The original scale
was expanded in 1952 to
In 1959 I have found another vital point on this scale which gives us a new case entrance point.
I suspect also that “Wait” fits between Unknown and Inhibit. To make these agree in intention, they would become
This scale also inverts, I find, similar to the Dynamics and below sanity on any subject.
These points, particularly on the inverted scale, going down, are lowered by failure. Each lower step is an explanation to justify having failed with the upper level.
One seeks to not know something and fails. One then seeks to inhibit it and fails. Therefore one seeks to enforce it and fails. Thus one explains by desiring it and fails. And not really being able to have it, shows thereafter an obsessive interest in it.
The above inversion is of course all reactive.
Reactive selling (of interest to us in a salesman campaign) would be accomplished thusly (and this is the basic scale of selling):
The salesman refuses to let the customer forget the product;
The salesman then inhibits all efforts by the customer to refuse the product;The salesman enforces the product on the customer;
The salesman now finds the customer desires the product; And the customer will remain interested.
There is an interplay here whereby the salesman reverses the scale:
Salesmen, bringing about an inverted scale, can go downscale themselves as they do it. They seek to interest and meet forgetfulness. They want to sell and meet opposition. They high pressure the customer and get pressured back. And about the time the customer wants the product the salesman is reactively inhibiting the sale. And as the customer’s interest is at its highest the salesman forgets all about him.
All a salesman has to do is continue to try to interest the customer and the reactive inversion will take place.
It is interesting that this scale, more importantly, gives us new case entrances. A series of Comm Processes on any terminal, say “bodies”, could be run.
From where could you communicate to an unknown body " " " " " " an unwanted body " " " " " " a necessary body " " " " " " a desirable body " " " " " " an interesting body
This would pick the case off the bottom and run it to the top on any terminal that has gone totally reactive.
By the way, don’t take my remarks on salesmen as being “all for the best”. The basic overt act is making people want useless objects and spaces, and unfortunately for him that’s often part of the business of the salesman. He, unlike us, sometimes isn’t fishing people out of the mud. He’s often more likely pushing them in. Therefore he needs our help to get square with the world. As his income depends on making people want things and buy things (even though sometimes they need them), we haven’t much choice but to show him the mechanics of selling, to the end of getting him to help pull others out of the mud. Making somebody want something they really need is no crime, but the salesman is on very shaky ground. What do people really need? We had best not try to get involved in the ethics of all this, or to persuade them to sell only needed items.
The whole economic structure needs the salesman; he is the key of the whole structure. But we can leaven the flow of even useless goods by letting an invitation to freedom trickle in the same channel.