What's new
By:
Filters

The State of Clear

DagwoodGum said:
I don't sense that you would have any interest in fitting into it. Dude, party hardy, but not too hardy. I'm having some liver back flips from my party hardy days that I don't wish on you or anyone...
Click to expand...

I hardly drink at all. My son seems to be doing it now though, and it bothers me greatly. I have had too many health problems to add liver to them, and I worry all the time about my son.
 
degraded being said:
If those "segments" comply, and life complies, for the consumer, any old system will do. Whether or not the segments comply, or life complies, is sometimes a matter of how much belief there is in the system, and if that is only based on fitting needs, so what? It only says it makes you comfy and doesn't say anything about the
the value of the system beyond your individual comfort - even it you include those around you in your assessment.

Scientology works for many. It fits their needs. From the elitists at the top to the slaves on the RPF.
Click to expand...
Exactly! I don't, however, take any "system" that seriously these days.

When it comes to life-philosophy, I'm more; "make it up as I go along" than an adherent of any system.
 
Last edited:
Mark A. Baker said:
I'm not for the simple reason that Maslow's thesis implies an hierarchy of moral actions. The upper segments of the pyramid are not deemed relevant unless the lower segments have been stabilized.
Click to expand...

No. His thesis is that there is a hierarchy of needs (the Wikipedia article even uses that name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs), so if you are cold and hungry you are not going to be too interested in respecting others or self-actualization.

You are welcome to infer whatever you wish, but I don't see that he implied a moral hierarchy too.

Paul
 
Dulloldfart said:
No. His thesis is that there is a hierarchy of needs (the Wikipedia article even uses that name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs), so if you are cold and hungry you are not going to be too interested in respecting others or self-actualization.

You are welcome to infer whatever you wish, but I don't see that he implied a moral hierarchy too.

Paul
Click to expand...

Good observation, Paul, but a 'need' is fundamentally a consideration whether or not it may be attributed to a physical basis. The only way around that is to deny the reality of consciousness as a non-material phenomenon, thus making any 'consideration of a need' the result of material determinism. That's not a view for which there is any convincing physical evidence, nor is it a view that I consider as likely to be demonstrated in the future.

Accordingly I reject Maslow's hierarchy as primary to consciousness. Although it's application to physical experience is clear.


Mark A. Baker
 
Last edited:
OK! We - the "we" of this thread - have a breakthrough!

Yes, incerdible as it is, "clear" has been achieved right here on this thread !

You / want ( need / desire / ' wish to be ' / hope / want a refund on / to be " clear"?

You are clear !

It is, after all, in the eye of the beholder that clear exists !

So, right here, right now on this very thread we have and are creating the state of clear.

Enjoy !
 
Panda Termint said:
Well, Bill, as much as I like you I have to ask, how would you know that? Is it just a matter of semantics? I'm only using the word Clear because that's what the thread is about and that's what the state I achieved was labelled in scientology. I would have been just as happy to have called it The State Of "Ian Hoolihan" (I am who I am).

In that particular session I had the exact "Clear Cognition" as described by Hubbard for Clear (a cognition which, btw, quite amazed me at the time), I had the exact accompanying meter phenomena described (according to what I was later told by an at-the-time baffled Auditor), I had no real interest in running anything other than Flow Zero ("you causing yourself a.. ") from that point onwards and so forth.

It wasn't "exactly as described by Hubbard" in terms of attributes such as those listed in DMSMH. My contention, all along, is that Hubbard didn't know what a "Clear" really looked like at the time of describing it in DMSMH. How could he know what would happen with a newly invented practice once people started to actually apply it? I'm quite sure that it probably surprised the hell outta him. Time and the hard work of many, many others provided much information along the way, things always seem to change in any developing practice.

What I'm trying to communicate with my contributions to this thread is that, whilst I no longer practice scientology and recommend it to no man, it is obvious that it does do some things for some people. Those who claim it does absolutely nothing are mistaken.
Click to expand...
The comment I made was in response to the answers:
  • Did you achieve the State of Clear in scientology? Yes.
  • Was it exactly as described by Hubbard? No.
The person who claimed where was a state which he named "Clear" was Hubbard. He "created" that state. If a person claims to have attained "Clear", but it doesn't match what Hubbard said then, ipso facto, what they attained isn't Clear.

I can't state it any plainer. Once you start randomly labeling other states of being as "Clear" you've invalidated everything Hubbard said about the state.

It appears that, since there really is no such thing as Clear, people can claim anything as "Clear". Who can disprove it?
 
Last edited:
Mark A. Baker said:
Good observation, Paul, but a 'need' is fundamentally a consideration whether or not it may be attributed to a physical basis. The only way around that is to deny the reality of consciousness as a non-material phenomenon, thus making any 'consideration of a need' the result of material determinism. That's not a view for which there is any convincing physical evidence, nor is it a view that I consider as likely to be demonstrated in the future.

Accordingly I reject Maslow's hierarchy as primary to consciousness. Although it's application to physical experience is clear.


Mark A. Baker
Click to expand...

What does it matter -no pun-intended- whether or not something is a consideration?
I can consider that I was born. The language we generally use to express that(which is the consideration part) does not make the reality more real or unreal does it? I need food to survive.
 
Bill said:
The comment I made was in response to the answers:
  • Did you achieve the State of Clear in scientology? Yes.
  • Was it exactly as described by Hubbard? No.
The person who claimed where was a state which he named "Clear" was Hubbard. He "created" that state. If a person claims to have attained "Clear", but it doesn't match what Hubbard said then, ipso facto, what they attained isn't Clear.

I can't state it any plainer. Once you start randomly labeling other states of being as "Clear" you've invalidated everything Hubbard said about the state.

It appears that, since there really is no such thing as Clear, people can claim anything as "Clear". Who can disprove it?
Click to expand...
Understood, Bill. I don't, however, agree that any state will do. There is one aspect of what Hubbard called Clear which is a constant and must be met in order for the person to "validly" attest to Clear and that is the Clear Cognition. I think the following is a pretty accurate rendition;

HCOB, 24 Sept 1978, revised 2 Oct 1980.
CONFIDENTIAL, The State of Clear.

"A Clear has lost or erased the matter, energy, space and time connected to the thing called MIND. He has been cleared of the MASS, PICTURES, etc. in the bank or mind. It is a negative gain.

CLEAR COGNITION: CLEAR OCCURS WHEN ONE STOPS MOCKING UP
BANK, OR REALIZES THAT HE IS MOCKING IT UP OR HAS BEEN MOCKING IT UP.

THAT IS THE CLEAR COGNITION: THE REALIZATION THAT HE IS OR HAS BEEN MOCKING UP THE MASS AND PICTURES, ETC., THAT MAKE UP THE BANK.

When the person arrives at this realization he can then, of course, cease mocking up bank.

A Clear has perhaps not entirely lost the automaticity of mocking up mass. But at least he knows he’s putting it there and practice increases his general reality."

This is exactly what I realised in the session where I went "Clear". It certainly surprised me at the time and produced a definite life-change. I did not gain/regain the attributes of Clear as described by Hubbard in DMSMH but I certainly changed (and for the better, in my estimation) is the only point I'm trying to make.

As an aside; a friend who was on the original Clearing Course once told me that Hubbard told them the cognition in advance during a lecture and then said "Now, go and audit the materials until you have the cognition!" (words to that effect). I've never been able to find independent confirmation of this but it kinda sounds like something Hubbard might do.

In any event, my opinion about all this is that the Clear Hubbard described so glowingly doesn't exist, never did and probably never will. Ipso facto, there are no Clears as described by Hubbard, they're something else. Let's call them Nears. :biggrin:
 
It's funny that the one route to Clear is rediscovering who you caused, who caused themselves, or who others caused to experience____dramatizations, conditions, valences, games, intentions etc until you 'get it'. Another is just repeating and desensitizing opposite items from platens. How could these both lead to anywhere near the same phenomena. :ohmy: Maybe they arrive at different varieties of the 'near' clear. That awareness, that cognition___ is it the same cog on the clearing course as on Ned or as on old time 'own' goals clearing? And at what point did a person agree to mock up a BANK as if honor bound?

And it has often been said that the O/W mechanism is 'machinery'. It is a mechanism. So if it has gone on automatic to keep a person 'good' and in 'control' of himself, and it blows on lets say, level II type processing, where does that leave the validity of the implant platens. Those are often not seeming 'personal' to the individual at all and the revelations elusive or missing as relates to his own life. Seems a broad basket of worms.
 
Last edited:
degraded being said:
What does it matter -no pun-intended- whether or not something is a consideration?
I can consider that I was born. The language we generally use to express that(which is the consideration part) does not make the reality more real or unreal does it? I need food to survive.
Click to expand...

What was being discussed was Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This constitutes a 'normalized' scale of conscious activities undertaken in pursuit of perceived needs in accordance with Maslow's view of the priorities of addressing those needs. However those 'needs' are in actual fact due to conscious consideration. A different consideration suggests a different order of priority.

As per your example 'need food to survive', many individuals in the history of humanity have chosen to engage in a hunger strike in order to protest a perceived social injustice or to otherwise press some political agenda. Several have intentionally pursued such endeavors unto death. Clearly for those individuals the perception of a 'need for food' is of a secondary concern to that of other considerations. Such a 'fundamental need' is seen as of a lower priority than some other principle or consideration.

Thus Maslow's pyramidal scale, however generally applicable it may seem, is NOT an absolute scale applicable to all individuals. Different considerations concerning 'need' produce accordingly evaluations of different hierarchies of priority. As per the example I cited, Platonic ethics suggest a view of ethical priorities which conflict with Maslow's pyramid.

An individual's considerations determine the values he uses in decision-making. That cuts to the heart of both the general concept of ethics as well as Maslow's interpretation of priorities.


Mark A. Baker
 
Hatshepsut said:
It's funny that the one route to Clear is rediscovering who you caused, who caused themselves, or who others caused to experience____dramatizations, conditions, valences, games, intentions etc until you 'get it'. Another is just repeating and desensitizing opposite items from platens. How could these both lead to anywhere near the same phenomena. :ohmy: ...
Click to expand...

FWIW, both do entail looking at the structure of personal dramatizations. In the one case as individual creations, in the other as contrary or opposing modes of being. Thus there is some area of commonality between the two approaches.


Mark A. Baker
 
One of the great joys of my life in Scio was having the privlege of C/Sing numerous people on the Clearing Course. One sees them get into it with a bit of puzzlement, and you just keep them at it, and then after a while they start realizing that things are changing on their case but they don't quite know what is going on, and you keep them at it, and the progress and start to realize that this really is leading somewhere, and yes, you keep them at it, and then - usually a day or so before they "get it" you know that they are sitting tight on the edge of it, and then sometimes - not every time, but sometimes, they go clear but just haven't realised it yet, and so you send them back into session, and they come out a bit later saying "there's nothing there! There's nothing left! It's GONE ! ! ! and they're crying and laughing and just almost pee themselves at the absolute wonder of it all and so you take them in your arms and hug them and hug them. WELL DONE. VERY VERY VERY WELL DONE. And they know it with total certainty. They don't really know what Clear is, and let's be honest neither do I, but they have attained it whatever it is exactly. The bank is gone. Gone, you hear me, it's GONE.

What a privelege for the C/S. What a joy. And for the new Clear too. Thank you Ron.
 
Leon said:
One of the great joys of my life in Scio was having the privlege of C/Sing numerous people on the Clearing Course. One sees them get into it with a bit of puzzlement, and you just keep them at it, and then after a while they start realizing that things are changing on their case but they don't quite know what is going on, and you keep them at it, and the progress and start to realize that this really is leading somewhere, and yes, you keep them at it, and then - usually a day or so before they "get it" you know that they are sitting tight on the edge of it, and then sometimes - not every time, but sometimes, they go clear but just haven't realised it yet, and so you send them back into session, and they come out a bit later saying "there's nothing there! There's nothing left! It's GONE ! ! ! and they're crying and laughing and just almost pee themselves at the absolute wonder of it all and so you take them in your arms and hug them and hug them. WELL DONE. VERY VERY VERY WELL DONE. And they know it with total certainty. They don't really know what Clear is, and let's be honest neither do I, but they have attained it whatever it is exactly. The bank is gone. Gone, you hear me, it's GONE.

What a privelege for the C/S. What a joy. And for the new Clear too. Thank you Ron.
Click to expand...

And after you thank Ron, do you tell them right away that they're in danger and at risk because they're now in the no-interference area, or do you wait a few days until their FN goes away?
 
No. Not at all. They are not in any danger whatsoever. That is C of S marketing. Not tech.
 
Leon said:
No. Not at all. They are not in any danger whatsoever. That is C of S marketing. Not tech.
Click to expand...

It's Hubbard's tech and also Hubbard's marketing, which of course you know. Yet you blame it on the amorphous "C of S."

It's this type of psychological blindness and denial, combined with childlike Hubbard worship - and the inevitable lying to raw meat, wogs, and Exes - that causes rational adults to be concerned that Scientologists are allowed to mess with people's minds under the guise of therapy and religion.
 
Leon said:
One of the great joys of my life in Scio was having the privlege of C/Sing numerous people on the Clearing Course. One sees them get into it with a bit of puzzlement, and you just keep them at it, and then after a while they start realizing that things are changing on their case but they don't quite know what is going on, and you keep them at it, and the progress and start to realize that this really is leading somewhere, and yes, you keep them at it, and then - usually a day or so before they "get it" you know that they are sitting tight on the edge of it, and then sometimes - not every time, but sometimes, they go clear but just haven't realised it yet, and so you send them back into session, and they come out a bit later saying "there's nothing there! There's nothing left! It's GONE ! ! ! and they're crying and laughing and just almost pee themselves at the absolute wonder of it all and so you take them in your arms and hug them and hug them. WELL DONE. VERY VERY VERY WELL DONE. And they know it with total certainty. They don't really know what Clear is, and let's be honest neither do I, but they have attained it whatever it is exactly. The bank is gone. Gone, you hear me, it's GONE.

What a privelege for the C/S. What a joy. And for the new Clear too. Thank you Ron.
Click to expand...



:lol:

I hear you ... and you're full of shit.

Has it not dawned on you yet that many ESMB members were those very same 'clears' that you (or someone else) CS'd with such unmitigated joy?

I expect you have an explanation for why they are now stating that they are no more 'clear' than you are and never were, dontcha?

I wonder what happened to the total certainty the 'clears' had?

:whistling:



​
 
Veda said:
And after you thank Ron, do you tell them right away that they're in danger and at risk because they're now in the no-interference area, or do you wait a few days until their FN goes away?
Click to expand...


D OF P
Congratulations on going Clear!!
You are in such amazing case shape now!
Enjoy your wins!

CLEAR
I know! I am so blown out!

D OF P
Here's your routing form to the reg.

CLEAR
Thanks, I'll go see the reg in a few days
but right now I am going to take your
advice and enjoy my wins.

D OF P
No. You shouldn't do that.

CLEAR
But you said--

D OF P
You are at great risk. It's really bad.

CLEAR
But you said--

D OF P
It's the Wall of Fire! You are doomed
unless you get thru it.

CLEAR
But you said--

D OF P
Look, buddy, Ron says you are fucked
and you need to get on III now--today--
before really bad shit happens to you.

CLEAR
But, how do I know if I get thru OT III
you won't tell me there is another Wall
of Fire?

D OF P
Trust me. OT's don't lie.

CLEAR
Well...okay, but when I finish OT III don't
try to scare me with some other shit, okay?

D OF P
No, dear, that could never happen. After you
finish OT III we only want you to enjoy your wins.​
 
Mark A. Baker said:
What was being discussed was Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This constitutes a 'normalized' scale of conscious activities undertaken in pursuit of perceived needs in accordance with Maslow's view of the priorities of addressing those needs. However those 'needs' are in actual fact due to conscious consideration. A different consideration suggests a different order of priority.

As per your example 'need food to survive', many individuals in the history of humanity have chosen to engage in a hunger strike in order to protest a perceived social injustice or to otherwise press some political agenda. Several have intentionally pursued such endeavors unto death. Clearly for those individuals the perception of a 'need for food' is of a secondary concern to that of other considerations. Such a 'fundamental need' is seen as of a lower priority than some other principle or consideration.

Thus Maslow's pyramidal scale, however generally applicable it may seem, is NOT an absolute scale applicable to all individuals. Different considerations concerning 'need' produce accordingly evaluations of different hierarchies of priority. As per the example I cited, Platonic ethics suggest a view of ethical priorities which conflict with Maslow's pyramid.

An individual's considerations determine the values he uses in decision-making. That cuts to the heart of both the general concept of ethics as well as Maslow's interpretation of priorities.


Mark A. Baker
Click to expand...

If I understand what you're saying correctly then I think I agree with you.
If Maslow or anyone else is asserting that peoples needs and peoples ideas about their needs are manifested according to a fairly predictable rigid heirachal pattern, that does not look like what I observe. One factor there is the aspect of choice as you mentioned. There are other factors. Actually I haven't read Maslow, but have seen that pyramid before. It is so simplistic IMO, that I hestitate to think that he really meant it as simplistically as it appears to be, and I have so far assumed that there is more to it.

It could be one of those very flexible bits of theory, where once the basic format is theorised and then waved around in front of spectators, the limitations of it are gradually seen, and so the variations/interactions in the way that life can be arranged within the diagram are then discussed.

So I guess my main question is: Did Maslow intend it to be understood in a way which makes it conflict with Plato, or is the limiting scope it seems to have true to Maslows ideas.? Do you know?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top