What's new
By:
Filters

The State of Clear

Leon said:
No. Not at all. They are not in any danger whatsoever. That is C of S marketing. Not tech.
Click to expand...


OT III is not tech?

The Non Interference Area is not tech?!

You were a C/S, right? Me too.

So, we both read and star-rated and clay demo'ed every single one of the C/S Series, right?

Dude!

HELPFUL TIP: Red on white HCOBs are tech.

DUDE!

Here, this might help. I disconnected the snooze function, so you shouldn't have that problem again.

ist2_345886-alarm-clock-ringing1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bill said:
The comment I made was in response to the answers:
  • Did you achieve the State of Clear in scientology? Yes.
  • Was it exactly as described by Hubbard? No.
The person who claimed where was a state which he named "Clear" was Hubbard. He "created" that state. If a person claims to have attained "Clear", but it doesn't match what Hubbard said then, ipso facto, what they attained isn't Clear.

I can't state it any plainer. Once you start randomly labeling other states of being as "Clear" you've invalidated everything Hubbard said about the state.

It appears that, since there really is no such thing as Clear, people can claim anything as "Clear". Who can disprove it?
Click to expand...


Faultless logic, Helluva. :thumbsup:

Add this: "We call a mental image picture a 'hallucination' ... when it is created by another and seen by self." FOT

Any questions?
 
The usual chattering classes chatter away. Nothing upsets them more than the hearing of a possibility that they may have missed out on something worthwhile in Scio.
 
HelluvaHoax! said:
OT III is not tech?

The Non Interference Area is not tech?!

You were a C/S, right? Me too.

So, we both read and star-rated and clay demo'ed every single one of the C/S Series, right?

Dude!

HELPFUL TIP: Red on white HCOBs are tech.

DUDE!

Here, this might help. I disconnected the snooze function, so you shouldn't have that problem again.

ist2_345886-alarm-clock-ringing1.jpg
Click to expand...


There's your BIG mistake fella. You bought the bullshit that red on white = tech. You should have gone for understanding, and not for monkey see, monkey do.
 
Leon said:
The usual chattering classes chatter away. Nothing upsets them more than the hearing of a possibility that they may have missed out on something worthwhile in Scio.
Click to expand...

HCOB 27 September 1966​

The Antisocial Personality
The Anti-Scientologist​

There are certain characteristics and mental attitudes which cause about 20% of the race to oppose violently any betterment activity or group.
 
All these spin bin, convoluted think tank collective guestimations about what the fictitious hallowed "state of clear" really means is too much for me. To me it simply means the absence of a synthetically applied/implanted mental machination that does your thinking for you by using engramic recordings and polarities. It, if it ever existed, it's either gone or it isn't. None of this "Oh but I had an F/N for a couple of days, that’s how I know I'm clear" crap. Maybe it just takes getting exterior to it and giving it a good admiration filled acknowledgment to end cycle on it and nothing more... All this spin bin Maslow structure crap just reinforces other synthetic structures like our very own hypothetical "reactive mind". Gotta be careful what you buy into, and who's doing the selling or you’ll soon be buying more pseudo psychological services from more scamsters and be walking another plank to nowhere.:goodluck:
 
For any of you who claim to have "attained the state of Clear", please describe EXACTLY what this "state" means/meant to YOU.

How did/do YOU define and describe this "state of Clear"? Please be specific.

Then tell us whether you "attained" this or not. Okay?

Otherwise this discussion is just so much nonsense.

There is no doubt that what the "state of Clear" meant in Hubbard's own words changed a great deal over time. But if anyone EVER attained ANY of those states, no matter WHAT the definition might have been at ANY time is simply a curiosity.
 
degraded being said:
If I understand what you're saying correctly then I think I agree with you.
If Maslow or anyone else is asserting that peoples needs and peoples ideas about their needs are manifested according to a fairly predictable rigid heirachal pattern, that does not look like what I observe.

...

So I guess my main question is: Did Maslow intend it to be understood in a way which makes it conflict with Plato, or is the limiting scope it seems to have true to Maslows ideas.? Do you know?
Click to expand...


As I understand Maslow his interpretation does not suggest an inflexibility in approach so much as a general principle for assessing an individual's priorities with regard to life experiences. Nonetheless, Maslow's focus is on assessing those priorities based on 'real world experience'. As such his hierarchy of needs remains in conflict with the Platonic system which is based on a conception of the ideal and how that is what is ultimately determinative.


Mark A. Baker
 
Gadfly said:
For any of you who claim to have "attained the state of Clear", please describe EXACTLY what this "state" means/meant to YOU. ...
Click to expand...

That to which I felt fully comfortable attesting was "cause over mental mass, energy, space, & time".

Note: that does not imply a corresponding lack of ability to feel effects from "mental mass, energy, space, & time". It denotes one's own fully recognized causative abilities in that regard.

What the actual condition experienced was, being as it is an wholly subjective one, is harder to describe meaningfully to another but put simply: a very significant shift & expansion in my personal perspective coupled with a feeling of enhanced freedom of thought & consideration.

This latter condition has never deteriorated despite whatever moods, mental conditions, or considerations I may have experienced since that time. It remains 'constant'. Personally I have never equated the attainment of 'clear' with the attainment of 'superpowers' or other forms of siddhis. What was attained was far more than I had anticipated as a potential result from the use of scientology and I was and remain very content with that achievement.


Mark A. Baker
 
Mark A. Baker said:
What was attained was far more than I had anticipated as a potential result from the use of scientology and I was and remain very content with that achievement.

Mark A. Baker
Click to expand...

You are in a class by yourself, most especially in regard to: ...was far more than I had anticipated as a potential result from the use of scientology....

Perfect recall? nah, don't anticipate that. Increased IQ? nah... human abilities never seen before in recorded history (called homo novis)? nah, not what I'm after.

MAB: What I got: "I felt fully comfortable attesting was "cause over mental mass, energy, space, & time". brackets ours

Remarkable. A warm and fuzzy feeling, as a reward of epic proportions, superseding anything you had ever hoped to achieve, thanks to scientology.

Along with your 'knowing how to know' that Hubbard didn't really lie about being a nuclear scientist. He 'was' a nuclear scientist. Sort of. Kind of. In a very clear way, if it weren't for all those (reactive-minded) folks that actually believed what he said. It was 'their' fault (for believing him). Lol.

Remarkable.

Apocalyptic

you are entertaining to say the least Mark
 
apocalyptic said:
You are in a class by yourself, most especially in regard to: ...was far more than I had anticipated as a potential result from the use of scientology....

Perfect recall? nah, don't anticipate that. Increased IQ? nah... human abilities never seen before in recorded history (called homo novis)? nah, not what I'm after.

MAB: What I got: "I felt fully comfortable attesting was "cause over mental mass, energy, space, & time". brackets ours

Remarkable. A warm and fuzzy feeling, as a reward of epic proportions, superseding anything you had ever hoped to achieve, thanks to scientology.

Along with your 'knowing how to know' that Hubbard didn't really lie about being a nuclear scientist. He 'was' a nuclear scientist. Sort of. Kind of. In a very clear way, if it weren't for all those (reactive-minded) folks that actually believed what he said. It was 'their' fault (for believing him). Lol.

Remarkable.

Apocalyptic

you are entertaining to say the least Mark
Click to expand...

Scientology always looked for a few good "Marks."
 
MAB: What I got: "I felt fully comfortable attesting was "cause over mental mass, energy, space, & time".
Click to expand...

We all walked in off the street being "cause", at least to some extent. So anyone can attest to that. At issue is, to what degree are you cause? Are you at greater cause over your "mental mass, energy, space, & time" than those who would enturbulate you? I don't think so as that seems to be what the motive for "disconnection" is all about. These "states of being" are so inherently fragile that one needs to wash their hands of anyone or anything that would be a source of "enturbulation", which certainly seems contrary to the stated essence of being "cause over mental mass, energy, space, & time."
In summation, Scientology seems to make one all the more vulnerable to the "wog" world, SP's, PTS's ad infinitum. One needs to so thoroughly disconnect from all and everything in the real world to maintain the illusion of being "clear" to such an extent that the "state" seems to be "decreased cause" and near total effect. Remember when Elron got thrown out of Rhodesia and made comments to the effect that "OT's don't do well in the WOG world?" That was an important clue...
 
Auditor's Toad;624954]And , in that case, another gullible garden variety sucker.
Click to expand...
human abilities never seen before in recorded history (called homo novis)? nah, not what I'm after.
Click to expand...
It’s the combination of Sucker and Homo Novis that conjures imagery that illuminates the essential nature of some of the most oral proponents and advocates of states of being that they falsely endorse w/o any rudimentary evidence of attainment. I've yet to see even a partial embodiment of attributes that Hubbard described manifest in the perpetual PC's, as in never attaining clear and always being pre - but never making Novis. Maybe Homo Novice?
 
I just caught that allegedly there were 13,000 clears in 1979, "highest ever".

Question is what drove that?

New prototype technique release to straighten out past prototype techniques/ failed promises?

A Hubbard fear PR.

Star Wars released 18 months before?
 
Jachs said:
I just caught that allegedly there were 13,000 clears in 1979, "highest ever".

Question is what drove that?

New prototype technique release to straighten out past prototype techniques/ failed promises?

A Hubbard fear PR.

Star Wars released 18 months before?
Click to expand...
That's the backlog from when Hubbard decided that a "Dianetic Clear" was a "real, honest-to-goodness" Clear. All the Dianetic Clears were suddenly declared as actual Clears (after passing a Clear Check) and there was an additional backlog/influx of people being declared as "Past Life Clears" and "Natural Clears". It was a major change in the Tech line-up. Veda probably has the scoop on the applicable HCOBs etc.
 
Panda Termint said:
That's the backlog from when Hubbard decided that a "Dianetic Clear" was a "real, honest-to-goodness" Clear. All the Dianetic Clears were suddenly declared as actual Clears (after passing a Clear Check) and there was an additional backlog/influx of people being declared as "Past Life Clears" and "Natural Clears". It was a major change in the Tech line-up. Veda probably has the scoop on the applicable HCOBs etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks Chucknorriscutsmylawn

& cheers Panda.

Were these dianetic clears ever 'declared/unclear false attest' after 79 tech breakthrough ? If so how long after.

Pity there isn't a poll on this thread!

Leon implies Red & White is not tech, and that the no-interference zone Clear ~OT III is no danger and not to trust Hubbard on that, but to trust Hubbard on Clear tech as that is legitimate?

Is this because Hubbard was more rational before he did OT III than after?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top