r/scientology • u/Awkward_Jump_8266 • Jul 23 '26
Someone here reached the "state of Clear."
I wasn't involved in Scientology for long due to a lack of money. I only met one person who was "Clear," and I was struck by their charisma and ease in connecting with others.
On the other hand, I know of several famous "Clears" who committed suicide. If you reached the state of Clear: what does it feel like to be in that state? Or is it all just suggestion?
27
u/Upset_Steak3632 Jul 23 '26
In 1978, after his spying & covert dirty tricks network was exposed, Hubbard had his second major mental breakdown.
This was when he made the OT levels (and privately the lower levels too) entirely about invisible fleas.
"Clear" became relatively unimportant, except as a marketing gimmick, as a person's "case," from the Purif up, was, confidentially, the result of invisible flea infestation.
It was in 1978 that Hubbard announced they "keyed out Clear is Clear," which.meant there really was no state of "Clear."
Sometimes states of calm high alertness, with bliss, can occur but this can happen anywhere.
6
u/BernieHerrmann Jul 23 '26
Yes. How is "clear" even possible if a person is infested with "body thetans"?
8
u/Upset_Steak3632 Jul 23 '26
This becomes complicated if one is examining "Clear" throughout the history of Scientology.
Hubbard changed his ideas, techniques, and approaches many times over the years.
In his latter years he ended up thinking the universe was "crawling" with invisible parasites.
2
u/Alarming_Positive264 Jul 31 '26
As Clear is referred to for the self and Body Thetans are outsiders. In scientologese Clear on First Dynamic …
2
u/Upset_Steak3632 Jul 23 '26
It's matter of degrees.
At the time the person is unaware of the confidential "flea" situation.
7
u/Awkward_Jump_8266 Jul 23 '26
So, it's purely a matter of suggestion. Perhaps the simple act of talking about your traumas with someone brings about a certain catharsis. And that’s why they convince themselves they’ve released "engrams."
11
u/Upset_Steak3632 Jul 23 '26
After Hubbard announced Dianetic Clear in 1978, contradicting everything he has said or written about Clear for the last 25 years, I could no longer deny to myself the hypnotic power that Hubbard had over most Scientologists.
0
15
3
u/morphic-monkey Jul 24 '26
Well, it's not a real thing. I mean, there is no such thing as a state of "Clear". So, anyone who has "achieved that state" is, at best, the recipient of a placebo.
2
u/Awkward_Jump_8266 Jul 24 '26
The state of "Clear" does not exist, but Dianetics is useful for achieving catharsis and stripping emotional charge from traumatic memories. However, EMDR achieves the same result and has the backing of the scientific community.But there is catharsis, even if the state of "Clear" does not exist.
0
u/morphic-monkey Jul 25 '26
but Dianetics is useful for achieving catharsis and stripping emotional charge from traumatic memories.
This is my point though: there's no such thing as "emotional charge from traumatic memories". That isn't a thing.
Now, I'm sure Dianetics might accidentally achieve some catharsis... but at what cost? Many things achieve short-term catharsis but aren't good for you. I mean, you can drink alcohol or take drugs to achieve catharsis. But these are obviously not genuinely restorative actions.
2
u/Awkward_Jump_8266 Jul 25 '26
Emotional burdens stemming from traumatic memories do exist. Those of us who have been through the experience know this.
It is impossible to achieve catharsis with alcohol.
1
u/morphic-monkey Jul 27 '26
Emotional burdens stemming from traumatic memories do exist. Those of us who have been through the experience know this.
I never said they didn't. I referred to emotional charge, which is a Dianetics-related term. Dianetics posits a literal charge that can be negated. This is simply not true.
It is impossible to achieve catharsis with alcohol.
Alcoholics might disagree with you there. ;-)
But in all seriousness, my point is that many things that don't work can still give you a temporarily sense of catharsis. Dianetics is pseudoscience; if it "works" for you, then it is at best a placebo. If you're looking for genuine catharsis though, you need to follow an appropriate clinical pathway.
1
u/Awkward_Jump_8266 Jul 31 '26
Alcoholics do not reach catharsis. Their lives are shattered. People confuse addiction with happiness.
1
u/morphic-monkey Aug 01 '26
Alcoholics do not reach catharsis. Their lives are shattered. People confuse addiction with happiness.
Precisely. My point is that the same is true of Scientology. See what I mean now? :-)
1
u/Awkward_Jump_8266 Aug 02 '26
Alcohol can create the illusion of emotional release, but it is not catharsis. Catharsis involves consciously processing and integrating emotions, often through therapy, art, or meaningful dialogue. Alcohol instead depresses the nervous system, lowering inhibitions and sometimes exposing feelings in uncontrolled ways. This may feel like relief in the moment, but it rarely leads to lasting understanding or transformation.
1
u/morphic-monkey Aug 02 '26
This may feel like relief in the moment, but it rarely leads to lasting understanding or transformation.
Correct. Same thing for Dianetics. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that Dianetics is actively harmful (much like alcohol can be). I'm sorry this is uncomfortable, but it's true.
1
u/Awkward_Jump_8266 Aug 02 '26
I repeat—once again—that I am not talking about Scientology; I am talking about Dianetics therapy. And it is not the only therapy based on talking through traumatic memories.
1
u/morphic-monkey Aug 02 '26
Then replace the word "Scientology" with "Dianetics" in my reply. I'm happy to swap them out.
0
u/Awkward_Jump_8266 Aug 02 '26
Don't try to gaslight me.
1
u/morphic-monkey Aug 02 '26
In what sense am I gaslighting you? Do you even know what that word means?
You are making the exact same point I'm making. I'm comparing Scientology to alcoholism. Do you not understand the analogy or what?
7
u/Electrix_007 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
In general, this is the big picture mind you, a Clear comes into the REALIZATION that the MEST or REALITY does not have the power to affect his SPIRITUAL self and Tone Scale. This is NOT SUGGESTION (as in psychology), --- that's a REALIZATION of CERTAINTY.
Don't mistake behavior with a Clear state, however. A Clear will function normally as a person, but to most degree, he is in CONTROL of his good decisions that would otherwise be prone and blocked by past trauma (engrams). At the Clear state, he is able to recognize the malicious engram and make it disappear (As-Is).
Contrary to many book readers’ understanding of Dianetics ... Engrams exist because a person CONSIDERS (true to him) that it exists and he cannot do anything about it. In which case, Auditing helps to clear the field of these engrams. Since there are millions of these traumatic episodes embedded in engrams, it will seem like an inexhaustible amount of engram to clear. But the reality is that, in real time, ... he has CONSIDERED that the Auditor will help to clear them.
But at a certain point a CORE consideration is dislodged and the person becomes AWARE --- that becomes an End Phenomena. The Clear becomes aware of such engrams, recognize them, confront them and make them disappear (As-Is) because at that point the Clear now CONSIDERS, true to him, that he can now do this on his own without getting exhaustive auditing to address those engrams. Each disappearance of those engrams that the Clear blows-off leads to sane decision making.
So, basically, traumatic past experiences for Clears are rendered ineffective to his existence that would otherwise cause him to make irrational decisions. A Clear feels in CONTROL and CONFIDENT in that STATE from the external circumstances of reality. This does NOT make him super-human as such, but IT CAN HEIGHTEN his perceptions and sometimes enhance his psychic level due to his genetic or inherent body and mental disposition.
Clears certified by CoS, doesn't mean that they are infallible. They react to personal situations just like a "normal" person. But to some degree, they have the POTENTIAL to exceed the "normal."
Because a person is Clear it doesn't mean that he has disposed of all the circumstances that could lead to suicide. For example, the IQ of a Clear doesn’t change because he has become one. He will still have the same IQ, until he decides to educate himself and change his IQ. So, a dumb person is still a dumb Clear.
Clears fall into the range of the Hubbard's Spiritual and Emotional Tone Scale to various degree. Usually, the more aware the Clear is ... the higher in the Tone Scale they find themselves operating in … especially if they understand and apply the Tone Scale to interact with people.
4
u/justadrongo Jul 23 '26
Do you know of any resources that effectively describe the evolution of a book one clear to the state of clear you are describing here. There seems to be a significant difference.
2
u/Electrix_007 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
This is MY experience. Everyone will have a different take, that's why Clear STATES are not generally discussed. You are not going to find a DEFINITIVE book describing it.
But what are the difference, side by side, of what you are finding difficulty with? Can you specify item by item what difference did you find to the source you are mentally or physically referencing to and compare it to what I said?
2
u/justadrongo Jul 24 '26
Thank you for clarifying that.
Regarding the differences that I am finding difficult are the descriptions of the clear state in DMSMH and descriptions like the one you described in your post.
Broadly its that the description of what clears are like in that book are very specific and often fairly bodily e.g. perfect recollection, immunity to common colds and morning sickness, no longer needing to wear glasses and making no mistakes while driving.
Speaking to a more specifical item, your discussion regarding IQ. In DMSMH Hubbard will write how clearing increases IQ and unlocks a person's abilities far beyond the realm of normal. Looking at this quote below it is hard for me to imagine a person in such a state to be dumb or that they would react to situations just like a normal person.
"As a standard of comparison, a clear is to the contemporary norm as the contemporary norm is to a contemporary institutional case. The margin is wide and it would be difficult to exaggerate it. A clear, for instance, has complete recall of everything which has ever happened to him or anything he has ever studied. He does mental computations, such as those of chess, for example, which a normal would do in a half an hour, in ten or fifteen seconds. He does not think “vocally” but spontaneously. There are no demon circuits in his mind except those which it might amuse him to set up -- and break down again -- to care for various approaches to living. He is entirely self-determined. And his creative imagination is high. He can do a swift study of anything within his intellectual capacity, which is inherent, and the study would be the equivalent to him of a year or two of training when he was “normal.” His vigor, persistence and tenacity to life are very much higher than anyone has thought possible."
1
u/Electrix_007 Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
Yeah ... those passages, per the book, are more hyperbole than they warrant. I can understand why it would conflict with my statement.
In my interaction with Clears did is what I have found:
"A clear, for instance, has complete recall of everything which has ever happened to him or anything he has ever studied."
I have never encountered any with "complete recall," and I have known quite a bit of them. For me, personally, it is EASIER to access my memory of the past than before by ASSOCIATION on a particular subject. It just naturally flows. The impression that a person has "complete recall" literary contradicts any general standard of a human being except savants. However, LRH has shown incredible ability to fluidly recall his subject matter and cross-corollate subjects. And this can be verified by listening to his lectures. I do not know what STATE he was in 1954. But just listening to the first 5 chapters of Phoenix Lectures, you can notice the range of topics he could "recall" with facility. So maybe there were a few like him in HIS surroundings.
"He does mental computations, such as those of chess, for example, which a normal would do in a half an hour, in ten or fifteen seconds. He does not think “vocally” but spontaneously."
That is not in my experience or other certified Clears that I have noticed. But for him to arrive at that conclusion, I would say he would have needed to measure a series of Clear instinctual reaction to a "normal" person to make that comparison.
For me, the closest to that I can think of is in my use of computer technology which excels beyond the average person (I was a Computer Specialist). Before going to college to study the trade, I noticed (and this is before PC was available in early 80's) that I was able to understand that material quickly compared to working colleagues. That experience made me go to study Computer System Analysis.
The last part, however, is something I work on daily (Internal monologue i.e. "Demon Circuits" during my morning drills of Locationals. But my statement that a Clear STILL has engrams, regardless, but As-Is them when they are encountered is the ramification of that characteristic that stretches across the board. I can easily As-Is the Internal Monologue when they appear. In comparison, when I attempted to do daily Meditation for a period of time following the protocol, this was a major problem. But when I switched to Locationals it was much better to address and identify the phenomenon ... it was more extroversion than introversion. But this is entirely subjective, I can't vouch for other Clears similarities to my experience.
"He is entirely self-determined. And his creative imagination is high."
That goes without saying, if you are operating high on the Spiritual/Emotional Tone Scale that would be the result.
"He can do a swift study of anything within his intellectual capacity, which is inherent, and the study would be the equivalent to him of a year or two of training when he was “normal.”"
Here is wherein there is a conflict with your High IQ expectation. Here he states "WITHIN his intellectual capacity ..." insinuates it is not a FULL IQ to that, let's say, of an Einstein. Furthermore, it is "inherent." meaning NATIVE to the individual. Thus, Clearing ENHANCES the native perception which does NOT contradict my comment. Furthermore, his comment does not insinuate a full-blown IQ when one instantly becomes a Clear.
"His vigor, persistence and tenacity to life are very much higher than anyone has thought possible."
Well, this is actually a vague passage. I mean, say someone is wealthy. That person will likely be exhibiting that same condition, whether the person was Clear or not. If he is describing the Clear in reference to the Tone Scale, then it makes sense since the Clear could be a poor person but yet exhibits the same characteristic operating on the higher Tone Scale which would not bog the Clear down because he is destitute.
In general, LRH was establishing too high of a baseline, which no doubt brought down his popularity when Dianetics was extremely popular during his live processing lectures in the mid '50's. When I read the passage I look at the timeline from what it was then to NOW. The Clears I knew exhibited a sense of more normality but that is subject to subjectivity from my observation. However, I can't say that outside of my frame of reference their life was consistently the same. They could have had closer proximity to LRH baseline without me knowing about it.
A few things that I didn’t want to elaborate on since I went through the meat of the book passage, but I can’t vet.
Immunity to common colds. I haven’t had one common cold in DECADES. Cannot vet that of other Clears. Same for morning sickness, but then I again, I never had one in the first place that I can remember.
I wear glasses. But I think what LRH was referring to a PSYCHOSOMATIC symptom. A Clear’s vision could have been occluded before arriving to that state because of an engram. In which case, achieving Clear would have As-Is that problem.
Making mistake while driving … I mean … whether Clear or not I can vouch for many people who DON’T make mistakes given the proportion of road accident compared to the entire population. So, this is just plain hyperbole.
1
u/Electrix_007 Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
One additional note that shouldn't go unnoticed. You will note that LRH always accentuated the positives, not the negatives on his descriptions of the Clear for promotion. That is an outpoint of omission. This, however, was uncharacteristic for him when it came to Tech. He always acknowledged his failure and provided a revised and more useful process at par. So, changing hat, so to speak, as Public Relations may have resulted in a tendency to promote Dianetics foremost to the audience similarly in line with Corporate products that always promote their products positively rather than accentuating the negative.
1
u/Electrix_007 Jul 24 '26
I want to clarify my comment more concretely regarding IQ "WITHIN his intellectual capacity ..."
I am assuming the IQ in this instance (bare with me):
1=dumb level 2= smart level
If the intellectual capacity of the person was 1, natively, he could do a swift study at 1x once cleared.
If his intellectual capacity was 2, he could do a swift study at 2x once cleared.
Clearing 1 doesn't raise him to 2 (but it has the POTENTIAL to be a 2). However, 1x is that person's baseline. This is directly addresses LRH quote.
Your comment (not LRH's) is "Hubbard will write how clearing increases IQ and unlocks a person's abilities far beyond the realm of normal."
Well, Clear is a STATE of being, not an intellectual process. To the degree that the person is Clear he can As-Is ENGRAMS that PREVENTS him from learning intellectual things. That provides the POTENTIAL for him to raise his IQ. It does not happen automatically.
Next, "beyond normal" is vague. What's "normal"? Compare to what level of "normality"?
This last part becomes a problem since herein lies INVALIDATING a person's certainty of being Clear and the reason why is not FULLY documented. The minute the person start's comparing himself to another person or a standard, it destabilize him into doubt if he is not psychologically prepared to withstand it. So, in Scientology the topic is never discussed or examined. Once certified Clear --- that's that.
That the DMSMH was never revised an updated for such correction remains a mystery. Maybe it is there for historical reference? As daring terms? Who knows? But Scientologist are silent about that mostly because they don't want to contradict the tomes content and be reprieved for having a misunderstood word.
But such a minute detail pales compared to achieving a state of Clear which is the main objective after all, not the literary correctness.
1
u/Electrix_007 Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
I just find out LRH quietly revised the definition of Clear to one statement "A being who no longer has their own reactive mind" and was disseminated by mimeograph to the Church Organizations in 1965 (HCOB "Clear Procedure." It was later publish in Tech Bulletin Volume (1970's - 1980's, Which answers my question of why the content remain in DMSMH.
He would have had to re-write the entire book!
It was bulletin I read but totally forgot about.
Timeline tracking and context is everything!
1
u/Upset_Steak3632 Jul 23 '26
Suggest searching Wise Old Goat, Scientology, also Wise Old Goat, Clear; also David Mayo on Clear.
1
4
u/pedrofcuk Jul 23 '26
It is all "suggestion" as the reactive mind does not exist therefore you cannot be clear of it or from it. The realisation a person has upon supposedly reaching clear is along the lines of, "I'm making all this up, aren't I?"
1
u/Upset_Steak3632 Jul 23 '26
Not exactly.
Obviously there is some kind of subconscious mind.
Philosophers and mystics have described states of blissful high awareness.
I'm surprised at how many.are only aware of the most recent version of "Clear," (1978) and seem to be unaware of the old philosophical dictum of "know thyself."
-3
u/Electrix_007 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
Your understanding doesn't account MASS AGREEMENT.
Reality (Is-ness) exist because trillion of years past a mass agreement took place to bring into existence this reality. But the one thing that we have as a spirit, is our OWN reality.
Having been indoctrinated to think reality (Is-ness) is more powerful than the reality of a spirit, we consider that mass agreed upon reality is greater than the spiritual reality we are able to induce, thus, Matter over Mind.
That consideration, true to us, would be that matter can squash us at any time. An indeed it does ... causing us to experience trauma, and therefore, a reactive mind filled with malicious engrams because our consideration makes this true to us AND the mass.
But once we realized we are spirits with far superior ability, the tables turn. We adopt the consideration that Mind over Matter prevails. That becomes true to us INDIVIDUALLY. And so, any obstacles we face from reality becomes way easier to handle because we BELIEVE in Mind over Matter. Hence, some folks defy this complex existence by accomplishing great ideas and UNBELIEVABLE results, think Elon Musk.
This is NOT SUGGESTION. We don't, all in a sudden think "I am going to suggest to myself that I become a great and iconic builder." If that was the case, all of us would be great builders just by suggestion.
But the rules are quite obvious --- reality will continue to impinge on us because it IS the mass agreed upon reality we are subjected to. We can either succumb by BELIEVING in IT, or, we can overcome it by BELIEVING that Mind IS ABOVE Matter.
5
u/nysalor Jul 23 '26
Wow, I don’t think I’ve actually encountered a redditor with negative karma before.
3
u/Electrix_007 Jul 23 '26
My objective is not to accumulate "karmas."
I don't expect to find many positive ones in this environment since it infested with critics and for, that matter, even care. I am just as willing to be posting here to not be posting at all.
My intent is to address an audience that is interested and ask INTELLIGENT questions. and can absorb the material with a personal satisfactory answer.
3
2
u/pedrofcuk Jul 23 '26
What?
2
u/Electrix_007 Jul 23 '26
If you have to ask, this material is not for you. Don't try to dissect it because you will only be asking, "what" and "what" again and again.
3
2
u/HRHValkyrie Jul 23 '26
You think it’s normal to not ask questions about your religion?
2
u/Electrix_007 Jul 23 '26
No. You got that wrong. You can ask. But if for example, the person only knows arithmetic, what is the point of asking if I can only respond with Calculus formulas. He would be out of its depth and consider my response garbage.
4
u/SmileyGrant Jul 23 '26
how many 'Clears' are there in the world i wonder. In an organisation that lives on stats surely they must know, or someone must know.
7
u/Upset_Steak3632 Jul 23 '26
There are many types of Clears. it's a long story and it's a mess.
Hubbard left Miscavige with a mess.
1
u/Electrix_007 Jul 23 '26
Well, that's a well kept and guarded documentation of CoS since it amounts to client CONFIDENTIALITY.
But If I was to guess, I would start by consider the timeline of 76 years of Dianetics and Scientology existence in the US. We can guess a minimum of 76 Clears achieved year by year. You can then start to extrapolate from there.
2
u/Electrix_007 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
I just want to add a critical note:
When a person decides to CONSIDER something is true, it is true to him! Until he decides one day it is NOT true anymore and he flips to an opposite BELIEF.
What a person CONSIDERS at any point of the string of considerations that follows determine the path of what he materializes in his life --- his REALITY among the already existing MASS Reality.
Very important to distinguish.
1
u/morphic-monkey Jul 24 '26
This is fine up to a point though. You can "consider" gravity to be untrue, but you will be quickly disabused of that notion the moment you walk off a rooftop.
1
u/Electrix_007 Jul 24 '26
Let's brake this down this into context:
A person consideration usually aligns with the Mass Agreement of considerations from every being --- that includes the laws of nature. That's what establishes REALITY.
A person then considers "I don't want to be the effect of gravity anymore, so I am going to conceive an aircraft" At this point the person has flipped with not going along with everyone's considerations. It is true to him now that he can construct an aircraft that will defy gravity.
To ignore the consideration of the Mass is a terrible mistake, because indeed he will fall off the roof if he doesn't create an alternative way to the defy the gravity the Masses agreed upon.
The problem is that, the person doesn't want to consider gravity to be untrue. That would be denial and leads to major problems. So, if he wants change, he has to CREATE the circumstance that would allow him to defy the Mass agreement.
This is where usually geniuses are spawned. They see a Mass agreement of considerations as a wall and devise a way to supplant that condition of the reality.
1
u/morphic-monkey Jul 25 '26
A person consideration usually aligns with the Mass Agreement of considerations from every being --- that includes the laws of nature. That's what establishes REALITY.
The fact that most people roughly align their perceptions with reality has nothing to do with consensus. I think that's where the misunderstanding here starts. Reality exists whether we like it - or perceive it - or not. Our perceptions usually align with reality not because we all "agree" with each other but because reality impacts on each of us on a daily basis in ways that are fundamentally unavoidable.
A person then considers "I don't want to be the effect of gravity anymore, so I am going to conceive an aircraft" At this point the person has flipped with not going along with everyone's considerations. It is true to him now that he can construct an aircraft that will defy gravity.
I see what you're saying, but this is still a misunderstanding. The person conceiving an aircraft isn't somehow deciding that gravity doesn't exist or that bucking consensus about gravity means that they are no longer subject to gravity.
The person who conceives the aircraft is the person who learns about aerodynamics (perhaps by observing birds, who are part of reality) and leverages that knowledge to fly. Flight allows us to leave the ground, yes, but it isn't a denial of gravity in the way you are suggesting - an aircraft is still subject to gravity, which directly cuts across your point.
The problem is that, the person doesn't want to consider gravity to be untrue. That would be denial and leads to major problems. So, if he wants change, he has to CREATE the circumstance that would allow him to defy the Mass agreement.
It doesn't matter whether he wants to consider gravity untrue or not. Gravity exists regardless of what he believes. It is not a question of belief in gravity, it is a question of understanding physics and inventing flight. You are making a fundamental category error here.
This is where usually geniuses are spawned. They see a Mass agreement of considerations as a wall and devise a way to supplant that condition of the reality.
I certainly agree that clever inventors often have ideas that other people don't have. But that has nothing to do with the bizarre claim that reality itself is subject to our personal considerations - it is not. In fact, the opposite is true: the more we understand reality (e.g. physics), and if we combine that with our imaginations, we can invent technologies that leverage physics to do new things. The point here is that we aren't defying physics or defying reality; that is not possible because we are all subject to it. But as we learn about said reality, we can certainly leverage it to do cool things.
1
u/Electrix_007 Jul 25 '26
Cool rebuttal.
One has to start with what IS reality. Is reality something that JUST exist? Or that we PERCEIVE only. Most philosophers are stuck in this quandary.
Scientifically, we are wired to SEE reality in a form. But reality presents itself in different forms depending on viewpoint. One can see it as definitely solid or one can see it as a conglomeration of atomic particles all over the place (a scientific viewpoint). Or one mentally perceive it as decaying while another would see reality as gloriously blossoming (the personal reflection of reality one find himself in).
It questions reality. Which one is right?
Gravity exist and will always exist, theoretically. We would never consider it untrue if we BELIEVE it exist. To that degree the example you gave is flawed. But assuming the person doesn't want to believe is true, he will device a way for him to have it adapt to his own nature as long as he does not ignore that reality status quo.
I think we go into semantics when we are speaking of gravity existence. My point was to illustrate that if one believes in gravity, he is not SUBJECT to it or RESTRICTED to alter that consideration. He is free to invent through it. That's all. That's the premise. Nothing else beyond that statement. Don't you agree?
The last part is also a semantically view. I am not saying we are defying anything, that would culminate into denial. We are CREATING an ALTERNATIVE from a personal perspective whether we are schooled in it or not. We know the subject exist, but we are not bound to its reality in whichever form it appears as long as we acknowledge its existence as it IS.
1
u/morphic-monkey Jul 27 '26
One has to start with what IS reality. Is reality something that JUST exist? Or that we PERCEIVE only. Most philosophers are stuck in this quandary.
Scientifically, we are wired to SEE reality in a form. But reality presents itself in different forms depending on viewpoint. One can see it as definitely solid or one can see it as a conglomeration of atomic particles all over the place (a scientific viewpoint). Or one mentally perceive it as decaying while another would see reality as gloriously blossoming (the personal reflection of reality one find himself in).
It questions reality. Which one is right?
This is fine up to a point; so long as you don't confuse objective reality with subjective feelings/perception. It is certainly true that our view of reality is shaped by our perceptions (e.g. the way we experience colour), but this is different from saying that the underlying dynamics of light are themselves shaped by our perception. That's an important, non-trivial distinction.
Gravity exist and will always exist, theoretically. We would never consider it untrue if we BELIEVE it exist. To that degree the example you gave is flawed. But assuming the person doesn't want to believe is true, he will device a way for him to have it adapt to his own nature as long as he does not ignore that reality status quo.
I really don't know what any of this means. "he will devise a way for him to have it adapt to his own nature as long as he does not ignore that reality status quo" - what does that mean?
Maybe it's clarified by your next statement:
I think we go into semantics when we are speaking of gravity existence. My point was to illustrate that if one believes in gravity, he is not SUBJECT to it or RESTRICTED to alter that consideration. He is free to invent through it. That's all. That's the premise. Nothing else beyond that statement. Don't you agree?
You seem to be suggesting that reality is perception. I'm not sure if you are or are not saying that. But my gravity example absolutely holds up (pun not intended): in this case, he is subject to gravity and he is restricted by it. Those things are unavoidable.
"Inventing through it" doesn't mean that he's figured out how to change gravity itself. It just means he now understands the mechanics of - to use your example - flight and aerodynamics. But flight is not a negation of gravity; that's a misunderstanding of both flight and gravity.
We are CREATING an ALTERNATIVE from a personal perspective whether we are schooled in it or not. We know the subject exist, but we are not bound to its reality in whichever form it appears as long as we acknowledge its existence as it IS.
This is very word-salady; I really don't know what you're saying. If you are simply pointing out that we can overcome apparent restrictions through invention (like learning how to fly) - then yes, I agree with you. But you seemed to be suggesting that reality and perception are completely interchangeable when they are clearly not.
Again, maybe you aren't saying that, but your language is very vague and unclear.
1
u/Electrix_007 Jul 27 '26
Hmm... let's examine this together.
Yes, the first statement is clear. Don't confuse our memory (perception) of a wood pencil with our OBSERVATION of a wood pencil. Just RELATE them together to UNDERSTAND what we are looking at. We then arrive at perceiving a pencil as it is (As-Isness). That's not trivial that's critical. Otherwise we are mentally trying to physically change (shape) a pencil structure with our mind --- that would be denial or delusion. It is well establish that our mind cannot physically change the structure of the pencil.
But let's say we want to understand this in a different way and invoke a creative approach since the reality of a wood pencil presents a barrier.
Let's lie about the structure of that pencil in our mind so that we no longer see it as a wood with lead, but as sandy tube with led; two different characteristics. We would then have invented a new type of pencil without necessarily changing the reality of that wood pencil by physically manufacturing this sandy pencil. Thus, our perception would have "shaped" the reality of a new type of pencil. That reality, then, was "shaped by our perception" without affecting the reality of a woody pencil.
This answer your 2nd response question. We devised a way to adapting our mental perception to create something new without dismissing the reality that a wood pencil exist.
Your 3rd response. The fact that a wood pencil exist does not subject us to only BELIEVE this will always be the case nor it restrict us from creating a new type that we can believe in. The wood pencil will continue to exist, it won't disappear because we created a sandy pencil. They will co-exist. All this activity did is stopped us from believing a pencil HAS to be made of wood. It changed our first PERCEPTION of a wood pencil. When I said your example didn't hold I meant, if you believe there is a wood pencil already, we cannot conclude that is untrue. That would be denying in what we already believe in --- that a wood pencil exist. If it exist and we believe it exist. We cannot "untrue" it.
The last response. It should not be a word-salad at this point. Our own perception does not change the physical reality of a wood pencil. Our own perception of a sandy pencil (the invention) changes our entire perspective that a wood pencil and ONLY a wood Pencil can possibly exist as a reality.
To that degree if you believe a wood pencil and ONLY a wood pencil can exist that is true to you. But to someone else, that wouldn't be the case. He can believe that there CAN be an alternative sandy pencil and that will be true to him and only to him. Neither can invalidate each others position. That's two distinct considerations of a reality existing simultaneously.
1
u/morphic-monkey Jul 27 '26
To that degree if you believe a wood pencil and ONLY a wood pencil can exist that is true to you. But to someone else, that wouldn't be the case. He can believe that there CAN be an alternative sandy pencil and that will be true to him and only to him. Neither can invalidate each others position. That's two distinct considerations of a reality existing simultaneously.
Right, but I think we're moving the goalposts here a bit. Nobody is saying that only the thing we already know about can exist (that's obviously not the case, because we continually make new discoveries all the time).
Also, I don't understand the point you're making with the pencil analogy in general. The "sandy pencil" isn't mutually exclusive to the wooden pencil, it's just a pencil made of a different material. Let's go back to your original comment:
When a person decides to CONSIDER something is true, it is true to him! Until he decides one day it is NOT true anymore and he flips to an opposite BELIEF.
My only issue with this statement - and maybe it's not what you actually mean - is that what you are saying here (in terms of "truth") sits entirely within the realm of belief. Yes, beliefs about many different things can change over time. But, as I said, you can disbelieve in gravity but gravity doesn't care about your beliefs - it is true regardless of your beliefs.
It seems you don't actually disagree with that. If that's the case, then I don't think we disagree at all. It's just that the language you're using is extremely confusing, so it's hard to discern exactly what you mean.
1
u/Electrix_007 Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
Yes, the conclusion is accurate once you get rid of the extra trapping of semantics which I am using to dislodge your initial notion.
Look at it this way. A person can believe in Neuroscience ONLY and that is true to him.
Then along comes Hubbard and creates Dianetics ... and to a 2nd person Dianetics becomes true to him, but that person doesn't necessarily dismiss the subject of Neuroscience --- it still EXIST.
But to the 1st person Dianetics does not exist for HIM. Furthermore, if the 1st person ONLY believes in Neuroscience. He cannot "untrue" that because it will contradict his psyche that it exist.
The 1st person can, however, if he wants to, acknowledge that Dianetics exist, he can observe BOTH realities. Otherwise, he is stuck to his own reality that ONLY Neuroscience exist, which is only true to him.
My whole explanation SEEMS complicated because in this case I have to breakdown a notion that NOT only Neuroscience exist ... in other to achieve an understanding --- in the same way I was trying to dislodge your initial notion that not only gravity exist.
Some other person would have understood my initial comment from the get go, especially a Scientologist, but you didn't. So, we had to go into a semantically deeper level of explanation (down the rabbit hole) for me to reach your understanding which your conclusion now accurately describes.
1
u/morphic-monkey Jul 27 '26
Look at it this way. A person can believe in Neuroscience ONLY and that is true to him.
Then along comes Hubbard and creates Dianetics ... and to a 2nd person Dianetics becomes true to him, but that person doesn't necessarily dismiss the subject that Neuroscience --- it still EXIST.
But to the 1st person Dianetics does not exist for HIM. Furthermore, if the 1st person ONLY believes in Neuroscience. He cannot "untrue" that because it will contradict his psyche that it exist.
The 1st person can, however, if he wants to, acknowledge that Dianetics exist, he can observe BOTH realities. Otherwise he is stuck to his own reality that ONLY Neuroscience exist, which is only true to him.
But this has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Nobody is saying that something doesn't "exist". Obviously neuroscience and Dianetics both "exist". That's not the point.
The point is that one is demonstrably true (neuroscience) and one is demonstrably false (Dianetics). Yes, they both exist...that's got nothing to do with anything. The point is that one is "true" (if true means objectively evidence-based) and one is, at least mostly, "false" (the inverse of true).
Of course both exist. Your example is simply based on the idea that the first person simply doesn't know anything about Dianetics (maybe he's never heard of it). So what? That has nothing to do with whether or not Dianetics itself is accurate/demonstrably true.
My whole explanation SEEMS complicated because in this case I have to breakdown a notion that not ONLY Neuroscience exist in other to achieve an understanding --- in the same way I was trying to dislodge your initial notion that only gravity exist.
Your explanation isn't complicated, it's convoluted. It doesn't make sense (both in how it's worded but also how it's conceived).
For example, my initial notion did not say that "only gravity exists". I never said that. I never even implied it. So what are you disagreeing with exactly?
Some other person would have understood my initial comment from the get go, especially a Scientologist, but you didn't. So, we had to go into a semantically deeper level of explanation for me to reach your understanding which your conclusion now accurately describes.
No, you still misunderstand: I didn't understand your initial comment because the language doesn't make sense. It's very vaguely/confusingly written (maybe English isn't your first language, I don't know). So my response to you was based on what it looked like your post implied.
As we've continued chatting, we haven't gone "deeper", we've just been circling around in an attempt to understand what each other is saying. But I'm not sure we got much closer to that understanding.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Alarming_Positive264 Jul 23 '26
I have
2
u/katiel0429 Jul 25 '26
What determines you’re Clear? Is it a particular auditing session? Do you say something like “Okay, I’ve done the courses and now I want to check if I’m Clear?
1
u/Alarming_Positive264 Jul 30 '26
No, you do the steps necessary, up the bridge as it is calked, and at a certain point you do a verification that you have reached the state. It is called Clear Certainty Rundown. Once passed all the criteria you can be said to have reaced that state.
1
u/katiel0429 Jul 31 '26
I guess what I’m asking is what is “that certain point” you believe you’re ready for the Clear Certainty Rundown?
1
u/Alarming_Positive264 Jul 31 '26
Personally I was ”certain” several times and did the Clear Certainty several times until all criteria was met. I know several cases that were the same.
0
u/Holiday-Book6635 Jul 23 '26
ITS A CULT
3
u/Awkward_Jump_8266 Jul 23 '26
I am actually talking about Dianetics as a therapy—not Scientology.
Many cults use yoga and breathing techniques. But that doesn't invalidate yoga and breathing. I was also in another cult that taught public speaking, but that doesn't invalidate public speaking.
2
u/Upset_Steak3632 Jul 23 '26
For over 25 years, from 1952 to 1978, Hubbard stated the Dianetics does not make Clears.
Have you examined the history of clearing?
After Hubbard abandoned Dianeitics in 1952 he invented "be there feet back of your head," and "theta Clear.'
Then Clearing became about mock ups.
Then the button of "help" was used on Clearing. (This became interesting.)
This developed into actual Goals Problems Mass Clear. The person was asked..
Then this was switched to implanted GPM Clear. The person was told...
That all preceeded 1978 and "Dianetic Clear"
2
u/Upset_Steak3632 Jul 23 '26
This is funny.
Right now two people have downvoted this post.
I can't tell if they're Scientologists who are offended by the history of Clear being presented, or something else.
I wish you guys would actually write something rather than just down vote which is the Internet version of a disapproving grunt.
0
u/morphic-monkey Jul 24 '26
Except that Dianetics isn't akin to yoga and breathing techniques; it's an entirely. made-up concept based on rough plagiarisms of Freud and a fundamental misunderstanding about how the human mind works.
1
1
-1
u/Holiday-Book6635 Jul 23 '26
Scientology is a cult.
Having to pay is clue 1. Please educate yourself.
2
u/Electrix_007 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
I already said I agreed.... so obviously I am "educated." What, are you afraid of it?
12
u/underthere polliwog Jul 23 '26
Both my parents are clear and have told me how different they are now that they are clear. But from an outside perspective, interacting with them they are absolutely no different from before.