nw2394
Silver Meritorious Patron
It may well apply to a LLT Clear - but - for a Natural Clear - if you believe that such exist - it is not possible to voice a cog you never needed to have.
Nick
Natural Clears
- Thread starter Dulloldfart
- Start date
It may well apply to a LLT Clear - but - for a Natural Clear - if you believe that such exist - it is not possible to voice a cog you never needed to have.
Nick
Bea Kiddo
Crusader
There were a few cases where the person had the cog and was not originating Clear. We sometimes put them on CCRD anyway and that would upset them. They wanted to continue with Dianetics auditing. So they would be returned to it.
I would say 1% or less had Clear cog and did not originate Clear.
nw2394
Silver Meritorious Patron
You realise, of course, that a Natural Clear - unable to attest due to the complications thrown into the CCRD - can perfectly well mock up having the cog at whatever date under whatever circumstances the auditor seems to require and float his TA on a date/locate. I know. I did it.
All bullshit of course. I told them so and walked away when they wanted to cancel the attestation.
Nick
Bea Kiddo
Crusader
Exactly, which is part of why no tech terminal would ever let someone attest. Actually, there is no information on the CCRD materials at all on how to deal with it. I heard that it was in the NOTs materials only. But then when I got up to the NOTs materials and studied them, there was nothing about Natural Clear. Hmm... So maybe on VII?
JackieWilson
Patron
Thanks
Thank you, on both counts.
This thread may be of interest, particularly the first 4 pages or so: http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=510
Welcome to ESMB.
Thank you, on both counts.
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Well, Nick, this is exactly the conundrum that the concept of Natural Clear created. I guess it'd matter if Natural Clear was an actuality that warranted a CCRD. The usual handling for PCs originating Natural Clear was education.
nw2394
Silver Meritorious Patron
Well, the materials are incomplete then.
Actually there is almost no reference to Natural Clear in any of Scn AFAIK - Hubbard did mention it existed - supposedly very rarely - around the time of the DCSI/CCRD era. Much earlier he did mention it in a lecture - but no technical criteria by which to judge - merely some bullshit speculation that a Natural Clear would be some fantastically able person.
Doesn't alter the fact that I knew what the cog was before anyone ever told me - or asked any leading questions in that vein. Doesn't alter my view of what and how I do what I do or don't do with "my mind" - and what I have understood from others about what they do with theirs - or how that changes when they do have this clear cog - nor how I see how it would have changed things had I needed to have it - coz you certainly can have this cog many times in relation to all sorts of subject areas - and I have - just not in relation to a bank that didn't exist.
Pretty much impossible to prove it though.
There is a def of Clear in a lecture - not sure - about 58 - that is the most A to B of all of them - don't remember the exact wording off the top of my head - could find it again I guess. Anyway - that was the top of the game.
Nick
Bea Kiddo
Crusader
But how could a natural Clear have the cognition if they never had a reactive mind to begin with? I don't think the Clear cog applies to a Natural Clear.
Honestly I don't know what the criteria was/is.
FoTi
Crusader
Just to clarify something here....are you saying that a Floating TA would not occur below the level of Clear?
Challenge
Silver Meritorious Patron
I dunno who told you what, or if you misunderstood what you were told, but I assure you that OT111 hadn't changed at all since I did it in 1969, and when I was delivering OT111 Reviews at the AO in 1983.
Challenge
Smilla
Ordinary Human
Clear is a status in the Scientology Role-Playing Game. It has no value or meaning outside the Scientology RPG. Clear is a social phenomena, consisting of the status awarded to the individual by the group, and the subsequent change in behaviour of the group towards that individual as he/she progresses through the game.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game#Story_and_setting
"The premise of most-roleplaying games tasks the player with saving the world, or whichever level of society is threatened. There are often twists and turns as the story progresses, such as the surprise appearance of estranged relatives, or enemies who become friends or vice versa.[2] The game world tends to be set in a fantasy or science fiction universe,[8] which allows players to do things they cannot do in real life and helps players suspend their disbelief about the rapid character growth. To a lesser extent, settings closer to the present day or near future are possible.[2]
A strong story often provides half the entertainment in the game.[2] Because these games have strong storylines, they can often make effective use of recorded dialog and voiceover narration.[2] Players of these games tend to appreciate long cut scenes more than players of faster action games.[2] While most games advance the plot when the player defeats an enemy or completes a level, role-playing games often progress the plot based on other important decisions. For example, a player may make the decision to join a guild, thus triggering a progression in the storyline that is usually irreversible.[2] New elements in the story may also be triggered by mere arrival in an area, rather than completing a specific challenge.[2] The plot is usually divided so that each game location is an opportunity to reveal a new chapter in the story.[2]
Whereas non-electronic role-playing games have a human gamemaster who can dynamically react to a player's choices, role-playing video games are confined to a smaller set of actions and do not yet have the power to simulate nonplayer characters with the skill of a human game master. Thus, role-playing video games borrow more of the core mechanics from such games without as much of the role-playing activity. Characterization in video games is limited to conversations with non-player characters using a dialog tree, although multiplayer online role-playing games are a notable exception where more role-play is possible.[2] Saying the right things to the right non-player characters will elicit useful information for the player, and may even result in other rewards such as experience.[2]"
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game#Story_and_setting
"The premise of most-roleplaying games tasks the player with saving the world, or whichever level of society is threatened. There are often twists and turns as the story progresses, such as the surprise appearance of estranged relatives, or enemies who become friends or vice versa.[2] The game world tends to be set in a fantasy or science fiction universe,[8] which allows players to do things they cannot do in real life and helps players suspend their disbelief about the rapid character growth. To a lesser extent, settings closer to the present day or near future are possible.[2]
A strong story often provides half the entertainment in the game.[2] Because these games have strong storylines, they can often make effective use of recorded dialog and voiceover narration.[2] Players of these games tend to appreciate long cut scenes more than players of faster action games.[2] While most games advance the plot when the player defeats an enemy or completes a level, role-playing games often progress the plot based on other important decisions. For example, a player may make the decision to join a guild, thus triggering a progression in the storyline that is usually irreversible.[2] New elements in the story may also be triggered by mere arrival in an area, rather than completing a specific challenge.[2] The plot is usually divided so that each game location is an opportunity to reveal a new chapter in the story.[2]
Whereas non-electronic role-playing games have a human gamemaster who can dynamically react to a player's choices, role-playing video games are confined to a smaller set of actions and do not yet have the power to simulate nonplayer characters with the skill of a human game master. Thus, role-playing video games borrow more of the core mechanics from such games without as much of the role-playing activity. Characterization in video games is limited to conversations with non-player characters using a dialog tree, although multiplayer online role-playing games are a notable exception where more role-play is possible.[2] Saying the right things to the right non-player characters will elicit useful information for the player, and may even result in other rewards such as experience.[2]"
Challenge
Silver Meritorious Patron
In the past I have posted about my "going Clear".
I am an old Clearing Course Clear. I did the CC in 1969.
I don't care what you peeps say about Clear. I am one.
If I were a bell I'd be ringing.
Some of the stuff that I experienced when going Clear was:
a loss of circuits. These were most obvious in that I couldn't think of the words for anything. I didn't know what words were for a time. I couldn't understand what was being said to me.
My sense of smell turned on to the point that it was uncomfortable. There were more 'bad' smells than there were 'good' smells.
My tennis game improved. I won trophies. I could throw my body from one side of the court to the far side. Onlookers gaped.
Those are the things I remember.
Then there is the fact that I have never had a cold or the flu.
I do not wear eye-glasses.
My memory is damned good as well. (I have an ability there that prolly did not come from Scn.).
I look 30 years younger than my age. If I didn't tell you that I would be 80 on my next b'day, you would never know it.
On to the subject of DSCI: there were leading questions. A floating TA was required along with the "cog". If you want to know some of the questions, I will post them.
Challenge
I am an old Clearing Course Clear. I did the CC in 1969.
I don't care what you peeps say about Clear. I am one.
If I were a bell I'd be ringing.
Some of the stuff that I experienced when going Clear was:
a loss of circuits. These were most obvious in that I couldn't think of the words for anything. I didn't know what words were for a time. I couldn't understand what was being said to me.
My sense of smell turned on to the point that it was uncomfortable. There were more 'bad' smells than there were 'good' smells.
My tennis game improved. I won trophies. I could throw my body from one side of the court to the far side. Onlookers gaped.
Those are the things I remember.
Then there is the fact that I have never had a cold or the flu.
I do not wear eye-glasses.
My memory is damned good as well. (I have an ability there that prolly did not come from Scn.).
I look 30 years younger than my age. If I didn't tell you that I would be 80 on my next b'day, you would never know it.
On to the subject of DSCI: there were leading questions. A floating TA was required along with the "cog". If you want to know some of the questions, I will post them.
Challenge
Veda
Sponsor
After the FBI raids of July 1977, Hubbard had a physical and emotional breakdown, with a time delay similar to his 1967 breakdown after his failure to "take Southern Africa," into which he had confidently strode, thinking he had been Cecil Rhodes in his last life. He ended up in Northern Africa, lying in bed, popping pills, and going on about his 2nd wife whom he hadn't seen in almost 20 years.
From this came the Commodore, the Sea Org, Xenu and Incident 2. These were Hubbard's solutions to his problem of having failed in the quest to "take Southern Africa" as the new base for Scientology, a place where he would be hailed as the Great Man and the Word of the New Eon.
Obviously, only a super-engram, one affecting a large part of the galaxy, would be necessary to explain such a failure.
Jump ahead ten years. 1977, and then 1978. More upsets for Hubbard, another breakdown, and this time he begins to regress - not to being "The Commodore" (whoever that was), but to re-emphasis on Dianetics as making Clears, and even on himself as a Science Fiction author. It was 1949 again.
Once again, Hubbard burped, and all of Scientology got gas.
IMO, if Dianetic Clear (meaning Clears from Book One or from old R3R/Standard Dianetics) were so impressive, and so often-occurring, it would have been noticeable without Hubbard's legacy/identity-crisis-motivated & money-motivated "discovery" of 1978.
I don't recall one person receiving Dianetic R3R (pre-1978) who thought, "I'm mocking up my own reactive mind," but there were people who did the Clearing Procedure of the mid/late 1950s who thought this, and, after leaving Scientology, I audited someone on a discontinued procedure from around 1957/58, that addressed identities and help, and that resulted in a major and dramatic shift for the better, and the person felt he had "gone Clear," but Dianetics?
Anyway, as the saga continues, Hubbard decided there were lots of Dianetic Clears, and even a few Natural Clears, and also announced that keyed-out Clear is Clear, and that Clears should skip PP, R6ew, and CC and go straight to their "OT" levels (thus allowing Scientologists to skip the boring stuff and go directly to the thrill ride of "OT.") And many Scientologists responded like tightly-wound-up puppets.
Various things - in auditing - can bring a person to a Clear or Clear-like state, and Dianetics is probably one of the least likely procedures for accomplishing that, IMHO, but it was hyped like crazy, and Hubbard made millions (for his monuments-to-himself-projects) from "running" people "up lines" to their "OT levels," and lots of review and repair auditing "up lines" (and away from those darned Missions). He messed with a lot of people's bank accounts, their families, their lives, and their futures, and promised them quickie "Clear," then told them they were "at risk," and then promised them Freedom from Overwhelm on OT 3, and then told them they had something called NOTs case, which, if not addressed (and it would take "years" and lots more $$$, see 'From Clear to Eternity'), would suck them into the dwindling spiral for sure.
And "Flag" made a lot of money.
How are these people doing today? The ones who took the "rocket ride" by way of Dianetic Clear to the OT levels (and lots of expensive Review auditing), and then years of NOTs?
Are they OT?
The whole Dianetic Clear matter was and is a shameful fiasco.
That's when I realized that Hubbard was doing something else, and that Scientology - as an operation - wasn't primarily about the "auditing tech" (in a benign sense), but primarily about other things.
From this came the Commodore, the Sea Org, Xenu and Incident 2. These were Hubbard's solutions to his problem of having failed in the quest to "take Southern Africa" as the new base for Scientology, a place where he would be hailed as the Great Man and the Word of the New Eon.
Obviously, only a super-engram, one affecting a large part of the galaxy, would be necessary to explain such a failure.
Jump ahead ten years. 1977, and then 1978. More upsets for Hubbard, another breakdown, and this time he begins to regress - not to being "The Commodore" (whoever that was), but to re-emphasis on Dianetics as making Clears, and even on himself as a Science Fiction author. It was 1949 again.
Once again, Hubbard burped, and all of Scientology got gas.
IMO, if Dianetic Clear (meaning Clears from Book One or from old R3R/Standard Dianetics) were so impressive, and so often-occurring, it would have been noticeable without Hubbard's legacy/identity-crisis-motivated & money-motivated "discovery" of 1978.
I don't recall one person receiving Dianetic R3R (pre-1978) who thought, "I'm mocking up my own reactive mind," but there were people who did the Clearing Procedure of the mid/late 1950s who thought this, and, after leaving Scientology, I audited someone on a discontinued procedure from around 1957/58, that addressed identities and help, and that resulted in a major and dramatic shift for the better, and the person felt he had "gone Clear," but Dianetics?
Anyway, as the saga continues, Hubbard decided there were lots of Dianetic Clears, and even a few Natural Clears, and also announced that keyed-out Clear is Clear, and that Clears should skip PP, R6ew, and CC and go straight to their "OT" levels (thus allowing Scientologists to skip the boring stuff and go directly to the thrill ride of "OT.") And many Scientologists responded like tightly-wound-up puppets.
Various things - in auditing - can bring a person to a Clear or Clear-like state, and Dianetics is probably one of the least likely procedures for accomplishing that, IMHO, but it was hyped like crazy, and Hubbard made millions (for his monuments-to-himself-projects) from "running" people "up lines" to their "OT levels," and lots of review and repair auditing "up lines" (and away from those darned Missions). He messed with a lot of people's bank accounts, their families, their lives, and their futures, and promised them quickie "Clear," then told them they were "at risk," and then promised them Freedom from Overwhelm on OT 3, and then told them they had something called NOTs case, which, if not addressed (and it would take "years" and lots more $$$, see 'From Clear to Eternity'), would suck them into the dwindling spiral for sure.
And "Flag" made a lot of money.
How are these people doing today? The ones who took the "rocket ride" by way of Dianetic Clear to the OT levels (and lots of expensive Review auditing), and then years of NOTs?
Are they OT?
The whole Dianetic Clear matter was and is a shameful fiasco.
That's when I realized that Hubbard was doing something else, and that Scientology - as an operation - wasn't primarily about the "auditing tech" (in a benign sense), but primarily about other things.
Smilla
Ordinary Human
If you find comfort in your beliefs it's maybe not a bad thing.
nw2394
Silver Meritorious Patron
Well, precisely. Yet that is the only criterion they have - that is the hoop you have to jump through if you want to attest.
In general, if your definition that something has changed from state A to state B is some identification of the change from A to B, then you haven't defined B and, quite possibly, not A either.
If there was a single, succinct, all embracing defintion of B (i.e. Clear in this context) then all this argument about types of Clear and, indeed, whether it existed or not, would vanish.
Nick
If there were a 'State of Clear' we could derive its parameters and qualities by examining it.
But, instead we're forced to accept the State of Clear as a 'stable datum' and then bugger the data till it supports it. Is it any wonder that data is contradictory and inconsistent?
Zinj
But, instead we're forced to accept the State of Clear as a 'stable datum' and then bugger the data till it supports it. Is it any wonder that data is contradictory and inconsistent?
Zinj
Terril park
Sponsor
Ah! I didn't state my question with enough precision. I know that a few
didn't originate clear. I audited one for a little while on my NED interneship.
What I really mean to ask is what percentage of people had the clear cog,
who were doing things that one might go clear on. And assuming they ended cycle on that.
Terril park
Sponsor
Just a note for the record, Nick was very easily able to access upper levels.
AFAIK I never voiced the cog exactly. Or even approximately. Or really thought it.
I did once go out int after COS and when in the FZ, could turn headaches
on instantly, and handled the out int condition, by best I could describe,
inspection.
SchwimmelPuckel
Genuine Meatball
I'm clear! - I just looked inside my mind.. No sight of a reactive mind anywhere there.. I even shook my head violently a long time to make sure it didn't cling to the inside of my cranium somehow.. Nothing!
Right.. I'll go and have an aspirin now!
Right.. I'll go and have an aspirin now!
