The State of Clear

[Dulloldfart]

If someone trademarks these names they can stop the cult using them can't they?

It's not as easy as that, especially if the cult has been using them for decades in business and you haven't. Besides, if they haven't trademarked a particular name already that would seem to be useful to trademark there is usually a good reason for it, like it can't be done maybe.

Paul

 

[Dulloldfart]

You are being serious Paul! - I was (maybe) being funny..

I know. But I wanted to make the point about trademarking a state being impossible. Plus it's still not clear if you know the difference between a trademark and a copyright.

Paul

 

[Zinjifar]

I know. But I wanted to make the point about trademarking a state being impossible. Plus it's still not clear if you know the difference between a trademark and a copyright.

Paul

Deliberately creating confusion both *of* trademark and copyright and of the actual nature of both is a Scientology Sacrament

Zinj

 

[knn]

Plus it's still not clear if you know the difference between a trademark and a copyright.

Or a trademark (tm) and a registered trademark (r).

I would agree with DOF: If they didn't register "Clear" then there is a REASON (especially since "OT" _is_ registered).

 

[knn]

It would be a trademark violation for someone in the Freezone to say they deliver "OT III" or similar.

That's why they sometimes call it "UL 3" (Upper Level 3) in the Freezone.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I would agree with DOF: If they didn't register "Clear" then there is a REASON (especially since "OT" _is_ registered).

I'm not a lawyer but I suspect that the gap in time between DMSMH & the rush to trademark is the key factor. After the initial enthusiasm for dianetics in the '50s there was a problem with broad public use of the term "clear" with regard to mental & spiritual practices. Subsequent trademarking of the word "Clear" would have had that prior public usage as an obstacle to overcome. This would have been exacerbated by Hubbard's loss of control over the original dianetics organization.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Dulloldfart]

Sigh. So what are they going to trademark exactly? They can't trademark a state. It's a good or a service called CLEAR. It can't be a good so it has to be a service, and the trademark has to be an adjective, like SCIENTOLOGY-brand applied religious philosophy. OK, so it's CLEAR-brand spiritual counselling. How is it different to any other counselling, different to SCIENTOLOGY-brand counselling, for instance? Plus remember a trademark can't simply be a descriptive word that could apply anyway.

Paul

 

[knn]

Sigh. So what are they going to trademark exactly?

You can only trademark words, symbols, sounds etc.

They could PATENT auditing procedures (if the patent office would allow patenting spiritual/psychological procedures) but patents run out after 20 years anyway.

Plus remember a trademark can't simply be a descriptive word that could apply anyway.

Maybe "Clear" was too descriptive indeed, since they also didn't register "Sea Org", "Auditing", "Solo Course", "Clearing Course" which are also pretty descriptive.

 

[knn]

I'm not a lawyer but I suspect that the gap in time between DMSMH & the rush to trademark is the key factor. After the initial enthusiasm for dianetics in the '50s there was a problem with broad public use of the term "clear"

If he invented the term he can register a trademark. And whatever the legal problem regarding "Dianetics" was THEN, now they have the trademark "Dianetics" thus they could have "Clear", too.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

If he invented the term he can register a trademark. And whatever the legal problem regarding "Dianetics" was THEN, now they have the trademark "Dianetics" thus they could have "Clear", too.

"Dianetics" still refers to LRH tech, however, due to broad public usage "clear" doesn't necessarily. Patents have typically required a degree of reproducible objective product to allow for patentability. Patents are unlikely to be granted for what are basically techniques which generate subjective results.

Much more recently u.s. courts have allowed for the patenting of business practices. [A VERY unfortunate occurrence in my view.] However, this is only very recent historically. Establishing a claim now would be likely to fail for a variety of reasons, widespread prior use among them.



Mark A. Baker

 

[KnightVision]

AMAZING that there are people to aspire to a 'spiritual' state that has a trade marked name. Really it gets so asinine that one can only follow through by allowing themselves to be made stupid by their guided advisors.

One could also say that it is amazing that people can deny a state, just because at some point, someone (whether a fuckwit or not) decided to give it a trademarked name.

It is what it is, whatever we call it, AND it is so, despite whoever may have "named" it, and/or despite whoever may have claimed that it was something that they created.

Yes one could say anything really, right? Not my point; more precisely today there are members of scilonology that are pursuing a spiritual state or simply doing whatever action that has trademarked names. And I seriously doubt that that fact even occurs to them. That you and I are at different views as to whether the content of those actions has any validity notwithstanding... the simple fact that that one is on a spiritual quest of something that has a trademarked name would be some kind of indicator that 'spiritualism' is not the sole or main intent of the organisaton offering the 'enlightenment'.

And if the statement 'it is amazing that people can deny a state, just because at some point, someone (whether a fuckwit or not) decided to give it a trademarked name' is aimed at me... I don't deny that any state due to the Blatant Pink Elephant in the room, i.e. trademarking a spiritual state; I deny for example the State of 'clear' and 'ot' cause they simply do not exist. Anybody with a million dollars who would like to wager on it may cordially submit their request (definitions and abilities defined per L. Con Hubbard).

Can one have personal gains through these methods? Perhaps so. Can one attain the actual, provable abilities as defined by LCH? Not yet. 50 + years and nowhere to be found...

 

[joel]

This is a well commented on subject.

The tech dictionary (as I remember it) describes Clear as "Being at cause over mental matter, energy, space & time".

On looking up "at cause" it said ; Able to greate or uncreate.

The state of Clear occurs when the person realises that they ate mocking it all up.

There is NOTHING in Scn materials that stipulates this can only occur whilst engaged in Scn activities.

This leads, of course, to heresy of olympic proportions.

I have successfully rehabbed many people's state of clear where they were doing a wide range of activities; TM, yoga, presence drills, aikido. It does not matter a jot what the person is doing, it is the fact that they have achieved that realization.

Many cases got "parked" because they were denied the truth of this.

It is funny to watch cult fanatics try and grapple with this datum. they go quite demented in trying to enforce the Scn connection with the state.

I am sure many readers out there can connect with this. If you went clear doing something other than Scn, then acknowledge it.

Enjoy.

Yea. Ok. Got that. Thank you.

But clear is just an illusion. In fact a secondary illusion.

First you have to think that you are not clear, then you can think you are.

A mental trap that simply requires seeing it from an outside perspective and then poof the illusion is spoiled.

Or you can take it serious like and spend hours "auditing" it, validating it, creating more thoughts to rationalize it.

Wake up. really. wake up. you spend more conscious effort keeping the illusion alive than you could possibly comprehend.

Dont be a doof and even believe in the concept in the first place and your miles ahead.

 

[guanoloco]

I was twinning with a girl on TRs once and someone else teamed up and gave her some explicit sexual bullbaiting. Next day she said she went clear when making out with her husband.
-snip-.

-snip-

I went Clear on tennis. Dig?

-snip-

But if someone goes clear masturbating or watching Mary Poppins, or anything else that has no underlying structure to it at all it's is difficult to see what long range value this is going to have for them. (Although the underlying structure is exactly what they don't need

-snip-

My fav is the person, never having read a Clear definition or a book and never having had a Grade Chart action - ever!, goes "clear" in the shower after an ethics handling and goes to Flag for the CCRD all paid for on credit while unemployed when several Class V orgs delivered the very same rundown (nothing like paying 3 times over for something) and then is ARCXen when denounced and goes so morose that you're not supposed to mention it or ask about it around them.

All the while their respective 1st D, 2nd D, 3rd D, etc., looked like a train wreck. The person's whole career as a Scientologist was one big tech degrade.

This clear stuff was just some ego fluff to pin on your chest for status.

 

[Vittorio]

L.Kins book states that a clear is exterior!

They are either exterior or dead!

Nothing other than is a Clear. Would anyone like to clarify this?

 

[Dulloldfart]

L.Kins book states that a clear is exterior!

They are either exterior or dead!

Nothing other than is a Clear. Would anyone like to clarify this?

Sure. Ulrich has a lot of opinions, some of which may be correct. Some of them are also wrong. Take your pick. If you take (believe) what he says on faith alone you are an idiot.

Paul

 

[xseaorguk]

definition of clear is when you suddenly cognite that your bank account is extremely clear.......of any munnies

 

[Gadfly]

definition of clear is when you suddenly cognite that your bank account is extremely clear.......of any munnies

Definitions can be weird things.

When we define a tree, car, house, planet, ant or ocean, there is a tangible "something" we can point to, look at and observe.

It gets very much trickier with things of the mind and spirit.

Hubbard defined "clear" in many different ways throughout the years. And, it is debatable whether ANY of these definitions matched up or correlated well to any ACTUAL mental states, conditions or abilities.

I viewed many of Hubbard's definitions of states and abilities as "possible ideals", that may or may not be able to be realized by Scientology or ANY set of methods. The biggest problem though is in the vague definitions and many contradictions.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Hubbard defined "clear" in many different ways throughout the years. And, it is debatable whether ANY of these definitions matched up or correlated well to any ACTUAL mental states, conditions or abilities.

I viewed many of Hubbard's definitions of states and abilities as "possible ideals", that may or may not be able to be realized by Scientology or ANY set of methods. The biggest problem though is in the vague definitions and many contradictions.

Maybe, just maybe, he did have a particular demonstrable state in mind. There is all the PR and status and money-making and lies and all the rest of it too, but just maybe as a basis. . . .

After a really good session, when one is "very keyed out" or "blown out" or "exterior" or however you want to describe it, maybe he was looking at a permanent state of that, when one is disconnected from one's usual mental baggage. I can't believe I only just realised this five minutes ago, but I guess that is what he originally meant by "keyed-out Clear" (which he then said in 1978 didn't exist!). For some reason, I never associated that label with the blown-out condition very familiar to me.

Paul

 

[Auditor's Toad]

There is no "state" of clear as is assumed in thid thread and sold to scientologists.

The only thing scientology can clear is your bank account.

Scientology will do its very best to clear out your bank account.

That is their clear.

Why not do something better with your money - donate it to program to save the gay whales from annoying tourists invading their privacy.

 

[Gadfly]

Maybe, just maybe, he did have a particular demonstrable state in mind. There is all the PR and status and money-making and lies and all the rest of it too, but just maybe as a basis. . . .

After a really good session, when one is "very keyed out" or "blown out" or "exterior" or however you want to describe it, maybe he was looking at a permanent state of that, when one is disconnected from one's usual mental baggage. I can't believe I only just realised this five minutes ago, but I guess that is what he originally meant by "keyed-out Clear" (which he then said in 1978 didn't exist!). For some reason, I never associated that label with the blown-out condition very familiar to me.

Paul

Having gone exterior and having been "blown out" MANY times, and always enjoying it greatly, what I noticed about the state was the entire LOSS of any attention "inward". There was no "motion" on the "inside", meaning that all "thought" as "talking to self", and mental yap-yap, had suddenly stopped. My attention ws always then directed entirely outward (at the MEST universe).

I interpreted that in eastern terms, where the "sense of self" had vanished, and there was just "me", as awareness with no other significance, looking out at all-that-is.

But, the largest common factor, as I saw it, was the total loss of any attention on "self" (body or mind).

I don't see that Hubbard's many definitions of "clear" had much to do with that. To me Hubbard poorly framed and explained what was happening, and possibly he didn't ever actually even understand what was happening.

I always thought that Scientology would be so very much more legitimate if it left OUT all the dumb notions of various "states" and "abilities". But then Hubbard wanted to present to the world a "conveyor belt and mass production line for spiritual freedom". Which of course was a complete failure.