Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
Let's just take the main levels of the 0-4 bit, and skip the, er, non-human range. So:
[skipped]
4.0 Enthusiasm
3.5 Cheerfulness
3.0 Conservatism
2.5 Boredom
2.0 Antagonism
1.5 Anger
1.1 Covert Hostility
1.0 Fear
0.5 Grief
0.05 Apathy
[skipped]
Hubbard said he derived the order from observing the emotions people went through in Dianetic auditing, sometimes so fast that way-stops get missed; someone said he pulled it out of his ass. Its provenance doesn't really matter. He said the numbers are an approximation, and not meant to signify too much.
He said there's a "volume" quality, sort of at right angles to the scale. So around the 1.0 fear level, a little bit of volume is anxiety, and a lot of volume is terror.
What do I mean by "how valid is it?" Let's see. I just want to stick to its main characteristics as it, not delve into discussing the merits of everything he ever said about it.
The sequence, ignoring the supposed observability in processing, is supposed to show increasing aliveness, potential for survival, general desirability. So on an individual level, life would generally look better if one is cheerful than if one is grieving (not so hard to accept); but similarly, life should generally look better if one is bored than being antagonistic (not so easy to accept, especially if one enjoys being antagonistic!). There's also the factor of emotion being applicable to the circumstances, so it's not as if grief is never merited.
I say individual level because some relatively "low-toned" people seem to accomplish a lot more than some relatively "high-toned" ones.
Anyway . . . .
I'll give my own answers, just to start the ball rolling.
1. Yes
2. Yes.
Those first two aren't meant to be trick questions. I think the answers are obvious, but I spent so many years in Scn and the tone scale is such a basic Scn thing, who knows?!
3. I haven't done thousands of hours of auditing and taken careful note of the pcs' emotional tone. I know one was supposed to note it on the worksheets where it changed, but .... Personally, the sequence seems ok.
4. Heh. That's a vast, open-ended question! To be discussed, shall we say.
Paul
[skipped]
4.0 Enthusiasm
3.5 Cheerfulness
3.0 Conservatism
2.5 Boredom
2.0 Antagonism
1.5 Anger
1.1 Covert Hostility
1.0 Fear
0.5 Grief
0.05 Apathy
[skipped]
Hubbard said he derived the order from observing the emotions people went through in Dianetic auditing, sometimes so fast that way-stops get missed; someone said he pulled it out of his ass. Its provenance doesn't really matter. He said the numbers are an approximation, and not meant to signify too much.
He said there's a "volume" quality, sort of at right angles to the scale. So around the 1.0 fear level, a little bit of volume is anxiety, and a lot of volume is terror.
What do I mean by "how valid is it?" Let's see. I just want to stick to its main characteristics as it, not delve into discussing the merits of everything he ever said about it.
The sequence, ignoring the supposed observability in processing, is supposed to show increasing aliveness, potential for survival, general desirability. So on an individual level, life would generally look better if one is cheerful than if one is grieving (not so hard to accept); but similarly, life should generally look better if one is bored than being antagonistic (not so easy to accept, especially if one enjoys being antagonistic!). There's also the factor of emotion being applicable to the circumstances, so it's not as if grief is never merited.
I say individual level because some relatively "low-toned" people seem to accomplish a lot more than some relatively "high-toned" ones.
Anyway . . . .
- Are these emotions?
- Are they readily observable in people?
- Does the sequence seem correct, in that on a personal level does an emotion higher on this scale seem preferable to one lower down? [This question is complicated by Hubbard's idea that someone chronically above 2.0 is survival-oriented, and someone chronically below 2.0 is death-oriented]
- How about the Chart of Human Evaluation?
I'll give my own answers, just to start the ball rolling.
1. Yes
2. Yes.
Those first two aren't meant to be trick questions. I think the answers are obvious, but I spent so many years in Scn and the tone scale is such a basic Scn thing, who knows?!
3. I haven't done thousands of hours of auditing and taken careful note of the pcs' emotional tone. I know one was supposed to note it on the worksheets where it changed, but .... Personally, the sequence seems ok.
4. Heh. That's a vast, open-ended question! To be discussed, shall we say.
Paul