Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Scientology Technology' started by Clay Pigeon, May 24, 2018.
Would someone please be so kind as to post the DMSMH characteristics of Clear?
Here's some of the characteristics. This is from David Mayo:
"In DMSMH, a clear was said to be 4.0 on the tone scale, with no aberrations (held down sevens), no psychoses, neuroses, nor psychosomatic illnesses. The clear was said to have eidetic recall and highly enhanced perceptions and creativity. Although this chappie didn't have any OT powers, he was definitely quite a phenomenon!
It is also significant that the attributes of a clear, as described in DMSMH, were never actually attained, although in reading DMSMH, one might be led to believe that they were. When people started attesting to clear, the definition was watered down to the vague generality "at cause over mental MEST as regards the first dynamic". This definition can mean many different things to many different people. Anyone is at least somewhat causative over his own mind. So anyone can find an interpretation of this definition of "clear" that he can attest to."
Thanks Pitsy but I would still like to see the exact list of characteristics from DMSMH
Go to the 5:55 mark of this video below and you'll see screenshots that Chris Shelton puts up that show you some of these characteristics:
I guess I must be wrong as it was my recall that DMSMH had one particular passage where Hubbard wrote a litany of characteristics of a clear that in literary terms could be thought an aria; a paean to peak of human capability and that all those characteristics have been displayed by one person and another and that I myself in peak moments have been to mountaintop much like described.
But looking at those white on black quotes Chris puts up I tend to suspect Mr. Hubbard may have been telling the occaisional minor fib in giving account of is pre-DMSMH research.
Hubbard would never do anything like that...
Here is one of the screen shots I referred to above:
(I had to split it into 2 sections, and they don't perfectly align, but there's no words left out.)
The First Edition of DMSMH is examined in detail over at the Bunker:
The first words of DMSMH (in the synopsis):
“The creation of dianetics is a milestone for Man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to his inventions of the wheel and arch.”
More claims from the synopsis:
— Dianetics (from the Greek for “thought”) is “the science of the mind,” and is simpler, as exact, and far more useful than physics and chemistry.
— Dianetics is actually a collection of pursuits in the humanities that have been brought together and made “precise.”
— Dianetics is an “exact science” on the order of engineering.
— Dianetics relies not on theories, but on axioms — in other words, revealed truths, not guesses.
— Dianetic therapy is able to cure, completely and with no chance of relapse, all “inorganic” and “psycho-somatic” illnesses (which, Hubbard says later in the book, make up 70 percent of all human ailments).
In the comments section at the Bunker (in response to Part II of this series "The State of Clear"), Jefferson Hawkins had this to say:
In a sense, Hubbard (and Scientologists) spent the next 30+ years backing away from the assertions in Dianetics. It was “scientific,” yet there were no actual research papers, research records (peer reviewed or otherwise), or anything else that demonstrated he had not, in fact, invented or borrowed the whole thing. I recall at one point I was working on writing an introduction to Dianetics, The Original Thesis and asked the Archives department if I could see Hubbard’s original research papers and case notes. They said no such papers or notes existed. In other words Hubbard, who obsessively kept everything about his life from early childhood, had neglected to preserve these?
So after a few years, Hubbard backed away from the “scientific” claim and re-branded it as a religion. And even to this day, Scientologists will back off from the “science” claim and begin attacking “science” as inferior to Hubbard’s spiritual intuition if you bring the subject up.
Hubbard’s inability to produce anything that resembled a Clear was a continual source of embarrassment. If you listen to the Congress lectures (nothing I recommend by the way), he is continually asserting, “We’re almost there, we’re on the road to producing a real Clear, it’s going to happen,” and so on. Then about 1959, he says “we’ve bypassed Clear and we’re going straight for OT.” Huh?
Then all the excitement about OT, all the Advance magazine stories of OT Phenomena. Then after a few years, you see all the rationalizations and excuses for why OT “powers” never materialized – PTS, bypassed case, drugs, so on and so on. Now Scientology backs away from all those heady claims about OT. “He didn’t really mean cause over matter, energy, space and time…” I’ve had it explained to me that an OT is really just someone who can live a more successful life – a sort of Tony Robbins result in other words, not an advanced being with superior spiritual powers.
Dianetics was strong stuff. It made all kinds of amazing claims about the nature of man and the mind and how people could be Cleared. I got caught up in it. A lot of people did. Then when the results failed to materialize, you get the reasons, the excuses, the justifications. And Scientologists, like Hubbard, become masters at explaining away the lack of results.
Here's another screenshot from Chris's video:
What I find particularly heinous about Hubbard/Scientology is that, knowing that the description of Clear was totally bogus, knowing that he had completely failed to produce even one Clear as described, neither Hubbard nor Scientology after his death, issued a retraction or correction to that book to mention that fact. They continue to sell that book, without changing the promises for the state of Clear, as one of the "Basic" books of Scientology -- and continue to promise one could attain "Clear". Evil-evil-evil.
There is no disclaimer in any of the current promises for "Clear" that note: "Oh, the Clear we promise has nothing to do with the Clear promised in DMSMH".
and that asshole told Sarge he FAILED, you'd think he would issue a briefing and say he failed, everybody go home. What an asshole!!!!!!!!!!
Given the advantages that a Clear would have according to Hubbard they should be absolutely dominating the world of competitive chess.
Yeah, I'm curious as to what the Indies here have to say about the various points that are brought up in that video.
CP...you are in the library every day.... all public libraries have Dianetics books.....pick one up and go through it and find out what characteristics a Clear has, according to LRH himself.
Actually pick up and crack a copy of DMSMH?
I'm 68 yrs old and dying
May I be excused?
It's obvious Hubbard really believed the state of clear was possible. That's why he kept trying all those years, redefining it along the way. Now I've got it. Nope. Now I've got it. Nope.... At the end of his life he realized Scientology didn't work and assumed everyone else would realize it soon enough. So he died a failure, going in and out of sanity, not the successful con man many need him to have been.
I don't know what he really believed at the end in his final years, but I do believe its correct to characterize him as a con man in the early days, and that the evidence clearly shows the intent to defraud. I don't have any NEED to convince anyone he was a con man; but IMO he was one, and he used fraudulent marketing for decades.
He didn't present the concept of Clearing as something that was theoretical in nature, but something that already has been done.
The claims he made in DMSMH (such as in the screen shots I posted above) are absurd, and not a single individual has ever achieved the state of Clear as described in that book, although he claimed these abilities and characteristics of a Clear were all verified by his research.
He presented an auditorium full of people with the first Clear (Sonia Bianca) back in 1950 we all know how that ended.
You claim to be a Dianetic auditor....then you've DMSMH before. If you actually learned what you said you studied before then you should be able to find your answers in that book. Remember.....no verbal data.....look it up. LRH says so in his tech. I'm sure you must have learned that when you were on course.
I choked DMSMH down once and I've tried four or five times since to do it again
And at 68 I'm afraid I'm not much of an auditor any more
Ya gotta be STRONG to audit
"Clear" as a permanent state?
I tend to doubt that
"keyed out clear" is not a meaningless concept
I think it takes training to produce significant lasting gain though auditing alone can bring lasting elimination of chronic somatics attested by reason of personal experience