Re: Definition of a clear

DWTripp (dwtripp@aol.com> writes:

>You have zeroed in on the line between pr and reality Diane.
>CoS has been in a quandry over this since the release of ot3
>in the late 60's and the subsequent dparture of many of it's
>adherents. How can they easily explain the "total erasure"
>concept and still sell the higher levels to people who have no
>reactive mind?
From the reading I've done, it appears that Hubbard truly believed that he could produce permanent clears with Dianetics [tm] back in the 1950s and 60s. He cured Campbell's sinusitis and all sort of other things with auditing.

Only trouble is, his clears didn't *stay* clear. There were a lot of Dianetics[tm] devotees back in the 1950s who became disillusioned when they realized their *wins* were only temorary.

No doubt, trying to produce permanent clears was Hubbard's original motivation for developing the upper levels. But somewhere along the line he also realized that he could also appreciably raise his income with this strategy as well. The guy knew a scam when he saw one.

>This fits right in with my assertion that CoS management has
>commited the majority of it's transgressions in order to
>maintain the appearance of being a church (which they aren't).
>I will point out that bona fide churches use a similar
>concept when lecturing to members that redemption doesn't
>mean satan can't find you again (interpretation: keep those
>tithes coming).
But the official Scn line (as quoted from *WIS?*) is that clear is a permanent state --"a stable state, not subject to relapse." This is not at all similar to what Christians teach about "being saved," which is *never* defined as a permanent state of being.

From *WIS?* it appears that the lower levels are more or less garden variety psychological counseling and self-improvement programs sold at exhorbitant prices and permeated with some vague sense of mysticism.

>Here's the scoop on what Clear really is and why it doesn't
>spell the end to one's need for the upper levels.
>
>The Clearing Course (which used to be the only route to
>Clear) is described by Hubbard as a process akin to digging
>a ditch. A pc audited the materials until a specific
>realization was had. The CC supervisor's job was to closely
>follow the pc's process looking for signs that the person
>had obtained that realization. In short, the realization
>is: "I am mocking it all up". This means that the pc now
>understands that he alone is the source of all his problems
>and that he controls the state of the reactive mind (here/
>gone/here/gone). A "wog" translation of this cognition might
>be described thusly: "the only reason you have a bad
>attitude is that you have a bad attitude". Don't laugh.
>Examine that closely cause there is some truth there. Spirit
>will, determination, positive thinking, and many other terms
>can be used to describe what a "clear" actually obtains.
>Which is simply the realization that one ought not to be
>whining too much about self-induced abberations.
I've seen exactly the same thing happen in cognitive therapy group sessions when people come face-to-face with the realization that they themselves are responsible for their own moods (the only person who can *make* you angry is you yourself, etc.). There are some significant differences, however:

Cognitive therapy is available for a fraction of the cost of auditing. When "Diantetics" first came out, it was touted as "the poor man's psychotherapy." The "Church" <spit> has outdone the shrinks as far as greed ever since then.

Cognitive therapy does not resort to such foolishness as resorting to "past life" engrams to explain away the unexplainable (a *real* cop-out IMO).

Cognitive therapy doesn't depend upon the magical, mystical e-meter to reach such a cognition. It's done by learning to examine your present thought patterns rationally and then learning to recognize irrational thoughts on you own, freeing you from the "tech", rather than tying you to it.

I could go on, but I think you get my point. Perhaps most important of all, however, is that pratitioners of cognitive therapy are educated to recognize the difference between situational mood disorders which can be handled through therapy alone and chronic, systemic disorders caused by biochemical imbalance. Very good medications are now readily available when needed and they sure beat locking up someone in a basement for adequate therapy, if you get my drift.

>The "gone forever" aspect of clearing meant that Hubbard
>had to look for a reason why someone who was now capable
>of "not mocking up" a reactive mind could suddenly appear
>to have one. Who would do that (mock it back up) after
>all that effort to get the cog in the 1st place? Well
>certainly not the new clear.. so who else is around?
>Hmmmmmm... I think you know where I'm headed with this one.
Those pesky BTs! <grin> I have a great theory about their origin, BTW.

>FYI, in many thousands of hours of auditing others I
>heard this "clear cog" a number of times. My personal view
>is that the cog itself is a valid acceptance of responsibility
>on the part of the individual and that it was worth it for
>many thousands of people. It's obvious that one doesn't
>need Scientology to come to this realization, but then
>again, if it's obtained through Scientology, it is no less
>valid. Scientology auditing is, imo, not a useless
>procedure, in fact, it can be pretty effective.
I can accept what you're saying to a certain extent. But I do have objections.

Why spend all that money for something you can get much less expensively at your local shrink's office? What about the cost/benefit ratio here?

While one is being *cleared*, one is also being mentally prepared to accept the mumbo-jumbo of the advanced levels. And I'm sure the sales pitch to continue on *the Bridge* is formidible and relentless, right?

One becomes "addicted" to auditing in a benign[?] sort of way. Admit it, people like Ken Long and Elizabeth McCoy see salvation in holding the cans, not in thinking through their problems on their own. Pretty sick, right? Pretty expensive, right?

>What's bogus is the notion that it's a religious experience
>and that a shroud of secrecy exists only to protect thetans
>from things that could harm them.
That's all part of the packet, Wolf. Take it or leave it. It looks as though even the squirrels lust after the advanced level materials.

Diane Richardson ao579@yfn.ysu.edu