Bill
Gold Meritorious Patron
So, you're a "Clear" because something happened which "was of value" to you?
Got it.
The State of Clear
- Thread starter DartSmohen
- Start date
Got it.
Gadfly
Crusader
People often feel good, even FEEL GREAT, and have AMAZING REALIZATIONS simply by "reordering their viewpoint".
THAT is largely what happens with auditing, and THAT is what happens in millions of ways in everyday life in various therapies, spiritual practices, psychology, studying any of hundreds of subjects, watching TV, seeing a good movie, having a cool conversation with a friend, reading a good book, or as Hoaxter mentioned, telling a good joke to the fellow sitting next to you on a plane or treating a complete stranger with love and understanding in an elevator.
The fellow who just accepted Jesus into his life, fully with no reservations, HAS HAD A MAJOR VIEWPOINT SHIFT. Colors get brighter. The world looks VERY different, because HE HAS CHANGED and he is looking out at the world from a NEW POSITION. He feels "keyed-out". He may even feel "exterior". He feels "lighter". Many ideas and concepts have ADJUSTED, many past experiences have been suddely re-evaluated, a large content of his mind has been realigned and changed into a NEW complex arrangement.
As Einstein so correctly stated in his theories of relativity, the perception of the universe CHANGES depending on where and how you LOOK FROM. That is just as true for any person. The view and EXPERIENCE of the universe depends entirely on FROM WHERE ONE LOOKS. Other than that there is no "correct view of the universe". It is always entirely relative. WHO is doing the looking, from where, and HOW (beliefs, considerations, fixed ideas, opinions, views, etc).
There are a near infinite number of situations that can act to "reorder your viewpoint". Systems like magick and visualization provide techniques so that one can do the reordering with conscious direction. NLP and other systems provide techniques to do the same thing in different ways.
Part of Hubbard's lunacy was in claiming and demanding that ONLY HIS SYSTEM could and would provide the needed tools to do the "reordering of ideas, concepts, memories and views" in the "correct way". Scientology also provides a very restrictive and cookie-cutter pattern in which to first understand, and second, "reorder these ideas and views". Hubbard was a big fart.
Oh, also, while in some ways the auditing might act to "reorder" ideas and views in a positive and useful manner, participation with the ORGANIZATION often results in the acceptance and ordering of ideas in a strange way because of the demand to adopt ideas like KSW, Scn ethics, Scn justice, and many other "organizational" notions that place "the expansion of Scientology as the TOP GOAL", and THAT tricks the Scientology adherent into adopting a very arbitrary and selective "world view".
In other words, while the resultant "experience" of life and the world might "improve" as a result of the "reordering of one's viewpoint" through auditing, the resultant "experience of life and the world might NOT AT ALL "improve", and even get strange, weird and restrictive, as a result of the "reordering of one's viewpoint" that occurs through the VERY EXTENSIVE Scientology indoctrination into specific ideas and notions of Hubbard's "philosophy" of all-that-is.
THAT is largely what happens with auditing, and THAT is what happens in millions of ways in everyday life in various therapies, spiritual practices, psychology, studying any of hundreds of subjects, watching TV, seeing a good movie, having a cool conversation with a friend, reading a good book, or as Hoaxter mentioned, telling a good joke to the fellow sitting next to you on a plane or treating a complete stranger with love and understanding in an elevator.
The fellow who just accepted Jesus into his life, fully with no reservations, HAS HAD A MAJOR VIEWPOINT SHIFT. Colors get brighter. The world looks VERY different, because HE HAS CHANGED and he is looking out at the world from a NEW POSITION. He feels "keyed-out". He may even feel "exterior". He feels "lighter". Many ideas and concepts have ADJUSTED, many past experiences have been suddely re-evaluated, a large content of his mind has been realigned and changed into a NEW complex arrangement.
As Einstein so correctly stated in his theories of relativity, the perception of the universe CHANGES depending on where and how you LOOK FROM. That is just as true for any person. The view and EXPERIENCE of the universe depends entirely on FROM WHERE ONE LOOKS. Other than that there is no "correct view of the universe". It is always entirely relative. WHO is doing the looking, from where, and HOW (beliefs, considerations, fixed ideas, opinions, views, etc).
There are a near infinite number of situations that can act to "reorder your viewpoint". Systems like magick and visualization provide techniques so that one can do the reordering with conscious direction. NLP and other systems provide techniques to do the same thing in different ways.
Part of Hubbard's lunacy was in claiming and demanding that ONLY HIS SYSTEM could and would provide the needed tools to do the "reordering of ideas, concepts, memories and views" in the "correct way". Scientology also provides a very restrictive and cookie-cutter pattern in which to first understand, and second, "reorder these ideas and views". Hubbard was a big fart.
Oh, also, while in some ways the auditing might act to "reorder" ideas and views in a positive and useful manner, participation with the ORGANIZATION often results in the acceptance and ordering of ideas in a strange way because of the demand to adopt ideas like KSW, Scn ethics, Scn justice, and many other "organizational" notions that place "the expansion of Scientology as the TOP GOAL", and THAT tricks the Scientology adherent into adopting a very arbitrary and selective "world view".
In other words, while the resultant "experience" of life and the world might "improve" as a result of the "reordering of one's viewpoint" through auditing, the resultant "experience of life and the world might NOT AT ALL "improve", and even get strange, weird and restrictive, as a result of the "reordering of one's viewpoint" that occurs through the VERY EXTENSIVE Scientology indoctrination into specific ideas and notions of Hubbard's "philosophy" of all-that-is.
Last edited:
DagwoodGum
Squirreling Dervish
This I ask to anyone who claims value in the experience. Was it of equal or greater value than the total of your associated costs? In other words what was the net, adjusted value to you? I mean, if you saw a hooker, had a happy ending and left with a smile but you caught an STD that you then passed along to your loved one, would you say the experience was of "some value"? Or would you say it was a mistake? I'm just trying to learn something about posters on this board but I hope I'm not being overtly intrusive.
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
I did the Clearing Course "Clear" in 1971. I was 20 years old. I remained associated with the Co$ through Oct. of 1976.
There was no downside.
The cost, in terms of money, time, and "knuckling under" to the system were infinitesimally small compared to the lasting value immediately gained, and really held for 40 years.
Clear isn't the definition that is given in the writings. But it was a helluva boost to my personal being. Going Clear and doing the briefing course are two of the best things that I ever did for myself - without question. I wouldn't give you 2 cents for OT3.
I went to LA to go Clear. A few weeks later I was Clear. The change was enormous. The woman, who became my girl friend after I returned, said at the time, I "went down a boy, and came back a man"
There is a lot of talk these days about Steve Jobs and his ability to make magic happen.-- that is what Clear did for me.
I was 20 years old, a high school graduate, farm boy (really unschooled in civilities), driving a 1950 Plymouth, with hair past my shoulders.
I'm on the right:
I attracted, as my live-in girl friend for the next four years, a woman, with three kids, the oldest, a son 6 months younger than me. Her father had been press secretary for FDR. She was from a long line of "Blue Blood," with a masters degree in archaeology, a Scientology OT, and divorced from a CEO of a Fortune 500 Company. And, she was a babe-olicious, to boot.
Talk about "magical" -I had it. I got it from "Clear"
If all I ever got from Clear, was my relationship with her, I would still value it (Clear) more than almost anything.
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
I'd have to agree 100% with the snippet from above !
This seems incongrous with the previously quotes snippet.
Well, unless what is being said is that "clear" as defined by LRH is not what some people reached but whatever it was they reached they called it "clear" .
Being that I happen to believe the results one gets from any belief system is about 85 % dependent on the strengths of belief one brings into it in the first place.
Based on that, I'd have to say I believe people can change, can get better, and can have ( what has been called here ) "wins".......oh, yes, even from that thing called scientology ( nevermind for most people the cost far far outweighed the gain ( real or imagined and fleeting or forever).
So, somebody says they " got something " from scn. Well, OK.
These days there are a whole lot of things I'd suggest to a youngest and I'd try my best to steer them clear of the slow boat to nowhere mind fuck called scientology.
( Yes, I stand by that even with the antadotal evidence that one person jumped ship, found Paradise, and lived happily ever after!)
MattD
Patron with Honors
I find it very amusing how much effort some people on this thread put into trying to prove clear false. Like pre-orgasmic women rationalizing their lack! (sorry that was kind of mean)
Your experience of "clear" sounds like mine, a realization (ephiphany is good too) of my own responsibility for what went on in my mind.
My own opinion is that what was described in DMSMH would be some more advanced state than what would be delivered by the whole of the existing scientology bridge, if it actually was available as described. In other words, Hubbards original clear would be more like OT15 (as described) or beyond, and possibly not a completely obtainable state.
To say that there is nothing to the state some of us arrived at though, seems intellectually dishonest and to be sour grapes. I see no one claiming the DMSMH result.
I personally love David Mayo's "Harmonics of Clear" piece. It told the truth IMO.
http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html
Then too I am happy to consider myself clear in the sense that I understood it when it happened. Its not the end of "mental irregularities" for me, just a better outlook on them. I have a lot to discover about myself, and plenty of room for improvement on how I live and act.
But I recognize a fairly specific experience in auditing when this changed, and for me that is clear.
Bill
Gold Meritorious Patron
I am so not arguing about whether PT "got value" from Scientology. I am merely working to establish, since PT "is Clear" but does not claim the characteristics of "a person who no longer has a Reactive Mind", exactly what criteria PT was using to claim the lable "Clear". I've got that now.
DagwoodGum
Squirreling Dervish
OK, now I'm trying to buy some of this. But let me ask you about this woman that seems key to your new self perspective after "going clear". Since she was of Scientological stock, was she impressed with your new title of "clear" or would she have been equally so impressed as an outsider without regard to the status you suddenly had as a "clear" had she been disassociated from all Scientological PR?I did the Clearing Course "Clear" in 1971. I was 20 years old. I remained associated with the Co$ through Oct. of 1976.
There was no downside.
The cost, in terms of money, time, and "knuckling under" to the system were infinitesimally small compared to the lasting value immediately gained, and really held for 40 years.
Clear isn't the definition that is given in the writings. But it was a helluva boost to my personal being. Going Clear and doing the briefing course are two of the best things that I ever did for myself - without question. I wouldn't give you 2 cents for OT3.
I went to LA to go Clear. A few weeks later I was Clear. The change was enormous. The woman, who became my girl friend after I returned, said at the time, I "went down a boy, and came back a man"
There is a lot of talk these days about Steve Jobs and his ability to make magic happen.-- that is what Clear did for me.
I was 20 years old, a high school graduate, farm boy (really unschooled in civilities), driving a 1950 Plymouth, with hair past my shoulders.
I'm on the right:
I attracted, as my live-in girl friend for the next four years, a woman, with three kids, the oldest, a son 6 months younger than me. Her father had been press secretary for FDR. She was from a long line of "Blue Blood," with a masters degree in archaeology, a Scientology OT, and divorced from a CEO of a Fortune 500 Company. And, she was a babe-olicious, to boot.
Talk about "magical" -I had it. I got it from "Clear"
If all I ever got from Clear, was my relationship with her, I would still value it (Clear) more than almost anything.
MattD
Patron with Honors
Within the intellectual confines of scientology thinking, you can be clear yet still have a reactive mind, as a clear has only lost his OWN reactive mind, (but still has the associated entities engrams to deal with).
Not that I confine myself to scientology thinking, but just making a distinction for the fun of it.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
I was 'in' for two years thirty years ago. In that time I completed the lower bridge. It was an overwhelmingly positive experience up until very near the end. I left at the point that it became clear that 'always deliver what was promised' was no longer a viable possibility within the church, if it ever had been. Up to that time I had no significant personal complaints.
Financial costs at the time were significantly higher than ideal, but not completely out of line as is the case since. Non-financial costs, apart from loss of contact with those friends who remained 'in' and who chose to disconnect, were inconsequential. Those who chose disconnection are entitled to their decisions. No family involved.
Subsequent involvement has been with independent scientologists and others since 1982. All in all for me personally a very positive experience far exceeding any considerations of 'cost'.
As with Carmelo Orchards, I left when it no longer made sense to remain.
Mark A. Baker
DagwoodGum
Squirreling Dervish
This is what was on my mind when I had the floating T/A and was diagnosed as "natural clear." Then I went on to be lead to believe that I was NOT as responsible for my case as I had been so gleefully lead to believe in that I was supposedly riddled with BT's and they were the primary source of my aberration all along. So where does that leave me other than up a creek W/O a paddle? I found it easier to blow them out with TR's than to hassle with them one at a time. That is, if they existed at all.
Gadfly
Crusader
Within the intellectual confines of scientology thinking, you can be clear yet still have a reactive mind, as a clear has only lost his OWN reactive mind, (but still has the associated entities engrams to deal with).
Not that I confine myself to scientology thinking, but just making a distinction for the fun of it.
Shit, yeah, now you have the reactive minds of possibly untold thousands or even millions of OTHER beings!
It might actually be better to just remain so "occluded" and "charged up" that only YOUR OWN single personal reactive mind impinges on you!!!!!! And leave the BTs and clusters sleeping . . .
Student of Trinity
Silver Meritorious Patron
No matter how much people disavow the original overblown definition, I'm bothered by the fact that 'clear' as a term can never quite drop all that baggage. Apart from all the wildly exaggerated claims about total recall and freedom from colds and so on, Hubbard's original pitch also positioned 'clear' to mean
(a) some definite, particular state, that was
(b) reliably reached by Scientology,
(c) not normally reachable by any other method, and happened to be
(d) really fantastically great.
Even when people admit very explicitly that they never got anything like what Hubbard originally advertised, I find it hard to tell which of these (a,b,c,d) features they are rejecting, if any.
Maybe I can focus the question by comparing it to a question about another state, namely the state of being able to swim. Being able to swim is a particular, definite state. Some people swim better than others, and there are a number of ways of swimming, but "Can you swim?" is a question with a clear Yes or No answer in almost every circumstance. Well, if you're just learning to swim, then you might spend a few weeks in a grey zone where you can kind of swim, but so weakly that it's debatable. But once you start getting it, you generally get the full hang of it fairly quickly.
Thereafter, you can always get better at swimming, but further practice never gives you any jump in capability like that first transition of learning to swim at all. So becoming able to swim isn't just an arbitrarily labelled point on a long continuum. It's a definite state that you can attain at one point. So the 'state of swimmer' would get a Yes for feature (a). It's a definite, particular state, all right.
Being able to swim is reliably reached by taking swimming lessons. They may not work for absolutely everybody, but in the vast majority of cases, they do, and it doesn't take too long. So swimming would get a Yes for (b), if for Scientology you switch in 'Red Cross swimming lessons' or something similar.
It is possible to learn to swim without taking lessons, though; and if someone claims that you can only learn to swim by following their particular procedures, then this just isn't true. So a No for the swimming analog of (c). As to how great it is to be able to swim, well, it's really important if you spend much time near deep water, and it's kind of fun. I don't know if swimming counts as fantastically great, or not. But maybe it would be good to estimate whether being 'clear' is as great as being able to swim, or better, or what. The comparison can only be crude, of course, since the two states are very different kinds of things. But it might still be informative.
(a) some definite, particular state, that was
(b) reliably reached by Scientology,
(c) not normally reachable by any other method, and happened to be
(d) really fantastically great.
Even when people admit very explicitly that they never got anything like what Hubbard originally advertised, I find it hard to tell which of these (a,b,c,d) features they are rejecting, if any.
Maybe I can focus the question by comparing it to a question about another state, namely the state of being able to swim. Being able to swim is a particular, definite state. Some people swim better than others, and there are a number of ways of swimming, but "Can you swim?" is a question with a clear Yes or No answer in almost every circumstance. Well, if you're just learning to swim, then you might spend a few weeks in a grey zone where you can kind of swim, but so weakly that it's debatable. But once you start getting it, you generally get the full hang of it fairly quickly.
Thereafter, you can always get better at swimming, but further practice never gives you any jump in capability like that first transition of learning to swim at all. So becoming able to swim isn't just an arbitrarily labelled point on a long continuum. It's a definite state that you can attain at one point. So the 'state of swimmer' would get a Yes for feature (a). It's a definite, particular state, all right.
Being able to swim is reliably reached by taking swimming lessons. They may not work for absolutely everybody, but in the vast majority of cases, they do, and it doesn't take too long. So swimming would get a Yes for (b), if for Scientology you switch in 'Red Cross swimming lessons' or something similar.
It is possible to learn to swim without taking lessons, though; and if someone claims that you can only learn to swim by following their particular procedures, then this just isn't true. So a No for the swimming analog of (c). As to how great it is to be able to swim, well, it's really important if you spend much time near deep water, and it's kind of fun. I don't know if swimming counts as fantastically great, or not. But maybe it would be good to estimate whether being 'clear' is as great as being able to swim, or better, or what. The comparison can only be crude, of course, since the two states are very different kinds of things. But it might still be informative.
Jachs
Gold Meritorious Patron
MattD said:
http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html
David Mayo said:
I agree harmonics of clear is a more realistic.
I prefer harmonics of being.
Clear is too absolute and misguiding.
Harmonics of being has no such absoluteness ,expectations or status, its individual for each being.
Each individual can then state yes i have the harmonic of being ......!
More perceptive..
and the not so positive harmonics experienced...
etc etc
MattD
Patron with Honors
LOL! "diagnosed as natural clear". That sort of captures the flavor of the times.
Had you stuck it out, you could have also had the epiphany of realizing your own responsibility for your BT's. And then been cause over life.
There is nothing in life that one is not at least partially responsible for in some way, nor that can't be dealt with from your own resources.
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Looks like we'll get back to thr previously statedlike beauty,"clear" is in the eye of the beholder.
I have to wonder what it would be if one opened the other eye, too !
I have to wonder what it would be if one opened the other eye, too !
HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
..
I went Clear.
Then, they r-factored me that I was at great risk unless I did the advanced upper levels which consisted of handling large numbers of intrusive, annoying, abberated beings that haunted me day and night.
I realized after a short while that they were right, so I got rid all of those intrusive, annoying abberated beings by not talking to Scientologists any more.
I went Clear.
Then, they r-factored me that I was at great risk unless I did the advanced upper levels which consisted of handling large numbers of intrusive, annoying, abberated beings that haunted me day and night.
I realized after a short while that they were right, so I got rid all of those intrusive, annoying abberated beings by not talking to Scientologists any more.
anonomog
Gold Meritorious Patron
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Yes, Bill, but did you REALLY get it? That commentary and ack just rang kinda hollow.
As I've already said several times, it was not just a run-of-the-mill something it was a special kinda something of value; an epiphany which I have already described several times in this thread but which you never seem to acknowledge.
Perhaps you missed it when I said that I realised I was the person creating my own condition in regards to all this mental stuff; I became cause over all these attitudes, emotions, sensations and pains which I had previously thought were somewhat beyond my ability to control. I changed my mind, man! I stopped being effect of it all and vanquished previously immovable mental masses at a single glance... perhaps I even became faster than a speeding bullet and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound but I never thought to try those things. I do, however, continue to stand for Truth, Justice and the Humanitarian way.
Whatever, I've said my truth on the subject of Clear. I have no real interest in continually repeating myself in circular arguments where you work on convincing me that it had/has no real value or I work on convincing you or others of what is true for me.
Like most who spent decades in scientology and on Upper Levels I have had the State Of Clear questioned, checked and verified many times (multiple DCSIs, CCRDs, Clear Checks on NOTs, Solo NOTs etc). If the Flag Service Org with all its resources and the power and Technical Might I granted them at the time was, despite its penchant for Bridge re-do's, unable to fault it, what makes you think that anything said here would?