What has never been clear to me is where BEING A BODY is on the
negative tone scale.

      The freezone and Scn tone scales differ at the point of death,
failure, pity, regret, accountable, blame and shame.

     The Scn tone scale goes:

     0.00 Body Death
    -0.01 Failure
    -0.10 Pity

      I understand pity, somebody or pet you loved died a horrible
death, usually your fault.

    -0.20 SHAME (Being other bodies)

      I take this to mean the being is tring to distance himself
from the now death body, so that other's will not think it was his.

    -0.70 Accountable

      Failing that, the being is now accountable to other bodies as
to why his is dead.

    -1.00 BLAME (Punishing other bodies)

      The being tries to shift responsibility to another, by blaming
them for the death, Goober says Dufus did it.

    -2.00 REGRET (Responsibility as blame)

      Dufus refuses the blame and proves that Goober in fact did do
it himself.  Thus Goober now feels regret.  In advanced procedure
an axioms Hubbard says this stirs the emotion of guilt, not because
his body is dead by his own hand (usually unintentionally), but
because he tried to shift blame to another, and failed.

      Shifting blame then becomes the confessable sin.

    -1.50 Controlling bodies
    -2.20 Protecting bodies
    -3.00 Owning Bodies
    -3.50 Approval from bodies.

      The being falls into controlling, protecting, owning bodies for
their own good, he becomes a body farmer, possibly controlling more than
one body much as a cowboy controls more than one horse on the ranch,
and measures his success by their approval of his stewardship.

    -4.00 Needing bodies
    -5.00 Worshipping bodies
    -6.00 Sacrifice

     Failing that, the being gets addicted to bodies, worships them
as gods and sacrifices self to bodies for their betterment.

    -8.00 Hiding

     Failing that, with everyone looking for him for body abuse,
he goes into hiding.

     The rest is obvious.

   -10.00 Being objects
   -20.00 Being nothing
   -30.00 Can't Hide
   -40.00 Total failure

     At what point does a being BECOME a body to the point where
it thinks it is a body?

     At SHAME (being other bodies)?


     The body is an object.

     Most of the beings I know are down at being nothing, or can't hide.

     And what is sacrifice?

     Is that sacrifice of bodies?  Or is that sacrifice of self
towards the care of a body?

     And what is worshipping bodies?

     Is that 'worship' as a being worships a God (idolization) or
is that 'worship' as a mother worships a child (taking care of).


Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> 09/28/10 Tuesday 11:53am EST
>      Basic equation of the tone scale is
>      Doing = knowing plus wanting times probability of success.
>      Or something like that.
>      Instensity of emotion is intensity of desire.
>      Frequency or tone of emotion is one's consideration of proability of
> success.
>      Actual doing comes from the protocols for different layers of
> failure, from strong approach, to covert approach, to strong retreat, to
> crying for help, to pretended death, to being dead.
>      Negative tone scale is an effort to make up for pity on past body
> deaths, one becomes the body to give it a better life, and the body
> responds with enthusiasm or not a the case may be, which is the 0 to 4.0
> part of the BODY tone scale.
>      Above death and failure, the thetan also has his 0 to 4, but while
> in a body, his usual tone is way down below zero.
>    See SUB DEATH:
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
> (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>    In the Line of Duty
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Thaddeus Slamp wrote:
>> I don't know if the tone scale would be the best place to start any
>> attempt at scientology apologetics, but I think it's where I'd start
>> Status-wize, I am less than nobody, but 1 of my hobbies is to  try to
>> think of scientology apologetics, which is difficult, right off the
>> bat, because scientology is largely a system of TRAINED OBSERVATION
>> based methods.  Scientology makes "nearly infinitely' (for lack of a
>> better estimate, or term for such) more sence to a person who's been
>> trained in such observation.  So I think I will start.  I know I am
>> only a sample of 1-only 1 data point, but I will be pretty honest, and
>> a data-point of 1 can have some value.
>> What I want to say is that I honestly believe that Hubbared is the 1st
>> man ever do understand and delineate the nature of human emotion.  I
>> am not giving official party line here; I really think so.  I do not
>> mean the tone scale in full; I don't know about that.  Might or might
>> not be true, far as I'm concerned, but the tone scale, aproximately as
>> layed out in Science of Survival, and the Chjart of Human Evaluation
>> found in the back of that book.  I consider much of that data to be
>> hard won fact, that you ignore at your own risk, and the tone-scale as
>> a basic concept the first true exposition of the true nature of human
>> emotion. A few may agree that it's true, but also think it's "duh
>> ralph".  Most people already know that.  I will defend thus: by
>> crediting Freud more than Hubbard did when he gave his thoughts on
>> that seminal thinker.  Without arguing that the stages are
>> psycho-sexual, as Freud argued (I am not going to get into the whole
>> yakity yak mistranslation, yak), Freud was the 1st to discribe the
>> stages of human development, and Hubbard sometimes overstated his case
>> that children do not.  His exact quote was something like "Anyone  who
>> thinks children go thru exact stages, uniformly, deserves to be
>> psychoanalysed" (In 1 of the 2nd dynamic lecturs). Freud may hnot be
>> the 1st person to notice the stages of child development, but he's the
>> 1st scientist to have deineated them, and he did so somewhat
>> elegantly.  If he'd been a better scientist he would have emediately
>> let a better scientist knowck down his theory and give 1 even more
>> elegent, and even better at explaining the facts. Well maybe not
>> uniformly, but certainly commonly, to the point where if a kid does
>> not have any "terrible two's", such is a bit freakish.  Not as extreme
>> as those of another child sure, not non-present....I'd have that
>> checked out, if I were you.  There might be a major problem (I am not
>> qualified to say there is likely a problem, but that would be my
>> guess).  In fact Either Erickson's (Eric Ericson's), or Timothy
>> Leary's (Tmothy Leary's 8 circuit model of the human nervouse system
>> is presented in a number of places, but probably best explained for
>> the more cerbral set, in Quantum Psychology, by Robert Anton Wilson [
>> and yes, Virginia, I do think it likely, that Leary "stole" the idea
>> from Hubbards 8 dynamics...knowing what I know it is impossible to
>> think otherwise] )take on Freuds stages of developement are probably
>> the 1 other piece of the understanding of human emotion that Hubbard
>> neglected (in my opinion of course).  I've not found any other takes
>> worth mentioning, that are not mentioned in these sources.
>> There are 3 no longer present items in 2 Hubbard books, that I think
>> may help in my making my case as well as I can:
>> 1) an essay on philosophy science, inductive method and deductive
>> method, found in early printings of DSMH, and
>> 2)The psychological study, andq
>> 3)Quote from a famouse psychotherapist...
>> ...that used to appear, up untill a new printing in the mid to late
>> 80's, or maybe very early 90's got rid of them.
>> I have lost hope of making this argument, as well as I had initially.
>> All I know is that subjectively, to me, there is no other way of
>> thinking about human emotion than the tone scale, opr @ least that
>> does not include such, and it is from accepting the rot of other
>> takes, that our society reaches most of it's greater lunacy.
>> At any rate, Hubbard succeeded by applying philosophy, that is
>> developing a theoory that was somewhat elegant from the git-go.  I 1ce
>> read a book on abnormal psychology where some psychiatrist had
>> developed a very elegant spectrum model of the catagories in the DSM.
>> It really was elegant.  Quite disssapointed in reading the text (tho
>> by no means surprised) to learn that it was rejected, becaus, tho
>> those who appreciated elegance and symetry, thought it was true, most
>> of those who had to try to use it in clinical settings, could not
>> conceptualise it.  What Hubbard was saying about psychologists ability
>> to understand basic concepts might not really be true of psychologists
>> or psychiatrists, but everything I know about psychiatric nurses tells
>> me, that such is certainly true of them).
>> So I think that science has erred by letting materialists creep in by
>> ignoring philosophy, and I think that the modern intellectual world is
>> suffering from data  that it could really really use, by failure to
>> understand Hubbards achievement in this concept.
>> There may not be real theta, but there might need to be theta as an
>> archetype, and such an archetype reflective of some real
>> sociobiological fact.  I also think Hubbard was right that people
>> below a certain tone level are so turbulant, that dealing with them is
>> hazardouse to the health of any untrained person, and pure drag on
>> society.  If Hubbard was arguably not as humane in Science of
>> Survival, as one might hope, we may find we can do better at being
>> humane than he, or we may not, but let's not throw the baby out with
>> the bathwater.
>> Over the years I've not been in the church, my certainty on the
>> tone-scale, has increased, not decreased.  The world messed up in not
>> paying more attention to it, in my opinion.  Theres some nut on utube
>> who claims he can knock it down, but he's so obviously either lying or
>> on too pink of a cloud for me to even listen to him for more than 3
>> minutes.
>> I thought I'd do so much better, but all I can say is knowing what I
>> know, there is no theory of human emotion that is not inferior to
>> Hubbards, and improved understanding of human emotion will begin when
>> all realise that Hubbard was 1 of the 1st thinkers to say something
>> lucid on the subject.l
>> This has been my opinion.  I wish I'd done better, but I ran outa
>> steam or something.
>> --
>> call me: (503) 395-8475
>> Find out @ the following constantly evolving site:
>> better searches:
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clear-L mailing list
> Tue Sep 28 11:55:45 EDT 2010
> ================ ====================
> Sat Oct 23 03:06:01 EDT 2010
> Send mail to saying help
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
> iD8DBQFMwolaURT1lqxE3HERAgtgAKCsJKe+BLPF83QWxLNmJ05c1MYi+wCgwTjm
> 4Q5lcC6U4T4GS3SQcQfc2Xk=
> =kBUf
> _______________________________________________
> Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Sat Oct 23 15:50:32 EDT 2010