Arthur Ronald Conway Hubbard

Understanding – Part 1

Scientology 1.0.0 – chapter 28

“There can be no transforming of darkness into light and of apathy into movement without emotion.” – Carl Gustav Jung

---

Normal

“Normal,” of course, refers to something that is in pretty good shape; in decent working order.
 
While observing objects or situations to assess whether they are normal or not is somewhat effective, its application to us humans has often led to heated debates. For instance, throughout the history of psychology and psychiatric, there has been an ongoing argument about what a “normal” person would look like and how they ought to behave. It’s an important question because, without some definition, how can one know if one is progressing with anyone who isn’t normal? You’d think it would be an elementary problem to solve since there are so many people in the world to study who aren’t normal: just define abnormality precisely and then outline what would be its opposite. Easy-peasy.

Actually, half that job has been done; just check out DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—Volume 5). However, it appears that cataloguing literally thousands of ways in which people can malfunction has caused insanity to take front stage in the world of mental health, while the debate about what normal behaviour might look like takes something of a back seat. Perhaps this is due to the fact that craziness is much more intriguing than sanity. Indeed, our culture appears to have a peculiarly keen interest in perversion and dysfunction, as evidenced by the output of our entertainment industry. Or maybe it’s because of our evolutionarily heightened sensitivity to danger and disease. Another reason might be that too many of the mental illness experts determining the definitions aren’t very normal themselves. Who knows?
 
Whatever the reason, describing normal people gets a short shrift in comparison to the literally thousands of books and papers written about non-normal people. One of the most noted 19th century examples is Psychopathia Sexualis: eine Klinisch-Forensische Studie, authored by Richard von Krafft-Ebing. It’s famous probably because it’s about sexual behaviours gone awry and was written in the sexually repressed German Empire.
 
Well, it all seems pretty complicated. When I get into a muddle, the first thing I do is re-examine the definitions of the words involved. In this case, I’d look at the definition of the word “normal.”
 
The first definition for normal is: usual; normal is what is usual.

Well, scrap that. “Usual” can be abnormal: a person living in total disorder, depressed and on medications, morbidly obese, bedroom a mess, dishes in the sink, bills piling up, clutching some hapless “emotional support animal,” while self-harming may be usual for some people, perhaps too many people these days, but it don’t exactly tell us what life would look like for them if things were going well because they might just be living somewhere where falling apart like that is, well, “usual.” Some”where” like on TikTok.
 
Which brings us to the other definition: physically and mentally healthy. But hey, what does that look like? “Physically healthy” might be relatively easy, but the “mentally healthy” bit is more challenging. Alright then, the next thing I do is hit the books.

There are numerous books on mental health, and while many of these books do explore some characteristics of mental healthiness, a significant portion of their pages still focus on the usual manifestations of mental illness. They also have a tendency to include exceptional cases, like those of geniuses and other atypical individuals, without spending as much attention on defining boring old “normal.” You know, entire chapters are dedicated to the idea that “madness and genius are so similar that it is difficult to tell the difference” (yawn). Such nonsense! Well, I suppose that’s one way to increase book sales. In any case, because what exactly constitutes mental wellness seems to be such a thorny question, these volumes are all over the place trying to define it.

Then, in the 1990s, other books began to appear about mental health that focused on human happiness. Happiness, it turns out, is another complex issue. Good Lord.
 
So, what’s the problem here? Maybe that psychology is a “soft” science?

The tools used to make measurements are one of the things that distinguish soft science from hard science. In hard science, investigators typically use standardised gauges and scales to replicate experiments. The problem with the soft sciences is that the meter or ruler, or what have you, happens to be possibly the most uncalibrated instrument of all: the human mind. Gah!
 
Conundrums all ’round. Is it possible to use the human mind to measure and analyse the human mind to figure out what a normal one would look like?

It turns out that, yes, maybe it is possible. If approached in a novel way.

---

Normal operation

In Scientology 1.0.0, there is a condition formally known as “normal operation.”

The term “normal operation” was coined to address the widespread confusion surrounding the definition of “normal” in relation to spiritual and human behaviours.

Operation means the action of functioning or the fact of being active or in effect. It derives from “operate,” which comes from the early 17th century: from Latin operat– “done by labour,” from the verb operari, from opus, oper– “work.”

Work is defined as an activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result. Or goal, as I will presently go into.

Normal operation can apply to a variety of things. If your finances exceed your expenditures enough to also create savings, that’s normal operation. Socially, if you’re cooperating well with others such that you are always invited to join in on any group activity, that’s normal operation. In terms of your physical well-being, if you sleep soundly, maintain a healthy appetite, eat a balanced diet, and have sufficient energy throughout the day to accomplish your goals, well, that’s normal operation. However, the concept of normal operation as a spiritual being having a human experience, despite its inherent complexity, becomes more comprehensive due to the word “operation.” How a human being operates based on what goals determines what constitutes “normal.”

In Scientology 1.0.0, the concept of normal operation is explicitly defined. Because of this emphasis on normal rather than abnormal, there is much more material on what constitutes mental healthiness than in some other fields of research. To begin a discussion on Scientology 1.0.0’s definition of normal operation as a spiritual being having a human experience, it would be useful to also define what constitutes order.

By the way, the complexity and confusion surrounding the word “normal” as it pertains to humans necessitated the coinage of another term, “clear.” When it comes to the nature of the human being, normal operation and clear are synonymous (although clear refers specifically to the results of Scientology 1.0.0 procedures).

---

Order versus disorder

Most everybody can identify order versus disorder. Everybody, that is, except the truly insane but most everyone isn’t that crazy so we’re on good footing with the word “order” as we progress toward defining normal operation.

Order is the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method. And, a state in which everything is in its correct or appropriate place. From Old French ordre, from Latin ordo, ordin– “row, series, rank.”

Putting things into order and maintaining order according to any given activity is a measurable human action. Here “operation” and “action” are synonymous. Things under the care of people are either orderly enough to work or they aren’t and actions that promote things working well would be normal operation.

How successfully this is being done could be described as making things better.

---

Better

Better is also a pretty good word. It is certainly what is meant in Scientology 1.0.0 when using the term “normal operation.” In other words, regardless of the severity of one’s mess, progress toward improving things immediately constitutes normal operation (this is because “better” runs on an infinite scale).

Better is defined as more desirable, satisfying, or effective in one’s efforts to create order. Certainly one could debate this too, but it does have a certain advantage because it doesn’t come with all the baggage of other words like normal and happy—not yet, anyway. The term “better” can also refer to improvements, such as enhancing mental health.
 
When someone in trouble voluntarily requests help, a common course of action is to first assist them in overcoming any tendency they may have towards disorderly behaviours, such as causing harm. Next, we could help them alleviate the illnesses, injuries, or stress that appear to be triggering those behaviours. It’s a pretty beneficial place to start: encourage someone to first knock off being harmful to themselves and others, and then take steps towards putting things in order. AA, for example, built its program around the principle of first stopping harm before initiating healing.

But one doesn’t have to start off being a destructive and disorderly mess to make life improvements. Everyone who is already pretty orderly can improve, and the best part is that most people understand what improved mental health looks like: they appear brighter, more alive, calmer, and so on.

---

Goals

One can also measure orderliness based on one’s goals. Actually, it’s probably the most effective way to begin measuring someone’s mental health.

Everybody is trying to get somewhere, or get something, or do something, whether they know it or not.
 
How well or poorly these things are being accomplished magically appears as a scale of emotions.
 
Little kid is trying to catch a ball. He starts out pretty enthusiastically. “Oh, this is a fine game,” he says. But as he keeps failing at it, his emotions change. He goes from one emotion down to the next as he keeps fumbling the ball. After being cheerful for a few throws and dropping the ball, he then gets kind of serious and starts to “concentrate” more. Then he gets a bit irritated, then angry, “%@$&* ball!” then anxious, then sad, and finally, “I don’t wanna play.” This is someone getting worse; it’s a “lose.”
 
Conversely, a person can start out very anxious at first attempting to do something. As they get better at it, they gradually become more confident, more lively, and eventually quite enthusiastic. This is someone getting better. It’s a win.
 
Therefore, an individual’s level of success in achieving anything directly influences their emotional state.
 
More interestingly, and perhaps more importantly, it also works the other way around: one’s emotional state influences their level of success. Maybe not always in terms of career or material wealth; lots of emotionally crippled and deranged people are affluent, but it certainly does indicate success in the game of life itself.

---

Metrics

Today, one might use a variety of metrics to distinguish between better and worse, winning or losing, order and disorder, but students of Scientology 1.0.0 primarily use a tool known as the Tone Scale.

I already mentioned this scale in chapters 2 and 3, but before continuing with my story, I wanted to expand on it further as it provides the key instrument for figuring out the differences between better or worse if used in a certain way. If used in another way, it is also a critical tool for understanding and predicting the actions of all individuals or groups, as well as uncovering basic motivations and goals, as well as whether someone is going to win or lose or is intending to win or lose.
 
Furthermore, the scale, which is the backbone of Scientology 1.0.0, provides a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of Scientology 2.0, the institution, and so may be useful in grasping many of the decisions made by it. The institution, I mean.
 
So, since I will reference it frequently in my future writings, I should make the Tone Scale more plain, at least from my perspective (which will include a considerable amount of jumping around per usual).

To get the most proper and accurate and thorough view, though, you’d need to read Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, of course, as well as the book Science of Survival and Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics.

---

The Tone Scale

E motion

The Scientology Tone Scale is a scale of emotions. Tone means vibration; emotions are vibrational. Vibration means to move continuously and rapidly to and fro.
 
The scale runs from finer vibrations to grosser vibrations; higher emotions to lower emotions.

The word emotion is usually defined as an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness. In Scientology 1.0.0, however, the word is directly connected to its origin: it comes from mid-16th century French émotion, from émouvoir “excite” (denoting a public disturbance), from Latin emovere, from e– (variant of ex-) “out” + movere “move.” Therefore, it is defined as a condition of beingness, which is the connector between thought and effort (action/motion/movement).

And there it is, folks. Emotion plays a critical role in determining an individual’s operation: whether they respond or not, whether they take action or not, whether they move towards or away from something, and whether they move little or not at all, all in direct relation to the goals they are trying to reach.
 
According to Scientology 1.0.0, like many other philosophies and religions (such as Buddhism), winning in this life is not measured in riches, fame, power (clout), or an abundance of personal possessions, but rather in how appropriately the spirit is experiencing existence via its state of mind and the actions or inactions of body that follow.
 
Rather than the concept of “do good and good will happen to you” or “do evil and…”, karma refers to life actions that either improve or worsen conditions. When one’s actions actually improve conditions, one’s ability to make better decisions also improves, and vice versa. Although there is always the “luck” component, good things tend to happen more often to people who pay more attention, make smarter decisions, and act (work) to actually make things better. Emotion shapes how one perceives life and its problems, determining their ability to make better decisions. And vice versa. Emotion, though, is the key.
 
Emotions are never out of line with natural law and can be relied upon to indicate and predict accurately any and all actions taken. Or not taken.

Misemotions, or emotional dysregulation, are not in accordance with natural law, and is another matter that will be discussed shortly.

---

The scale
 
The scale runs like this: higher vibrations (finer frequencies) are, of course, at the top, and lower vibrations (denser frequencies) are at the bottom. The numbers assigned to each emotion are somewhat arbitrary yet very significant, which shall also be explained later.

8.0 — Exhilaration
6.0 — Aesthetic
4.0 — Enthusiasm
3.5 — Cheerfulness
3.3 — Strong Interest
3.0 — Conservatism (not the political definition)
2.9 — Mild Interest
2.8 — Contented
2.6 — Disinterested
2.5 — Boredom
2.4 — Monotony

2.0 — Antagonism — (middle point between survive and succumb/create and destroy)

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
1.0 — Fear
0.98 – Despair
0.96 – Terror
0.94 – Numb
0.9 — Sympathy
0.8 — Propitiation (higher toned – selectively gives)
0.5 — Grief
0.375 Making Amends (lower toned propitiation – can’t withhold anything)
0.3 — Undeserving
0.2 — Self- Abasement
0.1 — Victim
0.07 – Hopeless
0.05 – Apathy
0.03 – Useless
0.01 – Dying
0.0 — Body Death

Note: the scale goes both higher and lower than shown above. We will cover those additional tones later and do not need to show them at this point.

The numeric gaps, such as between, say, 2.0 and 2.4 or 4.0 and 6.0, simply indicate a paucity of English language terms. One can see that there are more emotions below 2.0 specifically listed, possibly because that has been where most conversations and descriptions of life have taken place through the centuries; probably because emotions below 2.0 are more problematic compared to higher emotions. Kind of a “tell” as to where we’ve been spending a lot of our time emotionally and so are more familiar, you know? Sort of like that old trope about Eskimos having numerous words for snow.

---

Sequence and volume

The sequence of emotions is key to this scale: people can jump from one emotion to another, but always in the same order, whether going down or up.
 
My father, as well as other people running Dianetic procedures, noticed this fact. With thousands of hours and extensive record keeping, they were able to plot out the sequence, which remains consistent. Again, whole emotions can be skipped over, such as a child going instantly from enthusiasm to grief or someone popping up from anger into cheerfulness, apparently jumping over all the emotions in between, but wherever one starts or rests, it is always in the same sequence.

Also, like with a rheostat, all individuals can vary in terms of emotional volume—some more than others. For example, simmering anger can escalate into rage; a calm, quiet glow can increase in volume into loquacious enthusiasm, and so on.
 
Additionally, each tone varies in potency according to an individual’s personal “power,” or “élan vital.” Each person possesses a unique life force, an ineffable spiritual aspect that transcends the physical realm but influences their emotional responses. This life force endowment is entirely separate from physicality, as any parent will tell you. In other words, just because someone is 6 feet 6 and 250 pounds of pure muscle doesn’t make them spiritually forceful or charismatic.

---

 
For better understanding, however, read the scale from the bottom to the top, from 0.0 to 8.0. Like this (read every tone):

0.0 — Body Death
0.01 – Dying
0.03 – Useless
0.05 – Apathy
0.07 – Hopeless
0.1 — Victim
0.2 — Self- Abasement
0.3 — Undeserving
0.375 Making Amends (lower toned propitiation – can’t withhold anything)
0.5 — Grief
0.8 — Propitiation (higher toned – selectively gives)
0.9 — Sympathy
0.94 – Numb
0.96 – Terror
0.98 – Despair
1.0 — Fear
1.02 – Anxiety
1.1 — Covert Hostility
1.15 – Unexpressed Resentment
1.2 — No Sympathy
1.3 — Resentment
1.4 — Hate
1.5 — Anger
1.8 — Pain
1.9 — Hostility

2.0 — Antagonism

2.4 — Monotony
2.5 — Boredom
2.6 — Disinterested
2.8 — Contented
2.9 — Mild Interest
3.0 — Conservatism
3.3 — Strong Interest
3.5 — Cheerfulness
4.0 — Enthusiasm
6.0 — Aesthetic
8.0 — Exhilaration

If you felt a wee bit better reading it this way, it’s an indicator that this scale might be useful.
 
At any given time, you can find everyone, any group, or any activity on this scale, including yourself.

When one understands the behaviours attached to each tone, one can not only possibly decode the human condition, but maybe also predict human actions. Then, on top of that, it may even be possible to finally decide what constitutes “normal.” Who knows?

---

Next: descriptions of some tones