Am I clear? The DCSI and the CCRD

[clamicide]

The whole Clear/Not-Clear thing was something that just really, when I started to wake up just made me go WTF? I audited a bunch of folks who had green stripes on their folders who hadn't been given the 'not-Clear' R-factor yet... I had been told of a person who was told they were not Clear, and then ended up killing someone by accidentally hitting them with their car on the way home after that session (warnings of not to be 'out-tech' and give wrong indications), also countless other stories of dire things happening from falsely attesting or not being validated for the state of Clear.

I was freaked out and pissed off when 'in', because I saw enough CCRD references (some I shouldn't have access to), that I had no doubt I went "Clear". So, I thought I must be one hell of a DB for being so fucked up.

After I got out, my son asked me about it... and I asked him what he thought-- and he just spit out the Clear cog and I laughed my ass off. He then said it was BS and that was what Scios were told upon getting in and then they had to pay for auditing and 'cog' an altered version of what happened. I kinda just went... wow, wish I had figured that out.

 

[Gib]

The whole Clear/Not-Clear thing was something that just really, when I started to wake up just made me go WTF? I audited a bunch of folks who had green stripes on their folders who hadn't been given the 'not-Clear' R-factor yet... I had been told of a person who was told they were not Clear, and then ended up killing someone by accidentally hitting them with their car on the way home after that session (warnings of not to be 'out-tech' and give wrong indications), also countless other stories of dire things happening from falsely attesting or not being validated for the state of Clear.

I was freaked out and pissed off when 'in', because I saw enough CCRD references (some I shouldn't have access to), that I had no doubt I went "Clear". So, I thought I must be one hell of a DB for being so fucked up.

After I got out, my son asked me about it... and I asked him what he thought-- and he just spit out the Clear cog and I laughed my ass off. He then said it was BS and that was what Scios were told upon getting in and then they had to pay for auditing and 'cog' an altered version of what happened. I kinda just went... wow, wish I had figured that out.

lets see,

the auditor doesn't evaluate,

but somebody telling another they are "clear" or not is an evaluation.

I guess a piece of paper at the examiner booth, where the person is told to read the EP, I guess that's not an evaluation.

 

[clamicide]

lets see,

the auditor doesn't evaluate,

but somebody telling another they are "clear" or not is an evaluation.

I guess a piece of paper at the examiner booth, where the person is told to read the EP, I guess that's not an evaluation.

The auditor couldn't evaluate--which is probably why the R-factor was often given by the D of P... and then the auditor got to rack up WDAHs and the org racked up income auditing the ARCX that came about when the person was told they weren't Clear... yeah. Nice.

 

[GreyLensman]

Couldn't agree more.

Hubbard's con was to drag it out. LOL

Hey, there's a bridge you need to do. LOL

Remember the stories from way back of someone selling the Brooklyn Bridge, over and over?
Laughayette just updated it a bit and made the bridge he was selling you up out of whole cloth.

You know, he always, always said exactly what he was doing. He said, "Reality is what is agreed upon." You agreed that there was a reactive mind and that that was a bad thing and that you could affect it (there fore it could affect you, too). He said "You get what you put your attention on." You now have a bank. And you spend a lot of time and attention working on buying a fucking bridge to get rid of the affect of that bank. Boy does it exist now, and boy does it push back.

Hubbard was a fair story teller and a very studied and successful con man.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Say what? Is that for real he patented a fall accentuator? Do the freezone computer meters have that circuit?

I'd love to see a video of a person hooked up to a MK7 and one of the FZ meters simultaneously and see how both meters react to questions.

Paul! Oh, Paul!! are you game to do this?

Mimsey

I don't have a Mark VII and I'm certainly not going to buy one! Others can do this easily enough if they have the two meters: all they have to do is hold one set of cans hooked up to meter A in one hand, and the other set of cans hooked up to meter B in the other hand. Then adjust the sensitivity of one or the other or both so that the reads are the same size (it's easier to have a second person do this, I can assure you!).

Point a webcam or whatever at it and have the sound on as some people would be interested in "instant reads." Have some kind of simultaneous sound/vision outside of the meter reads too. A clapper board would be ideal but not really necessary with this experiment, as it's pretty sloppy overall.

Paul

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

If you weren't across the pond I'd lend you one. Oh well. Mimsey

 

[Veda]

A few tidbits for uncertain DN Clears...

'Dianetics 55!' was a quickly named and compiled book, published to celebrate Hubbard's re-acquisition of the name 'Dianetics' and the book 'DMSMH' from the business partner he swindled a few years earlier.

At the time (1953, 54, 55), Hubbard had trashed Dianetics Book One theory&practice, and was big on exteriorization, so fitting Dianetics in with that took some doing.

A brief sampling:

"The creation of Clear undertaken in 1950 actually was this manifestation of exteriorization happening at some random moment and not being adequately cared for after it occurred. Nobody remarked upon the fact that he was a distance from the body because most of the people who were thus exteriorized had very good visio on their own banks but very poor visio on the immediate environment."

How did Hubbard know this? Oh, well.

Of some minor interest, in the glossary, from this mid 1970s edition of 'Dianetics 55', it states:

"Clear:....1) Dianetic Clear is today [mid 1970s] referred to more usually as a Dianetic Case Completion...

"Note: In this book Clear refers in some instances to thetan exterior, rather than Dianetic Clear or the full state of Scientology Clear."

Of course, hypnotist Hubbard changed his mind about that a few years later and Scientologists agreed happily.

 

[Gib]

The auditor couldn't evaluate--which is probably why the R-factor was often given by the D of P... and then the auditor got to rack up WDAHs and the org racked up income auditing the ARCX that came about when the person was told they weren't Clear... yeah. Nice.

sure, I understand, but if one steps back and looks at the "bridge",

ain't the whole thing an evaluation of what to think?

Isn't Hubbard evaluating for everybody?

 

[Udarnik]

sure, I understand, but if one steps back and looks at the "bridge",

ain't the whole thing an evaluation of what to think?

Isn't Hubbard evaluating for everybody?

Hubbard was hoping one of you would find a solution for his mental problems.

 

[uniquemand]

sure, I understand, but if one steps back and looks at the "bridge",

ain't the whole thing an evaluation of what to think?

Isn't Hubbard evaluating for everybody?

I don't think so, except for the insistence that everyone do every grade. These sorts of problems are common. If they were optional, then they wouldn't represent "evaluations".

 

[Gib]

I don't think so, except for the insistence that everyone do every grade. These sorts of problems are common. If they were optional, then they wouldn't represent "evaluations".

Then you do agree. I'm talking about the COS bridge, as everybody has to do them.

Hey, guess what, everybody that made it to the top are having to re-do them. LOL

 

[Gib]

I don't think so, except for the insistence that everyone do every grade. These sorts of problems are common. If they were optional, then they wouldn't represent "evaluations".

Here's another thing I just thought of.

One goes to a psychologists or psychiatrist, do they state you are "clear" or "ot"? Or grade 1 release?

And yet hubbard said this profession "evaluated". Isn't that what the COS bridge is doing?

 

[strativarius]

Re: Am I clear? The DCI and the CCRD

Mine was low - like 2021 - I got it in 1970. Now I'm lucky to remember what I had for breakfast. Mimsey Or maybe the # was lower - who knows.

Mine's 24** ('scuse the paranoia). I 'went clear' in Feb. 1970 and I have the same problem with um, what's it called... oh yeah, breakfast. Apparently, somebody's landlady at their digs in Edinburgh said "Oh, you've seen the light then have you dear?" when he told her he'd finished his course. Could be true I suppose.

 

[phenomanon]

Re: Am I clear? The DCI and the CCRD

Regardless of the Clear Cog if one looks at the EP which is more precisey labeled on the Grade Chart as Ability Gained and this is shown to the Clear attestee at the attestation exam by the examiner and that ability gained states

A Being Who No Longer Has his Own Reactive Mind

could not possibly make sense to someone in it's full blown LRH understanding unless one has also read the infamous OT3 hand written document.

As for the Clear cog itself I give mucho kudos to an individual who can have that cog without being fed any kind of appetizer soup and bread before being able to cook up that cognitive "realization" within their own realm of mind.

Rd00

FYI: Everyone who attested to Clear before 1978 had the exact same cognition. This without any prior knowlege of it. No reading of, nor hearing any, OT3 stuff. Just from the Clearing Course materials.

 

[phenomanon]

Re: Am I clear? The DCI and the CCRD

Mine was low - like 2021 - I got it in 1970. Now I'm lucky to remember what I had for breakfast. Mimsey Or maybe the # was lower - who knows.

Mine was 2143 in July, 1969, so yours would've been larger than that. Not much larger, tho. They were'nt churning Clears out in bulk until 1978.

 

[Dave B.]

This Clear/Not Clear thing is such a colossal capitol "C" Clusterfuck. Hubbard was indeed fallible and with the benefit of decades of hindsight re: "the tecque", sometimes he was really stupid. I suspect that income/cash flow considerations played a part in many of his pronouncements regarding what exactly is the state of Clear.

I see that via Kristi Wachters list I'm listed as Clear in a Kult publication circa 2006. Weird. I had nothing to do with the pukes from 1985 until 2011. I never attested pre '85. What are they doing? Scouring old moth-eaten folders or maybe just pulling it out of their ass wholesale for a stat.

 

[phenomanon]

The auditor couldn't evaluate--which is probably why the R-factor was often given by the D of P... and then the auditor got to rack up WDAHs and the org racked up income auditing the ARCX that came about when the person was told they weren't Clear... yeah. Nice.

I did two "you are not Clear" cycles. Then I refused to deliver them. The R-Factor was given, then the next action was to run the 'upset' ( ARC break) that the R-factor had caused.

 

[Orglodyte]

My CCRD is one of my proud moments in Scientology. I attested to Natural Clear during the time when that was popular. Enjoyed the validated feeling for a while, and went to a higher org for a CCRD. First step was to clear "Clear" in the tech dictionary. I word cleared all the definitions, said "Well, I sure as hell don't have any of those abilities," attested to "not Clear," and used the rest of the intensive for some grades auditing. A rare flash of actual clarity.

Of course I was still a few years away from realizing nobody had those abilities.

 

[phenomanon]

Re: A few tidbits for uncertain DN Clears...

'Dianetics 55!' was a quickly named and compiled book, published to celebrate Hubbard's re-acquisition of the name 'Dianetics' and the book 'DMSMH' from the business partner he swindled a few years earlier.

At the time (1953, 54, 55), Hubbard had trashed Dianetics Book One theory&practice, and was big on exteriorization, so fitting Dianetics in with that took some doing.

A brief sampling:

"The creation of Clear undertaken in 1950 actually was this manifestation of exteriorization happening at some random moment and not being adequately cared for after it occurred. Nobody remarked upon the fact that he was a distance from the body because most of the people who were thus exteriorized had very good visio on their own banks but very poor visio on the immediate environment."

How did Hubbard know this? Oh, well.

Of some minor interest, in the glossary, from this mid 1970s edition of 'Dianetics 55', it states:

"Clear:....1) Dianetic Clear is today [mid 1970s] referred to more usually as a Dianetic Case Completion...

"Note: In this book Clear refers in some instances to thetan exterior, rather than Dianetic Clear or the full state of Scientology Clear."

Of course, hypnotist Hubbard changed his mind about that a few years later and Scientologists agreed happily.

I've lost count of how many Dianetic Case Completions that I attested to...even on the Apollo. 5, I think. I also attested to "Thetan Exterior" several times.
I voiced "the Clear Cog" in session shortly after a Congress in 1955 or 56 where Ron talks about "mocking up bank". Then I did the entire lower Bridge ( rehabbed for most levels) and proceeded onto the Clearing Course in 1969.
What I observed in a lotta PCs is that when they went Exterior, they thought that they had gone Clear. That's what I thought a "keyed-out Clear" was.
I think that the 2 States are real. Clear and Thetan Exterior.
In 1951 I thought that Ron was channeling the tech.
That he had somehow opened hidden doors to Akashic Records.
I sometimes thought that I accessed them, too.
I have been disabused of that idea. LMFAO!
Nevermind.

 

[Student of Trinity]

Just how much of an insight was the 'Clear cognition'? Is it kind of obvious, by the time you get near it, that the whole thing (up to that point) is leading up to this big reveal about mocking up one's own bank? Or is it really this out-of-the-blue epiphany, unhinted-at, unsuspected until it arrives?

Either way, I take Paul's point from a while ago, that the point wasn't supposed to be just adopting this theoretical concept, but attaining the practical ability to stop doing the otherwise ongoing "mocking up". I can see how that practical ability would be a whole different ball of wax from the theory alone — in theory. I'm not convinced that anyone has really attained that practical ability, of consciously controlling their unconscious reactions.

I'm still curious about just how big a deal it was, that many people independently came to the same "cognition", even just theoretically. Was it really so independent, or was the Clear cognition all but spoon-fed to everyone by the materials?