has nothing to do with the Tone Scale, which says that context is
irrelevent.
>
>> Someone attacks my family in front of me.. should I endeavour to feel
>> enthusiastic or angry?
>
> You feel how you feel. A healthy response to that might well be anger.
> Now: does your anger manifest as screaming and yelling, completely out of
> control, or does it manifest as calmly disabling the attacker (physically
> or verbally or legally or whatever, whatever is appropriate and within
> means) and getting about your business?
Which still has nothing to do with the Tone Scale, which says that if you
feel X, then you should aim to feel X + 1 up the scale.
>
> How about you are walking down the street, and a girl goes by dressed as a
> goth. Is an appropriate response anger? Frustration? Apathy?
> Enthusiasm? Aesthetic appreciation? Why are some people angry at punk
> rockers without talking to them or seeing them do something harmful?
>
>> Someone close to me dies.. should I mourn? But that would be downtone.
>
> Mourning is a natural response. Being stuck in mourning for years, unable
> to get on with your life, obsessed with the conditions of their death...
> that's downtone.
Your intepretation. According to the tone scale, mourning is downtone.
fullstop.
>
>> And assigning relative social (within a group) worth to emotions is a
>> great way of trying to force people into unnatural emotional patterns,
>> divorcing them from what they should be feeling. You have to disconnect
>> from your parents and you feel bad about it? It's your fault.
>
> It certainly could be employed that way, and such would be despicable. Of
> course, the practice of disconnection is usually despicable, unless the
> person being disconnected from genuinely has an intention to do you harm.
Could? I'd say 'Is'.
>
>> Once you've defined your downtone state, suddenly it's real easy to say
>> that downtone = evil = SP = critic = homosexual = cult scapegoat.
>
> Yes, things can be employed according to the intentions of those using
> them.
>
>> The tone scale is just another control mechanism for the CoS.
>
> The operative term there is "for the CoS", and I agree. That's not the
> inherent function of the Tone Scale, however.
In your opinion. I feel otherwise.
>
Kevin Brady
> "Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:43c8...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>>"Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:43c7...@news2.lightlink.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>John wrote:
>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Right, that's the assumption. Of course they can be put on a scale, your
>>>>point is that the scale may not be useful. I find it useful. Do you
>>>>consider being enthusiastic a "better mood" than being angry? Not with
>>>>regard to a specific circumstance, but just generally being angry, most
>>>>of the time, as opposed to mostly feeling enthusiastic?
>>>>
>>>>Just wondering.
>>>
>>>
>>>As another poster says, talking about emotion without reference to
>>>context and circumstance is silly.
>>
>>Agreed. That doesn't mean we are fully aware of the context we are in. If
>>you wake up angry, and don't know why, is that a good frame of mind? Is
>>it appropriate? Perhaps it IS, if we understand that in the history of
>>this person, morning was when mom hassled them about getting up and going
>>to school, or whatever morning means to this person.
>
>
> Which has nothing to do with the Tone Scale, which says that context is
> irrelevent.
It doesn't say context is irrelevant. It doesn't talk about context at
all. Some people are chronically angry. You don't have to know what
the cause of that is in order to predict that they will continue to be
angry, unless they do something to correct their environment (or a
magical change happens in their environment).
>>>Someone attacks my family in front of me.. should I endeavour to feel
>>>enthusiastic or angry?
>>
>>You feel how you feel. A healthy response to that might well be anger.
>>Now: does your anger manifest as screaming and yelling, completely out of
>>control, or does it manifest as calmly disabling the attacker (physically
>>or verbally or legally or whatever, whatever is appropriate and within
>>means) and getting about your business?
>
>
> Which still has nothing to do with the Tone Scale, which says that if you
> feel X, then you should aim to feel X + 1 up the scale.
That's not the tone scale. That's the dissemination drill: how you
communicate with people is by "mocking up" the tone level that is a
HALF-TONE up from that point on the scale. A full point would present
the danger of ARCx the person (breaking their "R" in this case),
according to Hubbard. Thus, you talk to someone who is angry by being
antagonistic toward them. The idea of this is that they will come up to
meet you at antagonism, instead of their anger, and then you proceed to
talk to them as if you are bored, or as if their antagonism is
monotonous to you. Doesn't mean you "should feel x+1 up", but that if
you want to communicate with someone in a manner that brings them
uptone, you do so in that manner. The tone scale doesn't tell you how
you should feel. It does tell how to predict or handle someone
displaying an emotional tone. As an auditor, it tells you what sorts of
processes will help that person most.
>>How about you are walking down the street, and a girl goes by dressed as a
>>goth. Is an appropriate response anger? Frustration? Apathy?
>>Enthusiasm? Aesthetic appreciation? Why are some people angry at punk
>>rockers without talking to them or seeing them do something harmful?
>>
>>
>>>Someone close to me dies.. should I mourn? But that would be downtone.
>>
>>Mourning is a natural response. Being stuck in mourning for years, unable
>>to get on with your life, obsessed with the conditions of their death...
>>that's downtone.
>
>
> Your intepretation. According to the tone scale, mourning is downtone.
> fullstop.
Body death is 0.0 on the tone scale. If this happens to someone you are
connected to, a natural response is that it will pull you down the
tonescale. Mourning, to my knowledge is not on the tonescale, but Grief
is. Being pulled toward grief from a higher tone by someone else's
death is natural (it is a move down on the scale). Getting stuck there
is considered unhealthy. All tones at or below 2.0 are arbitrarily
called "negative tone", or downtone.
>>>And assigning relative social (within a group) worth to emotions is a
>>>great way of trying to force people into unnatural emotional patterns,
>>>divorcing them from what they should be feeling. You have to disconnect
>>>from your parents and you feel bad about it? It's your fault.
>>
>>It certainly could be employed that way, and such would be despicable. Of
>>course, the practice of disconnection is usually despicable, unless the
>>person being disconnected from genuinely has an intention to do you harm.
>
>
> Could? I'd say 'Is'.
That does happen in the Church, but not to everyone: not every person
on post in a scientology org is a Rondroid. Believe it or not, many of
them "think with" the tech they know, and aren't confined to the
patterned responses you see typified in complaints. Those responses do
happen, and they ARE policy, and the people who "think with" the tech
and do what they think is right will either eventually knuckle under or
depart the Church. But I've heard varied reports from people in
different areas. Some orgs are hot on disconnection, some orgs don't
practice it except in extreme circumstances. It's not uniform in
application. In major scientology centers, such as LA or FLAG, perhaps
the practice is as you describe it. I don't know, I never received
service or worked in either of those locations.
>>>Once you've defined your downtone state, suddenly it's real easy to say
>>>that downtone = evil = SP = critic = homosexual = cult scapegoat.
>>
>>Yes, things can be employed according to the intentions of those using
>>them.
>>
>>
>>>The tone scale is just another control mechanism for the CoS.
>>
>>The operative term there is "for the CoS", and I agree. That's not the
>>inherent function of the Tone Scale, however.
>
>
> In your opinion. I feel otherwise.
Got it.
John
The reason it doesn't talk about context is because it ignores context,
which makes the whole exercise of listing emotions on a scale ludicrous.
Some people are chronically angry. You don't have to know what
> the cause of that is in order to predict that they will continue to be
> angry, unless they do something to correct their environment (or a magical
> change happens in their environment).
And this has what do to with the tone scale?
>
>>>>Someone attacks my family in front of me.. should I endeavour to feel
>>>>enthusiastic or angry?
>>>
>>>You feel how you feel. A healthy response to that might well be anger.
>>>Now: does your anger manifest as screaming and yelling, completely out
>>>of control, or does it manifest as calmly disabling the attacker
>>>(physically or verbally or legally or whatever, whatever is appropriate
>>>and within means) and getting about your business?
>>
>>
>> Which still has nothing to do with the Tone Scale, which says that if you
>> feel X, then you should aim to feel X + 1 up the scale.
>
> That's not the tone scale. That's the dissemination drill: how you
> communicate with people is by "mocking up" the tone level that is a
> HALF-TONE up from that point on the scale. A full point would present the
> danger of ARCx the person (breaking their "R" in this case), according to
> Hubbard. Thus, you talk to someone who is angry by being antagonistic
> toward them. The idea of this is that they will come up to meet you at
> antagonism, instead of their anger, and then you proceed to talk to them
> as if you are bored, or as if their antagonism is monotonous to you.
It's a lovely little piece of work, isn't it? CoS teaches you to manipulate
other peoples' emotions. It also teaches you to put on false fronts, and
fake emotional states to do that. It would be worse if there was any reason
to think that this process actually worked.
Doesn't mean you "should feel x+1 up", but that if
> you want to communicate with someone in a manner that brings them uptone,
> you do so in that manner. The tone scale doesn't tell you how you should
> feel.
Yes, it does, implicitely. It tells you which emotions are 'bad' and which
are 'good'. That's the entire point of the scale.
It does tell how to predict or handle someone
> displaying an emotional tone. As an auditor, it tells you what sorts of
> processes will help that person most.
Entirely without justification, of course.
>
>>>How about you are walking down the street, and a girl goes by dressed as
>>>a goth. Is an appropriate response anger? Frustration? Apathy?
>>>Enthusiasm? Aesthetic appreciation? Why are some people angry at punk
>>>rockers without talking to them or seeing them do something harmful?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Someone close to me dies.. should I mourn? But that would be downtone.
>>>
>>>Mourning is a natural response. Being stuck in mourning for years,
>>>unable to get on with your life, obsessed with the conditions of their
>>>death... that's downtone.
>>
>>
>> Your intepretation. According to the tone scale, mourning is downtone.
>> fullstop.
>
> Body death is 0.0 on the tone scale. If this happens to someone you are
> connected to, a natural response is that it will pull you down the
> tonescale. Mourning, to my knowledge is not on the tonescale, but Grief
> is.
Splitting hairs?
Being pulled toward grief from a higher tone by someone else's
> death is natural (it is a move down on the scale).
And you think *that's* the reason someone feels grief? Because they are
associated with a downtone death?
Getting stuck there
> is considered unhealthy. All tones at or below 2.0 are arbitrarily called
> "negative tone", or downtone.
Arbitrary is the word.
Kevin Brady
> "Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:43cd...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>>"Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:43c8...@news2.lightlink.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>John wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:43c7...@news2.lightlink.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>John wrote:
<snip>
>>>Which has nothing to do with the Tone Scale, which says that context is
>>>irrelevent.
>>
>>It doesn't say context is irrelevant. It doesn't talk about context at
>>all.
>
>
> The reason it doesn't talk about context is because it ignores context,
> which makes the whole exercise of listing emotions on a scale ludicrous.
I disagree. The scale is meant to apply to a person in whatever context
they are in, as a pattern that people move through based on the degree
of success they are having with bringing their intentions and purposes
to resolution.
> Some people are chronically angry. You don't have to know what
>
>>the cause of that is in order to predict that they will continue to be
>>angry, unless they do something to correct their environment (or a magical
>>change happens in their environment).
>
>
> And this has what do to with the tone scale?
Anger is one of the tones on the scale. The tone scale is used to
predict the person's behavior.
<snip>
>>>Which still has nothing to do with the Tone Scale, which says that if you
>>>feel X, then you should aim to feel X + 1 up the scale.
>>
>>That's not the tone scale. That's the dissemination drill: how you
>>communicate with people is by "mocking up" the tone level that is a
>>HALF-TONE up from that point on the scale. A full point would present the
>>danger of ARCx the person (breaking their "R" in this case), according to
>>Hubbard. Thus, you talk to someone who is angry by being antagonistic
>>toward them. The idea of this is that they will come up to meet you at
>>antagonism, instead of their anger, and then you proceed to talk to them
>>as if you are bored, or as if their antagonism is monotonous to you.
>
>
> It's a lovely little piece of work, isn't it?
Yes, it's quite effective.
> CoS teaches you to manipulate
> other peoples' emotions.
Perhaps that's what the CoS is using it for.
It's actually quite similar to parenting, from the perspective I learned
it. You're not trying to manipulate the person any more than a parent
is trying to manipulate their child who is having a nightmare, when you
treat your child with kindness to snap them out of their fear. The
addition of selling someone a course after bringing them uptone is
manipulative, sure, but helping a person come to a more adaptive frame
of mind is not manipulative.
> It also teaches you to put on false fronts, and
> fake emotional states to do that.
People who get THAT out of that set of drills aren't doing the course
correctly. You aren't supposed to fake them or put on false fronts.
You are supposed to really generate that emotion, and learn to put your
emotions under your control.
> It would be worse if there was any reason
> to think that this process actually worked.
I don't think it's bad, in the first place, unless it's misapplied the
way you've characterized. And the process does definitely work.
> Doesn't mean you "should feel x+1 up", but that if
>
>>you want to communicate with someone in a manner that brings them uptone,
>>you do so in that manner. The tone scale doesn't tell you how you should
>>feel.
>
>
> Yes, it does, implicitely. It tells you which emotions are 'bad' and which
> are 'good'. That's the entire point of the scale.
No, the scale is for predictive purposes, primarily. The up-down nature
shows direction, but doesn't imply moral judgment. While many
scientologists DO make judgments about people, and do put on "false
fronts" rather than really learning to control their emotions, this
doesn't mean that's what scientology is about, it means those
scientologists haven't really grokked their own religion, which is why
anyone who is not an auditor who claims to be a scientologist, to me, is
full of shit.
> It does tell how to predict or handle someone
>
>>displaying an emotional tone. As an auditor, it tells you what sorts of
>>processes will help that person most.
>
>
> Entirely without justification, of course.
In your opinion, yes.
<snip>
>>>>>Someone close to me dies.. should I mourn? But that would be downtone.
>>>>
>>>>Mourning is a natural response. Being stuck in mourning for years,
>>>>unable to get on with your life, obsessed with the conditions of their
>>>>death... that's downtone.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your intepretation. According to the tone scale, mourning is downtone.
>>>fullstop.
>>
>>Body death is 0.0 on the tone scale. If this happens to someone you are
>>connected to, a natural response is that it will pull you down the
>>tonescale. Mourning, to my knowledge is not on the tonescale, but Grief
>>is.
>
>
> Splitting hairs?
No, mourning is an activity. Grieving is an activity. Grief is an
emotional tone. There's a difference.
> Being pulled toward grief from a higher tone by someone else's
>
>>death is natural (it is a move down on the scale).
>
>
> And you think *that's* the reason someone feels grief? Because they are
> associated with a downtone death?
Because they've suffered a loss, yes.
> Getting stuck there
>
>>is considered unhealthy. All tones at or below 2.0 are arbitrarily called
>>"negative tone", or downtone.
>
>
> Arbitrary is the word.
That's why I used it.