What is Clear?

Tanstaafl

Crusader
Hopefully there is something for everyone with this thread. The cynics can scoff (fine with that) the more experienced and technically competent (e.g. Paul, Alan) may enlighten, and the rest of us, if interested, can learn something.

What the hell is Clear?! :confused:

I don't know, despite the fact that I'm certain I went Clear last lifetime! :eek:

If we stick with the later definition of "a being who no longer has his own reactive mind" then we can assume that the being's remaining case may comprise the reactive minds of others.

But Clears get FPRD, Ls, etc. I'm assuming that at least some incidents on these RDs contain "pain and unconsciousness" and therefore engrams.

If LRH truly understood the state of Clear, then how did so many get audited on Dianetics past Clear from the release of the Clearing Course to the release of NOTS (1965-1978?)? Why have so many had their CCRDs screwed up or multiple CCRDs in recent years?

Can a person really attest to Clear if they don't have a full understanding of it? I get the impression that some have.

I'm really struggling getting a handle on this whole area. The only clue I have is that the definition of engram includes "impact or injury" which strongly implies the involvement of a body/bodies. Is the reactive mind connected to body-related case in some way?

Where do implant and actual GPMs fit into all this?

Have I missed a simple MU and just made a complete fool of myself? :eyeroll:

Any efforts to shed some light on the state of Clear would be most appreciated.

Cheers

tanstaafl
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
Hi, tanstaafl

As Mary Corydon (OTIII) once described in a staff meeting:
She said that she didn't have no bank BUT that she could recognize it when it "came up" and "blow it away".

I don't believe in this "bank" idea in the way that Hubbard described it in DMSMH (i.e. there are no engrams).

Personally, I think that you can get the same training and ability from a long time at handling customer complaints (I've done so as a software engineer with others in my field in other major world-wide companies.)

Another interesting anecdote:
Danny Shea once told me a story of an auditor that was flat on all processes from grade 0 - IV because she had audited so many PCs on them for years.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
As Mary Corydon (OTIII) once described in a staff meeting:
She said that she didn't have no bank BUT that she could recognize it when it "came up" and "blow it away".

Thanks for that, PG.

Does that mean that in her case there was nothing in permanent restimulation? A few lifetimes back I was a Buddhist and I couldn't locate one iota of anything in my space that wasn't just me in PT. Clear as a bell as far as I could tell. Look at me now! :melodramatic: :melodramatic:
At least I learned the difference between key-out and erasure. :)

I don't believe in this "bank" idea in the way that Hubbard described it in DMSMH (i.e. there are no engrams).

Fair enough. My own belief in engrams comes from running a couple of hundred hours of Book One on others. This was before I had any contact with anyone from CoS. I saw chronic somatics clear up and positive changes in attitudes.

Personally, I think that you can get the same training and ability from a long time at handling customer complaints (I've done so as a software engineer with others in my field in other major world-wide companies.)

LOL. I can see some truth in that.

It seems to me that to be sure of results we need to go out and deliberately test ourselves; get out and confront stuff. For instance, I might twin Pro TRs with a cute 8 year-old girl with pig-tails. I think I'm a product. Are my TRs going to stay in when I go to a night club and run into a 6ft 8 inch bouncer, ugly as sin and built like a brick shithouse who appears to have taken a particularly strong dislike to me?

Another interesting anecdote:
Danny Shea once told me a story of an auditor that was flat on all processes from grade 0 - IV because she had audited so many PCs on them for years.

I can believe that.

However, if handling case is a process of peeling off the layers of an onion, it seems to me that as heavier charge is handled then more charge and responsibility can be confronted and some of these buttons will read again.
After all, wouldn't a truly thorough product of the Grades processes be caseless? Or am I being naive? Wouldn't be the first time. :eyeroll:
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
tanstaafl,

I can disagree with you and yet you are still so funny. I like your posts. :)

tanstaafl said:
Does that mean that in her case there was nothing in permanent restimulation?

I guess you could interprete it that way. The point was that there is no such thing as Clear.


tanstaafl said:
My own belief in engrams comes from running a couple of hundred hours of Book One on others.

Nothing is "recorded" when one is unconscious. This independent "Dianetics" experiment was conducted long ago.

tanstaafl said:
After all, wouldn't a truly thorough product of the Grades processes be caseless?

Apparently not... since there was still OTIII.


-----------------------------------------------
Even an occasional nut finds a blind squirrel. :)
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
What the hell is Clear?! :confused:

The definition I like is the one which parallels the computer, "A mind from which all the bugs have been removed." but it leaves to imagination the concept of an optimally operating mind.

I remember visiting the Patiala mission in India in the 90's. I had helped set it up in 1981. Up to that point it has been operating on its own without any interference from outside India. I was the first Clear the staff had seen. They were were curious.

I was asked, "What does it feel like being a clear?" I responded without any comm lag, "I can think clearly." They all laughed.

But, truly, that has always been my understanding. I have always thought naturally in terms of the ACTION DEFINITION (See, PDC Lecture 14, METHODS OF THINKING).

I may elaborate on it a little further as, "A Clear is one who can observe, analyze and conclude self-determinedly."

.
 
Last edited:

Tanstaafl

Crusader
tanstaafl,

I can disagree with you and yet you are still so funny. I like your posts. :)

Cheers, PG. What I like about this forum is that with the help of guys (and girls) like yourself I am slowly learning to defy the law of ARC - the R may sometimes be low but we can keep the A and C well up there.

Of course, there is an underlying R in most posts on this forum - that it's good to grant beingness to others; or however you'd like to express that concept in non-Scientologese. :)

I guess you could interprete it that way. The point was that there is no such thing as Clear.

Throw me a bone here PG! I'm trying to understand the reactive mind in relation to a being's case as a whole. If there is no reactive mind then what game am I left with? I love music and I like to try and figure this Scn stuff out and become more able; after that my only other hobby is smoking and it's almosts impossible to smoke anywhere outside your own house in the UK! :melodramatic:

Nothing is "recorded" when one is unconscious. This independent "Dianetics" experiment was conducted long ago.

The only experiment I would trust was one I did myself.
I've run out a couple of operations Book One-style but it was too long after the event to check if the anaesthetist really did claim to the surgeon that he'd got a hole-in-one the previous week.

It's not easy to verify this stuff. Same for past lives.

Anyone out there have some "proof" that the mind still records while the being/body is unconscious?


Apparently not... since there was still OTIII.

IV, V, VII, VII............

I could have made my point clearer. The abilities gained for each step on the Grade Chart are pretty impressive if you look at them as absolutes - which is how they are expressed. However, people seem to attest on a subjective rather than objective basis. If someone did the Grades and then went up to OTVIII I would expect them to still read on some Grade processes. As you get your anchor points further out you run into more stuff to confront. You cannot confront what is beyond your reality at the time you are processed.

Cheers

tanstaafl
-----------------------------------------------
Even an occasional nut finds a blind squirrel. :)[/QUOTE]
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
The definition I like is the one which parallels the computer, "A mind from which all the bugs have been removed." but it leaves to imagination the concept of an optimally operating mind.

I remember visiting the Patiala mission in India in the 90's. I had helped set it up in 1981. Up to that point it has been operating on its own without any interference from outside India. I was the first Clear the staff had seen. They were were curious.

I was asked, "What does it feel like being a clear?" I responded without any comm lag, "I can think clearly." They all laughed.

But, truly, that has always been my understanding. I have always thought naturally in terms of the ACTION DEFINITION (See, PDC Lecture 14, METHODS OF THINKING).

I may elaborate on it a little further as, "A Clear is one who can observe, analyze and conclude self-determinedly."

.

Oh, Vinaire, I feared this would happen. I'm going to wind up more confused than before I started the thread! :) Still, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

The key term in your definition is "mind". Is the mind the thetan or is it what he uses to interface with universes?

To me, "mind" is part of a scale of awareness that roughly, off the top of my head, would run something like: thetan, theta entity, anaylitical mind, reactive mind, mest. The scale would move from total ability to identify, associate and differentiate to no ability to do so. It would also move from total volition to total stimulus response.

I'm glad you can think clearly but I have met Clears who could not - at least in some areas of life.

I think this definition of thinking clearly is quite limited. It would be workable if the reactive mind was demonstrated to be the only thing that impinged on clear thinking. I doubt this is the case.

In the PDCs, LRH equates be, do have to space, energy and matter respectively. The thetan is typically in his body. So is the GE and lord-knows who or what else. How is the thetan to know which thoughts are his of all those that emanate from the same space?

All this begs the question: what is the thetan doing thinking at all? But let's not go there yet - I'm close to intellectual overwhelm as it is! :unsure:
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Oh, Vinaire, I feared this would happen. I'm going to wind up more confused than before I started the thread! :) Still, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

The key term in your definition is "mind". Is the mind the thetan or is it what he uses to interface with universes?

To me, "mind" is part of a scale of awareness that roughly, off the top of my head, would run something like: thetan, theta entity, anaylitical mind, reactive mind, mest. The scale would move from total ability to identify, associate and differentiate to no ability to do so. It would also move from total volition to total stimulus response.

I'm glad you can think clearly but I have met Clears who could not - at least in some areas of life.

I think this definition of thinking clearly is quite limited. It would be workable if the reactive mind was demonstrated to be the only thing that impinged on clear thinking. I doubt this is the case.

In the PDCs, LRH equates be, do have to space, energy and matter respectively. The thetan is typically in his body. So is the GE and lord-knows who or what else. How is the thetan to know which thoughts are his of all those that emanate from the same space?

All this begs the question: what is the thetan doing thinking at all? But let's not go there yet - I'm close to intellectual overwhelm as it is! :unsure:

Yes, it all is very confusing. I can only tell you how I have tried to wade my may through all this confusion. In no way I am totally out of the woods yet.

What is thetan? Here I ask myself, "What is being spiritual?" The answer that come to me is, "It is the opposite of being mechanical."

So, I don't associate spirituality with anything esoteric or supernatural. To me, spirituality is simply the ability of looking and thinking from outside the box.

What is mind? Well, the mind is that "box." When you look at analytical logic, it still boxes you within the postulates that determine that logic. I think that a Clear has simply cleared out all the messed up circuits in that box, but he is still thinking from within the confines of that box.

.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
Yes, it all is very confusing. I can only tell you how I have tried to wade my may through all this confusion. In no way I am totally out of the woods yet.

What is thetan? Here I ask myself, "What is being spiritual?" The answer that come to me is, "It is the opposite of being mechanical."

So, I don't associate spirituality with anything esoteric or supernatural. To me, spirituality is simply the ability of looking and thinking from outside the box.

What is mind? Well, the mind is that "box." When you look at analytical logic, it still boxes you within the postulates that determine that logic. I think that a Clear has simply cleared out all the messed up circuits in that box, but he is still thinking from within the confines of that box.

.


Thanks for that, Vinaire.

You seem to have a very different way of coming at things to me. That is good. It stimulates me to look again. Since fixed viewpoints are death to a thetan, this can only be a good thing.

It's no surprise that, as a fan of the Data series, you define "spiritual" by what it is not. :)

However, looking and thinking are further down the scale than knowing.
LRH defines thinking as the solution to not being able to predict - therefore the thetan has already descended from knowing, through looking and feeling, to thinking. Thinking becomes necessary when one is not sufficiently OT to handle MEST and mock-up.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
Well, I am struggling at understanding what KNOWINGNESS is under the thread THE MEST UNIVERSE.

As far as my viewpoint of THETAN and STATIC is concerned, I may refer you to this essay I wrote sometime back.

ZERO, ONE, INFINITY, AND GOD

.

The higher the things we seek to discuss are on the scale, the more limited the use of words to communicate and the fruits of logic become. Willingness to experience becomes essential but then we are inhibited from this by case....Catch 22.

I'd like to come back to this, but I currently have enough on my plate trying to understand Clear. :melodramatic:

Cheers

tanstaafl
 

MarkWI

Patron Meritorious
...

I could have made my point clearer. The abilities gained for each step on the Grade Chart are pretty impressive if you look at them as absolutes - which is how they are expressed. However, people seem to attest on a subjective rather than objective basis. If someone did the Grades and then went up to OTVIII I would expect them to still read on some Grade processes. As you get your anchor points further out you run into more stuff to confront. You cannot confront what is beyond your reality at the time you are processed.

...

Interesting, I read a similar concept in the Super Scio book:

"...
We've got it backwards. The grades are the ultimate OT levels. They are what was really wrong in the first place. Nobody in Scientology has ever erased the basic material on these grades. Total cause over communications would include the ability to acknowledge a speeding bullet and have it vanish.

WHAT IS: All that other stuff on the upper levels is there to be audited out. But it's minor stuff. A mere distraction which is in the way of getting to the basics on the grades.

WHAT ISN’T: It is not practical to try and erase the grades at lower levels. People are nowhere near being able to reach the original problems, overts, etc. which they had when they were early god-like beings and which caused them to postulate their own downfall. They can't even visualize the multi-dimensional realities that had to be present early on. They are fixated on an Earth-like three dimensional existence and you can only expect so much of them. So the right approach would be to get a release on the grades (the basic aberrations), then fool around with all the other stuff to get it out of the way and raise the guy's awareness, and then get back to the grade materials and really erase them in the basic area of his past existence.
..."
The Pilot

Mark
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
I haven't bothered to find out what the "Clear cog" is. But I do know that the point I felt totally clear was the point where I felt I could confront anything the case threw at me. I felt a curiosity to know what other O/W could be there on my case.

To sum it up, my clarity started with my total willingness to confront my case, from a point of view of total innocence and a willingness to take responsibility.

I continue to maintain that state.

.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
The definition I like is the one which parallels the computer, "A mind from which all the bugs have been removed." but it leaves to imagination the concept of an optimally operating mind.

I remember visiting the Patiala mission in India in the 90's. I had helped set it up in 1981. Up to that point it has been operating on its own without any interference from outside India. I was the first Clear the staff had seen. They were were curious.

I was asked, "What does it feel like being a clear?" I responded without any comm lag, "I can think clearly." They all laughed.

But, truly, that has always been my understanding. I have always thought naturally in terms of the ACTION DEFINITION (See, PDC Lecture 14, METHODS OF THINKING).

I may elaborate on it a little further as, "A Clear is one who can observe, analyze and conclude self-determinedly."

.


I am Clear, too.

And yet my observations, my analysis and my self-determined conclusions are different than yours. On the same objective phenomena.

So if Clears are ones who can think clearly, how can two clears look at the same thing and see something different there?

And how can one Clear say there is no such thing as "Clear" as defined by Hubbard, and the other cling to his definition - if clear is as you say?
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I haven't bothered to find out what the "Clear cog" is. But I do know that the point I felt totally clear was the point where I felt I could confront anything the case threw at me. I felt a curiosity to know what other O/W could be there on my case.

To sum it up, my clarity started with my total willingness to confront my case, from a point of view of total innocence and a willingness to take responsibility.

I continue to maintain that state.

.

So Clear is a feeling that you could confront anything the case threw at you.

That's not how Hubbard ever defined this state.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
Interesting, I read a similar concept in the Super Scio book:

"...
We've got it backwards. The grades are the ultimate OT levels. They are what was really wrong in the first place. Nobody in Scientology has ever erased the basic material on these grades. Total cause over communications would include the ability to acknowledge a speeding bullet and have it vanish.

WHAT IS: All that other stuff on the upper levels is there to be audited out. But it's minor stuff. A mere distraction which is in the way of getting to the basics on the grades.

WHAT ISN’T: It is not practical to try and erase the grades at lower levels. People are nowhere near being able to reach the original problems, overts, etc. which they had when they were early god-like beings and which caused them to postulate their own downfall. They can't even visualize the multi-dimensional realities that had to be present early on. They are fixated on an Earth-like three dimensional existence and you can only expect so much of them. So the right approach would be to get a release on the grades (the basic aberrations), then fool around with all the other stuff to get it out of the way and raise the guy's awareness, and then get back to the grade materials and really erase them in the basic area of his past existence.
..."
The Pilot

Mark


Thanks for that Mark. It does make some kind of sense to me.

I have had some wins (not earth-shattering, but useful) by trying to imagine, having projected into a shared-universe for the first time, how my very first, ARC-X, eval, inval, overt, confusion, etc came about. I find it a useful exercise and, so far, not restimulative.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
I haven't bothered to find out what the "Clear cog" is. But I do know that the point I felt totally clear was the point where I felt I could confront anything the case threw at me. I felt a curiosity to know what other O/W could be there on my case.

To sum it up, my clarity started with my total willingness to confront my case, from a point of view of total innocence and a willingness to take responsibility.

I continue to maintain that state.

.

Vinaire, please do not interpret this as an invalidation.

Clear is the only point I know of on the Grade Chart that is a state and not an ability or freedom from. Ironically, it seems by far to be the most problematic for CoS to verify.

Just to clarify - are you saying that you attested to Clear but don't know the Clear Cog?
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
I am Clear, too.

And yet my observations, my analysis and my self-determined conclusions are different than yours. On the same objective phenomena.

So if Clears are ones who can think clearly, how can two clears look at the same thing and see something different there?

And how can one Clear say there is no such thing as "Clear" as defined by Hubbard, and the other cling to his definition - if clear is as you say?

REASON DEPENDS ON DATA.

WHEN DATA IS FAULTY THE ANSWER WILL BE WRONG AND LOOKED UPON AS UNREASONABLE. - LRH

We just have to compare the data we are operating on.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Vinaire, please do not interpret this as an invalidation.

Clear is the only point I know of on the Grade Chart that is a state and not an ability or freedom from. Ironically, it seems by far to be the most problematic for CoS to verify.

Just to clarify - are you saying that you attested to Clear but don't know the Clear Cog?

Well, I have had my cogs, but I never asked anybody what the "Clear cog" is. Can you tell that to me?

.
 
Top