What's this "Excalibur" thing? Will it give me OT powers?

[Pepin]

When did I first have a doubt about the existence of the state of Clear?

When I realized Scientology was a hypnotic con game, but again try to stay focused on the topic we are discussing, this has nothing to do with me, it has to do with the indisputable fact that Scientology or any of Hubbard's material for that matter, has never even remotely come close to producing a single "Clear" or OT.

I guess that would make everyone an "OB" operating body in your view?

Putting Hubbard aside, I think the label "clear" is fitting.
Before Scientology, I dealt with rubbish stored in my mind.

Example... stored pain memory where a car had hit me while walking in a cross walk. My leg hurt for no reason at all and in my mind I saw a car. As I realized the car was not present in real time, the pain was gone. Rubbish erased.

It wasn't until I erased all items, "As IS'd" them did I notice that the memories stored were like mud on my window of life. After I erased the mud, my mind was "clear" to address life with no via's, rose colored glasses OR mud stained windows.

~p

 

[KnightVision]

I guess that would make everyone an "OB" operating body in your view?

Putting Hubbard aside, I think the label "clear" is fitting.
Before Scientology, I dealt with rubbish stored in my mind.

Example... stored pain memory where a car had hit me while walking in a cross walk. My leg hurt for no reason at all and in my mind I saw a car. As I realized the car was not present in real time, the pain was gone. Rubbish erased.

It wasn't until I erased all items, "As IS'd" them did I notice that the memories stored were like mud on my window of life. After I erased the mud, my mind was "clear" to address life with no via's, rose colored glasses OR mud stained windows.

~p

OK so you got some gain. That's great. I am happy for you. Let's keep your relief and happiness right there. You made somehting change in your life. You happened to be doing something 'sci' when it happened for you. That doesn't make 'sci' the cause of your betterment. 'Sci' has some decent techniques to help out, but it's most powerful 'technique' is to make it's adepts BELIEVE that sci was the sole cause of their betterment. That's what CMCML is referring to. One's perception may have changed concerning an issue that has removed the 'false belief' that a prior incident 'had to have been so bad' and thus change their outlook and any negative consequences of that prior outlook. That could happen in numerous ways, one of them being in a sci sesson. The idea that 'sci' is so GREAT is a belief. YOU are great... and that is a fact. What happens to many if not most of 'sci' adepts is that they mistake their great abilities as being 'sci' great abilities. That''s fairly uniform because the 'tech' hammers that home at every opportunity.

Change what you believe in a way that nourishes your ultimate desires and needs and you will be quite content with yourself. You don't need 'sci' for that, there are many 'techniques' available to 'inspire' you to do so. They are only 'needed' 'til the point that one realizes that they can do this all on their own. No 'tech' needed. But 'sci' will never tell you that, nor will it ever teach you how to do it 'solo' cause once you realize that you are far more capable than anything in 'sci'.... you'll be gone. And they need lifetime paying members to keep printing up everything that tells you otherwise.

 

[Pepin]

You made somehting change in your life. You happened to be doing something 'sci' when it happened for you.

Actually, I said I WASN'T doing something "sci".

And of course I made it happen. Who else could make that happen to or for me?

That seems to be the confusion in a lot of these threads. It is always the person themselves that MAKE it happen.
It's not like someone can buy a can of scientology, eat it and voila! IT or someone else takes over. Everyone must make it happen. BE aware, BE clear, BE OT. but of course, a person must also realize what it was like for them before the windows got muddy or before they thought themself to be a powerless being.

That doesn't make 'sci' the cause of your betterment.

Of course it doesn't. I never said it did!
The topic was about a label called "clear"

 

[DartSmohen]

Putting matters in perspective

Just to give you guys some background;

The principles of what was later "marketed" as NOTS was known about in May 1967 when we experimented the application of the Ethics Conditions.

Treason was "Find out that you were"

Enemy was "Find out WHO you were".

Also, the basis of where Hubbard got the idea of "Inc 1" is described in Paul's ebook which is published as PAULS RABBIT.

Remember, Hubbard was in a very drugged state at that time.

As to whether or not you choose to buy into any of Hubbards "OT3 & NOTS, Bill's Excalabur or anyone elses versions of this concept is entirely up to you.

However, it is worth remembering that those who delved into trying to "develop" such materials ended up either crazy and delusional (Hubbard), or dead from tumors of the head and brain (Rene Mumford, Bill Robertson).

And people wonder why I never got involved in this ????

Dart

 

[KnightVision]

Actually, I said I WASN'T doing something "sci".

And of course I made it happen. Who else could make that happen to or for me?

That seems to be the confusion in a lot of these threads. It is always the person themselves that MAKE it happen.
It's not like someone can buy a can of scientology, eat it and voila! IT or someone else takes over. Everyone must make it happen. BE aware, BE clear, BE OT. but of course, a person must also realize what it was like for them before the windows got muddy or before they thought themself to be a powerless being.




Of course it doesn't. I never said it did!
The topic was about a label called "clear"

OK, sorry if I intruded. I jumped in at your response to CNCML concerning 'clear'. Hubbard's defin is bullshit and has never evidenced itself. It's too bad that LconH had to be so fucking stupid and a lying asshole... cause it confuses any actual, realistic gains one can make happen for himself while experimenting with the 'tech'. Long live your gains you made happen!

Peace,

KV

 

[Pepin]

Just to give you guys some background;

The principles of what was later "marketed" as NOTS was known about in May 1967 when we experimented the application of the Ethics Conditions.

Treason was "Find out that you were"

Enemy was "Find out WHO you were".

Also, the basis of where Hubbard got the idea of "Inc 1" is described in Paul's ebook which is published as PAULS RABBIT.

Remember, Hubbard was in a very drugged state at that time.

As to whether or not you choose to buy into any of Hubbards "OT3 & NOTS, Bill's Excalabur or anyone elses versions of this concept is entirely up to you.

However, it is worth remembering that those who delved into trying to "develop" such materials ended up either crazy and delusional (Hubbard), or dead from tumors of the head and brain (Rene Mumford, Bill Robertson).

And people wonder why I never got involved in this ????

Dart

Hey thanks..

Actually, this makes sense to me.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Also, the basis of where Hubbard got the idea of "Inc 1" is described in Paul's ebook which is published as PAULS RABBIT.

Something like that, yeah.

Dart Smohen: The Real Story, edited from Dart's ESMB posts with comments from Alan Walter, a free PDF eBook download at www.paulsrabbit.com.

Paul

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

I guess that would make everyone an "OB" operating body in your view?

Putting Hubbard aside, I think the label "clear" is fitting.
Before Scientology, I dealt with rubbish stored in my mind.

Example... stored pain memory where a car had hit me while walking in a cross walk. My leg hurt for no reason at all and in my mind I saw a car. As I realized the car was not present in real time, the pain was gone. Rubbish erased.

It wasn't until I erased all items, "As IS'd" them did I notice that the memories stored were like mud on my window of life. After I erased the mud, my mind was "clear" to address life with no via's, rose colored glasses OR mud stained windows.

~p

lol the whole "if you don't believe in Hubbard's con game you have to belief you are nothing but a body" is getting old and rather silly. You and everyone else can try to twist Hubbard's words around and covertly redefine Hubbard's definition of "Clear" and "OT" to suit the failure of Scientology, but the fact still remains ... Scientology or any of Hubbard's material for that matter, has never even remotely come close to producing a single "Clear" or OT not a single one.

... not you can go back to believing everyone is nothing but a meat body except you.

 

[Div6]

lol the whole "if you don't believe in Hubbard's con game you have to belief you are nothing but a body" is getting old and rather silly. You and everyone else can try to twist Hubbard's words around and covertly redefine Hubbard's definition of "Clear" and "OT" to suit the failure of Scientology, but the opinion still remains ... Scientology or any of Hubbard's material for that matter, has never even remotely come close to producing a single "Clear" or OT not a single one.

... not you can go back to believing everyone is nothing but a meat body except you.

fix'd

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

fix'd

Scientology or any of Hubbard's material for that matter, has never even remotely come close to producing a single "Clear" or OT not a single one.

you fixed nothing , this is a fact that even the Church of Scientology will not deny. All the cult specifically provides is the brainwashing to make their customers believe these imaginary states exists and thus allow them and them alone attest to these delusions. If the Church of Scientology was stupid enough to actually claim their products and services could actually produce these imaginary states, they would open themselves up to lawsuits which require proof ... and everyone knows the proof does not exist ... since the state of Clear and OT is imaginary.

 

[Div6]

Scientology or any of Hubbard's material for that matter, has never even remotely come close to producing a single "Clear" or OT not a single one.

you fixed nothing , this is an opinion that even the Church of Scientology will not deny. All the cult specifically provides is the brainwashing to make their customers believe these imaginary states exists and thus allow them and them alone attest to these delusions. If the Church of Scientology was stupid enough to actually claim their products and services could actually produce these imaginary states, they would open themselves up to lawsuits which require proof ... and everyone knows the proof does not exist ... since the state of Clear and OT is imaginary.

That you are so certain of your opinion gives me great comfort. Keep up the good work.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

That you are so certain of your opinion gives me great comfort. Keep up the good work.

You can continue to believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, the imaginary state of Clear, the imaginary state of OT or what every else you choose to, I think I'll stick with reality.

 

[Panda Termint]

Originally Posted by ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn
I really wish Hubbard's Tech could create Clears and OTs, but the fact of the mater it never has even come close to creating a single Clear or single OT and never will, no matter how many imaginary Body Thetans are exorcised.
<snip...>


Scientology or any of Hubbard's material for that matter, has never even remotely come close to producing a single "Clear" or OT not a single one.

CNCML, I hear what you're saying but I'm still curious about why you think these things. I've asked several times, most recently about a week ago, but I'll try again; here (below) are my comments and questions of 12th August on http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=283107&postcount=52 .

I think you'd be rather surprised to find out how many people here actually disagree with this statement, CNCML ( and I'm talking about Exes who are no longer scientologists). There are probably many Exes who know they achieved the States of Clear and OT. Perhaps not as defined by Hubbard or others but certainly in their own estimation.

You repeatedly make this statement as if you somehow actually know it to be true. How can you know that? What makes you such an authority on this subject?

I know that you believe that your statement is true but as far as I can see it's simply an adopted belief, a learned and accepted thing, the sort of thing you often rail against here on ESMB.

Where is your evidence as to the complete non-existence of Clears and OTs? How do know this to be true?

I know, I know... how can you possibly prove a negative?

Sort of like asking someone to prove he/she no longer has a Reactive Mind, no?

Wax on.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

CNCML, I hear what you're saying but I'm still curious about why you think these things. I've asked several times, most recently about a week ago, but I'll try again; here (below) are my comments and questions of 12th August on http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=283107&postcount=52 .

Wax on.

There is no way to prove a negative, such as proving Santa Claus or countless other myths do not exist, the burden of proof is and always has been on the party claiming the existence of these myths or phenomenons. In the case of the states of Clear and OT which Hubbard fabricated, no one has even attempted to produce any proof of their existence because it is common knowledge that Hubbard fabricated them as a sales tool to hook customers in, but if you think you could be the first person to ever produce a Clear or OT to test against the specific definition Hubbard assigned to these states, I would love to see it.

 

[Panda Termint]

There is no way to prove a negative, such as proving Santa Claus or countless other myths do not exist, the burden of proof is and always has been on the party claiming the existence of these myths or phenomenons. In the case of the states of Clear and OT which Hubbard fabricated, no one has even attempted to produce any proof of their existence because it is common knowledge that Hubbard fabricated them as a sales tool to hook customers in, but if you think you could be the first person to ever produce a Clear or OT to test against the specific definition Hubbard assigned to these states, I would love to see it.

That doesn't really answer the questions I asked but... que sera.

My point is; how can you be so apparently certain of your "facts"? What makes you an authority on this?
Simply repeating "there are no Clears or OTs" at every opportunity doesn't teach us anything except that you have a particular belief and you're sticking to it. Do you actually know any scientologists who have attested to Clear or OT?

I think you'd begin to understand more about scientologists if you substituted the word "postulated" or "posited" for the bolded word above but, then again, you know what they say about "common knowledge" .

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

That doesn't really answer the questions I asked but... que sera.

My point is really; how can you be so apparently certain of your "facts"? What makes you an authority on this?
Simply repeating "there are no Clears or OTs" at every opportunity doesn't teach us anything except that you have a particular belief and you're sticking to it. Do you actually know any scientologists who have attested to Clear or OT?

I think you'd begin to understand more about scientologists if you substituted the word "postulated" or "posited" for the bolded word above.

I don't have to be an authority on this, I'm not the one claiming these imaginary states exist. In common rational thought the burdon of proof is on the party making the claim of existence. And yes I've met people who attested to "Clear" and "OT" that was the first reg flag that went up regarding Scientology. There were several people who attested to "Clear" and "OT" and the Org I went to, while I was looking into what Scientology had to offer, and none of them impressed me, in fact their nicotine and caffeine addictions gave me quite the opposite impression. The bottom line the states of Clear and OT are fictional states created by Hubbard, they will never be proven to exist, because they never did exist. Just because someone has been carefully and systematicly brainwashed by the cult to believe they are Clear or OT does not make it true, it does not make it even close to true. This is not an opinion, it's a fact, and if you do not believe this fact, then produce a single Clear or OT and I will be happy to admit I was wrong.

 

[Div6]

I don't have to be an authority on this, I'm not the one claiming these imaginary states exist. In common rational thought the burdon of proof is on the party making the claim of existence. And yes I've met people who attested to "Clear" and "OT" that was the first reg flag that went up regarding Scientology. There were several people who attested to "Clear" and "OT" and the Org I went to, while I was looking into what Scientology had to offer, and none of them impressed me, in fact their nicotine and caffeine addictions gave me quite the opposite impression. The bottom line the states of Clear and OT are fictional states created by Hubbard, they will never be proven to exist, because they never did exist. Just because someone has been carefully and systematicly brainwashed by the cult to believe they are Clear or OT does not make it true, it does not make it even close to true. This is not an opinion, it's a fact, and if you do not believe this fact, then produce a single Clear or OT and I will be happy to admit I was wrong.

What is your definition of "clear"?
What is your definition of "OT"?

There are many stories buried here on ESMB about "OT" events, perceptions, etc. that have occurred to people after the application of scn technology.

But if your definitions are such that they preclude any of those events, then no amount of "information" will make an iota of difference.

 

[Panda Termint]

Fair enough, CNCML.

I guess it's just a belief then, something you think doesn't exist because you haven't personally seen any actual evidence of its existence.

I understand that to you, this equates to a fact. I get it.

I have just one last question.

Assuming that you know for a fact that Clears and OTs don't exist; if I were to produce one for you, would you actually see it or recognise it for what it was? Just asking.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Fair enough, CNCML.

I guess it's just a belief then, something you think doesn't exist because you haven't personally seen any actual evidence of its existence.

I understand that to you, this equates to a fact. I get it.

I have just one last question.

Assuming that you know for a fact that Clears and OTs don't exist; if I were to produce one for you, would you actually see it or recognise it for what it was? Just asking.

Sure, Hubbard defined the state of Clear very precisely in Dianetics, it could be tested for scientific verification rather easily within a few minutes. There is a very good reason why the Church of Scientology does not claim to be able to produce the state of "Clear" or "OT" and why it refuses to allow testing for it. They very carefully distance themselves for any claims, the customer attests to these states all on their own, putting the burden solely on the person making the claim, not the cult itself. If they actually attempted to prove the existence of their fabricated states, the con game would be over.

 

[Panda Termint]

Sure, Hubbard defined the state of Clear very precisely in Dianetics, it could be tested for scientific verification rather easily within a few minutes. There is a very good reason why the Church of Scientology does not claim to be able to produce the state of "Clear" or "OT" and why it refuses to allow testing for it. They very carefully distance themselves for any claims, the customer attests to these states all on their own, putting the burden solely on the person making the claim, not the cult itself. If they actually attempted to prove the existence of their fabricated states, the con game would be over.

Regarding Hubbard's definitions of Clear: the definition most commonly used to debunk Clearing is his description of it in DMSMH. There sure ain't any of dem Clears (at least, none that I've seen) but this DMSMH definition is obviously a posited or postulated definition. There were no actual Clears at all at the time of writing that book so it has to be a posited definition, something he thought might be achievable through Dianetics (if you happen to believe in that sort of thing).
PS: You didn't answer my question... or did you?