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?
Here's how I look at it.
Forget about all the nonsense
(pretended technology of the mind) between 1950 and now.
Let's go back to Hubbard's claim of "clearing" 270 people prior to the release of Dianetics,
you know, his research leading up to Dianetics, in which he said he "cleared" 270 people and tested them for neurosis, psychosis, and whatever else flapping lips said.
Those 270 "clears" sure would be great PR & Marketing material if it were true he "cleared" 270 people using the methods of Dianetics auditing.








And what's amazing is the folks who got in, in the 1950 Dianetics book wave of reaching the charts, didn't question the same thing, namely who are these 270 people, and can I met one?



ps. I fell for it.
pps. Apparently some of the folks, or many of the folks, from the 1950 book boom, did question it, and got a no answer, and thus left.