The State of Clear

[Bill]

Understood, Bill. I don't, however, agree that any state will do. There is one aspect of what Hubbard called Clear which is a constant and must be met in order for the person to "validly" attest to Clear and that is the Clear Cognition. I think the following is a pretty accurate rendition;

HCOB, 24 Sept 1978, revised 2 Oct 1980.
CONFIDENTIAL, The State of Clear.

"A Clear has lost or erased the matter, energy, space and time connected to the thing called MIND. He has been cleared of the MASS, PICTURES, etc. in the bank or mind. It is a negative gain.

CLEAR COGNITION: CLEAR OCCURS WHEN ONE STOPS MOCKING UP
BANK, OR REALIZES THAT HE IS MOCKING IT UP OR HAS BEEN MOCKING IT UP.

THAT IS THE CLEAR COGNITION: THE REALIZATION THAT HE IS OR HAS BEEN MOCKING UP THE MASS AND PICTURES, ETC., THAT MAKE UP THE BANK.

When the person arrives at this realization he can then, of course, cease mocking up bank.

A Clear has perhaps not entirely lost the automaticity of mocking up mass. But at least he knows he’s putting it there and practice increases his general reality."

This is exactly what I realised in the session where I went "Clear". It certainly surprised me at the time and produced a definite life-change. I did not gain/regain the attributes of Clear as described by Hubbard in DMSMH but I certainly changed (and for the better, in my estimation) is the only point I'm trying to make.

As an aside; a friend who was on the original Clearing Course once told me that Hubbard told them the cognition in advance during a lecture and then said "Now, go and audit the materials until you have the cognition!" (words to that effect). I've never been able to find independent confirmation of this but it kinda sounds like something Hubbard might do.

In any event, my opinion about all this is that the Clear Hubbard described so glowingly doesn't exist, never did and probably never will. Ipso facto, there are no Clears as described by Hubbard, they're something else. Let's call them Nears.

I think it's fascinating that all the wonderful, glowing and super-human abilities and powers that Ron attributed to "getting rid of the Reactive Mind" at Clear have all completely disappeared. Now the only thing "Clear" means is "I said specific words and felt good for awhile". Really, there is nothing else. Clear isn't anything desirable or worth the money or time because there are no actual benefits.

Clears get sick. Clears get upset for no good reason. Clears have normal difficulties. Clears don't have any better memory. Clears can't compute any better ... and on down the list of what used to be promised. It's nothing -- but it's a very expensive nothing that earns you altitude in Scientology.

I think that the fact that some people, while doing Scientology, get some benefits should be completely divorced from the ideas of Release, Clear and OT -- because they ARE unrelated. Nobody is getting the specific abilities and powers that Ron promised for his "levels".

I think it is OK to say "I got gains", but totally wrong to say "I'm Clear" or "I'm OT" because it perpetuates the lie that those levels can be attained. Not through Scientology they can't.

 

[apocalyptic]

And , in that case, another gullible garden variety sucker.

The "state of clear" is not clear.... except to the severly deluded.

Agreed AT. And here is a remarkable thing to behold (& to experience). Being namely: How to love someone into their spiritual awakening without offending their human sensibilities. Which human sensibilities include (but are not limited to): being offended by being called a gullible-garden-variety-sucker, and being called, deluded, to boot.

Even angels tread lightly here. We imagine.

Apocalypic

being non-scientologists however, we realize we could be wrong.

 

[apocalyptic]

Nothing but blood, sweat and tears.

Perfect.

Kudo's to you.

Apocalyptic

 

[apocalyptic]

Glad you liked it. Do you have anything to offer?

185 posts here would pretty much cover our most recent intervention. Care to look? .......we thought naught.

Going back some 25 years, and your question becomes irrelevant (& moot). .......and smug and arrogant and evidence of your being intellectually lazy to boot, Leon

Apocalyptic

and we love you nonetheless (but not a bit more).

 

[Panda Termint]

<....snip for brevity>
It is OK to say "I got gains". It is totally wrong to say "I'm Clear" or "I'm OT" because it perpetuates the lie that those levels can be attained. Not through Scientology they can't.

Thanks, Bill. Is it OK to say "I'm Near"? (just kidding)

 

[Lure Rob & Hyde]

Not sure about that. Damn my poor memory!



Did they all have "the Clear Cog"?

My all-time favourite is someone who reportedly went Clear watching Mary Poppins.

Is that a fact! There is no such thing as a clear cog I would like to point out so as to not delude others that may read this board.
I do know that Hublard's specialty was having people run his script for envisioning cartoons and then having them attest to the illusion of it being a reality.
The best way I can describe Hublard is by remembering the fairy tales we read as kids. The one that stands out in particular is about the ugly fat troll under the bridge who collects tolls form anyone to crossing it.

I saw people who possessed the ability to envision most anything in their mind and cut their association with the cult one they saw where it was leading.
Hubbard was nothing but a greedy pig!!!! Miscavidge the little runt pig was trained by him and follows his dictates .
I am still grappling with the idea past lives.
I will say about 3 months ago I was on a farm and saw the huge pig that looked familiar so I said"Ron Hubbard is that you" and the Ron or the pig grunted several times.
I guess if I am looking for confirmations then Hubbard could have been re-in-porkated!

 

[apocalyptic]

Thanks, Bill. Is it OK to say "I'm Near"? (just kidding)

You weren't kidding.

Tell the truth.

Lol.

Apocalyptic

student to master: what is the difference between being near a thing, and being that thing? (or being one with that thing)

master to student: if you have to ask you cannot know.

It's a rule.

lol.

Ron lied. (and broke it)

 

[Panda Termint]

I always kid people who tell me what I may and may not say/think/do.

 

[apocalyptic]

I always kid people who tell me what I may and may not say/think/do.

With all due respect, you sir, have a Scientology-Engram. Of rather huge proportions. We know. We are the professionals here.

And for a 'slight-fee' (which we like to call: the 'cost' of realizing you are already an eternal being and you are already perfect just as you are and always have been and always will be) we are willing to lay down a good part of our life, 'for you'. just like david is doing now (and ron did too) 'for you' (back on the time track ron discovered).

It's $ 300,000.00 (at the moment). But it could be going up soon. Think of your eternity man. Eternity is not cheap.

Act now.

Apocalyptic

 

[Panda Termint]

Thanks for the offer but no thanks.
You're mistaken in your evaluation of the situation.
If you're selling Eternity, you'll need to find someone who thinks he needs to buy it. I'm not that person.
I enjoyed reading your post, though.

 

[Veda]

From a 1986 interview with ex-"Flagship" auditor, John Ausley:

"[Hubbard] liked gathering a whole group of people together under any cause, then assigning them roles as characters, and watch them act out his own books. He assigned them character roles, 'You're a this, or this'..."

There are people who were told, "You're a this," who hold dearly to the particular "this" they were assigned. They will rationalize endlessly in order to hold onto the "this."

There are people who were told, "You're a Scientologist," who will hold on to that "this" for the rest of their lives, and there are people who were told, "You're a Clear."

Taking that away from them is like taking a little kid's baseball cards away from him.

 

[anonomog]

An interesting conversation.

How can anyone, other than Panda, say whether Panda achieved the state of clear? If, what he achieved satisfied his understanding of clear i.e he feels he got what he paid for, why is it so important to tell him he didn't?


Does it matter?
For me it matters that a company is selling a product that does not deliver exactly what it states. That is fraud.

It matters that the company blames the actions or thoughts of the person who bought the product when the product does not work, shifting liability for their fraudulent claims.

It does not matter if the customer is wholly satisfied with the product he bought. It would matter very much if the customer shilled the product claiming things that he knows very well it does not and cannot produce.

It is not the consumer who should be confronted here but the product and the producer.

 

[Demented LRH]

Martini is using the term, "the tech," which includes more than just 1950 Dianetics. I don't think he'd be impressed with your argument.

P.S. This is an old thread. Martini is long gone.

I would have told him that it does not matter when the NUY scientists did their Dianetics research -- Hubbard's claim that Dianetics auditing could be used to cure psycho-sonatic illnesses still stands.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Scientific research of Dianetics auditing done at New York University had shown that it is pseudo-science. All Hubbard’s claims of finding cure for psycho-somatic illnesses turned out to be bogus.

Dox?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics:

The MEDLINE database records two independent scientific studies on Dianetics, both conducted in the 1950s under the auspices of New York University. Harvey Jay Fischer tested Dianetics therapy against three claims made by proponents and found it does not effect any significant changes in intellectual functioning, mathematical ability, or the degree of personality conflicts;[43] Jack Fox tested Hubbard's thesis regarding recall of engrams, with the assistance of the Dianetic Research Foundation, and could not substantiate it.[44]

43: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/dianetics_test2.html

44: Fox, J.; Davis, A.E.; Lebovits, B. "An experimental investigation of Hubbard's engram hypothesis (dianetics)". Psychological Newsletter, New York University. 10 1959, 131-134​

The first one (43), quoted in full at the link given, was a 1953 study involving 36 "disturbed" persons in 3 groups of 12 each. The first group received 0 hours of Dianetic auditing, the second 18 hours, the third 36 hours. They were tested before and after using standardised tests to measure "intellectual functioning, mathematical ability, and personality conflicts." The study concluded that "dianetic therapy does not exert a systematic influence either favorably or adversely" on the three factors measured by the tests administered.

Note that the study did not investigate psycho-somatic illnesses as such.

The second one is quoted in full at http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/dianetics_test.html.

In brief, in 1958 (presumably) a volunteer was knocked out with a drug and a "35-word passage from a physics text" was read to him while unconscious, sometimes while pain was produced and sometimes not. Later, many auditors were unable to recover the words from the volunteer in Dianetic sessions.

It is not stated whether it was a high-school physics text or a post-grad text, although that may not be relevant at all.

Note that the study did not investigate psycho-somatic illnesses as such.

Paul

 

[Bill]

An interesting conversation.

How can anyone, other than Panda, say whether Panda achieved the state of clear? If, what he achieved satisfied his understanding of clear i.e he feels he got what he paid for, why is it so important to tell him he didn't?


Does it matter?
For me it matters that a company is selling a product that does not deliver exactly what it states. That is fraud.

It matters that the company blames the actions or thoughts of the person who bought the product when the product does not work, shifting liability for their fraudulent claims.

It does not matter if the customer is wholly satisfied with the product he bought. It would matter very much if the customer shilled the product claiming things that he knows very well it does not and cannot produce.

It is not the consumer who should be confronted here but the product and the producer.

Exactly! I don't care what people believe about Hubbard, Scientology or the Abominable Snowman. But when a person claims that Scientology caused them to attain a state that Hubbard defined -- but they don't have the powers and abilities Hubbard promised for that state -- that perpetuates Hubbard's fraud and can make people believe Scientology delivers what is very much does not deliver.

You can't use Hubbard's labels in a Scientology context but discard Hubbard's descriptions as to what those labels mean. That's disingenuous at the least.

What they attained is some kind of betterment and I'm not arguing with that. But when they say "Clear" or "OT", that's just more fraud.

 

[Dulloldfart]

What they attained is some kind of betterment and I'm not arguing with that. But when they say "Clear" or "OT", that's just more fraud.

Depends. I attested Clear in 1978 and was technically considered as one throughout my subsequent Scn career. Similarly after I attested OT III. I would happily tell someone my case level was OT3, my intention being that I had completed the OT III course and solo auditing per the checksheet and usual procedures.

That did not mean I considered I was "free from overwhelm" or could bounce planets around or whatever PR and bullshit Hubbard may or may not have said about the states. All it meant was that in the real (well, Scn) world I had fulfilled the usual requirements to be awarded those labels.

Paul

 

[DagwoodGum]

HCOB, 24 Sept 1978, revised 2 Oct 1980.
CONFIDENTIAL, The State of Clear.

"A Clear has lost or erased the matter, energy, space and time connected to the thing called MIND. He has been cleared of the MASS, PICTURES, etc. in the bank or mind. It is a negative gain.

CLEAR COGNITION: CLEAR OCCURS WHEN ONE STOPS MOCKING UP
BANK, OR REALIZES THAT HE IS MOCKING IT UP OR HAS BEEN MOCKING IT UP.

THAT IS THE CLEAR COGNITION: THE REALIZATION THAT HE IS OR HAS BEEN MOCKING UP THE MASS AND PICTURES, ETC., THAT MAKE UP THE BANK.

When the person arrives at this realization he can then, of course, cease mocking up bank.

A Clear has perhaps not entirely lost the automaticity of mocking up mass. But at least he knows he’s putting it there and practice increases his general reality."

The issue I have with the arbitrary "clear cognition" is in knowing how suggestable Scientologists are and automatically programmed to parrot thoughts and phrases that they perceive as emanating from "source".
So once these PC's read the content of the "clear cognition", that is going to be the first thing that spews from their mouth when they achieve some plateau of relief during their auditing. Then 'whoosh', he or she is rushed off to the examiner to attest, write a glowing sucess story and then on to the reg. to see to it they're all set and paid up to get through OT3. Because "that's where your real case get's handled when the pilot says - he's mocking it up!?!" Is that REALLY what the pilot's all said and in modern English? Or is it just a concept of what the pilot should be saying in order that you become immediately dissentangled in any of the r6 crap? Barf!!!! Wadda carnival sideshow act, but I wouldn't pay the two bucks for admission!

 

[Dulloldfart]

The issue I have with the arbitrary "clear cognition" is in knowing how suggestable Scientologists are and automatically programmed to parrot thoughts and phrases that they perceive as emanating from "source".
So once these PC's read the contect of the "clear cognition", that is going to be the first thing that spews from their mouth when they achieve some plateau of relief during their auditing.

Inside Scn the Clear Cog is closely guarded. It may be all over the internet, but it is not all over the HGC waiting room. For the exact reason that you state.

Paul

 

[Bill]

Depends. I attested Clear in 1978 and was technically considered as one throughout my subsequent Scn career. Similarly after I attested OT III. I would happily tell someone my case level was OT3, my intention being that I had completed the OT III course and solo auditing per the checksheet and usual procedures.

That did not mean I considered I was "free from overwhelm" or could bounce planets around or whatever PR and bullshit Hubbard may or may not have said about the states. All it meant was that in the real (well, Scn) world I had fulfilled the usual requirements to be awarded those labels.

Paul

I understand that. I did the same thing. The fraud is built into the Church of Scientology that way. "There are 20,000 Clears and 8,000 OTs!" Whatever.

But I would hope that fraud would cease outside of that structure. I usually don't see it but I can hope.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Depends. I attested Clear in 1978 and was technically considered as one throughout my subsequent Scn career. Similarly after I attested OT III. I would happily tell someone my case level was OT3, my intention being that I had completed the OT III course and solo auditing per the checksheet and usual procedures.

That did not mean I considered I was "free from overwhelm" or could bounce planets around or whatever PR and bullshit Hubbard may or may not have said about the states. All it meant was that in the real (well, Scn) world I had fulfilled the usual requirements to be awarded those labels.

Paul

Yep all it meant is you passed that level of the game and got to go onto the next level of the game