What is Clear?

[Tanstaafl]

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

.

I may be being a little precious but I wouldn't want to do that. You can find it easily enough if you want to. If you are content with your own reality then everything is fine.

I have not had the CCRD. I recall an auditing session from a previous lifetime where I seemed to blow the whole bank - waves and waves of ridges moving out from me seemed to explode. I did not tell the auditor and I did not fully understand what had happened - a critical point for me. As I continued with my auditing I ended up mocking up again much of what I had blown.

Getting rid of all the facsimilies did not go hand in hand with getting rid of all the considerations lodged therein. My point is that the being must fully understand what has happened for the state to be genuinely stable.

Alan has said something similar about blowing charge, if I have interpreted him correctly. One should be able to mock it up and unmock it at will. This makes sense to me. Perhaps (not sure on this) there are key-outs, regular erasure and then the kind of thing Alan talks about, as a gradient scale of handling the mind? The latter being the superior method.

 

[Zinjifar]

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

That's not how Hubbard ever defined this state.

The problem (at least one of them) as I see it is that the definitions of 'Clear' and 'Case' are circular logic.

'Case' is what keeps us from being 'Clear'
'Clear' is what we are once 'Case' is gone (or, at least has no influence)

But, *then* He goes on to assert qualities and attributes of 'Case' and 'Clear' that are not even in evidence.

Such as, for 'Clear' that it's a permanent and non-reversible 'state' which has some real 'existence' and a long list of predicted 'qualtitiies' (which gets shorter and shorter every year)

But, the primary leap is to the assertion that it's a *permanent* state.

Note: There is no evidence whatever that *anyone* has ever been 'Clear', beyond the unsubstantiated claim that a test on an e-meter can prove it.

For 'Case', Hubbard makes completely unsubstantiated claims that it *exists* because of certain 'outside influences', whether they be 'engrams' or deliberate 'implantation' by outside forces.

But, the circular Hubbard-go-round goes round and round that 'Clear is No Case' and 'Case is what Prevents Clear', with never any evidence for either.

Zinj

 

[Crusty Old Bastard]

Clearing up the State of Clear

Hi Transtaafl, nice to meet you. I'll take a stab at your questions.

What the hell is Clear?!

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

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.

One of the best references I know on this is HCOB The Nature of a Being, where LRH talks about "injected entities." Also, you can read more about these entities in 8-80 and the materials of that time. Point being, there is MORE to a case than you and your own reactive mind. The nature of a being reference is actually great - it aligns quite a lot of this type phenomena.

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

Yes, a Clear may run an incident after going Clear that had pain and unconsciousness in it originally, however that incident is no longer reacting on the person. It is no longer a stimulus response mechanism. This is just my own understanding and R on it really.

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?

One thing here: Did they REALLY get audited past Clear? I say this because the Church itself seems to have had a tremendous difficulty determining the state of Clear. In the late 70's and early 80's there was an avalanche of people who declared to "Natural Clear". From my experience with those cases, they literally attested to it and nearly immediately dropped of the lines forever. Practically the last thing in the folder is that "attest". And I know several of these guys - not a single one I know of ever went up the Bridge past that point.

More recently, about 50% of people on OT VII have actually run MORE NED as it turns out they never attained Clear fully in the first place. I personally know a few people who had to do this. Point being, their CCRD cycles were non-standard apparently, and the Church could not correctly spot if they were Clear or not.

Further more, I can assure you that the current viewpoint in C/Sing cases is that unless there is FULL and COMPLETE evidence, in the folder, from THIS LIFETIME with full and EXACTLY stated Clear Cog, with adequate amount of NED run they will not even do a CCRD. Yep, so to say one attained the state of Clear in their Past life these days is pretty much like whistling in a hurricane. What Ron says to do in the CCRD series, the exact line delineated in those refs, is NOT being done. (NOTE: DO NOT TAKE THIS AS ANY INVAL OF YOUR OWN CASE. If you are Clear, you are Clear - it is what it is. I am only saying this to show what the current viewpoint in the Church is, that is all. The state of Past Life Clear is to be handled exactly per HCOB Hanling of Past Life Auditing and the CCRD issues.)

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

Absolutely. Take a look at some of the "Clears" you run into. And also know that about 50% of people previously labeled Clear have been, or will be, R-factored they are in fact not Clear. (This stat of 50% comes from my own observation of some lower level cases in the field, and from one SO member at an AO and one person on VII.)

So how can they attest to it without full understanding? Well, a person can F/N on something - but that only means a subjective release. Unfortunately there are some points of the CCRD itself which are highly subjective. From my understanding there is not a TEST that can show 100% of the time if a person is in fact Clear. There is a collection of indicators and a certain phenomena which occurs when the state is reached. However, a PERSON (a C/S) has to interpret that data, and that's where the ball gets dropped. We used to read off Goals and if any of them read the person was not Clear, etc. Suffice it to say that in the years since the DCSI and CCRD there have been some misapplications of the materials which allowed people to F/N their way through it on a Big Win.

Now the pendulum has swung the other way - too far it appears.

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?

You are not the only one! The Church itself can't seem to figure it out! That does not mean it can not be fully determined, I am just saying your confusion is understandable. Given the materials that you have to sort this area out with, it is unlikely to make much sense without a bit of digging and effort. You have pieces, and you have to assemble them. If you could watch all films for R6EW and the Clearing Course and read ALL the Clear Refs, you could then really figure it out. Left with only the non confidential refs, it is a bit tricky, but it can be done.

Where do implant and actual GPMs fit into all this?

Sorry, the best refs I know on that are confidential, although you can look at some of the later GPM materials on this in the tech vols, just before R6 came out and the new Clearing Congress, etc. Let's just say the materials of R6EW cover FULLY the area GPMs. It is an amazing body of tech.

The thing is - you can attain Clear through running R6 OR by Dianetics. There was LOTS of confusion on this area in the past. Is a "Scientology Clear" clearer than a "Dianetics Clear", etc. So we have the re-definition of Clear into "A being who no longer has his own Reactive Mind." Doesn't matter how you get there really, all roads lead to Rome.

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

No my friend, it is not due to that. There is just a bit more to this subject, and trying to make one line of what the State Of Clear is make sense is a bit ambitious to say the least.

Here are some refs that might help:

HCOB 30 July 1980 The Nature of a Being
(Tech Vol XII:131 - A MUST read. I think this will answer many of your questions.)

HCOB 5 Aug 1965 Release Stages VII:636
HCOB 30 Aug 1965 Issue II Release Stages VII:661

Study these two together and it really helps to get some stable data on this area and make some sense of it. And there is some humor in the first one too.

Lecture 26 July 1966 The Classification Chart and Auditing
(Find it in Volume 1 of the Expanded Grades Reference Packs, 1994 Edition. Really has some good stuff.)

HCOB 4 May 1994 CCRD Series 5 Clear and Release
(Not in the tech vols as it came out in 1994, but still a good ref.)

The Original Thesis - (It's got all the basics in it really. If you are interested the "new" version actually has a chapter called "Clear" which gives a bit more data. This is most likely the rumored "new reference" that started to be used in the last several years as the new measuring stick by the Church to determine the State of Clear. You will have to decide for yourself if Ron wrote it. It is supposedly from one of two sound scriber records recently "discovered" and shown at the recent Freewinds events. The changes in how the CCRD is delivered and rumors of a "new reference" started about 4 -5 years ago, which interestingly enough aligns with what DM said in the Freewinds events, that the project to restore the basics books started 5 years ago. I found the new chapter to be pretty interesting myself, and believe there is a reasonable chance it is Ron - but that is just my opinion.)

If you do not have access to these refs I may be able to send some of them to you. Just let me know if you need them.

I know I may not have directly answered your original questions, but I believe the above and help you sort it our satisfactorily for yourself.

The State of Clear is a great thing - I hope this will help you understand it better and clarify the confusions that have enveloped it over the years.

Cheers,

Crusty Old Bastard

 

[Tanstaafl]

COB - many thanks for your reply.

I can see you're going to be a real asset to the forum. Not that we don't already have some really smart and knowledgeable folks here.

I'll get back to you on your points when I've had time to fully digest them.

Cheers

tanstaafl

 

[Alanzo]

In your list of references on the state of Clear, I see that there is one missing: The chapter called "The Clear" in DMSMH.

Why did you leave that one out?

 

[Crusty Old Bastard]

Hi Alanzo,

I love a good L&N in the morning!

"Why did you leave that one out?"

"Simply forgot to include it." X
"No reason." X
"I was trying to throw Transtaffel a curve." X
"Just seeing if anyone would notice." X
"It's a forum and it's completely okay for others to add references to better
asst people in getting their questions answered." BD F/N

I would like to indicate the item is:

"It's a forum and it's completely okay for other to add references to better
assist people in getting their questions answered."

Ind F/N 2.8 VGIs

COB

 

[Alanzo]

Hi Alanzo,

I love a good L&N in the morning!

"Why did you leave that one out?"

"Simply forgot to include it." X
"No reason." X
"I was trying to throw Transtaffel a curve." X
"Just seeing if anyone would notice." X
"It's a forum and it's completely okay for others to add references to better
asst people in getting their questions answered." BD F/N

I would like to indicate the item is:

"It's a forum and it's completely okay for other to add references to better
assist people in getting their questions answered."

Ind F/N 2.8 VGIs

COB

Oh.

I thought maybe it was because that reference had so much false data in it, like:

"A clear can be tested for any and all psychoses, neuroses, compulsions and repressions (all aberrations) and can be examined for any autogenetic (self-generated) diseases referred to as psychosomatic ills. These tests confirm the clear to be entirely without such ills or aberrations. Additional tests on his intelligence indicate it to be high above the current norm. ..."

In fact if you re-read that chapter you will find much more false data in it.

I thought maybe that's why you did not include it in your list.

Have you looked at any of the references that you did include for more instances of false data?

And by the way, thanks for running my question in a full L&N session: Keep that up and you'll experience great wins from my posts!

I guarantee it!

Or your money back!

 

[Tanstaafl]

One of the best references I know on this is HCOB The Nature of a Being, where LRH talks about "injected entities." Also, you can read more about these entities in 8-80 and the materials of that time. Point being, there is MORE to a case than you and your own reactive mind. The nature of a being reference is actually great - it aligns quite a lot of this type phenomena.

I'm familiar with that HCOB but don't have it to hand. I've read fairly widely on what the pre-OT levels handle on the Net. I understand the basic concept and have a little subjective reality on it.

Although all this made more sense of "a being who no longer has his own reactive mind" I was still left with being thoroughly underwhelmed at the abilities of most Clears. More importantly, LRH states that the PC's actual GPMs are "thousands of times more aberrative than implant GPMs". If this is true then I would assume that implant GPMs are like locks on the engram of actual GPMs. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Clearing Course deals solely with implant GPMs and that actual GPMs do not seem to be handled at any currently released level of the Bridge.

Yes, a Clear may run an incident after going Clear that had pain and unconsciousness in it originally, however that incident is no longer reacting on the person. It is no longer a stimulus response mechanism. This is just my own understanding and R on it really.

I may be being a bit thick here, but if that is the case, then why run it at all?

One thing here: Did they REALLY get audited past Clear? I say this because the Church itself seems to have had a tremendous difficulty determining the state of Clear. In the late 70's and early 80's there was an avalanche of people who declared to "Natural Clear". From my experience with those cases, they literally attested to it and nearly immediately dropped of the lines forever. Practically the last thing in the folder is that "attest". And I know several of these guys - not a single one I know of ever went up the Bridge past that point.

I heard about the "fashion" to originate Natural Clear but wasn't around at the time. Must've been quite a headache for the guys on tech lines.

Someone close to me has come to the conclusion that they are Natural Clear. It was very difficult to 2wc the whole area of Clear without evaluating but hoping to flag up some important things to look at. It would be funny (ironic) if no-one who had originated that state was the real deal but there were others who were the real deal who self-invalidated because NCs are "very, very rare".

Further more, I can assure you that the current viewpoint in C/Sing cases is that unless there is FULL and COMPLETE evidence, in the folder, from THIS LIFETIME with full and EXACTLY stated Clear Cog, with adequate amount of NED run they will not even do a CCRD. Yep, so to say one attained the state of Clear in their Past life these days is pretty much like whistling in a hurricane. What Ron says to do in the CCRD series, the exact line delineated in those refs, is NOT being done. (NOTE: DO NOT TAKE THIS AS ANY INVAL OF YOUR OWN CASE. If you are Clear, you are Clear - it is what it is. I am only saying this to show what the current viewpoint in the Church is, that is all. The state of Past Life Clear is to be handled exactly per HCOB Hanling of Past Life Auditing and the CCRD issues.)]

That's outrageous. I've heard from more than one source that Flag is getting pickier and pickier about who it lets in to the HGC, but aren't they supposed to be able to handle the roughest cases? It can only mean one thing - that in certain areas they don't know what they're doing and are running scared of Lisa McPherson-style cock-ups.

I've never had any attention on my Clear status as I was always going for OT and Clear didn't seem that big a deal. Just to put you in the picture - I originated that I had gone Clear, not that I am currently Clear; as I started mocking up incidents again. A little rehab should sort it but I was never able to get it.

You are not the only one! The Church itself can't seem to figure it out! That does not mean it can not be fully determined, I am just saying your confusion is understandable. Given the materials that you have to sort this area out with, it is unlikely to make much sense without a bit of digging and effort. You have pieces, and you have to assemble them. If you could watch all films for R6EW and the Clearing Course and read ALL the Clear Refs, you could then really figure it out. Left with only the non confidential refs, it is a bit tricky, but it can be done.

It would have been so easy to lay it out for me. Thanks for not evaluating! I want to figure it out for myself, but I might come back begging to be told if it takes too long!

Sorry, the best refs I know on that are confidential, although you can look at some of the later GPM materials on this in the tech vols, just before R6 came out and the new Clearing Congress, etc. Let's just say the materials of R6EW cover FULLY the area GPMs. It is an amazing body of tech.

Thanks, I'll check that out.

Here are some refs that might help:

HCOB 5 Aug 1965 Release Stages VII:636
HCOB 30 Aug 1965 Issue II Release Stages VII:661.

Study these two together and it really helps to get some stable data on this area and make some sense of it. And there is some humor in the first one too.

"Tiger, tiger burning bright,
Watch out - you'll set the jungle alight!"
S. Milligan

If you do not have access to these refs I may be able to send some of them to you. Just let me know if you need them.

HCOB 4 May 1994 CCRD Series 5 Clear and Release
(Not in the tech vols as it came out in 1994, but still a good ref)

I've got or can get hold of most, but I'd appreciate any help with this one.

I know I may not have directly answered your original questions, but I believe the above and help you sort it our satisfactorily for yourself.

You've got more confidence in me than I have! But I'll give it a crack.

Many thanks for your input, COB.

Many on the forum enjoy reading people's stories of their lives in Scn. If you can write it without compromising yourself in any way I'm sure we'd love to read it.

Cheers

tanstaafl

 

[Tanstaafl]

One of the best references I know on this is HCOB The Nature of a Being, where LRH talks about "injected entities." Also, you can read more about these entities in 8-80 and the materials of that time. Point being, there is MORE to a case than you and your own reactive mind. The nature of a being reference is actually great - it aligns quite a lot of this type phenomena.

I'm familiar with that HCOB but don't have it to hand. I've read fairly widely on what the pre-OT levels handle on the Net. I understand the basic concept and have a little subjective reality on it.

Although all this made more sense of "a being who no longer has his own reactive mind" I was still left with being thoroughly underwhelmed at the abilities of most Clears. More importantly, LRH states that the PC's actual GPMs are "thousands of times more aberrative than implant GPMs". If this is true then I would assume that implant GPMs are like locks on the engram of actual GPMs. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Clearing Course deals solely with implant GPMs and that actual GPMs do not seem to be handled at any currently released level of the Bridge.

Yes, a Clear may run an incident after going Clear that had pain and unconsciousness in it originally, however that incident is no longer reacting on the person. It is no longer a stimulus response mechanism. This is just my own understanding and R on it really.

I may be being a bit thick here, but if that is the case, then why run it at all?

One thing here: Did they REALLY get audited past Clear? I say this because the Church itself seems to have had a tremendous difficulty determining the state of Clear. In the late 70's and early 80's there was an avalanche of people who declared to "Natural Clear". From my experience with those cases, they literally attested to it and nearly immediately dropped of the lines forever. Practically the last thing in the folder is that "attest". And I know several of these guys - not a single one I know of ever went up the Bridge past that point.

I heard about the "fashion" to originate Natural Clear but wasn't around at the time. Must've been quite a headache for the guys on tech lines.

Someone close to me has come to the conclusion that they are Natural Clear. It was very difficult to 2wc the whole area of Clear without evaluating but hoping to flag up some important things to look at. It would be funny (ironic) if no-one who had originated that state was the real deal but there were others who were the real deal who self-invalidated because NCs are "very, very rare".

Further more, I can assure you that the current viewpoint in C/Sing cases is that unless there is FULL and COMPLETE evidence, in the folder, from THIS LIFETIME with full and EXACTLY stated Clear Cog, with adequate amount of NED run they will not even do a CCRD. Yep, so to say one attained the state of Clear in their Past life these days is pretty much like whistling in a hurricane. What Ron says to do in the CCRD series, the exact line delineated in those refs, is NOT being done. (NOTE: DO NOT TAKE THIS AS ANY INVAL OF YOUR OWN CASE. If you are Clear, you are Clear - it is what it is. I am only saying this to show what the current viewpoint in the Church is, that is all. The state of Past Life Clear is to be handled exactly per HCOB Hanling of Past Life Auditing and the CCRD issues.)]

That's outrageous. I've heard from more than one source that Flag is getting pickier and pickier about who it lets in to the HGC, but aren't they supposed to be able to handle the roughest cases? It can only mean one thing - that in certain areas they don't know what they're doing and are running scared of Lisa McPherson-style cock-ups.

I've never had any attention on my Clear status as I was always going for OT and Clear didn't seem that big a deal. Just to put you in the picture - I originated that I had gone Clear, not that I am currently Clear; as I started mocking up incidents again. A little rehab should sort it but I was never able to get it.

You are not the only one! The Church itself can't seem to figure it out! That does not mean it can not be fully determined, I am just saying your confusion is understandable. Given the materials that you have to sort this area out with, it is unlikely to make much sense without a bit of digging and effort. You have pieces, and you have to assemble them. If you could watch all films for R6EW and the Clearing Course and read ALL the Clear Refs, you could then really figure it out. Left with only the non confidential refs, it is a bit tricky, but it can be done.

It would have been so easy to lay it out for me. Thanks for not evaluating! I want to figure it out for myself, but I might come back begging to be told if it takes too long!

Sorry, the best refs I know on that are confidential, although you can look at some of the later GPM materials on this in the tech vols, just before R6 came out and the new Clearing Congress, etc. Let's just say the materials of R6EW cover FULLY the area GPMs. It is an amazing body of tech.

Thanks, I'll check that out.

Here are some refs that might help:

HCOB 5 Aug 1965 Release Stages VII:636
HCOB 30 Aug 1965 Issue II Release Stages VII:661.

Study these two together and it really helps to get some stable data on this area and make some sense of it. And there is some humor in the first one too.

"Tiger, tiger burning bright,
Watch out - you'll set the jungle alight!"
S. Milligan

If you do not have access to these refs I may be able to send some of them to you. Just let me know if you need them.

HCOB 4 May 1994 CCRD Series 5 Clear and Release
(Not in the tech vols as it came out in 1994, but still a good ref)

I've got or can get hold of most, but I'd appreciate any help with this one.

I know I may not have directly answered your original questions, but I believe the above and help you sort it our satisfactorily for yourself.

You've got more confidence in me than I have! But I'll give it a crack.

Many thanks for your input, COB.

Many on the forum enjoy reading people's stories of their lives in Scn. If you can write it without compromising yourself in any way I'm sure we'd love to read it.

Cheers

tanstaafl

 

[Tanstaafl]

Sorry for the long duplicated post, folks.
Been having a lot of gremlins on the forum the last couple of days.