The next Terra Cognita essay. See earlier Terra Cognita: Do Not Evaluate for the Preclear, The E-Meter, The Is-Ness of Is-Ness, Cause Over Life — Really?, BT’s in the Belfry, Two New Conditions!, The Condition of Liabilitiness, Condition of Doubtfulness The Mind, The Way To Happiness: Really? A Story, Auditing: a PC’s Quest for the Holy Grail, The Knowledge Report, Integrity, The Almighty Stat, The Reg, The Horrors of Wordclearing, Why Scientologists Don’t FSM, Respect, The Survival Rundown – The Latest Scam, Communication in Scientology… Or Not, Am I Still A Thetan?, To Be Or Not To Be, An Evaluation of Scientology, Fear: That Which Drives Scientology and Justification and Rationalization.
Clear Schmear and the Dynamics
Years ago, a tiny voice in the back of my head said, “Huh?” when the definition of clear changed from that exalted state as described in DMSMH, to “Clear on the 1st Dynamic.” This revision never completely resonated, but back in those days, I didn’t question LRH’s logic, or demand clarity beyond clearing a handful of words. These days, I’m slightly more discerning in what I choose to believe.
The Dynamics
The concept of the Dynamics is one of the bedrocks of Scientology. LRH famously wrote that the common denominator of man was: Survive. Everyone may have been going about their merry way creating this and creating that, but in the end, everyone was just trying to make sure that eternal flame didn’t get extinguished. LRH divided this strong urge toward survival into eight dynamics: self; sex and family; groups; mankind; all other living things; the physical universe; the spirit; and finally, God.
Let’s be clear, though. These Dynamics aren’t physical entities. They’re not materially tangible. They’re arbitrary constructs devised by LRH in order to better understand this urge to survive. There are no corporeal—or spiritual—partitions in our minds dividing these urges into neat little cubicles. Likewise, the Reactive Mind isn’t partitioned according to how its incidents fit this model.
And thus, if the Dynamics exist only as an idea, how can a person be Clear on the First Dynamic?
Overlap
There is tremendous overlap in LRH’s eight Dynamics. For example, a professional basketball player (a Laker) expresses himself individually by his love for the game and how he expresses himself on the court (1st Dynamic). At the same time, basketball is a team sport played with others (3rd Dynamic). He uses his salary to support his family (2nd Dynamic). And lastly, because he’s so rich, he donates handsomely to saving the environment (5th and 6thDynamics).
There is simply too much overlap to be Clear on a narrowly defined division of survival without being Clear on the others, too. If one is to be truly Clear, he must be Clear across all the Dynamics. Someone can be more Clear than he was. He can be less aberrated. But it doesn’t make sense that he would be Clear on just one Dynamic without regard to the other seven.
Just for Fun
Might there be other models of Dynamics than the ones LRH presented? For instance, what if the urge to survive were divided into alternative categories:
- Creativity
- Pleasure
- Work
- Friendship
- Emotion
- Help
- Affinity with others
- Spirituality
- Cats and Dogs
Why should LRH’s eight Dynamics be written in stone?
All the Way Clear!
If one believes in the concept of Clear, and going Clear on the 1st Dynamic, when does he go Clear on the other seven? As far as I know, the OT Levels don’t address a person’s case by Dynamic but handle such things as drugs, BT’s, and operating as a Thetan.
Are we to assume LRH meant that by getting rid of all of one’s BT’s, a person eventually becomes Clear across the rest of his Dynamics? I don’t get the connection.
When does a person become Clear on the 5th Dynamic? And feel at cause with cats and dogs? How and when does this happen? (If anyone knows, it’s My2Cents).
The Good Ol’ Reactive Mind
Clearly (no pun intended) the reactive mind is not subdivided into eight Dynamics. Traumatic incidents aren’t categorized and filed according to different urges to survive. LRH taught that long chains of incidents are connected by reactive markers containing emotional loss and pain. For example, a long chain of incidents stretching thousands of years might all be related due to being bitten by a dog—not because they fall into the 5th Dynamic. Engrams aren’t categorized this way.
PCs address a wide spectrum of traumatic incidents across all their Dynamics in Dianetic auditing. Never do they limit themselves to one Dynamic to the exclusion of the others. Dianetic auditing does not systematically address the Reactive Mind by Dynamic.
Why would a chunk of Bank then, suddenly vanish—or no longer impinge—to the exclusion of all other Dynamics? The Reactive Mind is not organized by Dynamics and auditing was never devised to address it along these lines.
And thus, it doesn’t make sense that a person would suddenly go Clear on just the 1st Dynamic.
Terra Math
If we accept that there are eight equal Dynamics, then each one comprises 12.5% of a person’s urge to survive (12.5 x 8 = 100).
Therefore, if a person went Clear on the 1st Dynamic, he would actually only be 12.5% Clear. Or 87.5% still banked-out! OMG.
This also means that when the definition of Clear was revised years ago, PCs went from being 100% Clear to 12.5%. And that my friends, is a huge drop. And a very significant drop, at that.
Last Nine Words
Clear on the 1st Dynamic? I’m not buying it.
Still not Declared,
Terra Cognita
I haven’t read all the comments, so maybe this was addressed before. LRH chose eight Dynamics because he plagiarized the theory, like everything else, adding his own spin. When I first read Dianetics, I immediately thought of Maslow. OK the number of items in the hierarchy are different and areas overlap, but Maslow was there first. Just like Freud and Jung. Your layout, TC, is much closer to Maslow.
And every publisher from Princeton plagiarizes the Egyptians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhind_Mathematical_Papyrus). All you are doing with your post is parroting an unfounded and malicious line you read somewhere.
Hubbard acknowledged earlier works, explicitly and implicitly. He dedicated books to some of them. Had he been applying for a patent, he would have been granted it easily on the basis of significant improvements and new configurations of use.
Maslow’s constructions are puerile in comparison to Hubbard’s contributions. Might as well say that “be yourself” is a major philosophical contribution to all mankind, and there, now you know all the answers and can proceed to lead a happy life.
Funny, but “puerile” is the third word I think of when I think of Hubbard. The first two are “bullshit” and “genocidal”.
Compared to the ancient Greeks, Hubbard was puerile, from the Latin for “like a (boy) child” (and I didn’t need to look that up in a dictionary). I’d rather be reading a good bit of Stoicism than Hilarious-tory of Man. It’s deeper and makes more sense.
Five Ways I’m Better Than Hubbard:
1) I got a degree…
2) …in a subject where he didn’t pass his first course
3) I passed all of my calculus courses
4) I won more awards in my military career than he did, in the same amount of time, as an enlisted rather than an officer (5 compared to 4)
5) I don’t have gay sex to perform “magick”. I just do it.
califa007, L Con didn’t plagiarize everything. Trains on Venus, freezing ghosts with glycol, WW2 era aircraft being used as intergalactic space ships, driving cars in dense fog using his own native radar. He made up some really big woppers for his “tek”.
One can never be truly clear if as long as there is still money to be had from said pc/ ot ect.
Thanks Terra Incognita for an interesting discussion.
I do again find my experience and training did not agree in some points with TI’s. Some examples, just to add another view on some of the topics:
TI wrote, “And thus, if the Dynamics exist only as an idea, how can a person be Clear on the First Dynamic?”
Who said those dynamics are just an idea? If my “self” exists, I don’t consider that self to be just an idea. If humankind exists, humanity is not only “an idea.”
TI also writes, “There is tremendous overlap in LRH’s eight Dynamics.” I guess that’s a criticism? I find it to be a big “so what?”
It is actually the structure of the dynamics that they the “lower” numbered ones are “nested” in the higher numbered ones. For example, the 4th Dynamic (mankind) would be a subset of the 5th Dynamic (life forms in general). So yes, _by definition_ there is overlap.
TI writes, “But it doesn’t make sense that he would be Clear on just one Dynamic without regard to the other seven.” Well, that’s an opinion and I can understand it. But there are other ways to interpret it, too, within the Scientology theoretical framework. For example, was the Wall of Fire a 4th Dynamic engram of a nature that somehow affects a collective “consciousness” of mankind? (That’s sounding a little Jungian, I guess.)
TI asks, “Might there be other models of Dynamics than the ones LRH presented?” My answer would be of course. It all depends on how you define dynamics, and TI gives some good examples, I think. But those examples are not in the nested hierarchy of Hubbard’s eight dynamics (that is the hierarchy that dictates that each dynamic is a subset of the next higher numbered dynamic, though that concept is a little sketchy in dynamics 1-3 where you can have a group that is not composed of couples and has nothing to do with sex for example, though I suppose you cannot get a persisting, sustainable group that perpetuates through time unless you get some sex going).
BTW, the fundamental purpose of the dynamics being to survive is actually somewhat shallow and tautological. Am I here today because I have a dynamic urge to survive, or did millions of years of evolution simply give a survival advantage to those organisms that could biochemically and eventually psychologically endure various situations long enough to procreate?
TI says, “Traumatic incidents aren’t categorized and filed according to different urges to survive.” Well, yes and no. In Scientology theory and auditing practice, it does matter if something is done to you (first dynamic) or say by others to others (groups?). (I’m referring to the “flows” in Scientology theory.) So a memory of a supposed engram where Joe broke his arm in a fall would have a different component, in terms of the Scientology dynamics, than a supposed overt where Joe did something like, say, nuked an entire planet and killed 10 billion people.
Following up on the immediately preceding ideas, I see that TI wrote, “PCs address a wide spectrum of traumatic incidents across all their Dynamics in Dianetic auditing. Never do they limit themselves to one Dynamic to the exclusion of the others. Dianetic auditing does not systematically address the Reactive Mind by Dynamic.”
I agree with that in general, but there are times when auditing specifically addressed the various flows (other to you, you to others, others to others, you to yourself, others to themselves); so in that regard, yes you are looking at the experience of the PC in what the PC saw or went through, but you are not just looking at it from one “flow.”
In “Terra Math,” TI writes, “If we accept that there are eight equal Dynamics, then each one comprises 12.5% of a person’s urge to survive (12.5 x 8 = 100).
Therefore, if a person went Clear on the 1st Dynamic, he would actually only be 12.5% Clear. Or 87.5% still banked-out! OMG.”
Hubbard does seem to imply that the dynamics have equal value in his concept of ethics — “greatest good for greatest number of dynamics” and not “greatest good for most important dynamics.” But we also saw in Scientology practice that there was _one_ dynamic more important than all the others, and one particular instance of that dynamic: the 3rd Dynamic group called Scientology. Pretty much by default, the assumption was that Scientology’s 3D trumped all the other dynamics because only Scientology could save humanity and the universe.
Now, if you’ve read this far, you might be asking “is this person defending Scientology?” No. I think the state of Clear is bogus, and so is OT. Not a single proven instance of either one in over 60 years (and, sigh, I’m someone who once attested to “Clear”). Like others, the reduction in the definition of Clear and OT over time was disappointing and disillusioning. It would be hard to ignore the fact that the meaning of Clear and OT — the “EP” or “end phenomena” were getting vaguer and more subjective. At least one of the dynamics also got redefined, I think under Miscavige (2nd dynamic morphed from sex and family to those plus creativity).
So, I’m not trying to defend the theoretical construct of Scientology. Rather, am just offering another perspective on it from some of my experiences and training. Thanks again TI for your write-up since your questions brought back to mind a number of things!
We must stop the scio’s !! And their little dwarf leader!!
Since not ONE “perfect” cleared individual has ever fit to the DMSMH and dince anyway, even restrained to the 1st D, it never existed as well, since – to take grades below clear, not one indidndual has by instance have really gotten Grade O communication forever and in all situations of his life, there remains not the least possibility that anyone could become “clear”.
Mike, after reading some of the musings and ramblings on this topic I thought you could rename your blog “Something can be done about people’s misunderstoods on Scientology”! On first entry to the site the reader would have to Method 9 word clear HCOB “Confused Ideas” and then make a list of all the words and terms that they have misunderstood and then clear them up (no false attests). Only then could they proceed further into the site. This will save us all a lot of time.
Funny — I actually cannot tell if you are being sarcastic. How sad is that?
It’s quite sad – for whom I don’t know but we both know that people whom I am talking about aren’t going to clear words so you could have at least given me the benefit of the doubt here.
Oh noes… I would never pass that test. 🙁 I wouldn’t be able to continue onto this site or post any of my musings and ramblings. Maybe some would think that is a good thing, as it would keep the discussions strictly to the subject matter by only those who know most about it. But I think some might think it’s good to be able to hear other views and thoughts or perspectives. In any event, I’m glad I don’t have to take a test to post here. whew. a relief. 🙂
If someone doesn’t understand a subject, of what value could his opinions of it possibly be?
This is an assumption that everything about scientology (or any subject) is correct. What about an understanding that something is crazy? Are you saying that because you don’t understand electricity and the brain you cannot have a valuable opinion on ECT? I bet you HAVE an opinion on ECT and you think it is a correct one. And yet a psychiatrist who is trained in administering ECT could make your argument.
Thank you Mike. For being sensible and sane. I have a lot of respect for you and what you are doing.
Mike, how can you accuse me of assuming that everything in Scientology is correct, when I’ve said over and over that I see good and bad in it, and have bluntly stated that LRH was wrong on certain points?
As for opinions spouted by persons who very obviously don’t understand the specific issues they’re commenting on, it’s just common sense that those opinions would have very little value. You can’t do an accurate evaluation based on inaccurate data.
That’s not to say that those same people couldn’t acquire actual understanding and then have completely valid negative opinions.
As for an argument I might have with a psychiatrist about ECT, here’s a real-life story to entertain one and all. One day almost 40 years ago I was doing personality test evaluations, and a guy came in who said he’d had ECT. I asked him what case gain he’d gotten from it. He looked around furtively to make sure no one else could hear him, then leaned towards me and said, “I learned to keep my mouth shut.”
So, you DO have an opinion on ECT based on OBSERVATION you have made. Not based on being an ECT expert?
Mike, everyone has opinions on things about which he’s not an expert. That doesn’t mean he should resist acquiring greater understanding courtesy of people at a higher level of expertise.
You just switched your position 180 degrees. Amazing.
Switched my position 180 degrees? I don’t get it. Please explain.
You started by criticizing TJ (never a scientologist) on November 14, 2016 at 9:36 pm
If someone doesn’t understand a subject, of what value could his opinions of it possibly be?
I found this pretty condescending and challenged you that you no doubt have opinions on ECT even though you are not an expert on electricity or the brain.
You then recounted a story about someone who had experienced ECT.
I answered: So, you DO have an opinion on ECT based on OBSERVATION you have made. Not based on being an ECT expert?
And your response?
Mike, everyone has opinions on things about which he’s not an expert. That doesn’t mean he should resist acquiring greater understanding courtesy of people at a higher level of expertise.
If you don’t see your reversal there isn’t anything I am going to say that will make it clear. I tried.
OK, here’s my two supposedly contradictory statements combined into one statement containing no contradiction.
Everyone has opinions about things he doesn’t fully understand. Such opinions are valueless in direct proportion to his lack of understanding. It therefore makes sense to acquire greater understanding when it’s offered by someone who already has it.
Genius
Two cents, I never said I didn’t understand the subject. I said I couldn’t pass the test of “Method 9 word clearing” and to be clear (no pun intended) what I said was as much in jest as what Foolproof proposed in his post about this. You seem to have zero sense of humor; a very dry and staid person. You need me on this blog, word clearing or not, to lighten up the somber mood you bring. I don’t think the sole purpose of this blog is to discuss interpretations of LRH’s words and the minute details of his tech. I do have valuable opinions and thoughts on Scientology, and life in general, if you would ever let yourself listen to and consider other people’s perspectives sometimes. And there, you’ve spread your brand of cheer to me now as well. Please, spare me any rebuttal to this post.
TJ, I didn’t say YOU don’t understand Scientology. But many articles and comments posted here do reveal missing or incorrect understanding on the part of their authors. It’s THEIR opinions that have less value than they would if they actually understood what they were talking about.
TJ: “You need me on this blog, word clearing or not, to lighten up the somber mood you bring.”
I would say you both are needed on this blog. All the different approaches and viewpoints give a more accurate picture than without them – and I think this contributes to everybody’s cause.
Any lurkers still associated with the church can see from My 2 Cents’ comments that there are people out here who do understand the tech and have rejected the church and yet are still using Scientology. I think this is the right gradient for most Scientologists. I’m quite sure many of them are hanging in there because they think there is nowhere else to go to get the tech. Thinking back, I myself can relate to that point of view, and you probably can too.
If I had read this blog when I was in Doubt about the church, and the comments showed nothing but a lot of misunderstandings, I wouldn’t have given it any credibility at all. It would have seemed that the church was right about the “squirrels.”
Even the posters here who have had bad experiences with the tech can get some relief with a greater understanding of what went wrong – and the still-ins can start to see that the tech inside the church is being grossly misapplied. They will also see, more clearly than they had, the outpoints in management – including LRH’s part in it, eventually.
Mike Rinder is in a unique position where people still remember him as a senior exec and probably come to this blog out of curiosity, if for no other reason – and end up getting an education. This is why his blog has the potential as it does. So again, what I’m saying is that having the positive as well as the negative contributes to everybody’s cause.
All the different approaches and viewpoints give a more accurate picture than without them – and I think this contributes to everybody’s cause.
So again, what I’m saying is that having the positive as well as the negative contributes to everybody’s cause.
I agree with this sentiment. Thank you.
Well said Marildi
Terra, since you almost asked me to help you understand your own article, how can I refuse?
1. Creation-survival-destruction is a scale that lines up with the Tone Scale. Creation is higher than survival. Survival is just a byproduct of continuous creation that is not fully confronted. In the late 50’s LRH said that any thetan concerned only with survival is nuts.
2. The 8 Dynamics are urges to create. But they do have a physical side, as creation leads to created things. Thetans like havingness.
3. The Dynamics are not arbitrary. They are concentric zones of greater and greater creation, survival, and responsibility. Also, each of the first 4 D’s corresponds to a theory of psychological motivation popular in 1950. The 1st D theory is self interest. The 2nd D theory is libido and making the next generation. The 3rd D theory is group dynamics. The 4th D theory is species success in competition with other species. LRH observed that each of these 4 theories made some sense but fell short of explaining every aspect of life. So he put them all together, to try to cover all phenomena. Later he added D’s 5, 6, 7, and 8, which are obviously greater spheres containing the first 4 D’s.
4. The Reactive Mind is just all the residue of everything the thetan has created but hasn’t fully confronted. It’s subconscious because the thetan decided he couldn’t or didn’t want to experience it. The incidents and other mental elements it contains are related to each other in many ways, not just one. So there’s no problem with an incident being related to more than one Dynamic or subject.
5. Clear is having the ability to be cause over 1st D mental MEST. That means what the thetan is creating, regardless of what Dynamic it’s about, as opposed to what anyone else — human being, BT, or any other type of thetan — is creating. One encounters and interacts with a lot of thetans, so that’s a lot of additional creation, a lot of which manifests as thoughts that seem to be our own but really aren’t. Being Clear makes it a lot easier to differentiate what’s one’s own and what’s somone else’s, and that’s an important step.
Here’s my version of Going Clear. This is the way I saw things around 1980 and I’m not promoting nor negating what occurred.
My co-auditor used the metaphor “The Sea of Theta” to indicate a point of initial self awareness. I adopted that metaphor and all my basics on engram chains were going back to that Sea of Theta which would be like a sea of champagne with each bubble popping up being an individual thetan. Any attitude, emotion, sensation or pain could be tracked back to a basic consideration at that point. I’m using the scn terms here as I understood them at that time.
Any basic on a chain ultimately came down to an initial consideration, a thought about it rather than charge on incidents. So running engram chains became folly, since any unwanted AESP would just hinge on what I thought about it, and the whole idea of an engram bank fell apart.
I never had any illusion about acheiving the super abilities mentioned in DMSMH. That was just hype to sell books. The man in the street would say “Live for today, don’t live in the past”, yet I beleive not everyone would have the same subjective reality I have that nothing in the past is able to negatively affect me in the present. So my version of Clear is good enough for me. I blew scn soon after Clear so I never tangled with BTs. lol
Well said NotClear2me.
Sounds pretty Clear to me.
When the state of clear changed with “natural clear”, that’s when I had the first inkling that 100% standard tech wasn’t so standard.
I took it hook line and sinker though as I attested to “natural clear.” It certainly was cheaper.
I’m sorry to offend the “Ron Says” people, but in retrospect the whole grade chart was more about getting an ego perk with group bonding rather than a spectacular radiant state.
I remember friends saying,”Wow, I’m having a 2d with an OT7. As if somehow OT had OT sex.
My understanding of the state of clear now is simply continuing to be cause over mind. Sometimes I am and sometimes I ain’t. But it is my goal and value.
There is another state above this though. It is the state that occurs in meditation when the mind dissolves, similar to waking in the morning from a dream and the dream goes poof!!
You don’t have to be cause over something that has gone poof!!
One of the best ways to know that a person is not at cause of their mind is when they attack people personally.
The “Ron Says” people and a few others attack personally. Attacking the person, the ad hominem, is proof positive that someone with issues is expressing themselves.
Someone who is not clear.
Deleted this and some others because they are pointless.
IN future just write: “Your mother wears army boots. Nyah nyah nyah.”
Believe me, it will make your “point” just as well.
Of course I thought about responding to yet another drivelly article from Terra again, but decided to leave it on the basis that if anyone believes this nonsense then there is no hope for them anyway! However, as is my wont, I couldn’t resist delving into some of the comments and came up with this real gem from Marildi which explains the whole of Terra’s misunderstandings (plural) (and thus saved me from saying or composing something similar) (thanks Marildi):
“You’ve come up with a strange idea, TC. “Clear on the first dynamic” doesn’t refer to the first dynamic incidents in the bank – as you yourself seem to be saying in the second sentence I’ve quoted above. Clear on the first dynamic simply means that with regard to one’s own mind – which is a part of an individual’s first dynamic – the individual is no longer at effect. That is to say, he is cause over it.
Didn’t LRH say somewhere that MU’s breed strange ideas?”
Actually if I was Miscavige or the OES at his Org I would get the Supervisors and word clearers who didn’t do their jobs on Terra – and the Qual Examiners who let him attest to courses, investigated, and at least given a Court of Ethics for allowing him to do so with such basic misunderstoods.
But also Terra has given his word of honour more or less when asking to attest that he didn’t have any misunderstandings (or then disagreements). So he/she has done his or her courses with all these unanswered questions floating about in his/her head. Seems somewhat daft to me. Still, he/she has now, by posting them here, put himself on the way to clearing them up at least and without paying for the word clearing as well! Marildi should invoice him for word clearing!
Hi Foolproof, I’ve been asking you this question and I would love the answer if you don’t mind:
Is Scientology the “only way out”, the “best workable knowledge of mind”, “mans last chance”, whereby if Scientology somehow vanishes earth won’t get another chance?
Hi Brain, I will answer your seemingly pressing question if you will answer my question first, to wit: “What is the tone level of your question?” However, you can respond only in the range of 1.0 to 1.2 in this quiz as we all know that anything else would be an untruth would it not? So do some meditation and dissolve your mind first to come back with a “clear” answer. Or ask your meditation master what he thinks?
Too much more of this stupidity and you are going to become the 2nd person banned from commenting due to wasting my time having to read your foolishness.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE ONLY WAY AND IT’S EFFECTS ON OUR PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER.
Ok, Foolproof, I am going to assume and make an analogy. Because you have avoided this question I asked at least 3 times.
I believe the answer explains your agitation with critics.
1) you do believe that Scientology is the “only way” “man’s last hope” “the most workable tech”
2) anyone who counters this belief is in fact harming humanities chance to be free.
If Scientology was in fact the only way, then your agitation would be heroic.
Here is an analogy for others for why Foolproof thinks the way he does. This is my assumption because he has avoided answering this question 3 times. The question aims at the heart of cultist mentality and reveals the cults justification of violence against critics which Foolproof has done with Mike’s previous post on critics.
THE ANALOGY OF THE BURNING HOUSE
If I were in a burning house and I knew that house, and knew that the “only way out” was the back side door because all the other doors have been nailed shut, any person who wanted folks to head to any of these blocked doors would end up killing people.
So my duty as a person wanting to save lives would be to counter these other folks “way out” because I “knew” they would end up dying a horrible death.
I may even come to blows with those who would mislead those I love to their demise.
So that is the mindset of Foolproof. That is why he sees the usefulness in Mike’s past blog on critics.
For a Scientologist to agree to hate against critics as Foolproof has demonstrated, he first has to have agreed to the doctrine of the “ONLY WAY.”
Foolproof considers himself heroic for standing up to all of us that he considers the “misleading folks” who are leading those in the burning house to their horrible death.
The doctrine of the “only way” can be considered evil as it’s worst and downright annoying and repulsive at its best.
L Ron Hubbard sold his fallacious scientism, his metaphysical Freudian therapy as “man’s only hope”, “man’s last chance” “most workable”. Foolproof has obviously agreed to this as we all did at one point.
Once this infantile doctrine of the “only way” is agreed upon, all of those who oppose or disagree with it are “logically” put in the catagory of dangerous to the survival of all mankind (folks in the burning house)
Within the scope of this agreement, Foolproof is actually trying to save humanity. That is why he can see the “workable truths” in Mike’s post on criticism.
I believe that is the mystery as to why Foolproof acts and writes as he does.
If I were the “only one” to know the “only way” out of that house, I could justify violence against those SP’s in the burning house who are trying to get people to use doors that will not open.
Underneath, fundamental, the basic basic seed idea that fuels Foolproof’s emotional ad hominems against critics is the agreed upon doctrine of the “only way.”
In Constantine’s “only way” Christianity, the critic is seen as being the work of Satan. Because there is only “one way” to salvation; out of the burning house.
In Ron’s Scientology just use the word SP. I am sure that Foolproof sees me and others as SPs. You can tell by his emotions and anger.
THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL HELD DOWN SEVEN FOR CULT MEMBERS IS THE DOCTRINE OF THE “ONLY WAY.”
IT JUSTIFIES VIOLENCE FOR THE GREATER GOOD.
BECAUSE THE GREATER GOOD, THE “ONLY” GOOD (Scientology) IS THE ONLY PATH OUT OF THE BURNING HOUSE.
AND ALL OF THOSE WHO THINK THEY KNOW ANOTHER WAY OUT ARE KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY LEADING HUMANITY TO THEIR DEMISE.
For religionists that false door is hell
The Scientologists hell is becoming a piece of MEST forever.
If Foolproof knew that the other doors in the burning house were also available to free people he most likely would not be so agitated.
The “only way” doctrine is a learned behavior. It creates an arrogant, judgemental, argumentative and sometimes criminal and violent psychological profile.
Just ask some GO/OSA “willing hounds” if they felt justified in violence against critics.
I’m sure all of them thought,”to crush and harm a few SPs, Paulette Cooper etc, is a small price to pay for saving mankinds:
ONLY HOPE
LAST CHANCE
So have some compassion for Foolproof. His motivation is that he is saving the world. He is a good student of Ron
His motive is good
But the data that informs his behavior is false. And that learned behavior manifests itself as anger and personal attacts. Just like Ron.
First, the doctrine of the “only way” needs to be word cleared and agreed upon.
Second, violence against critics becomes justified for the greater good.
Foolproof amazed all of us with his seeing the justification in Ron’s writing on critics.
I was like, “WTF?”
After pondering, my almost disbelief that Foolproof could see the good in violence against critics, I thought about it.
He believes Scientology is the “the only way.”
The doctrine of the “only way” is a public menace.
Brian, that was an excellent and penetrating analysis of the situation that those who continue to think of Elron’s tech as “The Way, The Truth, The Light” find themselves in here. Compassion, tolerance and understanding absolutely have to be the watchwords here, and that applies especially to those who do not share our own opinions and beliefs.
Your analogy to the dire immediacy of a house on fire is an apt one because, according to Elron, this poor prison planet has one chance, and one chance only, of escaping its millions of years long enslavement. That Last Chance opportunity makes each of our own situations even more dire, because it is not just this present lifetime that’s imperiled, and it’s not just a handful of folks who will be consumed by the fire either.
The key point that you emphasize there is that IF what Elron said was correct, and we knew it with absolute certainty while others did not, then it would be a moral imperative to act in everyone’s best interest in keeping with our higher knowledge. And Elron makes an absolute, unequivocal claim to infallible knowledge of the highest Truth there is.
The trouble there, of course, is that there are many, many reasons to believe that Elron’s take on the matter is NOT correct. We can and have discussed the many reasons to disbelieve him, but there’s a meta-level principle that can be applied here that cuts through it all: Any belief system that prohibits and punishes open discussion, principled dissent, alternative explanations, skeptical stances and that also refuses to submit its empirically testable claims to objective evaluation is NOT true.
Great points Harpoona!
You also said:
“Any belief system that prohibits and punishes open discussion, principled dissent, alternative explanations, skeptical stances and that also refuses to submit its empirically testable claims to objective evaluation is NOT true.”
And……… any philosophy that crushes critics suffers from intellectual cowardess, and evolution of thought.
So Ron was an intellectual coward and did not evolve past blaming life’s problems on alien delusional bogey people.
Ron’s highest processes, auditing BTs, is an intellectual bankruptcy of ideas.
Ron’s highest process to become cause, actual sells being the effect of something.
And, led him to wish for suicide. And cannot emphasize that reality too much.
Harpoona and Brian,
Any belief system that punishes critics suffers from cowardice. So right.
I couldn’t see it when I was in. Your comments here just lasered that idea to me.
Thanks.
Mike, this is your blog and you have every right to establish whatever level of decorum and civility that you see fit.. But because you’ve shown incredible restraint in banning so few, let me make a short argument here in support of continuing to err on the side of free speech in regard to FP and others who regularly engage in ad hom silliness.
First, folks who present themselves as having received the infallible Truth of the Universe from the most ascended master ever to set foot on earth, yet who can’t rise above the urge to insult and demean, are undermining whatever argument that they’re trying to present much better than anyone else could ever do. I know a few zen fourteen year olds who can do better than that who’ve never touched a drop of the $cn Kool-Aid 😉
Second, folks who don’t wish to read posts that are just childish back-and-forth are completely free to ignore them. I do it all the time and can easily censor them out of my mind with no irritation at all. Learning to ignore and even tolerate those that don’t express themselves as well we’d like isn’t a bad skill to learn and keep tuned up.
Third, True Believer $cilons who are willing to engage in open dialogue are rarer and rarer these days. So, as the endangered species that they are, it’s worth keeping them around, just so long as they don’t cross over into more serious transgression land, such as threats, racial slurs, profanity and doxing. Hearing their impression of what’s of true value in $cn, and worth preserving as the corporate cherch implodes, is an interesting and potentially valuable conversation to engage in.
Fourth, I believe that for some folks who remain deeply committed to Elron’s Tech, and who see it as being highly valuable, are sincere in their beliefs and have made personal gains that have lasting value to them, as well as having helped others to make similar gains. If we acknowledge each others subjective experiences in $cn as being both sincerely stated and real to them – including positive gains, failures to make gains and negative experiences as well – then we can try to find some common ground through constructive dialogue from there.
Finally, I’m still waiting patiently for FP, Marildi, M2C and a few others to take up my challenge to engage in discussion at the level of logic, rather than just referring to $cn source materials in a circular manner, and would really like to hear what they’ve got to say in response.
Thanks HF. I agree with what you write and your overall sentiment. I have only kicked one person off this blog — for being a misogynist.
But the thing I, uniquely, cannot do is simply ignore comments. I have to read them. ANd that is what frustrates me about some commenters. They just HAVE to get in the last word, as if it is going to make any difference.
Mike, I feel your frustration on this stuff. I also hate reading the hate and ad hom attacks that sometimes appear here on the blog. Here is an idea: since you don’t want to kick people off too much, how about a time out like you do with your 4 year old kids? One or both parties could have a suspension for a week as a time out. That way you aren’t kicking them off for good, but are getting them off for a short time, which will give you and us a break from reading all the back and forth and service facing and having to have the last ad hom. What do you think?
Too childish for me. And I will never be able to keep track.
Harpoona Frittata, your comment makes a lot of sense.
I do feel for Mike R., having to read many long drawn-out comments that he’d rather not, in order to approve them to the blog, but for the rest of us, it’s easy to skip over those posts we don’t care to read. I agree that even in comments we don’t agree with, we can find value and understanding.
I am totally against censoring free speech on a public blog, and don’t think it’s fair to ban posters we don’t agree with, or restrict them because we don’t like what they say. A “time out” sounds very childish and I doubt many posters would stand for being treated that way, and would likely go elsewhere, which is probably the result that people imposing such measures would be hoping to achieve.
My advice for anyone frustrated by others comments: be tolerant, learn to hone your debating skills, be open to other’s views. Of course, I wouldn’t be tolerant of someone posting rude, offensive comments repeatedly, hate speech, targeting someone with repeated insults, excessive profanity, derogatory names based on someone’s gender, etc. That’s not acceptable. But I think most of us can tell the difference between someone feeling passionately about their views and showing that in their comments, which would seem to be in the realm of permissive commenting, and someone who is being unduly offensive, harassing, etc., which would need to be addressed.
This actually is a very cool blog because of the commenters, their diverse views and the interesting conversations, and the fact that Mike Rinder is open to allowing people to express their views, he seems to be a more hands-off, minimal intrusion kind of blog owner, and doesn’t “micro-manage” things, but he does step in when needed. 5 stars out of 5. Certificate arrives in the mail in 7 to 10 days. << Joke, for those who don't recognize humor (or just don't think I'm funny).
Personal note: I have learned a lot by reading and participating here in the last 2 years or so, (not just about Scientology) and hope this blog continues on in this manner, allowing a lot of leeway in comments ad attracting a diverse audience.
Hi, T.J. and Mike. Another community blog I’m on, Daily Kos, does make use of time-outs for egregious behavior. They range from a week to a few months. Before that, or at times instead of that, is being forbidden from uprating comments and diaries (posts by users). Since your blog doesn’t have this feature, Mike, time-outs might or might not work less well. Personally, I think they’d end up working pretty well, since DK has been using them for a few years. Everybody knows the next steps are the Ban Hammer and getting a skull and crossbones (aka “bojo”, short for “bony mojo”) on your account profile. This means the user is banned, which in most cases is permanent. In one or two cases, the bojo has been lifted and the account reinstated after several years – five or so in both cases.
It’s the community aspect that keeps many regulars coming back to DK. For example, I’ve been there almost a dozen years now (and have never gotten an NR [no rating], a time-out, or banned). It’s absolutely one of the things that keeps me coming back here, even though I’m a never-in; there’s great value in your blog for us, too, and the community here is one of the things I value most.
I’ve participated in and managed online communities since the mid-80s. They are no longer so hard to find, but a true community versus an interest group makes a big difference. There are so many interest groups out there where the leadership/management and some of the members are fooled into thinking they’re communities. A true community takes more than just common interests, and the way they form isn’t something I really understand or can explain, word clearing or not. You have one here, and people know it. If you do decide on time-outs, they’ll be back and most likely, better behaved.
I shouldn’t dare to bring up KSW1, but right there LRH wrote:
“That one student, dumb and impossible though he may seem and of no use to anyone, may yet some day be the cause of untold upset because nobody was interested enough to make sure Scientology got home to him.”
I wonder how aware LRH was of the fact that his tech for training fell far short somehow.
I mention the failure of training to be fair to Terra Cognita, and s/he’s not the only one.
I consider it a sign of respect and effectiveness of my teacher and his teachings to not quote him.
When I express my opinions, they are mine. Not my teachers. In that regard my own sovereign thinking is the best advisement of the path I follow.
The true believing Scientologist seems to not have this benefit as they are always quoting what “Ron says” to make a point.
Always quoting Ron to communicate the truth is in fact the expression of a belief system.
True knowledge, true comprehension and true direct perception of reality and truth, needs no quote, expert or intermediary to vouchsafe comprehension.
On the contrary, “Ron says” people know what Ron knows.
That is “other determined” second hand assuming.”
The opposite of directly perceived knowledge.
Brian, your post is an example of the logical fallacy called Straw Man. Here’s a description of that fallacy from Wikipedia:
“A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.”
The main reason I quote Ron is because he is often MIS-quoted – and it makes no sense to debate someone’s misduplication and misinterpretation. I hope you can you see the logic in this.
I agree completely. Thanks for saving me the time I was about to spend writing a comment saying the same thing.
You’ve done that for me many times. 🙂
What is so interesting is that one person says,”wow, such a great thought.”
And another says,”what a butt head for such a thought.”
I love the American Indian Medicine Wheel. It is a device for great wisdom.
The outer rim of the wheel has many spokes attached that all go to a single point.
The Medicine Wheel represents diverse views that converge at a singularity.
One person recently said that my post was the best post they ever read in any blog anytime.
Another, my dear cuddly Foolproof declare me an idiot.
Ha ha ha ha! Life is grand! What entertainment!
Praise and blame, to the yogi, rolls off like water on a duck.
That’s an excellent point, Brian. To fully understand something you need to be able to think about it and and frame it in language of your own that demonstrates you have integrated it into your own unique framework of knowledge and personal experience.
Elron set himself up as Source – the very last and infallible Truth on every single matter that he spoke or wrote. And, oh lordy, are there ever a whole of them! So, in order to remain a $cilon you absolutely have to accept the Word of Elron as absolute revealed Truth that can never be questioned, altered or in any way expanded upon; otherwise it’s the highway for you.
Adopting that submissive stance, and putting your native state critical reasoning faculties into a deep coma,has lasting and, imo, extremely deleterious effects on folks. It can take a very, very long time for folks to come to the realization that every important fact, insight and bit of knowledge CAN’T be traced back to Elron. And (gulp) even more upsetting, the fact that he was very clearly wrong in many different instances, and at an extremely fundamental level, is very hard for folks to take on board because, in any absolutist system of belief that is deemed to be infallible, any single instance in which that proves not to be true ends up undermining the entire belief structure.
That can be painful and distressing to folks as they gradually decompress and lay aside the rigidly enforced, absolutist belief system of $cn and re-awaken their long-dormant critical reasoning skills and begin to think in a truly self-determined manner.
Whenever someone frequently quotes other people, it gives me the creeps. Scientology was aversion therapy for me; what not to become.
My wife and I some years ago went to a financial seminar. The lecturers kept quoting the founder.
They said,”JR says” so many times. At one point it reminded me of my time in Scientology.
“Ron says this and Ron says that”
I found out later that this seminar was put on by a spiritual cult.
After too many “JR says” my wife and I looked at each other and silently slipped out the door.
For all of the promises of knowledge that Ron sold, original thinking, original knowing is not part of his thought club.
For all the promises of a sane world through his fallacious scientism, Scientology has produced no societal heroes.
No stellar person has graced the stage of culture to represent the greatness of Ron’s metaphysical Fruedian therapy.
People are the products of philosophy. Show me one individual on par with MLK, Gandhi, Buddha etc.
In Scientology, the saints are the celebrities with money.
and of course there is always this to consider:
https://scientologymoneyproject.com/2016/10/19/what-scientologys-promises-actually-mean/
Good point Terra Cognita. And remember Science of Survival: (paraphrased) one going Clear also relates to the endowed theta the individual has. So?
Well a Clear cannibal is a cannibal, just more “Clear’. This may have been an excuse to explain that, if the individual did not perform as per the Clear definition of DMSMH with full recall, no reactive and so on, well he or she must have been a Clear cannibal, or a Clear moron, or a Clear overt product maker, whatever.
LRH was not at fault, nor his research; the wrongness lay on the individual. Sounds familiar?
Per Science of Survival, a Clear can have either great or little endowed theta. The same goes for a cleared cannibal – which is simply a way to describe a person who has become Clear but is still basing his thinking on a faulty education.
marildi, I too remember him stating this. Maybe in a tape as well. That at the time, lead me to question WHO was the one who endowed thetans with theta?
These logic holes in his “stories” is one of the things that first got me really LOOKING and not listening to LRH
Mike, neither do I know of anything Ron said about who, or what, led to the amount of theta endowment a person has. But in SOS he did say that an individual’s “store of theta may or may not be increased” by means other than erasure of engrams and locks. “That would be a matter for solution above this level [4.0] on the tone scale.”
I thought it was interesting that he indicated it might be possible to increase even “native” endowment.
The amount of theta, prana, energy or light endowed to a person is determined by ones receptivity to the Infinite Source that gives life to all.
The infinite supply is regulated by our knowledge of it.
The increase of knowledge and power evolves into infinity by spiritual practice of meditation.
It’s all here. Our job is to live an ethical life and practice the procedures of the Great Sages.
The supply is constantly increasing because the source is Infinity.
I suspect that clearing each dynamic now has a dollar value applied to it by the Daftendorker Demento. If it can monetised then he reaches into every sheepbots pocket, wallet, purse and bank account and drain them dry and, ultimately, throw them to the street when they are aging husks.
The core ‘theory’ of Scientology is ‘engrams’ plus a natural state of ‘Clear’, which is being ‘suppressed’ by engrams, which can be *restored* by processing.
Taken singly or together, none of these elements have been demonstrated to have any validity.
Things like ‘charge’ and ‘mass’ and ‘bank’ are further rube-goldbergian extensions on this primary flawed paradigm, which, based as they are on the original *false* premise.
It’s like ‘theorizing’ that automobile engines work because gasoline contains tiny blue dwarfs who are angry at being shocked by spark plugs. I suppose that one could see that as a fanciful metaphor for chemical reactions, but, when taken literally, it leads to insane attempts to expand the theory into predictions about dwarf psychology and cultural relationships and, eventually, a whole parallel universe of dwarfs, with its own history and yadda yadda.
In Scientology terms, since the basic ‘axiom’ (not theory) is that Clear is a ‘perfect’ natural state and Scientolog Processes “restore” it by removing engrams, when all current life engrams are removed “without*” restoring the Natural State, with all its glorious powers, then one must further delve into past life engrams, and, since Scientology processing ‘reveals’ these previous experiences and engrams, it’s also capable of revealing past ‘history’, including ancient plots against mankind by eeevil psychs and space lords, intent on enslaving us for all eternity who must be destroyed in order for us all to go ‘free’……
And; Voila, you have KSW and OSA/GO and ‘Clearing the Planet and enemies and the justification for lies and disconnection and musical chairs as the ‘greatest good’.
In sort, ‘engrams’, as defined by L Ron Hubbard, do not exist, therefore, the state of Clear does not exist. Otherwise, show me the motherfucking Clear!
“The core ‘theory’ of Scientology is ‘engrams’ plus a natural state of ‘Clear’, which is being ‘suppressed’ by engrams, which can be *restored* by processing.”
You say this is a flawed paradigm and has no validity. But is it basically any different from the ancient teachings that tell us in order to achieve self-actualization or self-realization – or enlightenment – that we must first become free of the mind?
Crepuscule! You just said very concisely and exactly what I have known deep down inside for 40 years. There is no fucking reactive mind and the state of clear is a falsity. Just a ruse or another carrot on a stick.
Crepescule, please tell us why you think engrams don’t exist.
Please don’t. What does it matter?
Are you kidding?
Not in the slightest. You might care why he/she doesn’t believe in engrams. I could give a damn. ANd I doubt anyone else is interested either. NO matter what they respond, you will respond back with an “explanation” based on “the tech” as to why they do not really know or understand (“you are caught in a bouncer incident that is causing you not to see your engrams”). It is pointless.
Mike, let me get this straight. Various persons post comments saying that basic principles in Scientology are delusionary bullshit, and that’s OK? But arguing that those principles are correct is not OK?
And people stating inaccurate understandings of Scientology principles as true facts which then support the conclusion that Scientology is bad is OK? But pointing out their misunderstandings and stating the correct understandings is not OK?
No, you didnt get it straight at all. But I know that trying to explain something that does not comport to what you already know is wasting my time.
Flunk. Ad hominem.
$cn to Terra Cognita: “We don’t have to show you no stinkin’ logic!” (and btw, isn’t it about time we figured out who you actually are IRL so that we CAN finally declare your suppressive butt!?
Some excellent commentary on this central $cn topic!
I’d just add that at the point where the definitional criteria of what the state of Clear is and what a Cleared individual is supposed to be capable of doing changed from being one that is subject to objective evaluation (e.g. someone who can demonstrate eidetic recall; is no longer subject to communicable disease; regains 20/20 vision) to one that is completely subjective and makes no empirically testable claims, that is exactly the point at which the concept of Clear lost any kind of traction on reality or meaning as a useful theoretical construct.
I mean, if I heard someone else exclaim about having the clear cog (“Hey, WTF, I’ve been creating all this mental mess for myself the whole time!”) and felt that it was a profound insight that I could also heartily agree with, then by a purely subjective critieria, I”D BE CLEAR TOO! In other words, if being clear is primarily just a mental shift in taking responsibility for your own stuff after realizing that you were the cause of it all to begin with, then many folks have attained that same state through other much less costly and labor-intensive means.
Unfortunately, if you have a religion in which its entire theoretical superstructure rests on the supposedly infallible words of one person as its bedrock foundation, then you can’t just willy nilly change around foundational concepts, such as Clear, without calling into fundamental question the authority of the founder himself as well. Either Book 1 Clear state abilities gained, such eidetic recall and immunity to disease, are objectively in evidence or they are not. You can’t just wave your hands over the previous claims and dismiss them, because to do so would also directly imply that the founder was wrong. And if the founder was in error in that important instance, then he’s NOT infallible, so what else is also in error?
Mike pointed out the even deeper problem there: “Main problem? The theory about the existence of a “reactive mind” doesn’t even qualify as a theory and isn’t true. So, the entire subject is a waste of time.”
I’d agree in principle, but be less categorically dismissive than he is there because, even if the claims for this form of psychotherapy are wildly overblown, that doesn’t mean that no gains at all are possible. Indeed, another commenter mentioned that audting is largely based on the Rogerian counseling model and theory, so the the gains that many folks, including myself, derived from our lower bridge auditing can be attributed to the efficacy of a valid model of counseling that Elron ripped off and completely failed to credit. In other words, the fact that he called his method something else doesn’t mean that the efficacious techniques that he “borrowed” don’t work.
The logical error that True Believer $cilons, like FP, continue to make is the assumption that what works in $cn auditing is unique to what Elron came up with on his own, instead of being attributable to the sources that he “borrowed” from. Anyone who’s studied the field of psychotherapy going all the way back can easily discern many aspects of Freudian, Jungian, Rogerian and other Western psychotherapy models and theories of mind, mixed in with a bunch of Buddhist and occult belief threads as well. Elron never credited any of those major contributors to his “mash-up” theory and consistently claimed credit for ideas and insights that were very obviously derived from other sources. You just have to be well-read enough in those other individuals’ works and comparative religion studies to be able to see how much he ripped off from them and claimed as his own original ideas. Robert’s remarks concerning Elron’s rip-off of Carl Roger’s person-centered therapy provides more detail into exactly this point.
Once you get that the Dn and $cn did not spring fully formed from the brow of Elron as some sort of marvelously new, never be before thought of system of interpersonal counseling, then you’ve got a firm first foothold in deconstructing and understanding $cn within the historical context it arose out of. Until then, you can refer to Source all you like in trying to argue this or that point, but you’ll just be chasing Elron’s tail and nothing else.
To put it much more succinctly, the proof’s in the pudding: Either Book 1 claims of objectively verifiable abilities gained by Clears are valid or they are not; you can’t get rid of the goal posts altogether and have anything but a meaningless construct whose re-definition also undermines the founder’s supposed infallibility as well.
I think you will find if you had actually done some research is that Scientology is not an invention of Hubbard’s but his observations of how the universe is. ARC breaks and problems and engrams and mental image pictures etc. etc. etc. are not inventions of Hubbard’s but his terms for what actually occurs in this universe. All he has done is observe them and explain them. And his methodology for handling them, which no one else in history has come up. Or what? So – yet another daft “argument” disposed of. Try harder next time!
Why do you feel the urge to try to respond to everything with this sort of comment? Apparently you don’t even know how foolish you sound. Just think about it for a second. You are saying “Clear” (and numerous others things) “is not an invention of Hubbard’s but his observations of how the universe is.” He observed the Clear with no psychosomatic illness, phobias, eidetic memory etc etc? Or did he invent it? He observed that all critics of scientology have crimes? He observed the universe and realized that enemies should be Fair Gamed?
You’re focusing in on exactly my main point here: Elron made some very specific and objectively testable claims that essentially define what being Clear is. If no one has ever demonstrated the eidetic recall that he claimed everyone who achieved that state would be able to do, then that’s not a philosophical difference of opinion, but a disconfirming fact. And if none of the other objectively observable abilities that are claimed to result from going clear have been demonstrated either, then the construct – as Elron himself defined it – has no basis in reality.
And since Elron drilled into everyone how infallible the tech was, and was so specific in his claims about what the Clear state entails, it’s not possible to now re-define the state in vague and subjective terms without undermining the credibility of the founder by doing so. Quite obviously to anyone who’s evaluating the claim in an objective, unbiased manner, his claims about the Clear state have turned out to be unsubstantiated and so completely without support that the concept has no real meaning or usefulness.
That’s very hard for True Believer $cilons to take on board because they very correctly intuit that it undermines the very foundation upon which the vast and intricately constructed edifice of $cn rests. I’m sure this is disconcerting at a very deep level, but reality IS reality. The difficulty that any modern religion such as $cn faces is that if it makes objectively testable claims (e.g., eidetic recall, restored perfect vision, immunity to communicable disease), then for it to be granted authoritative status, those claims have to prove true…there’s just no way around it.
If all Elron did was observe how the physical universe works and come up with some of his own coined terms to describe it, we’d just be engaged in a philosophical discussion. But he didn’t just do that; he derived working principles and came up with applied methods methods and procedures for actually doing something with, or transforming, what he’d observed. And the case in point here concerns his claims of efficacy in creating, what he claimed was a standardly effective technology of spiritual transformation to help others attain a particular state, Clear, that he claimed was defined by certain abilities gained.
So, I hope that after “trying harder” the crux of my argument is clearer to FP now, but let me see if I can boil it down even further: There is no Clear state, as defined by Elron in Book 1, because no one has ever been able to demonstrate the abilities that he claimed could be attained. As a corollary, if those claimed abilities which define what it means to be cleared of one’s reactive mind can not be attained, then either there is no reactive mind, as Elron conceptualized it, or it does exist, but the his methods of ridding ourselves of it are ineffective.
Again, I’m not trying to say that whatever subjective value or sense of having made gains from auditing that FP and others claim to have made in auditing is false, mistaken or insincere; I’m just saying that the objectively verifiable claims that Elron made for the state of Clear are completely unsubstantiated. Make of that what you like; there’s plenty of room for discussion concerning what the empirical facts mean; there’s just no room for opinions about the facts themselves…that is, unless you’d like to be the first to demonstrate that eidetic recall for us here 😉
Book One was superceded by a lot of further research. It’s claims were overblown. Engrams, the Reactive Mind, and Clear were oversimplifications but of things that are real, if not exactly as stated in those early days.
LRH did make use of the discoveries of earlier researchers. He also made observations of his own. So what? Rogers, Jung, Freud, and all the rest did the same thing. I agree that LRH should have given credit where credit was due, though.
All this “he betrayed us” talk just keeps going and going and going. It’s a waste of time. Every subject and person contains both good and bad. Every minute you spend restating the obvious about the bad in LRH and Scientology is another minute you aren’t doing something constructive with the good in them, and/or the good in something else.
Conversely time spent trying to explain the good detracts from exposing the bad and the abuses. That is actually why I spend time on this blog.
I find it hard to reconcile the “LRH simply made observations of the way things are and wrote them down” with the obvious overblown claims and “oversimplifications.” His powers of observation weren’t too good apparently. And the claims of what would be accomplished were definitive, until they were replaced by the “new breakthrough” all along the history of scientology.
And I do not believe LRH was all bad either. Or everything about scientology is wrong or should be burned in a funeral pyre. But I do care about the abuses and the deceit.
Mike –
Absolute zero has never been convincingly achieved, but it is theoretically possible, and that is why the term exists. A perfect vacuum has never been achieved, either. (Both these statements are just “to my general knowledge” – I haven’t Googled to check them out. Any perfect vacuum would have to exclude photons, too – it probably would have to exclude time.) Yet to me, it seems both those “absolutes” must be possible. In all this vast universe, perhaps there is some place, even if for a millisecond, where those conditions do exist.
So Hubbard said that absolutes do not exist in fact. Maybe right, but my point is simply that I don’t see the merits of yip-yapping about that one statement as grounds for making the irrational logical leap that “Elcon was a fraud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” or that “All religions are control mechanisms! [“!!”^nth.]
Again, I’m not the one with a popular blog, and I don’t have to read 100’s of comments daily in response to articles I have to cook up daily, determine which are allowable, and which are not, based on my established policy or policies, worry about maintaining consistency, and I don’t have to concern myself with “being quoted” and being in “political good graces with other blogs” – or whatever else goes into what you do. I don’t get invited to TV stations, and on and on. So I may be like some guy on the ground shouting at some astronaut to not step off the space station – because I think he’ll fall down to Earth!
I see a lot of comments from people to the exact effect that ~~ LRH was all bad … Scientology is all wrong … and should be burned in a funeral pyre. ~~
The perennial problem of people who wish to do good and be constructive in whatever walk of life, is to find ways to not just put up with and tolerate, but also have to be positive with, those who think it is funny and amusing to ridicule and destroy, and smile and pat each other on the back with each of their “successes” of destruction.
E.g.: “Mother Teresa was no saint, because I have photos of her dirty feet! HA! EAT IT CATHOLIC CHURCH!” (What the heck redeeming social merit is there in that? What abuse and deceit does that expose? Is it really freedom of speech, or is it freedom to malign and insult?)
How does one handle that sort of nonsense with “kid gloves”? How does one post to a blog where it is OK to tell some Scientologist that all his gains are placebo, that what he has seen is pure delusion, and worse … but it is NOT OK to address that with a similarly personal insult? It’s like trying to walk through a jungle where it is illegal to kill leeches and use insect repellent, but one is still expected to come out alive after “an invigorating experience.”
I readily see ending the obvious abuses of the Co$. I also see the value of rational discussion of Scientology – even though that is not the purpose of your blog as I understand it. I know people pay any mercenary. The DEA relies on less-than-saintly informants. But how does one handle extreme negative comments whose illogical leaps baffle even a wizard of logic?
My contention is that if people actually understood Scientology, the abuses of the Co$ would be even more salient. To me, those abuses rise to the level of crimes against humanity, and should be exposed!
Sorry for the length of this, and I hope I haven’t abused your time.
Nickname, VERY WELL SAID! Thank you!
Mike, the bad has already been exposed ad nauseum. The Church is dying. The Scientology brand is broken, even in the Independent field. You don’t need to resist communication about the underlying subject’s good anymore.
Thanks for your words of advice.
The church is not dying fast enough for my liking. There are still people being abused. Still people going bankrupt to fund bullshit. Still families being broken apart. My children are still inside the belly of the beast. I am not resisting communication about anything. I am telling you what my priority is and why.
You apparently don’t care about the abuses and are not interested in exposing them. That is your choice. I choose differently.
Mike, I have lost friends, family members, and business opportunities to the abuses of the Church of Scientology. Also a lot of money and many years of my life.l I am all for exposing the evil that brought that about.
But I haven’t forgotten the reason I got into Scientology in the first place — “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set ye free.”
You ARE resisting communication of the full truth about the subject of Scientology.
I’d like to see the death of the Church sooner rather than later, too. But it’s my belief that if an alternative were available, that used the good in Scientology while avoiding the bad, so many Church members would switch over that the Church would expire a lot quicker.
M2C, I agree that focusing in on the positive in the limited time that we each have is always wise. But I think that debunking $cn’s unsupported claims is worthwhile thing to do because many folks (myself included) were very attracted to the cult in the first place based on its false claims of the attainability of states of spiritual advancement and super power abilities.
I also think it’s useful and instructive to engage in dialogue with those who hold different views and to clarify concepts and key points that might enable us to reach a higher level of agreement. For example, you wrote in response to my earlier post, “Book One was superceded by a lot of further research. It’s claims were overblown. Engrams, the Reactive Mind, and Clear were oversimplifications but of things that are real, if not exactly as stated in those early days.” When you use the word “research” there it’s in the informal sense of the word which is not at all how scientific research is conducted.
I won’t attempt to school you here on the differences between those usages, but just mention that Elron very much wanted to have $cn and his work given the authoritative status of mainstream science, but consistently refused to submit his methods and claims to the standard measures entailed by the scientific method. And because he drew very far reaching and fundamental conclusions about the nature of the human mind and, indeed, a very alt historical perspective on our origins, the highest level of proof IS required.
So, as I mentioned earlier, if the operational definition of the term “Clear” has not been met, then the concept has no traction in reality. So, you can’t really supercede something that has no reality-based meaning to begin with. The possibility of achieving a state like that, back in the dark ages of neuroscience, was very exciting and motivating to many, enabling Elron to make a lot of money off the venture. But when his first public Clear demonstration failed miserably, and early empirical research studies also failed to substantiate his claims, Elron veered sharply away from the scientific method and attempted to redefine Clear in completely subjective terms, instead of abandoning the construct entirely. As a result, if we now try to impute meaning to a term whose purported basis in objectively verifiable reality was invalidated, then we’re acting as if something meaningless actually DOES have meaning…which can lead to nothing but further confusion.
Foolproof – Correct. There will apparently always be those who insist the Earth is flat, Christians must be slain, gravity is an invention, man will never fly, and so on.
Or Hubbard did any “research”. I can play too!
Just out of idle curiosity about your logic, how can someone not do research and at the same time be falsely accused of plagiarizing earlier works? How can someone be accused of not reading earlier work, and at the same time be accused of plagiarizing it? You would seem to offer incontrovertible proof of OT abilities, of knowing without reading, or of reading a closed book.
Even a cursory look at Dianetics shows that he researched and developed entirely new theories and methods. There is also more than ample documentation of research, and recorded evidence of Hubbard conducting auditing sessions, and written records of his personal case supervision.
The implications of your sarcastic comment are entirely false. I suspect you are merely repeating false and malicious “talking points” you picked up elsewhere.
I don’t believe reading other people’s research papers is tantamount to doing your own research although research papers are written to be read particularly by people who conduct their own research.
In the case of Dianetics we see Hubbard advancing “theories” presumably based on observations, for how else do you arrive at a theory? Right? You observe results. Hubbard claims to have done such and such a thing and got such and such results. Dianetics is ostensibly an account of his findings. Only problem is, those research findings CAN’T BE DUPLICATED!
That’s a problem. To those who don’t know any better it sorta looks like he made it all up which means he would be a BALD-FACED LIAR! See what I mean?
Those who look askance on such things might succumb to the temptation of sarcasm. Forgive them I say although there’s evidence that is NOT what Ron intended.
Nickname asked, “Just out of idle curiosity about your logic, how can someone not do research and at the same time be falsely accused of plagiarizing earlier works? ”
Because in the context asked, it is about ORIGINAL research. NOT, looking up OTHER people’s PRIOR research.
Studying PRIOR research done by another is NOT conducting original research.
Research is not just reading. I’ve read the bible, I can quote various passages restate some of the myths in it using different words (including some I made up) , and claim I created a whole new thing and it totally works. But that does not mean I researched the bible.
He claimed he had done research on his ideas. Where is the research? Show us the research: the methodology, the data, the analysis, the test subjects and the experiments used to verify each and everyone of his ideas. I suspect you cannot do that.
And the implications of my quite sarcastic comment are entirely true. I am not a parrot. Making up results for things you created is not researching them.
… trains run on Venus, glycol freezes ghosts, humans are infested by space cooties brought to Earth loaded into DC8’s, and so on. Correct Nickname!
But someday those insane people will be gone.
Terra Cognita: “Why would a chunk of Bank then, suddenly vanish—or no longer impinge—to the exclusion of all other Dynamics? The Reactive Mind is not organized by Dynamics and auditing was never devised to address it along these lines.”
You’ve come up with a strange idea, TC. “Clear on the first dynamic” doesn’t refer to the first dynamic incidents in the bank – as you yourself seem to be saying in the second sentence I’ve quoted above. Clear on the first dynamic simply means that with regard to one’s own mind – which is a part of an individual’s first dynamic – the individual is no longer at effect. That is to say, he is cause over it.
Didn’t LRH say somewhere that MU’s breed strange ideas?
My understanding is that your reactive mind 1st Dynamic is the one YOU created. You erase that in auditing. You cannot erase a BTs bank because YOU did not create it. I have not done OTIII and so I do not know how you get rid.of the BTs
I haven’t done OT III either, Bill, but my understanding is that you basically audit the BTs. In other words, you are the auditor and they are the pcs. You audit them to the point where they “blow” – meaning they leave – and then their thoughts and emotions are not longer impinging on you.
Like everything else it has it’s procedures. The meter plays a big part though. For what it’s worth the meter sure comes “alive” on it and the TA does it’s thing like the rest of other auditing procedures and signals the usual, ie time to end off, run something else, correction of something etc. Those that are convinced it’s all bunk and the meter reads palm sweat or some such bodily function won’t believe it anyway – they know better and don’t require any auditing, never will, because it doesn’t work anyway. Scientology is not for everyone, no matter what version. That’s a fallacy fostered off by the subject as a whole, and shoved down your throat in the Cof$. If left unchecked it develops into a mental type of apartheid imo, which is what you have in the minds of Scientologists today. There’s them and then there’s a segregation for the rest of the aberrated or unenlightened ones or God forbid, us apostated version of humanoid garbage.
Yawn: “For what it’s worth the meter sure comes ‘alive’ on it [auditing BT’s] and the TA does its thing like the rest of other auditing procedures and signals the usual, i.e. time to end off, run something else, correction of something etc.”
Thanks for the “eye-witness” description. It makes it clear that auditing is occurring when BTs are addressed.
You also wrote: “Scientology is not for everyone, no matter what version. That’s a fallacy fostered off by the subject as a whole, and shoved down your throat in the Cof$. If left unchecked it develops into a mental type of apartheid imo, which is what you have in the minds of Scientologists today.”
Yes, that’s the pitfall that has to be avoided – any form of “us vs. them.” It starts a dwindling spiral – just in terms of the dynamics.
That’s pretty much what I thought it to mean, too. I understood the phrase “on the 1st Dynamic” simply to mean that the person himself is clear, not that he’d also have to go clear on some other dynamics. Scientologese is a strange language that way.
“Clear on the 1st Dynamic” along with “free of his own reactive mind” are sort of weasel phrases implying that the numerous problems clears have aren’t because the Fatman’s processes don’t work, but rather that they will be solved with, you guessed it, more Scientology.
I guess it’s assumed that the clear will have an “aha!” moment when he gets to the BT stuff and praise the Fatman’s ingenuity.
Thanks KarenI appreciate you weighing in on the tech side of fthings.. I hope tc does better next time.
What is a science fiction writer slash incarnation of the Prophet Buddha supposed to do when his invented state of enlightenment, “CEAR”, is undeniably bogus? Repackage it with a new definition of course! One that isn’t terribly explicit this time! That is where Hubbard’s dividing of the whole of existence into eight concentric domains starting with the individual and working outward macrocosmically to the most collective, came in handy.
You could be “clear’ in the smallest and most personal of those domains and still get to call yourself “CLEAR”! Of course it doesn’t mean you’re smarter, more compassionate, more capable, more ANYTHING than the average person but it DOES mean you get to call yourself “clear” and with it, enjoy all the attractive imaginary perks that title confers. Most notably among those perks would be a sense of superiority and the confidence that sense imparts. That self-confidence takes a tumble when the lie it’s based on is revealed. That’s why things get mighty unpleasant when you start making sense around scientologists.
“That self-confidence takes a tumble when the lie it’s based on is revealed. That’s why things get mighty unpleasant when you start making sense around scientologists.”
Indeed, and that is exactly why Elron issued specific policy prohibiting $cilons from denigrating the state. of Clear. And it also goes a long way toward explaining why $cilons are so cliquish and secretive. The wog world just won’t grant you the status and altitude that your fellow Kool-Aid cult members will and that can be upsetting and (gulp) even lead to self-doubt.
What interests me there are the very few exceptions, such as FP and Marildi, who continue to be willing to engage with others, while adhering to beliefs and arguments that tend to get roundly savaged when confronted by folks who are no longer in the Scn bubble and who have gone on to understand something about the scientific method and formal logic.
I think that it’s important to acknowledge and accept at face value individuals’ attestations of personal gains and their subjective sense of auditing as being helpful to them. As I just mentioned in a much longer comment on this thread, the fact that Elron “borrowed” from other psychotherapy models, such as Rogerian person-centered model, but did not credit its actual originator, means that what folks find effective and useful in auditing may not be that which Elron uniquely created, but instead can be attributed to that which he “borrowed” and re-named.
It’s only when $cn makes outlandish and completely unsupported claims that can be objectively evaluated (e.g, either a Clear can demonstrate eidetic recall or they can not) that we’re in a position to judge those claims that are unique to $cn. And unfortunately for $cn and Elron’s credibility, those specific claims of abilities gained upon attestation of Clear have never been demonstrated by a single individual. At this late point in time, I’m ready to say that, on the basis of its failure to demonstrate its claims, those aspects of $cn that are uniquely Elron’s contributions are false. In other words, there’s no need to throw the entire system out as being completely useless; it’s just way past time to give credit for what works to those, such as Carl Rogers, who devised it to begin with.
Harpoona, before I got into Scientology I got psychotherapy from a Freudian, then from a Jungian, and finally from a Rogerian. Then I got less than 10 hours of Scientology auditing and got 100 times the case gain I’d gotten from those earlier systems. So I know that whatever LRH borrowed from earlier researchers, he added something very powerful of his own creation.
I’m glad that your auditing experience was so powerful and helpful to you! I also had some very good results from my early auditing and have never seen any reason to invalidate my subjective impression of it or anyone else’s either.
I think that it would be more accurate to say that, for you, the methods that Elron came up with were much more effective than any that you’d previously experienced. But to generalize that claim beyond your own experience and conclude that, based on your own experience alone, you “know…he added something very powerful of his own creation” is not necessarily warranted. For example, perhaps what you found to be much more effective than the counseling methods that you’d experienced previously was the addition of yet another piece of “borrowed” tech that you hadn’t run across before, or perhaps it was due to the combination of several different techniques, all of which he “borrowed” from others.
So, while your gains were very real to you (and that’s all that matters when it comes to counseling), the logic of your causal attribution is faulty. I don’t mean that in any dismissive or critical way, I’m just considering other causal explanations as to how and why you may experienced what you did. I sincerely wish Elron had not decided to try and create an alt science approach to understanding the mind, but had stuck it out to stay within the only real objective method that we have for evaluating truth claims.
If both of us got substantial case gain from our initial auditing, why do you continuously make such a big deal about the lack of full-scientific-method proof? Do you doubt your own experience?
And why remain stuck on the failure of Book One auditing to achieve its stated goals in full, when LRH continued developing the subject for another 30 years? Outpoint of omitted time.
I did ask myself many times in or out of session if I am Clear or not. Basically I cannot answer this question. But if I would have to define Clear then I would include in the definition what it would be like to be not Clear.
A Not Clear would be someone who has some automatic response that he does not have under his control. Or that he is not aware of. And thus cannot control it. And therefore has no awareness that he is responding.
Therefore in order to be Clear the “automatic response” machine has to be shut down. If that machine would be on standby then this we call Release. Can be turned on again.
So, an outside observer can see if someone is Clear or not as he can test the person if he has some sort of automatic response. The person itself might think that he is Clear, but as he cannot observe something he has no awareness of, this is just his opinion. Basically those principles had been used to destroy Scientology. First, let the Pre Clear decide if he is Clear or not. Then make it the thing to be and have (like an expensive smart phone as must have) and then get them onto the OT levels they have no reality about.
This is the road to the Dream Land.
You remind me of Gurdjieff’s assertion that “Man is a machine that doesn’t know it is a machine.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_the_Miraculous
Schorsch, per L Con’s description of CLEAR the test for a Clear is EASY and absolute. Knock the person out, apply pain and talk about something the person would have ZERO knowledge of. Wake them and ask them to repeat what was said.
If they cannot, they have a reactive mind. If they can they are clear.
Welcome to the Wonderful World of Science!
Your test is entirely incorrect.
Really? Explain. According to Hubbard moments of pain and unconsciousness are stored in the reactive mind that was mocked up by the thetan (that is where the thetan hides it from himself). With no reactive mind the thetan should know what is happening to it.
EVERYTHING written about this by Hubbard leads to the ONLY logical conclusion being that a person WITHOUT a bank can recall that info.
Unless you can find an LRH ref that directly opposes what I wrote you are wrong.
Giving a technical explanation why the words “Clear on 1st dynamic” was carefully crafted.
Pictures in the mind continued to appear after CLEAR attest.
Many live in the movies being played in their mind of mental image pictures.
BUT
A clear is not supposed to have pictures.
So, the sentence explained, “Hey, only *YOU* went clear ~~ the pictures you see are other spirit’s pictures.”
(entities attached to the person)
Hence 1st dynamic clear means, the person himself went clear but not his BTs and Clusters explaining the continuity of somatics, mental image pictures and mis-emotions.
Thanks for making that clear. ?
My personal experience:
I had been on a DCSI in 1979. During the D/L on that rundown it made whoosh and all my pictures that I still had went ashtray. Ok, not really all. But even nowadays many years later, when some sort of mental mass (pictures) come near me then they disappear at that moment I am aware of it.
About other spirit pictures I have no reality. Can be that those that come in are from “outside” sources. But that is not important. By the way, my cats do not communicate via pictures or by throwing pictures at each other. That seems to be a homo sap only behavior.
Terra’s point still stands.
Why would BTs stop interfering with the first dynamic but not others? Wouldn’t those pesky BTs interfere in all dynamics?
Reread the various explanations in this thread of what Clear is.
It seems obvious to me that Clear is possible. To demean and diminish the technology which defined it and offers a way to achieve it doesn’t make rational sense at all.
One would have to be living in some bizarre universe to believe the world – just Earth – does not suffer from serious mental problems and functional disabilities! As the farmer from the Midwest said about SETI, “We should be looking for intelligent life on THIS planet.” Finding solutions, as an individual, would be a rational priority. To demean or diminish those who seek to achieve this makes no rational sense at all.
Posting to a hostile blog, makes it hard to say that I have seen full OT VII exterior at will with perceptics, and that the definition there does not begin to scratch the surface of the abilities present. Someone will jump up instantly and post “PROVE IT!!” (It is impossible to prove anything at all to someone who refuses to see – I wish I had recordings of arguments I had with an assigned college roommate who contended that the material universe does not exist and is only a figment of imagination.)
There are those here who believe that any life form is just a collection of chemistry, a zillion atoms randomly colliding a zillion times a minute for zillions of years until just by pure dumb luck, two of them formed an enzyme which grew into a virus which grew into … you guessed it! … THEMSELVES!!
Those who believe man is a spirit should rationally see the “IF … THEN” of “OT” as simply a natural state for a being. One line that always got me in Scientology was something to the effect that Buddhists spend entire lifetimes trying to achieve true spiritual beingness, and Scientology makes that possible within a single lifetime (with, I might add, far superior awareness and knowledge).
To oppose this, to seek to demean and diminish it, makes NO rational sense at all.
(For anyone who might not know, I am not a member of the Co$.)
I’d like to think of myself as a critical thinker who has both a practical, experiential background in $cn and in using scientific method and formal logic, instead of just being hostile to $cn, but you be the judge!
“Posting to a hostile blog, makes it hard to say that I have seen full OT VII exterior at will with perceptics, and that the definition there does not begin to scratch the surface of the abilities present. Someone will jump up instantly and post “PROVE IT!!” (It is impossible to prove anything at all to someone who refuses to see – I wish I had recordings of arguments I had with an assigned college roommate who contended that the material universe does not exist and is only a figment of imagination.)”
$cn has always made fantastic abilities that can be gained at specific levels of processing completion, such as Clear and OT 8, which can be objectively evaluated. Since today’s essay focuses in the state of Clear, let’s focus in the objectively verifiable claims that the founder made for it, which include eidetic recall, immunity to communicable disease, restored perfect vision and the like. If empirically validated, then these would indeed be marvelous and astonishing achievements!
The trouble there is that, by Elron’s own definitional criteria, no one has ever demonstrated that they’ve achieved these miraculous abilities as a result of being audited. So, unless you’re willing to re-define Clear as some vague and purely subjective state and forget entirely about Elron’s very specific claims concerning it, you’re pretty much forced to admit that, at least up until now, the state of Clear is NOT possible. That is, until someone can actually demonstrate the abilities that Elron claimed were standardly achievable the he himself used as criteria in defining it.
I just don’t see any other way around it, do you?
Harpoona Frittata: “The trouble there is that, by Elron’s own definitional criteria, no one has ever demonstrated that they’ve achieved these miraculous abilities as a result of being audited. So, unless you’re willing to re-define Clear as some vague and purely subjective state and forget entirely about Elron’s very specific claims concerning it, you’re pretty much forced to admit that, at least up until now, the state of Clear is NOT possible.”
HF, with all your claims to critical thinking and formal logic, you keep omitting in your reasoning the fact that Clear WAS re-defined. A strange omission since you do know this to be the case. Logic would have it that you stick to your other criticism about him not being infallible – which is the argument you switch to at times.
As you probably know, when LRH found that his original goal for Clear was not doable with Dianetics, he started researching the tech for full OT – which, as a state, would include all the attributes of a Book One Clear. He never developed that tech but he did have it as a goal, and I would imagine that in his daily auditing he was always working on it.
Furthermore, I believe many teachings would disagree with your assertion that “the state of Clear is NOT possible.” A fully enlightened being would obviously have all those attributes and more.
marildi if the dianetic version of clear wasn’t doable than why did LRon say it was. He also said he had made them. This was promised in dianetics. L Ron is a big fat fraud.
Gary, there’s no doubt that Ron made mistakes in the development of the tech. But he did try to correct them. Just a year after he wrote DMSMH, he said the following in SOS:
“The highest point we can at this time reach with Dianetic processing is what is called here the MEST Clear. There are probably several kinds of Clears and several conditions of being Clear. A MEST Clear would be an individual who no longer retained engrams or locks, these having been erased by Dianetic processing.”
Already he was saying “there are probably several kinds of Clears” besides one who had erased all engrams.
Later down the road, he found that it was detrimental to continue to run engrams on pcs (or on some pcs) who have achieved the ability to be “cause over mental matter, energy, space and time as regards the first dynamic (survival for self).”
In the end, he worked out a definition for Clear which he said fit all cases: “No longer has his own reactive mind.” To me, that ties in with what he wrote in SOS, way back in 1951 – that “there are probably several kinds of Clears and several conditions of being Clear.” This shows there was a thread of commonality about Clear throughout its history.
Overall, there were and are techniques that produce positive results for many people – at least those outside the church. That is what I think should be focused on at least as much as LRH’s wrongdoings – we can learn from both.
Marildi, I wasn’t so much omitting it as just assuming it as a given and trying to focus in on the point TC was making at the top of his essay.
Let me see if I can make my approach to the argument in a slightly different way and address the points that you brought up. Since it was Elron who coined all of the terms that comprise $cn, and those terms are being used to describe a coherent conceptual framework of understanding upon which all of the methods and techniques of auditing are posited to work, it doesn’t matter what you care to call anything if the techniques themselves do not work to achieve whatever it is that you’re setting out to do. $cn is supposed to be an applied science of mental/spiritual transformation/advancement, not some abstract philosophical theory.
So, the concepts, and even the theoretical framework within which their organized, are far less important than the efficacy of the practical, applied methods themselves. Elron could have chosen some other words, such as “Ultimate Clarity” instead of “Clear”; it’s not the name itself that matters in an applied science field, but the objectively observable phenomena that they denote. Its terms are operationally, rather then merely abstractly, defined.
Elron’s original criteria for what a person who was going to be given the status of the purportedly advanced spiritual state of Clear provided an actual operational definition of it that included objectively verifiable attributes, such as “can demonstrate eidetic recall” or “is free from communicable disease”. Of course, Elron never made testing of those claimed abilities part of attestation process, and that’s exactly where the whole concept of Clear as an actual state, attained through auditing, with very definite abilities gained went completely off the rails.
You can’t really re-define something that had no objective basis of existence to begin with or you just end up confusing the issue when you try. An uncharitable take on that move would describe it as an intentional obfuscation of the fact that the original definition of Clear had never been validated in terms of the objective criteria that Elron himself had devised. We can’t make actual truth claims that can be objectively tested, so we better not just move the goal posts, but remove them entirely 😉
So, to change it from an operationally defined meaning that anyone could objectively evaluate to one that is vague, general and makes no specific claims which can be objectively evaluated isn’t so much a re-defining of the word (because its operational criteria AS a definition was never met to begin) as it is a move to make it in-operationally defined; which is just utter nonsense when you’re trying to lay out a framework for an applied theory. Hope that makes things more clear!
My focus on Elron’s insistence in his own infallibility was just to stress that any system of belief that claims absolute infallibility and will recognize no possibility for error, or even for improvement, falls completely apart when any single claim that it makes is shown to be in err. It’s a fixed and rigid system of belief that can not tolerate any variance from it at all. Yet, when it becomes clear to all that it is indeed wrong (e.g., Clears DON’T have eidetic recall), then your left either to admit that your supposedly infallible system is indeed fallible (and there goes Elrons demi-god status too) or to do some fast and fancy footwork to try and “re-define” away your failures and hope folks won’t notice or fuss, which is exactly what the re-definiton of Clear seems obviously to be.
A less technical way of making the main point here is just to ask if there’s any objective way of falsifying a person’s claim of being clear, or is it completely based on their subjective claim alone (plus, of course, a big, wide F/N)? I’d argue that that is case now and that by making the criteria for having attained the state of Clear one that’s merely subjective, $cn has moved ever further away from being able to make a scientifically validated claim for its auditing services…which, hilariously, is exactly what that infamous 1996 policy letter on $cn not making any kind of promises or claims for its services made so crystal clear. “We want all your money, but make no legally enforceable claims concerning the efficacy of these very expensive services that we’re flogging…and, btw, isn’t it time for you to move up in your IAS status?”
HF, please see my comment about Clear here: https://www.mikerindersblog.org/clear-schmear/#comment-150904
Otherwise, this is getting into too much significance and figure-figure to be a worthwhile discussion, IMO. I’ve seen you do better, but thanks for your efforts.
I just re-read your post there. You have a much better and fresher grasp of the history of developments and changes that this central theoretical construct went through over time, so I appreciate your efforts.
I can be fairly long-winded, so it’s always a good exercise to boil things down as best you can, for clarity, focus and conciseness sake.
The key point that I was trying to make here concerning the term that Elron coined can be most easily understood by beginning with what you said here, “In the end, he worked out a definition for Clear which he said fit all cases: ‘No longer has his own reactive mind.’ ”
The Clear state, on that definition, is defined negatively, as an absence of something. There’s just no possible way to make that definition one that you can be objectively evaluated as it is entirely a subjective set of criteria that establishes it.
The historical move from defining Clear as a set of positive abilities gained, to one that is completely subjective and defined negatively as an absence of something, has taken $cn even further away from mainstream science and any possibility of objectively verifying its efficacy which to me is definitely not the way to go.
HF: “The historical move from defining Clear as a set of positive abilities gained, to one that is completely subjective and defined negatively as an absence of something, has taken $cn even further away from mainstream science and any possibility of objectively verifying its efficacy which to me is definitely not the way to go.”
Actually, mainstream science does use subjective experiences when it comes to the testing of anything that is influenced by the human factor, or consciousness. It does so by the use of statistics of multiple reliable experiences – and they consider this to be as “objective” as they can get. For example, what better way to test the efficacy of a medication for pain than to tabulate subjective responses to “an absence of something” – in this case, pain.
With regard to testing pharmaceutical products, there could also be physiological testing that would correlate with the subjective results. But the general subject of psychology and its methods of helping people (without the use of drugs) is not considered true science, because of the human factor and the inability to give objective proof. At best, it is called “soft science.” Some day physiological tests may be developed that will correlate physical responses and subjective experiences – both in psychology and scientology. (And this is something LRH talked about in a sense, in DMSMH, when he described the enmest of an engram, as well as the entheta.)
All that said, I’m in agreement with My 2 Cents that, for the individual, what counts is one’s own experience. Unless of course, one has been indoctrinated too heavily into the belief system of orthodox science. Like any religion, orthodox science has its own beliefs, which are really only assumptions.
Harpoona, I’ve forgotten. Have you ever given or received Scientology auditing?
Yes, I’ve received a fair amount of auditing and also trained and interned as Dn auditor way back in the day.
Harpoona, you have repeated “where’s the eidetic recall,” etc. too many times to count — each time very long-windedly. You’re right that no one has ever reached Clear as defined in DMSMH. But that misses the point entirely. I was thrilled with my case gain from the auditing I received (or, at least the portion of it that was actually the Grade Chart). That was my test of the validity of the subject. I couldn’t care less about eidetic recall or any of LRH’s other overblown claims. Nor do I need some university psychology department to tell me that the subject works or doesn’t work. You have made it all far too complex. The proof is above the level of formal logic. The proof is in doing it and seeing what happens. You can’t “figure it out” without doing it, and doing it correctly.
No Harpoona, you are correct. The proof is in the complete lack of proof.
I don’t think it’s the “hostile blog” that makes it difficult for you to state you’ve seen “full OTVII exterior with full perceptics…” but rather the natural disinclination to tell a tale to a bunch of people you know aren’t going to have any of it.
Of course people will say, “PROVE IT!!” when it comes to making a claim that is both objectifiable AND outside the scope of any known person’s experience. It is in such instances proof enjoys its greatest popularity!
I couldn’t help but notice you asserted it anyway but in a fashion you think exonerates you from the burden of proof incumbent with any assertion. And that business about scientology surpassing the objectives of Buddhism holds far less water than your college friend’s argument about the universe being imaginary. But wait, didn’t thetans POSTULATE the universe? That means they THOUGHT it up and if it’s made of thought then it’s imaginary!
Karen, which in itself invalidates the idea of an analytical mind…
Dear Ksren, Wow, what a great explanation. I am sure that you are correct, it certainly explains my own case (I went clear in 1952; did CCRD in 86 at FSO) and also because I imagine that you are the most highly trained person with the most experience of any who post here.
Wow, I just had a cog from this. This explains in auditing why I run incidents occurring in the last lifetime which appear to be from 2 different beings. i.e One set of maybe 10 incidents run to EP indicates that I was Volney Mathieson and another set of 10 incidents run to EP show that I was a NAZI concentration camp guard. I doubt Volney was a Nazi concentration camp guard but you never know; the Gestapo could have used E-Meters. I know that putting my past life identities out here will probably get me a whole bunch of eval and inval but that is OK, I can take it, bring it on. Probably both of these identities are BTs and God only knows who the hell I really am. It seems to me that a lot of commenters here love controversy so here is my humble contribution. Well, maybe not very humble, but neither Scientologists nor the Master Race are or were humble.
There can be a different explanation to it. Just as a pure theory.
The usual concept is that a being has one lifetime after the other in sequence. From 1900 to 1950, next from 1950 to 1990, next from 1990 to present time. That might be true but has not to be so.
If life and time would be real as it is thought then there is no other explanation to it. But keep in mind that there is a “between life”. There is really not much knowledge around about that time. And time itself can be questioned. So I could say, as we do not know much about it, there can be plenty of a manipulation going on in that area.
It can be possible, as the between life is somewhere outside the physical universe space and time, that a being can have a life from 1900 to 1950. Then the next life from 1820 to 1880. Next from 1920 to 1960. And the next one again from 1900 to 1950 different identity and country. That theory could explain some phenomena about reincarnation. And would wonderfully fit into why some things in auditing or accidental remembering the past do not make sense at all.
And you can still charge the ‘Clear’ for BT removal. That was certainly the reason behind the redefinition. Gross Income trumps logic every time in the empire of the clams. The carrot of OTness has to be sold to the mark, I mean supplicant.
Now, rent that mental dumpster and fill it with your BTs. And empty that bank account and your self worth, because the C/S and registrar know how much you have. They too are at cause over MEST. Your MEST.
Karen, your technical explanation of “Clear on the first dynamic” was great. As a Class XII with lots of experience auditing, C/Sing, and doing Clear Certainty stuff, you would know. I was going to answer the other posters with things along the line of what you said, but you beat me to it and did it more clearly than I could have. Thanks.
Yep. Quite agree Cindy. But the yip-yapping goes on and on…
Yes, as I said — too much more yip yapping and you are history
So Karen. I have never had “pictures in the mind” so would I be what was called a natural clear?
Terra Cognita I hereby declare you the Gadfly of Scientology.
Had to look up Gadfly but yes I agree.
That’s better than a House fly, right?
On the fly I’d say yes.
Well…that’s the buzz around town.
House flies like a banana, time flies like an arrow.
I make flys to fool fish, Am I OT or what! Total cause over buzzy and finny things.
Wow! Fooling fish is one of the greatest powers you can have! I’ve only heard about avatars like you. And now I know one! I’m so humbled…
Yeah, well… I don’t like to brag… BUT!!!!!!
Wow. ” survive”. That’s amazing, never ever thought about surviving. Whoa… I’m totally blown away. Survive. The sages through the ages are aghast they missed that one.
Imma grab some popcorn. TC posts are always worth it.
Anybody want sharsies? I’ve got buttered, caramel, cheddar, and sea salt. If we run out, I’ll whip up toffee with almonds.
Inherent in being clear is having a clear cog “I’m mocking it up” (creating it, the reactive mind) which adds a significant twist to your post. If you cease mocking up your reactive mind, doesn’t it all go away?
In theory, you become more you, since that burden of self created reactive mind is no longer influencing you, because, It be no more bro! How could you possibly not be clear on all dynamics you ask?
Well, OT III and above aside, Ron, the master of the shifting goal post, has the answer which is found in the Time Track HCOBS that were part of the original Dianetics course. He alleged that there are permanently created portions of the time track. Permanently created portions of the bank? Sound pretty ominous, doesn’t it?
What could THEY be?
GPMS and Implant GPMs! Say Whaaa ???
GPM = goals Problem Mass – which in theory are opposing goals ( to be a saint vs to be an evil doer ) held in suspension in time because problems caused by the opposed goals are equally balanced, and thus float along in the present, wreaking havoc in your head forever.
The person’s own GPMs ceased being created by him when he successfully completed grade IV (see your Ser Fac tapes) so that left the implant GPMS found in OT II.
And what if you complete running out those pesky implant GPMs? Are you at last free to sun through a field of daisies?
Just ask your AO registrar that very question – I am certain he / she has a possible answer to your woes.
Mimsey
Run through the field, not sun through the field, though it has poetic feel to it. Mimsey.
The whole shootin match just intensifies beyond the zeros on your calculator when you really address the question – well.. are you body, or are you a mind, maybe just a piece of it or are you – you?
The clutter is swept under the carpet for most part. Pity the dead don’t speak up a bit louder (they do for some, but we generally lock those people away or call ’em gurus, commodore or some such term, depending on how we feel at the time or if it has the apparency of solving something).
I’m speaking up. (Joke)
TC, once again you have debunked a cornerstone of Hubbards seemingly logical applied philosophy. When this came out I had to come to my own conclusion about clear. Because it was never “clear” what that meant. Thanks for opening up the concept and making me think. I guarantee you that most devout members don’t really understand what they are trying to achieve. A travesty and very sad for them.
What he meant, I’m pretty sure, was that you don’t have your OWN reactive mind (your first dyamic) … but you have a GROUP’S collective reactive minds (all the BTs form a group) so you still have a third dynamic reactive deal going on.
So then Joe it’s kind of like the cherch!
The groups collective reactive minds forming a third dynamic ‘reactive deal’ with Daves ‘mind’ leading the herd down the path and over the cliffs.
Yo Dave,
Howz them bee tees treatin you good buddy? Time to up the amperage?
It’s all part of Dave’s quest for power. Know watt I’m saying?
So I guess the original definition of clear is no longer in use: A clear is to a normal person, what a normal person is to the institutionally insane.
A Clear is to a normal person what a normal person is to an average person. Satisfied?
Is that why you can be an alcohol clear person. Nothing like a good quality Merlot to put you in the comfort zone. Ahhh… now that satisfies, especially before (possibly during) and after some of those 2D activities.
Your posts are quite bright…
Thanks for the illuminating discussion.
Hubbard did make mention of “entities” from the very onset of his writing. For what seems like decades he insisted you don’t have to address them directly, if at all. Be 3 feet back of the head type of scenario is what he began with. Then mock processing was all the go but then along came the almost incomprehensible R6 bank routines and goal finding dominated the scene. (The emeter then became the rock solid base of it all and resulted in it being heavily enforced into the tech, a version of ‘don’t think, look’ at a technical level). That all culminated and simplified with R6EW, Power processes & the CC. Then the alleged original OT levels with OT4 being a technical case polish up and the CC done again at cause, not a space cootie in sight in those days.
Without any reference to any validity to the way he addressed his subject or any work-ability but it all went to heck when addressing the entities became the only (enforced) option for upper Bridge dwellers. At the same time the term Clear was, it’s hard not to think it was unintentional but was muddied beyond comprehension and buried beneath so many conflicting references (the realm of NED/NOTs mixed into the fray) it’s damn near impossible for 2 or more Scios to agree on any of it. The banning of Dianetics on 3 was a real fox in the hen house, it killed off any desire to recall anything. That’s one hell of an evaluation to interject into the abilities of OT.
It has to one of the most arguable subjects ever to be put in print.
Thanks Yawnalot.well articulated.Love your posts.
“The banning of Dianetics on 3 was a real fox in the hen house, it killed off any desire to recall anything. That’s one hell of an evaluation to interject into the abilities of OT.”
There is a difference between RECALLING and RUNNING an incident with Dianetics. On the latter, you basically go back and re-experience it.
That is true. I wonder though, if done solo how one comes up with an incident to run if it is not recalled in some fashion to begin with, then run – maybe meter assessed or something similar might be of assistance – just saying.
Restimulation of course must be taken into account I suppose but also date locate take’s a form of memory recall just to get the units of time squared away with that part of the track, then again you can just know it too, but if you could do that already, it wouldn’t need to be audited. That could be interpreted as a fix all too. I just don’t think putting restrictions upon an experienced campaigner is all such a good thing. Otherwise what’s the point of freestyle and CS correction. ie if the CS is up scratch themselves that is… A very sad point in the Cof$, they all sit in heavy duty treason, probably a massy confusion if one was to relate them to their ethical guidelines & viability of results on and with PCs.
When does the fledgling turn into a bird and leave the nest with Scientology? According to Miscavige and his RTC hoodlums – NEVER!
“When does the fledgling turn into a bird and leave the nest with Scientology?”
That’s an important question. I think the time to leave the nest is when you feel you have gained what you could with scientology and are ready to forge your own path. Your “own” path may or may not involve following a path that has been created by others, be it ancient or modern, but it’s still a path of your own choosing. In other words, it’s a matter of now being self-determined – which was the whole point (at least in the beginning) – and now you’ve achieved it.
Running an incident, and date and locate, assumes a linear time track, which is a construct. Time as a thing. to a being, is another construct.
That’s interesting. How does it relate to the subject being discussed?
Miraldi – Engrams are assumed to be on a linear time track following the observable physical universe time line. However, space-time is now accepted and other theories about time exist.
One time during a peak experience I decided to “take a look at the past”. It simply became a not unpleasant haze with a sort of a swirl appearance, in effect, a “thing”.
As you know, Miraldi, nondualism takes the viewpoint that “I”, “me” or any other description of self is as a “timeless observer”. This is real to a lot of people but nonsense to others. I don’t operate as a timeless observer, but I’m willing to take it as a possibility.
Who knows how many “Philosophy of Being” practices exist and can be explored on the internet. Take your pick! – laughter
R factor on non-duality:
“Nonduality” or “advaita” means there is not two. There is only self-experiencing awareness and everything known precipitates out of it as a ring would precipitate out of gold. You are that awareness and everything perceived is that formless awareness in the mode of form. The thinking, doing, self-determined entity (individual person) is a form appearing in you, formless awareness.
You do not “operate”. You are the witness to the “operating” which includes the feeling that you are doing it. You are the all-encompassing substrate of perfect, undisturbed equilibrium (no wavelength) . This is Hubbard’s briefly mentioned “static”. This is what you are. It has no past or future as it isn’t of time. You are the eternal “now”. This knowledge is universally conferred on all those who “attain” enlightenment. That is ‘nondualism’, ‘non-duality’ in a nutshell. Like calculus, it doesn’t yield to understanding easily for most of us.
NotClear2me: “One time during a peak experience I decided to ‘take a look at the past’. It simply became a not unpleasant haze with a sort of a swirl appearance, in effect, a ‘thing.'”
Wow – the “swirl appearance” seems to be a theme or a fractal of the universe – both in physics and metaphysics.
Thanks for your other comments too. I am basically in agreement with your observations.
Roger and Miraldi – Roger, thank you for the excellent clarification – my understanding of nondualism ebbs and flows – I don’t force it. Miraldi, bringing up fractals put me on an interesting word clearing expediton. Fractals appear in many areas of scientific and metaphysical research. I’ll continue looking into it. 🙂
NC2M, I’m gratified by your acknowledgement. Very lovely of you.
Roger, I agree that you did a very good job on your description of nondualism.
And I agree that NC2M gave you and I both a nice ack. (Thanks, NotClear2me.)
Yawn I asked a friend that same question about Dianetics after 3. He said that he ran a LOT of it after 3 (back in the late ’60’s) and it ran just like it did before he did the CC. The banning of that practice is what opened his eyes to the scam and him leaving. A logical look by him at that point unraveled the whole ball of “make believe” as he called it.
Yes for whatever it’s worth to you I cannot agree with Hubbard writing or endorsing that. It is indeed a wild thing to do considering 3 was such a huge case evaluation anyway. BS or not a departure from the party line theme of self- determinism being the pot at the end of the rainbow took a big about turn with banning Dianetics on 3. It is one of the basic tools of Scientologists and OT3 and solo were at the cusp of being self-determined. It was like Hubbard was putting the brakes on the Bridge to do that, comparing it to the flow of what came before.
I’ve never heard of anyone complaining about having run Dianetics during 3 or seen or known or read about someone who has. It is one of those things where Hubbard said so and so it is! Have you?
Please don’t reply with “El Con scam” to all posts. I’m asking nicely, just to be socially conforming. This blog does more good than harm in exposing the abusiveness contained within Scientology. Side discussions, especially of a technical nature do communicate to some who need to have their experiences explained or at least it lets them know, they are not alone with what occurred with them personally. Gross technical and ethical departures at all Org levels are common within that organisation. Broad invalidation of it all doesn’t do anyone any good. Let people wake up slowly if needed. OK?
Ya know around the time of the creation of the S.O. he seemed to be turning inward more himself. Don’t know if it was the legal troubles or “case” problems… 3 seemed to be part of that situation.
Yawn: “I’ve never heard of anyone complaining about having run Dianetics during 3 or seen or known or read about someone who has. It is one of those things where Hubbard said so and so it is! Have you?”
Actually, I have heard of this. One example is a friend of mine who was having trouble in his NED auditing. He was then C/S’d for a DCSI and found to be Clear.
What you wrote here is worth repeating:
“This blog does more good than harm in exposing the abusiveness contained within Scientology. Side discussions, especially of a technical nature do communicate to some who need to have their experiences explained or at least it lets them know, they are not alone with what occurred with them personally. Gross technical and ethical departures at all Org levels are common within that organisation. Broad invalidation of it all doesn’t do anyone any good. Let people wake up slowly if needed. OK?
Great comment.
Marildi, I meant actually running Dianetics while doing OT3. Gee, from memory (elusive varmint these days) I think it’s called Milano or something like that.
Okay, gotcha. Btw, if I remember right (I know what you mean about elusive memory!) I think Dexter Gelfand mentioned in a comment one time that he audits Clears on Power and it works out well for them with no problems. I guess that would be similar.
Interesting Yawnalot. While it is true that Hubbard talked about entities in “History of Man” the idea was pretty different from the later BTs. The entity in your elbow is explained as being a “control center” from some long ago body that had a primitive brain in a different part of the body. He got this from the concept of reflexes, where a lower leg can jerk when you tap on the knee etc.
In another reference he talks about space ship crews that somehow get attached to somebody. Almost as if he was hearing voices in his head…
While I endorse the idea that people sometimes think with the wrong parts of their bodies, it is hard to conceive of a body that has the brain in the elbow. Huh.
However the idea of BTs is totally different. Either he was wrong in his blatherings in 1952 or deliberately lied. Or he made the whole thing up, best likely hypothesis.
It is interesting that there is no one in Scientology that could even hint at this subject without a trip to Ethics. Only from the outside can you see what is really going on.
But at any rate, the idea of the BTs is so full of holes that they sound more like the DTs. If there are such things, they would only be on Earth. No ice cubes in volcanoes on any other planets. So why go to Target Two? And if the Fifth Invaders don’t have encrustations of BTs why are they such evil dudes? All they need is a little Dianetics and they’d be back to Native State! Also with 7 billion on the planet and conservatively 100 BTs each there would have had to be almost a trillion ice cubes. Probably many more. Some day we are going to run out of BTs and the OT levels will be impossible. WTF????
Inquiring minds want to know, but not really. Time for dinner.
“And if the Fifth Invaders don’t have encrustations of BTs why are they such evil dudes? All they need is a little Dianetics and they’d be back to Native State!”
Bruce, you talk about BT’s, which was Incident 2, but seem to be forgetting about Incident 1 – which has to do with the thetan’s entrance into the MEST universe. All thetans were said have this incident on their track.
Of course, it might all be myth, but, as with many philosophies, myth is a way to express creation and existence. Spiritual teachers say that our current state of being began with the creation of a mind – a mind thinks in dualities – and this is the nature of the physical universe. Hence – Incident 1.
Correct marildi. Incident 1 was it. However, who was here to rig incident one when thetans first created and entered this universe? Also, the universe if huge. How did thetans entering at different locals get pulled into the location (billions of light years distant) as soon as they entered? How about the people who set it up. Surely THEY weren’t stupid enough to do it too?
A quick use of VERY basic logic destroys that explanation as well. LRH couldn’t answer those Q’s. He just ignored them hoping KSW 1 would silence those of a logical and inquisitive nature.
History of Man says you were twinned up with hypnotized beings too.I’m not so sure distance had that much to do with it. KSW 1 did demand compliance without inspection – that is for sure.
Being twinned would not be applicable prior to entering this universe. As none were hypnotized at that point. So, that wouldn’t explain how ALL thetans entering the universe were sucked in. Also, no answer to those who created the incident.
This type of complete illogic is rife in Hubbard’s stories. He relied on his students to not look closely nor to apply basic logic.
This falls into the same pattern of lies like trains running on Venus.
Great essay Terra Cognita
Regarding the state of clear, I think this was a discovery, but I do not think it was an LRH discovery.
In 1942 “Rogerian therapy”, the basic concept was: if you asked clients/patients questions about their problems and then listened without evaluation or invalidation, many of these troubled people realized they were creating their own mental problems (State of Clear).
So, I don’t think this improved “state of Clear” was new in 1950, but it was, to be kind, coined and “embellished” by LRH in DMSMH giving it all manner of “abilities gained”. These “abilities gained” were about as true as the readers of his 1948 Excalibur transcript jumping out of windows and committing suicide. (Smiley face here)
LRH was loath to give credit to others for their psychology techniques or discoveries, so he claimed them as his own and embellished them beyond all recognition which had 2 main results: 1) obscured the original authorship and 2) trapped people into paying and following him trying to find out if his highly embellished states were true/attainable.
If the only improvement you experienced in auditing was what Rogers or others said you would experience, then LRH said you didn’t do it right, were PTS or would find it on the next level.
I believe that throughout his life he researched for more workable “self enlightenment” techniques using auditing techniques based on Carl Rogers’ “Person-centered therapy” and other psychologists, but mainly Carl Rogers. Each advance LRH made was discovered by asking clients questions to a “win” and then he obfuscated the “win” with unbelievable embellishments, which kept people chasing the next level where unbelievable states of existence would be realized?? States of existence so exalting and exhilarating that you would be happy to blindly follow him and pay him lots of money. (These were his self admitted 2 obsessions: power and money)
This was a pattern he continued his whole life. And, I followed for 35 years. But, no more.
You can see Rogers here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers
*Counseling and Psychotherapy (1942). In it, Rogers suggested that the client, by establishing a relationship with an understanding, accepting therapist, can resolve difficulties and gain the insight necessary to restructure their life.
Would you agree that LRH did improve upon Rogers and others in that auditing is much more systematic and therefore faster and more efficient?
Yes. I agree. He did do that. But, he also delivered some real zingers to increase his wealth and power over you. Sorting that out after the fact might not be so fast or efficient. For many on staff, they are simply enslaved and go no where on the Bridge their whole life.
Yes, but I think we agree that those are different issues and that they should be addressed as such.
That makes a lot of sense, Robert. It also explains why decades later folks are still saying that it works. It does sort of work, in that it makes you feel better about yourself. Usually, unless you are one of the few who are literally driven insane.
It just does not work as promised. It does not routinely provide eidetic memory, freedom from the common cold or eyeglasses. Or leukemia. Or even stage fright. Sometimes spectacular results happen, but remember you can say the same thing about faith healing or magic crystals.The placebo effect is real.
When the early claims were proved false, he changed them. After Dianetics fell apart he went on to Scientology and tried to add an Aleister Crowley inspired “spiritual” aspect. The “engrams” were no longer traces on a cell, they were spiritual baggage from endless past lifetimes. But the new “spiritual” techniques also failed to produce anything more valuable than an afternoon at the movies. So he changed them up.
Every year from the 50s through the early 60s new earth-shattering revelations were announced. Only to fail and be superseded by even more mind-blowing revelations next year. Sometimes with a meter. Sometimes no meter. Sometimes Creative Processes, Sometimes Objective processes. Sometimes Subjective processes.
You could be forgiven for thinking these new revelations were just a way to fill seats at the Congresses and so on. This is why Dave is shooting himself in the foot by insisting that everybody study the “Basics” and Congress lectures. Take off the blinders for even a second and you can see that the repeated refrain about real Clearing, really really this time for sure! repeated again and again smacks of desperation.
But finally after the failure in South Africa he woke up to the fact that Clearing was never going to do what he said it could do. So from then to the end of his life he tried and failed to find something else besides the reactive mind to explain the failure of Clearing.
The fact of the matter is that Clearing is a dumb idea in the first place.
There is no inner superhuman just waiting to burst free of the bonds of the subconscious and soar above the clouds like super-man. This is an old sci-fi idea from the 30s that never had a real basis. They used to say that 80% of the brain is unused. Today much more is known about the brain and the old idea that “80% is unused” is just as scientific as the flat earth. But you still see it in science fiction shows like “Limitless”.
Time to let it go. Let’s be humans, as good and kind as we can be, and leave the Nazis and the ignorant to embrace the ideal Übermensch. https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~pj97/Nietzsche.htm
Yup, I agree Bruce…
And, I think the popularity of “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” and other Nietzsche books in LRH’s formative years led him down the road to create his own Übermensch, which he called Homo Novis. While the idea of a Superman was not an entirely new concept at the time, promoting and selling the mental state for a fee was pure LRH.
If you did increase the brain’s activity or metabolism, you’d need to eat like somebody stationed in Antarctica because it can only use glucose as a fuel:
The heart and kidneys are more metabolically active than the brain, but as the brain is larger, it takes a higher proportion of the body’s energy needs. At rest, it uses approximately 20% to 23% of the body’s total energy requirements, despite accounting for only 2% of the body’s mass. Almost all of that oxygen is used to oxidize glucose to carbon dioxide and water.
http://www.about-axona.com/us/en/hcp/dcgm/normal-metabolism.html
Very true Bruce and Robert. I couldn’t have said it more plainly. The I deal of the 80 % myth is just that a myth . We use all of our brains. Their isn’t any bit of our brain we don’t use. Some people use their brains more efficiently then others.
Thanks Terra for another thought provoking essay.
Whenever I read about the dynamics I can’t help thinking about Maslow’s heirarchy of needs which I studied in college: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs This also explains survival and is actually much easier to think with the the 8 dynamics idea, for example its easy to think that if a family is struggling to find anything to eat then they are not going to give a stuff about mountain gorillas, clearly they would fall into the ‘physiological’ bottom tier of the triangle. On the other hand you hear of rich people who become altruistic simply because they are higher on the scale, maybe at ‘self actualization’.
I got into scn reluctantly after being told it was a much faster route to clear than dianetics, all I was really interested in was the super powers which Hubbard had supposedly proven through his ‘extensive research and testing’ The religious angle never appealed neither did the idea of telling someone all my inner thoughts and feelings, and especially not admitting to my misdeeds. I was certainly not happy that clear had been redefined as the meaningless state you have described here. I’ve met plenty of ‘clears’ who are doing no better in life than me, in fact in many ways since I quit the cult things have improved for me considerably. Not having to sit listening to hubbard babbling on in some tedious lecture is a major plus point of getting out.
Thanks for your well formulated post Gimpy.
Same for me.I just wanted supernatural powers.Not for Krisna or Jesus or Thor. But for me.
When i was a 12 yo boy i bought a magic glass from my piggybank that could look through girl’s dresses.
I lost $5.
When I was 18 I bought a bridge.
I lost $300.000 and my family.
xenu’s son,
That’s terribly funny but sad. I am glad you can joke about it…. I did about the same thing, and would have bought the $5 glasses too if I had the money at the time….
XS, it is important to laugh, but, far more important to feel empathy. That’s a banned subject in the cult.
May your kids see the light & return home.
Wow man… best of luck to you. It’s tough hey?
One of Hubbard’s fundamental errors was trying to make nouns out of adjectives. And let’s face it, some people are just queer on their dynamics.
You got the “just for fun” bit right. That’s clearly what this attempt of trying to understand something represents.
Ross and Carrie would agree with you. The pair of them did intro Scientology services at LA Org and Celebrity and went to an event as beginners.
http://ohnopodcast.com/?offset=1459704043279
Episodes 2 and 3 are funny to hear their first impressions.
Main problem? The theory about the existence of a “reactive mind” doesn’t even qualify as a theory and isn’t true. So, the entire subject is a waste of time.
Bingo! No reactive mind, no engrams, no chains, no erasure, etc. Lots of writing about these things, but NO research behind any of it. All babble and false promises = con game.
And no more handing over money…
LOL! Mike, you sure make short work of that!
Thanks rog & Ms. B
Often the best way to settle an argument is to determine whether or not there is anything to argue about. 😉
Right on Mike Wynski A Waste of time.
Dear TC: How have you managed not being declared? If there’s a system to it, it mgiht be a marvelous tool for some sitting on the edge. A sort of reverse “get out of jail” tool!
Very interesting dissection on Clear. Many thanks. TGM
Actually, the eight dynamics sound like the eight chakras, with the serial numbers filed off. This probably comes courtesy of good ol’ Uncle Al Crowley, by way of our dear Jack Parsons. As for myself, I find the chakras a good thing to think with, Scientolological taint or no.
Well, there are many “systems of groupings” that people have devised to make it easier to understand and prioritize aspects of life, and, for want of a better word, “beingness”. Another poster mentioned Maslow and his groupings. Most complex matters can be handled more easily by breaking them into separate components. Just like in higher level math, where you have to handle a piece of the problem at a time, as the whole of it is too complex. LRH’s 8 dynamics was as good a “grouping” system as any other, in my opinion, but not really so comparable to the chakras, which deal specifically with aspects of the individual. Plus the color coordination of the chakras makes for better jewelry than Scn’s clear bracelet. lol. :p Only half-kidding, as I do own several natural gemstone and chakra related necklaces and so forth. But I don’t see the connection between the mysticism of the chakras and Jack Parsons/Al Crowley, I think it’s rather more benign than that and not cloaked in “dark arts”, it’s more like, “look to the light” type of thing, right? Crystal healing and so forth. I like reading here because there are always interesting points being brought up by posters on this blog, it’s often mind-expanding. Thanks to all, for the good conversations.
And always sending positive thoughts and wishing for the best for those who are facing difficulties due to their involvement with the Church of Scientology. Thanks to those who speak out and relate their experiences, (both positive and negative) and much love to anyone who is facing the heartbreak of disconnection from a loved one. You are in my thoughts every day. Stay strong and never give up hope. Love, T.J.
Aleister Crowley and Jack Parsons are not about ‘dark arts’, even though recognition of Satan forms a very important part of Thelemic principles. What Crowley tried to do was to form a synthesis of known Asian mysticism with Kabbalah, Tarot, and other Western systems to form a working, comprehensive system of Ceremonial Magick and mystic thought, whose beginning and end is the assertion “Thou art God.” (Where Satan comes in is that Crowley thought that Christianity, especially the type that he’d grown up with had so lost sight of this, one might as well assert one God’s opposite.) Where Hubbard deviated from this was to pervert the system to read “I am God, but you will never be.” All of Hubbard’s evils can be traced to this.
That there are eight of both dynamics and chakras, they’re both shown on charts with a spectral sequence, they can be roughly put into one-to-one correspondence (although raw survival is only the first chakra, and sex somewhere around the fourth) kind of makes me think that Ron had read “Eight Lectures on Yoga” or some such under his tutelage of Jack Parsons. (And no, the whole ‘crystal healing’ thing is more a modern development, mostly to sell jewelry I figure.) Yes I know about other groupings, especially Maslow’s. I guess since I assume that most people know something about Crowley past the Satan bit, especially here, that I came out sounding naive.
To which I can only add the blessing Crowley took from Francois Rabelais, who got it from Saint Augustine: “In future times, Do What Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the Law, Love under God’s Will.”
Now do you consider that “dark arts” or not?
I have NO idea what “dark arts” are.
I DO however know where, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law” eventually leads to in a social science context.
Most intelligent people too can figure it out with a little thought. And thus, there isn’t much else that needs be said.
Ah, but you have to take the whole quote. What you do, you should do out of love. Love of self, love of others, and the love of God. It’s not a prescription, it’s an ideal. It’s not that YOU are God, you recognize the Godhood of others, too. It’s not social science, it’s religion, and just because Hubbard was a baddie, Crowley was (debatably) nasty, and Jack Parsons (mostly) a good guy, doesn’t mean you have to throw away the whole thing.
I DID study the whole quote and stand by what I wrote.
I understand. Thank you. Let us agree to disagree.