Engrams, The Reactive Mind and Clear

[grundy]

I wrote an answer to a question for a poster, and felt that it was sufficiently important to add to my "Tech Explanations."

I searched and could not find an answer to this. So far as my meager knowledge of Sci goes, an engram is a bad spiritual memory that affects you in this life, so when and how did the first engram happen?

Basically, the reactive part of the mind was supposed to be a result of an agreement between beings as to limitations that would be accepted to play this game called "Matter Energy Space Time"

Basically, you (according to scn) agreed that you would assume a physical form and create these pictures as a record of your experience and that you would follow the rules built up in these patterns. And if you're physical form was damaged that this would be a penalty.

So, in order to avoid penalties, you set up a mechanism that would allow you to avoid the "pain penalty" by allowing a part of your mind to handle or avoid as a reflex things that could damage your physical form.

But, because the programming of this mechanism was flawed, you became trapped within the record, not allowing yourself to correctly reorder these experiences as they became more or less relevant.

So, the "Clear Cog" - the cognition you are supposed to have when you let go of/erase your reactive mind is "I created my own reactive mind."

Anybody have a better explanation?

************

I actually got this very early on and no reference later ever contradicted this, and only reenforced this as a correct understanding of the genesis of the reactive mind.

 

[grundy]

It's actually interesting.

The basic books and tapes given in the 1950s explained this far better than anything that came later.

This is supposed to be "looking at life from an OT viewpoint."

Tended to make people theety-weety.

I got SOOOO tired of people talking about things ONLY from this viewpoint. It didn't matter whether it was a correct viewpoint or not. It just sounded like people spent so much time trying to explain the game that they never went about trying to win it.

According to Scn, YOU agreed to play the game. And you were supposed to get yourself (using the "tech") out of the game. But doesn't that negate the whole point of the game? And the point of the game is life and communicating with other beings.

 

[Zinjifar]

It's actually interesting.

The basic books and tapes given in the 1950s explained this far better than anything that came later.

This is supposed to be "looking at life from an OT viewpoint."

Tended to make people theety-weety.

I got SOOOO tired of people talking about things ONLY from this viewpoint. It didn't matter whether it was a correct viewpoint or not. It just sounded like people spent so much time trying to explain the game that they never went about trying to win it.

According to Scn, YOU agreed to play the game. And you were supposed to get yourself (using the "tech") out of the game. But doesn't that negate the whole point of the game? And the point of the game is life and communicating with other beings.

This is what's called 'figure-figure' (ask Vinnie )

What you should do is dump the whole sorry mess and go bowling with loved ones.

Zinj

 

[Veda]

I wrote an answer to a question for a poster, and felt that it was sufficiently important to add to my "Tech Explanations."



Basically, the reactive part of the mind was supposed to be a result of an agreement between beings as to limitations that would be accepted to play this game called "Matter Energy Space Time"

Basically, you (according to scn) agreed that you would assume a physical form and create these pictures as a record of your experience and that you would follow the rules built up in these patterns. And if you're physical form was damaged that this would be a penalty.

So, in order to avoid penalties, you set up a mechanism that would allow you to avoid the "pain penalty" by allowing a part of your mind to handle or avoid as a reflex things that could damage your physical form.

But, because the programming of this mechanism was flawed, you became trapped within the record, not allowing yourself to correctly reorder these experiences as they became more or less relevant.

So, the "Clear Cog" - the cognition you are supposed to have when you let go of/erase your reactive mind is "I created my own reactive mind."

Anybody have a better explanation?

************

I actually got this very early on and no reference later ever contradicted this, and only reenforced this as a correct understanding of the genesis of the reactive mind.

If anyone wishes to view a different take on "Clear," from a time when Scientology may have reached its zenith of sanity, with Hubbard surrounded by sincere and competent auditors providing him with data, and was, himself, willing to accept that data, take a look at the 1958 period.

I've used processes from this time period on 'PCs' - while exploring auditing tech after leaving Scientology, and thus being freed from its smothering constraints (processes that were no longer on the Grade Chart, or on the Lower Grades), and there were some pretty interesting results.

One action was finding, and resolving, the "hot" (most "charged") item/identity, that the person was being.

The "EP" was along the lines of, "an increase in space, and an increase of tolerance for experience," and, if there was a "Clear Cog," it was something more on the order of, "I no longer give a shit about the 'reactive mind'."

That's another take on "Clear."

Eventually, this all led to (actual) "GPMs," in the early 1960s, and then to "Implant GPMs" by the mid 1960s. (see 'Implantology')

There's just so much that can be done with auditing - where a person is looking inward, and holding on to e-meter cans - and then one is done.

Of course, in Scientology (being, at its core, IMO, a trap), one is never "done."

Anyway, there's another viewpoint for you, for what it's worth.

Some old timers, from that period, notably Alan, have vastly more experience than do I with this area, and maybe he'll have something to say on the topic.

P.S. These techniques changed from week to week during that time, and each major change was routinely presented as IT (at 'Congresses'), etc. These techniques had very little to do with "erasing mental image pictures." Quote from 'ACC Clear Procedure' of 15 October, "Auditing is not erasure. Erasure dramatizes lost things to confront."

Of course, that was that week, and IT would soon change again.

IMO, though, even during this period, I doubt that Hubbard lost sight of his "hidden agenda," with "auditing" and "Clearing" not being an end in itself, but a means to another end, or a means through which other things could be done. (See 1938 'Mission Statement', 1946 'Affirmations', 1955 'Brainwashing Manual', etc.) Nonetheless, the stuff was pretty interesting to play around with, for itself.

Here's a 1991 article by David Mayo re. "Dianetic Clear," for more perspective on the topic of "Dianetic Clear":

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=75265&postcount=15

 

[gomorrhan]

Agreed, Grundy. This is why the Admin Scale is important, IMO, and why attempts to process a person towards anything other than the ability to confront and handle the masses needed to be confronted and handled to accomplish their own goals is auditing in the wrong direction.

 

[GreyLensman]

It's actually interesting.

The basic books and tapes given in the 1950s explained this far better than anything that came later.

This is supposed to be "looking at life from an OT viewpoint."

Tended to make people theety-weety.

I got SOOOO tired of people talking about things ONLY from this viewpoint. It didn't matter whether it was a correct viewpoint or not. It just sounded like people spent so much time trying to explain the game that they never went about trying to win it.

According to Scn, YOU agreed to play the game. And you were supposed to get yourself (using the "tech") out of the game. But doesn't that negate the whole point of the game? And the point of the game is life and communicating with other beings.

My intention was always to find a path to playing the game knowingly at cause. To find that balance between immersion and unknowing participation, and games, where you know the rules are arbitrary and unfair, but you play with exhilaration purely for the joy of playing. Seriousness, loss become mere considerations, and the intensity and speed of play is dizzying. To play but alway at my choice and always with a viewpoint exterior to the game available.

It wasn't that this happened to you that was the detriment -it was the unknowing effect that was the problem...

 

[mossman125]

Ok, I'm on the ropes with scientology, right now at this very moment I am not a scientologist. Due to the fact that I was told, I could not longer take courses in the org. cause I was to much of a threat cause I illegally beat on sports 1 yr ago and I still knew some people in the business. But that's a whole another story. My question is I understand that the OT levels are bad and I believe and know the XENU story is real. I also hate how the sea org. treats there members, I dont care for tommy davis or david miscaivage. However from day one I never wanted to be an OT. I mean I had my times where it sparked my interest but OT 8 was never the final goal. For me clear has always been a wow thing. Being able to think clearer and have higher IQ while taking control of ur life and destroying ur reactive mind. So my question is, is there any truth to the acquistations made by scientology about clears, engrams, and all that stuff? I mean I took a few courses and they helped but I wanna get both sides of the coin, and I have on alot of issues but this one has really hit home for me, and it's what brought me in and got me to spend the thousands and thousands of dollars.

 

[Dulloldfart]

So my question is, is there any truth to the acquistations made by scientology about clears, engrams, and all that stuff?

Some truth, yes.

Search around here and read for yourself. Either use the search facility here, or go to Google and input things like (without the >>>s) >>>site:forum.exscn.net engrams<<< to find out what has been posted here about engrams.

Paul

 

[GreyWolf]

This is what's called 'figure-figure' (ask Vinnie )

What you should do is dump the whole sorry mess and go bowling with loved ones.

Zinj

I think bowling is good. But it is against KSW. So I guess I will go bowling.

 

[uniquemand]

I'm surprised Paul didn't eat grundy for this bad grammar. The clear cog is not "I created my own reactive mind", it's "I'm creating my reactive mind".

GOD, people, how many times do you have to be told?

 

[Dulloldfart]

I'm surprised Paul didn't eat grundy for this bad grammar. The clear cog is not "I created my own reactive mind", it's "I'm creating my reactive mind".

I didn't bother reading any of his explanations for newbies. I figured he would have it right (here, "right" means "what Hubbard said," and not "in accordance with reality" or something). Ho hum.

Paul

 

[Cherub]

My conclusive discovery: The Reactive Mind does not (as in never did) exist!!!!

Whoa.... what did he just say???

hahahahahaha--- such is the truth, as perceived by The Cherub

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

Engrams: Negative emotional and physical experiences suffered whilst in the clutches of the Church of $cientology.
Reactive Mind: Lafayette Ronald Hubbard
Clear: What your own mind has a chance of experiencing when you walk away from the mess.

 

[intrepido34]

I didn't bother reading any of his explanations for newbies. I figured he would have it right (here, "right" means "what Hubbard said," and not "in accordance with reality" or something). Ho hum.

Paul

Dullolfart, what would be then the clear cog in accordance with your reality?

(Note, this is a honest question as I consider you a competent technical terminal, it is not intended as a challenge)

 

[programmer_guy]

Dullolfart, what would be then the clear cog in accordance with your reality?

(Note, this is a honest question as I consider you a competent technical terminal, it is not intended as a challenge)

"I have been mocking this up."

 

[Dulloldfart]

Dullolfart, what would be then the clear cog in accordance with your reality?

(Note, this is a honest question as I consider you a competent technical terminal, it is not intended as a challenge)

Just saw this. The clear cog per Hubbard — I'm not saying this means anything, merely giving the official story — is all about "I am mocking it up" (present continuous tense), not "I mocked it up" (past tense).

I wrote a long post on it in the thread The Clear Cognition. That thread also includes a verbatim quote from the relevant HCOB.

Paul

 

[Infinite]

Engrams: Negative emotional and physical experiences suffered whilst in the clutches of the Church of $cientology.
Reactive Mind: Lafayette Ronald Hubbard
Clear: What your own mind has a chance of experiencing when you walk away from the mess.

heh!! Pretty much sums it up.

I was wondering - how are Body Thetans involved in this mix? From a Scientology point of view, are Engrams the same as Body Thetans? My understanding is that they are the same thing, only people don't find out about it until OTIII. Is that correct?

 

[Panda Termint]

Nope. "BTs" aren't engrams in scio-parlance, BTs *have* engrams, just like all thetans (if you believe Ron, of course).

 

[Infinite]

Nope. "BTs" aren't engrams in scio-parlance, BTs *have* engrams, just like all thetans (if you believe Ron, of course).

Thank you. If you'll bear with me - so, I have eliminated all my Engrams and freed by Reactive Mind, and am now moving towards being an Operating Thetan. Then, I get to OTIII and its there that I discover my Thetan has Body Thetans stuck all over it and so I must, at that stage, commence "freeing" them. Is that how it works?

 

[Panda Termint]

Kinda, though I've never heard of anyone "eliminating all my engrams", just people who ceased creating them as an effect point. Once you know that you're creating it you may just decide to give it up as a bad habit.

As to the rest of your questions; you're not really asking me to teach you all about the "Bridge" in 25 words or less, are you? I'm not really interested in doing that but seeing as you asked, I'll bear with you.

There are steps between Clear and OT3 but yes, same answer, "kinda".

The data is already here in multiple threads on ESMB. Did you read the thread Paul linked to?