Are you running on automatic?

The whole purpose of Scientology is to bring people up the tone scale such that they can really take control of their own lives.

Another one I read from Scientology 0-8 today is this — a scale of Self-Determinism.

The gist of the scale is that at Tone 40, one is totally self-determined, and running 0% on automatic.

Even at Tone 20.0 though, one is already running at 50% self-determinism and 50% automaticity.

Obviously at Tone 0.0 (Body Death) you’re at 0% self determinism. That’s because you’re dead.

But someone at 2.0 on the tone scale, it would stand to reason, would only be around 2% self-determined and the rest is just circuits and automatic crap. Well, I’ve sure noticed that in dealing with people at that tone level! I don’t feel like I’m talking to anyone at all!

Just more reason to get audited and find out more about yourself, so as to be able to be more self-determined and less running like an automatic robot.

How do you make someone curious?

Here’s another one from my Scientology 0-8 book — this time a scale called the “Hide to Curiosity Scale”, excerpted from another Scientology book entitled “Creation of Human Ability“.

This one I found interesting:

I’ve long heard of what’s called the “DEI Scale” which is the scale of

DESIRE

ENFORCE

INHIBIT

…which is used any time one is first talking to someone about something and you find that the first thing you hit with them is a complete inhibition of your communication alltogether.  You might keep talking, and they’ll start to push back at you, and then finally come to a point where they’ll want to speak with you.

There’s a whole bunch of Scientology technology surrounding this, but the part I found interesting was this:  On this particular scale (this is on page 190 of the book) L. Ron Hubbard mentions an expanded version of this scale which is (quoted):

Curiosity

Desire

Enforcement

Inhibition

Ownership

Protection

Hidden

Then, he goes on to say,

“And I have discovered that the road upward through this scale is communication.” — LRH

Interesting to me, to have as a stable datum, that to get someone through this scale — no matter if you’re trying to get them to marry you, or if you’re trying to sell them something, that one just has to continue to be there and communicate.

Single-Valued Logic - The Will of God?

There is another pretty nifty scale and schematic in the Scientology 0-8 book, this one that goes over the Evolution of Logic (it’s on page 152).

Mr. Hubbard diagrams the 4 various kinds of logic there are — which are:

1. Single-valued logic

2. Two-valued logic

3. Three-valued logic

4. Infinity-valued logic

Single-valued logic is just neither right or wrong — it is “the will of God” — which in most people’s estimation is never assigned a survival value or assessment of whether or not it’s good or bad.  Like, “my wife left me - I guess that’s the way of things”.  In the preceding statement, if this is just “the way of things” or “the will of God”, one hasn’t even come up to being able to say that it sucks!

Aristotelian logic (two-valued) would have to assign a “right” or a “wrong” to it.  You could then say it sucks, but then maybe she was a cheat and you shouldn’t have married her to begin with.  How does that then help you classify the situation?

Three-valued logic (right/wrong/maybe) may work for some computing equipment, but again, putting yourself in a “maybe” about your wife leaving you is also not healthy.

This does make it clear why the infinity-valued logic that LRH describes in Dianetics is a more optimum way to think, as there is no absolute right or wrong in a situation like that.  Perhaps it was contrasurvival to have the wife leave, as the kids will now not have a mommy around, etc.  But maybe it has some good points like the lack of enturbulation from having a cheating, individuated woman around.

Anyhow - that scale does make it simpler as to why it is that it’s important to at least see what infinity-valued logic has to do with helping people improve and understand themselves.

Tone Scale of a Government or Company

Here’s an example from Scientology 0-8 of one of the gradient scales I mentioned, this one from 1951 entitled “TONE SCALE OF GOVERNMENTS, COMPANIES OR GROUPS”.

“Near Cooperative State

“Democratic Republic

“‘Emergency Management’

“Totalitarianism

“Tyranny

Apathy of a dying organization or nation”

– LRH

Very interesting to me to compare that against countries like the USA, or countries like Zimbabwe.  The USA has slipped into somewhere between “Emergency Management” and “Democratic Republic”, whereas Zimbabwe is in danger of falling past “Tyranny” into “Apathy of a dying organization or nation”.

Then, you have places like Cambodia that are already there.

Quite interesting to note, I think.

Scientology and Gradient Scales

I read something else interesting in my Scientology 0-8 Book today.  This was on the subject of gradient scales and their use.

I’ve always known in Scientology that we do things on a gradient scale, and don’t believe in skipped gradients or giving someone too much of something that they’re not ready for, etc.  It’s a basic part of our study technology and just is a fact — you work with gradient scales.

However, in the Scientology 0-8 book, there are a lot of other gradient scales - and I never understood what their use would be.  This part on page 99 clarifies, though:

” Remember two things:

“These scales are true.

” They do apply to life.  And unless you clothe them with some sensibility, unless you can use them while processing somebody, unless you can intelligently apply them and know where they begin and end — and know enough to use your own good sense too — they are just nice mathematical arrangements that are very pretty.” — LRH

I thought this interesting — as I know how to use the Tone Scale as covered in Science of Survival, but the other scales I was at a bit of a loss on how to use.

Dianetic Axiom 142: Self Determinism

I read another one in my Scientology 0-8 book, this one again bearing notation, from the Dianetic Axioms:

“Axiom 142:  An organism is as healthy and sane as it is self-determined.” - LRH

This one axiom alone basically explains the foundation of the whole technology of dealing with suppressive persons and why one gets ill when he is in the company of an SP.   Someone who is other-determined, or whose self-determinism is blunted by a suppressive or antisocial personality, would therefore - axiomatically - be less healthy and sane.

And that’s how it turns out in the real world, too.  Just found that interesting to note!

Dianetic Axiom 25

Dianetic Axiom 25: “The basic purpose of reason is the calculation or estimation of effort.”  - LRH

From the book Advanced Procedure and Axioms in The Basics. It’s excerpted in the book Scientology 0-8, which I’m reading right now.

Scientology and Education

This is another outstanding quote from Scientology 0-8 - this from page 24, Chapter entitled, “The Educational Axioms of Dianetics”.

“Education must raise the level of rationality and increase and reinforce the basic purpose and dynamics of the individual if it is to result in a betterment of the individual or of society.

“It is a prime purpose of education to increase the self-determinism of the individual.”   - LRH

I thought that one especially excellent, as that explains the education I got while at the Delphian School in Oregon.

Definitions of Dianetics and Scientology

This follows my last post on Scientology, further from the same chapter in Scientology 0-8 (part of the Scientology Basics Books) — something I thought bore repeating from the book.

LRH defines the difference between Scientology and Dianetics, and what the subjects actually are and do in the following:

“Dianetics is defined as, DIA (Greek) through, NOUS (Greek) soul.

“DIANETICS is further redefined as WHAT THE SOUL IS DOING TO THE BODY.”

“SCIENTOLOGY, as defined, addresses the thetan (the spirit).  Scientology is used to increase spiritual freedom, intelligence, ability and produce immortality.

“SCIENTOLOGY is further refined as THE STUDY AND HANDLING OF THE SPIRIT IN RELATIONSHIP TO ITSELF, UNIVERSES AND OTHER LIFE.”  — LRH

Those definitions were significant to me, so I thought I’d write them down.

(Oh, and see this video on the difference between the Thetan, the Mind and the Body, if you were confused by the part above mentioning the word, “Thetan”).

Is Scientology a Religion? What makes it religious?

Right now, I’m in the midst of reading what are known as The Basics - they’re the basic books of Scientology that comprise the essence of the religion.

It’s a bit of a revelation, even for someone like me who’s been in Scientology for 20 years, to read these basic books and find out what Scientology is really all about to begin with.

I’m right now reading a book called Scientology 0-8:  The Book of Basics.  The “0-8″ means from zero to infinity, as the book embodies the basic fundamentals of Scientology from “zero” (the beginning or fundamental) to “infinity”  (the ultimate truths contained in  passages like the Factors).

The particular passage I wanted to mention is this — this is from the chapter, Dianetics and Scientology Definitions (Sept 1981):

“Dianetics was a forerunner of Scientology.  By use of Dianetics, as early as 1950, it became apparent that we were dealing, not with cells and cellular memory, but with a beingness that defied time.  Anyone using Dianetics properly would make that same discovery.  For Dianetics reached deeper than Man had ever gone before in plumbing the mystery of life.”  - LRH

He went on to note how people engaging in Dianetics were more and more frequently hitting the subject of past lives and exteriorization — something which just couldn’t be ignored and which, when further researched, formed what became the subject of Scientology - dealing with the spirit.

He went on to say,

“When this was revealed, those who comprised the wide membership of organizations at that time were insistent that the organization was actually, then, one which was dealing in spiritual matters and therefore would have to be a religious organization in order to be factual.

“SCIENTOLOGY marked the point of change from a materialistic viewpoint to a spiritual one.”  — LRH