The State of Clear
- Thread starter DartSmohen
- Start date
I told you I was trouble
Suspended animation
Oh yeah Terril, that's much better.
NOT.
Veda
Sponsor
Good.
I deleted the lines from the post. I should have deleted them earlier, and meant to, but I was distracted by other things.
It's been removed. It's gone.
You can keep bringing it back if you wish, but that's your choice.
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Was it 1950 - or 1952 - when Ron assembled, what, 6,000 people in LA to show off "clear" number one ?
That gal couldn't remember what color tie Ron was wearing and the demonstration of "clear" was a flop.
Later John Mc Master was declared "clear number one" .......and then just declared.
Here we are 60 years later and still not one person has stepped forward and shown they have the abilities of "clear" as set forth by Mr Hubbard. Skip the Dianetics Book One Definition - ANY of MANY defintions of "clear" by Mr Hubbard.
A testament to his power over people?
In spite of over 50,000 people attesting to "clear" and none of which can demonstrate what Mr Hubbard said that "clear" was.... there are devout believers...still.
We have people on this thread who say they are no longer in the Church of Scientology but they yet still claim to be "clear".
Folks, that is a mighty testament to the power Mr Hubbard still has over some people that they still believe in something that never was !
And, my God, look at what all a "clear" was supposed to have overcome and what an exalted state they had achieved - and then they went on and spent how much money and how many years on "OT" Levels ( nevermind that these were negative case gain after "clear" ! ) ?
So, I'm going to leave this thread about "clear" with the reluctant acceptance that Mr Hubbard still has the minds of some still captured with his "standard tech" and they will never be out of the control of him.
Now, time for some still under the complete influence of Mr Hubbard to play "clear" for the rest of us....post away !
That gal couldn't remember what color tie Ron was wearing and the demonstration of "clear" was a flop.
Later John Mc Master was declared "clear number one" .......and then just declared.
Here we are 60 years later and still not one person has stepped forward and shown they have the abilities of "clear" as set forth by Mr Hubbard. Skip the Dianetics Book One Definition - ANY of MANY defintions of "clear" by Mr Hubbard.
A testament to his power over people?
In spite of over 50,000 people attesting to "clear" and none of which can demonstrate what Mr Hubbard said that "clear" was.... there are devout believers...still.
We have people on this thread who say they are no longer in the Church of Scientology but they yet still claim to be "clear".
Folks, that is a mighty testament to the power Mr Hubbard still has over some people that they still believe in something that never was !
And, my God, look at what all a "clear" was supposed to have overcome and what an exalted state they had achieved - and then they went on and spent how much money and how many years on "OT" Levels ( nevermind that these were negative case gain after "clear" ! ) ?
So, I'm going to leave this thread about "clear" with the reluctant acceptance that Mr Hubbard still has the minds of some still captured with his "standard tech" and they will never be out of the control of him.
Now, time for some still under the complete influence of Mr Hubbard to play "clear" for the rest of us....post away !
RogerB
Crusader
Ah, Toady,
You're still a lot of fun, and really very good for a very good laugh.
This what you write above is quite right and on the ball yet, it is also a little off the ball and a little unkind.
You see, many who "went Clear" did go clear . . . . but the big question, and it is a question Alan and I have posted often is . . . . clear of WHAT!?
You see, these folks erased or came to cause over "something," and it is an undeniable gain . . . a huge and worthwhile change . . . the problem is that it is and was not well enough understood.
And so, the successful action was not able to be followed up on to get the rest of what is there that has to be handled
Yes, in truth, Hubbard stated the conditions of his purported state of Clear incorrectly . . . but that should not be used to invalidate the gains many good folks got. They got what they got, and for many it was worthwhile . . . it was for me.
But to infer that it was the magical supra-human state of Being he claimed it to be was either fraudulent, negligent or plain wrong . . . . certainly wrong and in error.
I remember Australia's first Clear (pre-CC days, Peter Crundall) in 1962 saying: "There's more to do"
He was right!
My sweet V calls me to dinner . . . I'm off.
Rog
You're still a lot of fun, and really very good for a very good laugh.
This what you write above is quite right and on the ball yet, it is also a little off the ball and a little unkind.
You see, many who "went Clear" did go clear . . . . but the big question, and it is a question Alan and I have posted often is . . . . clear of WHAT!?
You see, these folks erased or came to cause over "something," and it is an undeniable gain . . . a huge and worthwhile change . . . the problem is that it is and was not well enough understood.
And so, the successful action was not able to be followed up on to get the rest of what is there that has to be handled
Yes, in truth, Hubbard stated the conditions of his purported state of Clear incorrectly . . . but that should not be used to invalidate the gains many good folks got. They got what they got, and for many it was worthwhile . . . it was for me.
But to infer that it was the magical supra-human state of Being he claimed it to be was either fraudulent, negligent or plain wrong . . . . certainly wrong and in error.
I remember Australia's first Clear (pre-CC days, Peter Crundall) in 1962 saying: "There's more to do"
He was right!
My sweet V calls me to dinner . . . I'm off.
Rog
apocalyptic
Patron with Honors
Setting At's prose aside (which your sincere above post is in response to) we would merely suggest that any "undeniable gain....being a huge and worthwhile change" , that can be forgotten in time, is hardly the stuff to combat the original complaint of fraud, to begin with.
For example: ask any Clear, of say, 1960 thru 1980, that subsequently left scientology, what 'that' (years ago) undeniable, huge and worthwhile gain was ???, and you'll get a post-mortem, blank, scientology, stare, in response.
Can you see this Rog?
We think naught.
In the absence of a constant & continuing watering, the tree, that wasn't, dies.
Unlike true spiritual revelations.
Nuff said?
Apocalyptic
Last edited:
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
<snip>
You see, many who "went Clear" did go clear . . . . but the big question, and it is a question Alan and I have posted often is . . . . clear of WHAT!?
You see, these folks erased or came to cause over "something," and it is an undeniable gain . . . a huge and worthwhile change . . . the problem is that it is and was not well enough understood.
And so, the successful action was not able to be followed up on to get the rest of what is there that has to be handled
Yes, in truth, Hubbard stated the conditions of his purported state of Clear incorrectly . . . but that should not be used to invalidate the gains many good folks got. They got what they got, and for many it was worthwhile . . . it was for me.
But to infer that it was the magical supra-human state of Being he claimed it to be was either fraudulent, negligent or plain wrong . . . . certainly wrong and in error.
I remember Australia's first Clear (pre-CC days, Peter Crundall) in 1962 saying: "There's more to do"
He was right!
My sweet V calls me to dinner . . . I'm off.
Rog
Rog, I've not posted that I think there were no " gains" or "wins" with scn auditing, because, as I have posted previously : Yes, gains and wins can be had in scn processing.
What I argue about in this thread is "clear" as Mr Hubbard defined it. It always seemed ( and still seems to me ) that being Mr Hubbard was " Founder " and " Source " and his definition of " States" are the ones to be followed ( that or burn KSW 1).
I have stated, and continue to state, that after 60 years no one has come forward and demonstrated the abilities of "clear" as set forth by Mr Hubbard.
In the above sentence please note I do not say nobody ever has a "win:, or a "gain" or didn't have a " regained ability " from processing. Hell, I know a guy that swore TR 0 blew his being homosexual. I saw another person throw their glasses away and not wear them again. And, I, as well as dozens of other people could relay stories of amazing things.
I even know somebody who had cancer disappear with no medication - but that was from prayer.
Well, I know a gal who found the love of her life - but that was a Voodoo Spell.
I'll give people had gains, etc, in scn yet on this thread the topic is ' The State of Clear " and I taken aback slightly that Mr Hubbards definition of that isn't the one applied.
Can some of you kind posters who know far more about this stuff than I do....explain that one to me ?
I still don't get " Well, "clear" is what is gotten, but, it ain't what Mr Hubbard said it was ".
RogerB
Crusader
Toady,
Quite right and good.After a skin full of good merlot, I now forget the subtle little nuance I was expressing.
Yes, we are both in accord that Hubbard irresponsibly or otherwise fraudulently made claims concerning his touted "state of Clear."
And your summation of that point is the part in your post I was so charmed by.
Hubbard misrepresented the truth of the scenario.
Though equally true, as you say, we who pursued the idea, many of us, did get some gains . . . some of course assert they did not, and that is equally true.
And we each, none of us, ought invalidate and make wrong the other for what we experienced while trying to achieve what Hubbard promised. Our experiences were all different.
Rog
apocalyptic
Patron with Honors
Which is why We believe the likes of You and Alan are truly a God-send to this world.
So to speak.
And the answer is clear of obstruction.
Apocalyptic
guanoloco
As-Wased
Here's a quote of MR. Hubbard's that HHoax put up from the 1957 ACC Lecture.
Then we have the following from Wikipedia Clear (Scientology):
Hey! That's only a 9 year comm lag! If we go back to DMSMH of May 1950 then we have a 16 year comm lag. Wasn't there something regarding comm lag as an indicator of sanity or something?
guanoloco
As-Wased
Here's the best part from that Wiki Clear deal...
WTF?!?!?!?!?
How can a Clear, who has NO reactive mind and cannot be hypnotized because they're too high toned (SOS data), be frozen in PT from a command phrase?
Bust out the SOS Chart of Human Eval and look at the column and chapter of "literalness subject accepts spoken word" or whatever the garble is.
Too much, people. He truly didn't think very highly of people in general to spew this and expect to be believed.
Sad thing?
It worked!
Shame on us, suckers!!!
Last edited:
DagwoodGum
Squirreling Dervish
"How can a Clear, who has NO reactive mind and cannot be hypnotized because they're too high toned (SOS data), be frozen in PT from a command phrase?"
What we need to do is take one control group of $cilon"clears", and another control group of the MAB Man/Toilet Paper/PT "clears", with another group of "WOGS" and swim them tantalizingly along the eastern coast of OZ within a baited population of Great Whites, with all of the "clears" postulating "safety", and see which group the Great Whites prefer... Largest remaining control group wins the pie, I'd even bake the pie... I shouldn't joke like this as I know it doesn't go over well on boards where people have been conditioned to taked everything so seriously!
Last edited:
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Lol, speaking for PT; I'm much too Clear as regards Great Whites and their proclivities to ever contemplate invading their feeding grounds.
HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
That's right!
Ron told Scientologists that Scientology is "...a deadly serious activity".
Ron also told Scientologists that they should not be serious because "...seriousness is mass" and you can't succeed if you are serious.
Ron then instructed Scientologists to adopt a "Spirit of Play" and the entire "universe will surrender" to you.
Ron then taught Scientologists that joking about Scientology is suppressive.
Ron then taught Scientologists that they should be light, care-free and "insouciant"
Ron then taught Scientologists that they are in a "war" against evil and if they don't get serious about Clearing the planet, there will never be another chance and they will suffer for eternity.
Ron then taught Scientologists that "...if it's not fun it's not Scientology."
All this never-ending contradiction!
I wonder what an OT thinks about all this?
WINNING OT
Wow, Ron's Grade III was totally in, wasn't it?!
Wow, Ron's Grade III was totally in, wasn't it?!
Infinite
Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Wooooo . . . the POWER of the tech . . . spooky . . . and being used to do experimental GPM effort processing repeater tech as well . . . take care out there, dude.
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
..
Hatshepsut
Crusader
Yeah...I just did the same thing. Got so much to say and not the gusto to type tonite. Need some brain food.
I was going to say that lately I look at GPMs a little differently. I take into consideration things that happened in the past. Old energies, old decisions. But lately I look at everyone as messing with each other in present time. We feel GPMs' masses stirring when we meet up with people whom we feel are trying to keep us from being who we want to BE or force us to be something we don't want to be. Or try to stop us from having what we want to have or force us to have what we don't want. Or make us DO something we don't want to do or prevent us. Seems a more linear route to me lately untangling the ball of yarn. Intentions and counter intentions belong to sentient beings.
I was going to say that lately I look at GPMs a little differently. I take into consideration things that happened in the past. Old energies, old decisions. But lately I look at everyone as messing with each other in present time. We feel GPMs' masses stirring when we meet up with people whom we feel are trying to keep us from being who we want to BE or force us to be something we don't want to be. Or try to stop us from having what we want to have or force us to have what we don't want. Or make us DO something we don't want to do or prevent us. Seems a more linear route to me lately untangling the ball of yarn. Intentions and counter intentions belong to sentient beings.
Gadfly
Crusader
I just LOVE reading and talking about the MANY contradictions of Hubbard and Scientology. That realm is so incredibly rife with examples.
It is surely tough walking that VERY THIN LINE of acceptable Scientology thought and behavior. Especially since the line is so blurry, always changing and contradictory!
Be this. Be that. Do this, do that. This policy says this, this policy says that. Sometimes I felt that being involved in Scientology was not unlike being made to jump through hoops, many hoops, hoop after hoop, and the fellow standing in the middle of the ring at the circus who was waving the whip and sending me around to each hoop was a CRAZED LUNATIC!
What was "Grade III" again? I truly can't remember. :confused2:
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Toady,
After a skin full of good merlot, I now forget the subtle little nuance I was expressing.
Yes, we are both in accord that Hubbard irresponsibly or otherwise fraudulently made claims concerning his touted "state of Clear."
And your summation of that point is the part in your post I was so charmed by.
Hubbard misrepresented the truth of the scenario.
Though equally true, as you say, we who pursued the idea, many of us, did get some gains . . . some of course assert they did not, and that is equally true.
And we each, none of us, ought invalidate and make wrong the other for what we experienced while trying to achieve what Hubbard promised. Our experiences were all different.
Rog
My perception: If Hubbard had told the truth based on his actual research and not his projections, no one would have bought into Clear or Clearing.
The standard that many of us agreed on per DMSMH remains a pretty high standard, perhaps unattainable in an absolute sense because life goes on, and what a person is clear on today he might not be clear on tomorrow.
All the things that Hubbard attributed to Clear were or still are popular with many people: no psychosomatic ills, fewer infectious diseases than the average person, high IQ, high survival potential, and so on.
Clear is viewed as a finite, definable thing or objective. This thing is marketable as people want to get or buy something, have it, and be done with it--kind of like buying a primo thing and keeping it for years and years. But, rust and corrosion eventually conquers the finest automobile, stainless steel is not totally stainless, plastic lasts only 1,000 years, and entropy is integral to the universe.
For seekers of all stripes, it is in the doing where the reward is attained, not in the having or the attainment. So Clearing as a continuing activity, to me, has far more validity and value than having ~gone~ Clear. Going Clear by Hubbard's absolute definition is likely unattainable but worth a seeker's pursuit whether by Scientology or other means. The pursuit takes place on a path of Clearing. Or not. One could simply side with the universe and let entropy run its course.
