DagwoodGum
Squirreling Dervish
Or - Scientology is a blowjob for your mind, be careful, they swallow!
(not to try to be profound or anything...)
Last edited:
The State of Clear
- Thread starter DartSmohen
- Start date
Or - Scientology is a blowjob for your mind, be careful, they swallow!
(not to try to be profound or anything...)
DagwoodGum
Squirreling Dervish
[QUOTEWe have:
Isn't it terribly depressing to realise we've been reduced to pondering such excrement? Where did my life fall of the rail to where this is what I would find myself pondering in my free time with such cotton candy heads? Gawd, and we used to have to pass tests upon such tripe and have some daffy, egocentric course supervisor flunk us on our concepts of this type of shit and have to do endless clay demo's on it!?!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- morality- creativity- 
spontaneity- problem solving-lack of prejudice
- acceptance of facts-self esteem -confidence -
respect-friendship-family-sexual intimacy
security checks,
immorality, "the family"
breath - beans-:shock: wank-sleep walk
excretion from
SO
[/QUOTE]spontaneity- problem solving-lack of prejudice - acceptance of facts-self esteem -confidence -
respect-friendship-family-sexual intimacy
security checks,
immorality, "the family"breath - beans-:shock: wank-sleep walk
excretion from
SO
Isn't it terribly depressing to realise we've been reduced to pondering such excrement? Where did my life fall of the rail to where this is what I would find myself pondering in my free time with such cotton candy heads? Gawd, and we used to have to pass tests upon such tripe and have some daffy, egocentric course supervisor flunk us on our concepts of this type of shit and have to do endless clay demo's on it!?!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LRH on Tape "LOGICS 1 - 7"
Logic 6 is 'Absolutes are unobtainable'. There's no absolute universe. There's no absolute Clear. There's no absolute right, no absolute infinity, no absolute zero, no absolute wrong, an absolute black, an absolute white - nothing.
All Clear means in the first place, is taking enough numbers off so you can add something else up on the machine. It's an adding machine term, it's an electronic computer term, is where it came from. It means to clear the computer so it'll think.
It doesn't say how well it's got to think now, you just clear it up so it can think better. You clear a human being up so he can think better and you have a Clear. You've done a clear.
You can do a clear of this lifetime, you can do a clear of the whole track, you can do a clear of this person to such a degree that he can create his own universe, or you can clear this person in such a way that he's cleared of the MEST universe and can go then and create his own universe. In other words, you have terrific selection here.
Logic 6 is 'Absolutes are unobtainable'. There's no absolute universe. There's no absolute Clear. There's no absolute right, no absolute infinity, no absolute zero, no absolute wrong, an absolute black, an absolute white - nothing.
All Clear means in the first place, is taking enough numbers off so you can add something else up on the machine. It's an adding machine term, it's an electronic computer term, is where it came from. It means to clear the computer so it'll think.
It doesn't say how well it's got to think now, you just clear it up so it can think better. You clear a human being up so he can think better and you have a Clear. You've done a clear.
You can do a clear of this lifetime, you can do a clear of the whole track, you can do a clear of this person to such a degree that he can create his own universe, or you can clear this person in such a way that he's cleared of the MEST universe and can go then and create his own universe. In other words, you have terrific selection here.
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Leon, now can you point out just one clear that will stand up to what you posted?
Or, are you just trying to blow some more of your scientology smoke up our ass?
As I posted before, 60 years of trying to make a clear and not one yet that meets the definition of clear yet 50,000 + people have attested to clear and THAT is the true story of scientology.
clear is just another hoax, period.
Well, a fairly expensive little hoax .
.....
Leon, this is part of your siggy :
"The first and most essential quality in a student is his ongoing willingness to question all that he is being taught".
Are you going to apply that to yourself or is only for others?
AnonKat
Crusader
[video=youtube;_YCoqYyQXqc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YCoqYyQXqc[/video]
apocalyptic
Patron with Honors
Beautiful. And insufficient. But very well spoken nonetheless (well done).
The chief difficulty lies in your misunderstanding Leon (or lack of clarification). From our point of view.
To wit: There are Wogs and there is Static. And the Static is the Essential-Being (and Only-being) of all of The Wogs in the World, Yes? Notwithstanding the personal (passing reactive-engramic) human mind. lol?
Do you see the problem here Leon? It has to do with Ones Eternal Spiritual Identity, in the absence of any ones thought about 'it'. As Being Authentic. And in the absence of any threat of pain (or promise of gain) to achieve 'it' (and more importantly, to experience 'it').
Think Eternity.(absent fear)
Get 'it'?
And Good luck (and God Bless You).
And all of your Loved Ones.
Apocalyptic
Last edited:
Veda
Sponsor
Excerpts from an article by David Mayo on Clear, 1991: http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html
_________________________________________________________________
START QUOTE
In late 1978, the state of "dianetic clear" was announced. Within a few months two other "states of clear" were introduced: the state of "natural clear" and the state of "past life clear".
This change had two immediate consequences:
1. The number of people attesting (correctly or falsely) to having attained the "state of clear" increased enormously.
2. During and after that period, there was a considerable amount of upset and confusion about the "state of clear".
There were those who considered that a dianetic clear was not a "real clear" and that the only "real clear" was one who (like them) had done the Clearing Course. Some felt that they had gone clear in their last lifetime. Some felt that dianetic clear explained why they had never been able to run dianetic auditing successfully. A large number of auditors, C/Ses, and others felt that there were a lot of people falsely attesting to the state of clear and either
a. Felt unethical about letting the person attest, or
b. Tried to handle it and ended up involuntarily invalidating the pc. No matter how this was "handled", it has persisted as a problem. So we can at least assume that there are aspects of it that haven't been taken into account and handled.
Let us examine more closely what happened in late 1978 and early 1979. LRH was being audited and concluded that one of the things wrong with his case was that he had been audited on dianetic auditing after he had attained the "state of clear" (which he at first thought had occured in objective processing). He then issued a bulletin forbidding the running of dianetic auditing on clears and made various other technical and administrative changes.
He cancelled the state of "keyed out clear" by stating that it was the same state as "clear". He changed the definition of "clear" (and subsequently changed it several more times). He order ed that the folders of pcs (and the pcs themselves) who might have gone clear in orgs and missions be routed to Advanced Orgs. This action resulted in an emptying out of the orgs and missions and a flood of people arriving at the AOs.
At first, people were being declared clear regardless of what they thought they had gone clear on or when this had occurred. More importantly, they were being declared clear regardless of the state of case or condition they were in. In fact, one bulletin went so far as to advise that case and ethics trouble could be caused by a person having attained clear without having the state acknowledged. As a result, many persons who were declared clear were actually in very poor condition. This practice reflected badly on the "state of clear" and the workability of the tech. It caused a great deal of upset and confusion on the subject of clear.
At that time there was a shortage of instructions on how to handle dianetic clear technically and a general lack of data on the new subject of "dianetic clear". However persons accused of mis-handling dianetic clear were handled with heavy ethics. The "invalidation of clear" was named a Suppressive Act, while permitting someone to attest falsely was also a serious ethics offense.
A step in the procedure for handling these new clears was to establish the date when the person went clear. Sometimes the date so found would be before scientology or even prior to the pc's lifetime. When LRH heard that some persons considered that they had attained the "state of clear" in an earlier practice such as Buddhism, he became very upset. He stated that the idea that a person could go clear through any other means than scientology was "suppressive". At a certain point, he also got upset at the fact that people were concluding that they had gone clear in scientology auditing. So he specified that a person can validly go clear only in dianetic auditing. He handled the "earlier than this life time" clears by deciding that they either went clear in their last lifetime in dianetic auditing (presumably if they were young enough for this to be possible) or had attained a new state he dubbed "natural clear". His new theory was that some people had never been anything but clear. However, he refused, thereafter, to issue any further clarification of what he meant by this assertion.
Throughout this period, the definition of clear and/or dianetic clear kept changing - in the direction of dilution. Thus people came to expect less and less from the "state of clear", while the number of new clears (and thus new arrivals at AOs and Gross Income) steadily increased. None of the new definitions of "clear", and none of the new techniques for handling clears or programming them for further actions, really solved any of the problems caused by the advent of dianetic clear.
It is of interest that the definition of "clear" had already been changed several times between its first definition in DMSMH (The book, Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health, 1950, by L. Ron Hubbard) and the time the idea of "clear" was put forth. In DMSMH, a clear was said to be 4.0 on the tone scale, with no aberrations (held down sevens), no psychoses, neuroses, nor psychosomatic illnesses. The clear was said to have eidetic recall and highly enhanced perceptions and creativity. Although this chappie didn't have any OT powers, he was definitely quite a phenomenon!
It is also significant that the attributes of a clear, as described in DMSMH, were never actually attained, although in reading DMSMH, one might be led to believe that they were. When people started attesting to clear, the definition was watered down to the vague generality "at cause over mental MEST as regards the first dynamic". This definition can mean many different things to many different people. Anyone is at least somewhat causative over his own mind. So anyone can find an interpretation of this definition of "clear" that he can attest to. The states of "MEST Clear", "Theta Clear", "Cleared Theta Clear", "Clearing Course Clear", "Clear-OT", and, finally, "Dianetic Clear", and "Word Clear" were equally absolutistic when first stated, but when people started attesting to them, the definition of each, or the criterion for allowing a pc to attest to each, was similarly watered down. This sequence has been repeated over and over throughout the history of scientology.
-snip-
"Clears" have always had trouble explaining why they still act reactively at times, or a lot of the time, and why they still have problems in life and in getting along with people. The amount of mileage you can get from the notion of a "cleared Cannibal" is very limited. Even a cleared cannibal, if he were really clear, would get along wonderfully in life, never manifest misemotion, and love all his fellow beings, even as he was having their bodies for dinner!
The idea of "harmonics of clear" is quite accurate. The main reason why LRH blew up at the idea of "harmonics of clear", as expressed in the HCOB I wrote, was, as he told me, that this idea tended to leave him open to the charge that the claims he had made in DMSMH and elsewhere concerning the "state of clear" were fraudulent.
The truth appears to be that there are various stages of release, at each one of which you are clear-er than you were. A person experiencing the glee of insanity is clear-er than someone who is just completely unconscious. It was PR and marketing considerations that led Hubbard to decide that certain people were "clear" at a certain point, and that they therefore had no reactive mind. However this assertion is a lie, and a very destructive one, one that denies case gain to a great many people and provides a too-convenient rabbit button for pc's, auditors and C/S's who are having trouble with the pc's case. The claim that case and ethics problems can be caused by being clear was:
1. Absurd on the face of it.
2. A declaration of open rabbitting season.
Trying to define "clear" is difficult because it is being done over a lie. We either have to restore the meaning of clear to its original absolute meaning (which means that there aren't any clears in existence), or we have to say that what people have attested to as clear is actually only a state of release or reduction.
We can say that the purpose of auditing is to clear aberrations and that if all aberrations were cleared, a "state of clear" would be attained. The concept of "clear" is useful as an ultimate goal, like the goal of perfect happiness or of perfect anything. It is a direction in which to continue to progress. It is not an attainable state (at least given our present level of technology).
Another part of the problem is that the states of release and clear are only subjective. Asking an aberrated person to decide when he feels or thinks that he is no longer aberrated, is asking for a delusory "cognition" from the start. At one time [ca. 1959. Ed.], LRH postulated that the state of clear could be objectively proven by the presence of a "free or floating needle" and a TA position of 2.0 (Female) or 3.0 (Male). But this was an unverified guess that did not stand the test of time.
Perhaps what we have been calling "clear" is "no longer chronically affected by engrams" or "engrams no longer in chronic restimulation." As such, the state would be more accurately described as a state of release or as a state of reduction. In other words, it would mean that the majority of a person's aberrations had gone into abeyance.
Regardless of what the state is named, the recognition that a person can continue to be come clear-er, restores hope and makes progress possible again.
END QUOTE
________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
START QUOTE
Clear
By David Mayo, USA.
By David Mayo, USA.
In late 1978, the state of "dianetic clear" was announced. Within a few months two other "states of clear" were introduced: the state of "natural clear" and the state of "past life clear".
This change had two immediate consequences:
1. The number of people attesting (correctly or falsely) to having attained the "state of clear" increased enormously.
2. During and after that period, there was a considerable amount of upset and confusion about the "state of clear".
There were those who considered that a dianetic clear was not a "real clear" and that the only "real clear" was one who (like them) had done the Clearing Course. Some felt that they had gone clear in their last lifetime. Some felt that dianetic clear explained why they had never been able to run dianetic auditing successfully. A large number of auditors, C/Ses, and others felt that there were a lot of people falsely attesting to the state of clear and either
a. Felt unethical about letting the person attest, or
b. Tried to handle it and ended up involuntarily invalidating the pc. No matter how this was "handled", it has persisted as a problem. So we can at least assume that there are aspects of it that haven't been taken into account and handled.
Let us examine more closely what happened in late 1978 and early 1979. LRH was being audited and concluded that one of the things wrong with his case was that he had been audited on dianetic auditing after he had attained the "state of clear" (which he at first thought had occured in objective processing). He then issued a bulletin forbidding the running of dianetic auditing on clears and made various other technical and administrative changes.
He cancelled the state of "keyed out clear" by stating that it was the same state as "clear". He changed the definition of "clear" (and subsequently changed it several more times). He order ed that the folders of pcs (and the pcs themselves) who might have gone clear in orgs and missions be routed to Advanced Orgs. This action resulted in an emptying out of the orgs and missions and a flood of people arriving at the AOs.
At first, people were being declared clear regardless of what they thought they had gone clear on or when this had occurred. More importantly, they were being declared clear regardless of the state of case or condition they were in. In fact, one bulletin went so far as to advise that case and ethics trouble could be caused by a person having attained clear without having the state acknowledged. As a result, many persons who were declared clear were actually in very poor condition. This practice reflected badly on the "state of clear" and the workability of the tech. It caused a great deal of upset and confusion on the subject of clear.
At that time there was a shortage of instructions on how to handle dianetic clear technically and a general lack of data on the new subject of "dianetic clear". However persons accused of mis-handling dianetic clear were handled with heavy ethics. The "invalidation of clear" was named a Suppressive Act, while permitting someone to attest falsely was also a serious ethics offense.
A step in the procedure for handling these new clears was to establish the date when the person went clear. Sometimes the date so found would be before scientology or even prior to the pc's lifetime. When LRH heard that some persons considered that they had attained the "state of clear" in an earlier practice such as Buddhism, he became very upset. He stated that the idea that a person could go clear through any other means than scientology was "suppressive". At a certain point, he also got upset at the fact that people were concluding that they had gone clear in scientology auditing. So he specified that a person can validly go clear only in dianetic auditing. He handled the "earlier than this life time" clears by deciding that they either went clear in their last lifetime in dianetic auditing (presumably if they were young enough for this to be possible) or had attained a new state he dubbed "natural clear". His new theory was that some people had never been anything but clear. However, he refused, thereafter, to issue any further clarification of what he meant by this assertion.
Throughout this period, the definition of clear and/or dianetic clear kept changing - in the direction of dilution. Thus people came to expect less and less from the "state of clear", while the number of new clears (and thus new arrivals at AOs and Gross Income) steadily increased. None of the new definitions of "clear", and none of the new techniques for handling clears or programming them for further actions, really solved any of the problems caused by the advent of dianetic clear.
It is of interest that the definition of "clear" had already been changed several times between its first definition in DMSMH (The book, Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health, 1950, by L. Ron Hubbard) and the time the idea of "clear" was put forth. In DMSMH, a clear was said to be 4.0 on the tone scale, with no aberrations (held down sevens), no psychoses, neuroses, nor psychosomatic illnesses. The clear was said to have eidetic recall and highly enhanced perceptions and creativity. Although this chappie didn't have any OT powers, he was definitely quite a phenomenon!
It is also significant that the attributes of a clear, as described in DMSMH, were never actually attained, although in reading DMSMH, one might be led to believe that they were. When people started attesting to clear, the definition was watered down to the vague generality "at cause over mental MEST as regards the first dynamic". This definition can mean many different things to many different people. Anyone is at least somewhat causative over his own mind. So anyone can find an interpretation of this definition of "clear" that he can attest to. The states of "MEST Clear", "Theta Clear", "Cleared Theta Clear", "Clearing Course Clear", "Clear-OT", and, finally, "Dianetic Clear", and "Word Clear" were equally absolutistic when first stated, but when people started attesting to them, the definition of each, or the criterion for allowing a pc to attest to each, was similarly watered down. This sequence has been repeated over and over throughout the history of scientology.
-snip-
"Clears" have always had trouble explaining why they still act reactively at times, or a lot of the time, and why they still have problems in life and in getting along with people. The amount of mileage you can get from the notion of a "cleared Cannibal" is very limited. Even a cleared cannibal, if he were really clear, would get along wonderfully in life, never manifest misemotion, and love all his fellow beings, even as he was having their bodies for dinner!
The idea of "harmonics of clear" is quite accurate. The main reason why LRH blew up at the idea of "harmonics of clear", as expressed in the HCOB I wrote, was, as he told me, that this idea tended to leave him open to the charge that the claims he had made in DMSMH and elsewhere concerning the "state of clear" were fraudulent.
The truth appears to be that there are various stages of release, at each one of which you are clear-er than you were. A person experiencing the glee of insanity is clear-er than someone who is just completely unconscious. It was PR and marketing considerations that led Hubbard to decide that certain people were "clear" at a certain point, and that they therefore had no reactive mind. However this assertion is a lie, and a very destructive one, one that denies case gain to a great many people and provides a too-convenient rabbit button for pc's, auditors and C/S's who are having trouble with the pc's case. The claim that case and ethics problems can be caused by being clear was:
1. Absurd on the face of it.
2. A declaration of open rabbitting season.
Trying to define "clear" is difficult because it is being done over a lie. We either have to restore the meaning of clear to its original absolute meaning (which means that there aren't any clears in existence), or we have to say that what people have attested to as clear is actually only a state of release or reduction.
We can say that the purpose of auditing is to clear aberrations and that if all aberrations were cleared, a "state of clear" would be attained. The concept of "clear" is useful as an ultimate goal, like the goal of perfect happiness or of perfect anything. It is a direction in which to continue to progress. It is not an attainable state (at least given our present level of technology).
Another part of the problem is that the states of release and clear are only subjective. Asking an aberrated person to decide when he feels or thinks that he is no longer aberrated, is asking for a delusory "cognition" from the start. At one time [ca. 1959. Ed.], LRH postulated that the state of clear could be objectively proven by the presence of a "free or floating needle" and a TA position of 2.0 (Female) or 3.0 (Male). But this was an unverified guess that did not stand the test of time.
Perhaps what we have been calling "clear" is "no longer chronically affected by engrams" or "engrams no longer in chronic restimulation." As such, the state would be more accurately described as a state of release or as a state of reduction. In other words, it would mean that the majority of a person's aberrations had gone into abeyance.
Regardless of what the state is named, the recognition that a person can continue to be come clear-er, restores hope and makes progress possible again.
END QUOTE
________________________________________________________________
Only thing I don't get is what the hell you are talking about. Is non-sequitur your stock in trade?
Unusual for you.apocalyptic
Patron with Honors
Yes. Non-sequitur (our stock 'and' trade) is a phrase that describes the human experience of knowing what another human being is talking about. Absent speech. Or in spite of it.
It's the dog shit reality of knowing when someone, in a room full of other people, are describing how they almost got run over by a freight train, on another planet, to the other people in the room, that the other people in the room 'merely chuckle'. And don't pony up $ 30,000.00 (or more), to 'learn more'. About freight trains on Venus (or Mars).
Go for it Leon.
Apocalyptic
Ron has a bridge for sale
And your money is good.
Lol.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
That's not auditing. That's two people mucking about with a new toy neither knows how to use.
Mark A. Baker
Bill
Gold Meritorious Patron
Yet another redefinition of "Clear" to excuse the fact that neither Hubbard nor anyone else could produce what was promised.
Now it's "think better". Nice. See? "Scientology works! We're producing 'real Clears' -- they 'think better'!"
Demented LRH
Patron Meritorious
In cooperation with the Dianetic Research Foundation, Los Angeles, California, AND using Hubbards own proposal on the theory of Dianetics IN Dianetics - which stated that if you drugged someone with sodium pentothol to render them unconcious and and then created some pain, and spoke to the person, you would create an engram.
Anything said to the person during the incident could be recovered.. claimed Hubbard.
The clinicians involved, then drugged her, applied the pain... and read a passage to her from a physics textbook..
The Hubbard's Dianeticists then tried to get the information out of the gal using "Dianetics Auditing" - for six months.
"Summary: This paper formulates two hypothesis concerning the retention of events occuring during a state of unconsciousness. It describes an experiment in which a passage read from a physics text was read to a subject placed in an unconscious state by administration of sodium pentathal. During a period of almost six months, Dianetic Auditors were unable to recover the passage. Thus the Engram Hypothesis is not substantiated by this experiment.
http://www.lermanet.com/creed-pearson/dianetics.htm
-----------------
This research done at NYU shows that engrams do not exist. If they do not exist, a procedure that deals with them cannot used to cure psycho-somatic illnesses along with all other illnesses that Hubbard associated with them.
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Think better ? That's it? Sheesh, when I sent my kid to kingergarden he should have gotten a clear cert? Really ?
Leon, dude, what you say "clear" is does not come close to meeting anyone of Hub-the-tubs 57 different definitions of clear.
What you are posting here in regards, per scientology, is " clear " is a lie.
You know what you are posting about "clear" is a lie. Most likely. 99+% of the readers here know you are lying about the definition of "clear".
I know this will be a concept for you to grasp but slightly less mud in the water will not make it "clear".
Please, for your own future reputation. go clay demo your own definition of "clear" and the come on back and apologize for what you can claim is your own stupidity rather than an out and out bald face lie.
EKSKAYOOOOZ me but what I posted was a direct quote from the man himself. he makes it "clear" that there are gradients of clear and when you talk about clear you also need to determine how clear is clear. You got that now? Clear on it?
And the variations on Clear are as legion as there are people who go clear. You can never com[pare one to another and say well He got so and so out of it and this one didn't so ths ain't an objective state.
Fact is when He goes clear then he is a clear Him, and when this one goes Clear he is a Clear this one. And the two are different, Because the people are different. Us thetan types weren't created in a sausage machine which turned us all out exactly just so. Everyone is as everyone decided to be, and when one day you go Clear you will be just so Clear as you decide to be Clear and no more nor less.
And the variations on Clear are as legion as there are people who go clear. You can never com[pare one to another and say well He got so and so out of it and this one didn't so ths ain't an objective state.
Fact is when He goes clear then he is a clear Him, and when this one goes Clear he is a Clear this one. And the two are different, Because the people are different. Us thetan types weren't created in a sausage machine which turned us all out exactly just so. Everyone is as everyone decided to be, and when one day you go Clear you will be just so Clear as you decide to be Clear and no more nor less.
Bill
Gold Meritorious Patron
That quote only means that "the man himself" was fully aware that he had failed to produce the Clear he promised from the very first. So he equivocated on what "Clear" meant. A tradition that continues to this very day.
If you can't produce a real Clear, then keep redefining Clear until it reaches you.
You do understand that, by saying this, you remove every bit of validity from the "State of Clear"? If "Clear" is completely subjective, based on how a person "feels" then it means absolutely nothing.
That would be the final degradation of Clear from the original super-human state down to a label that means nothing at all.
It certainly is much more accurate based on what passes for "Clear" today, but it is a surprising admission from you.
The State of Clear is fully valid. The difference between you now and you when you are Clear is enormous and is well worth striving for. Infinitely so. But that last para of mine in the above post is completely accurate.
You can take any of the grades from Life Repair on up, any process almost, and if you demand that ts EP be attained in an absolute sense then you would have the OTest OT that anyone ever saw. Any grade at all taken to its absolute would give you this. But they are grades. None of them is an absolute ultimate. And despite what LRH reckoned before he popped, Clear is NOT an absolute state. It ghas gradients. And he determining factor in the gradient is you yourself.
You can take any of the grades from Life Repair on up, any process almost, and if you demand that ts EP be attained in an absolute sense then you would have the OTest OT that anyone ever saw. Any grade at all taken to its absolute would give you this. But they are grades. None of them is an absolute ultimate. And despite what LRH reckoned before he popped, Clear is NOT an absolute state. It ghas gradients. And he determining factor in the gradient is you yourself.