Wog Questions

[Babel]

I lurked a bit on the old site a while ago but a lot of the lingo in the cooler threads went over my head. I think i could probably keep up better now. If anyone could link some of the heavier must read threads, I'd appreciate it. (Heavy as in dense, not necessarily long.)

The main reason I'm asking about theta traps is that in that great jason beghe video he talks about how it warns you about brainwashing as it's doing to you what it's warning you about, and you brainwash yourself. Just trying to get a grip on exactly what he's talking about. For example:

All theta traps have one thing in common: they use electronic force to knock the thetan into forgetting, into unknowingness, into effect.

It seems totally plausible to me that he includes the emeter in that category. I'm partially curious about to what extent he was conciously fucking with people. The clear cognition really seems like a mean joke that he knew he could get away with. Like, maybe the "research" was sincere early on, but then auditing didn't produce actual clears.
"You realized none of this is real? Hey, me too. Congrats, you're clear. Let's excersise some immortal parasites and see what that does."
But you don't know that that's the reason you went clear. I'm just wondering how far you have to get to hear that news. I assume almost no one knows it, but i have no idea.

 

[Babel]

Not really.....the Case Supervisor would be making decisions on that....and verifying.

Ok, I think that's what I'm asking. How much does the actual auditor have to do with declaring someone clear?

Is it more that the case supervisor is an OT with the clear cog, and they review the transcripts/video? Or is it a joint effort? Does the case supervisor generally work in the same building as the auditor? How many auditors per case supervisor?

Getting to Clear....could be done in a short amount of time...a couple of months.

Is there a minimum course completion requirement before going clear?

OT 7, for example, could take 7 or 8 or 12 YEARS of daily auditing.....to complete.
So, no, Clear is not "almost OT."

Well, yeah. I get that there's a big gap between clear and OT7. Isn't clear almost OT 1 though? I'm just going off the bridge chart.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

I've spent probably around 1000 hours researching it............

I never gave them any money.

Impressive amount of research! Just for fun?

Even more impressive that you never donated. For that alone, I'd give your wall portrait a standing ovation even if you weren't wearing a naval costume!

.

 

[Babel]

Impressive amount of research! Just for fun?

More or less. Grew up a different kind of fundamentalist. It's like how once you learn a second language, it's a bit easier to pick up a third language.
I have affinity for the whole sinister infomercial vibe.
It's also practical information.

Edit: practical in that the tactics are recognizable in other organizations/groups once you're familiar with how they work. Not as in I'm starting a cult, haha.

.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

More or less. Grew up a different kind of fundamentalist. It's like how once you learn a second language, it's a bit easier to pick up a third language.
I have affinity for the whole sinister infomercial vibe.
It's also practical information.

Edit: practical in that the tactics are recognizable in other organizations/groups once you're familiar with how they work. Not as in I'm starting a cult, haha.

.

Cool!

Yeah, i have very similar interests. I pretty much love to learn about cults and the similarities....because i have this distant feeling that cultic thinking/behavior is also true in our own cult of one (1) . I mean how the mind works to create beliefs, feelings, certainties, false beliefs etc. I was always fascinated with hoaxes, whether religious or otherwise.

Once i was dating a very lovely girl who had been raised deeply in the Mormon faith. She had sort of drifted away (rebel girl!) but they were trying to pull her back in (the church was) . It was entirely mindblowing all the gimmicks and mechanisms they have to get people "recovered" and to keep them on the straight and narrow. What shocked me was the number of parallel controls and methods as Scientology. SHOCKING!

I won't derail further but cults all pretty much figured out the same way to dupe humans and survive. They are very very very good at it, so naturally they found the same methodologies worldwide.

.

 

[Lee #28]

@Babel

I see your multi re-post...of quotes above.

Hey, look, I'm really not into getting into this with you.....or anyone for that matter.

I was in the Cult for 27 years.....and out now for about 20.

I wasted most of my life with this group.....and can't really get up any interest to discuss it with you.

I can't get any of those years back....and don't want to re-hash stuff....

Truly they are snakes.....and evil...and will turn on the most dedicated of the group....at any time .....without any warning. Very dangerous to deal with.

Any Cult member that thinks they are part of the group....and safe....and that the group would never turn against them and attack them....is a complete fool....



Best
Lee

 

[pineapple]

It seems totally plausible to me that he includes the emeter in that category. I'm partially curious about to what extent he was conciously fucking with people. The clear cognition really seems like a mean joke that he knew he could get away with. Like, maybe the "research" was sincere early on, but then auditing didn't produce actual clears.
"You realized none of this is real? Hey, me too. Congrats, you're clear. Let's excersise some immortal parasites and see what that does."
But you don't know that that's the reason you went clear. I'm just wondering how far you have to get to hear that news. I assume almost no one knows it, but i have no idea.

NO ONE knows to what extent Hubbard really believed what he was saying, and how much was "consciously fucking with people." Certainly he must have known he was lying about his dianetic "research" (no evidence of those 270 cases he mentions), so you'd think he must've been consciously conning people. Yet there's the Shrine Auditorium debacle in 1950 where he introduced a girl as clear, though the audience could see she didn't match the glowing description in DMSMH. If he was trying to fool the audience he'd have set something up beforehand, but he apparently didn't and the demonstration was a fiasco.

So why'd he do it? Did he believe she really WAS clear?

When A. E. van Vogt commented afterwards that the demo had been a disaster, Hubbard reportedly just brushed it off and said, "Well, I'm making Clark Gable's salary now."

My think is that besides being a very capable con artist, Hubbard was also capable of MASSIVE self-delusion. In the occult the two important faculties are Will and Imagination. You train these so that you can WILL your imagination into reality. I think Hubbard may have believed that he could actually change reality by willing it, i.e. if he said there were clears -- and believed it strongly enough with his superior Will -- then clears existed.

Check out LRH's Affirmations. He seems to be trying to convince himself (in 1946) of the reality of Jack Parsons' OTO program. I think he probably did the same thing with dianetics and scn. He believed he could WILL them into reality (while knowing at some level that it was all BS, at least in the beginning).

Re the Clear Cog: People interpreted "I'm mocking up my own reactive mind" in different ways. To some it did mean "the incidents I'm running aren't real." I took it to mean, "At some point in the very remote past, I as a thetan made the decision to make pictures of my experience and then be affected by the force and mass in them. Now that I know I'm doing it, I can stop."

Note that there's no clear cog mentioned in DMSMH. Hubbard says you'd know someone is clear when you can't find any more engrams after checking and re-checking over several months. (Presumably they'd also have the quasi-superhuman attributes he describes.)

In my day (1970's) clears were required to produce the clear cog, unless they were "Natural Clear," i.e. they'd NEVER had a reactive mind at all! In 1978 Hubbard said there were a VERY, VERY small number of such beings. I think he meant himself and a few of the other great minds of history, but literally THOUSANDS of scngsts promptly attested to Natural Clear. Some of these had had no auditing at all. (I understand it's now difficult if not impossible to do this.)

Apparently some people attested to clear in the late 1960's without mentioning any cognition at all. In Robert Kaufman's "Inside Scientology" (1972) he mentions attesting without having any cog, or any idea what the EP of the level was supposed to be. William S. Burroughs, the beat writer, attested around the same time as Kaufman, and while he was pleased with the results, he never mentions any cog (and opted not to continue to the OT levels).

Robert Kaufman's book. Recommended reading.

Inside Scientology/Dianetics

Hubbard DOES drop hints about some kind of cog as far back as 1952. In The Phoenix Lectures he talks about how the preclear is responsible for his own condition and how "the guy is doing it [aberrating] himself." I'd certainly read and heard stuff like this many times before I attested to clear in 1979. But I convinced myself that at some point I'd "realized" it, which wasn't the same thing as just intellectually knowing it (and Hubbard SAYS it isn't the same thing, in some Dianetic Clear HCOB or other).

 

[lotus]

LRH, most af the time lied, said non-sens or use rethoric and persuasion.

I will never get into making sense of his sayings or trying to explain them. It depended of how many pink a d greys he took this specific day, or either the extent of his psychosis or fantasies...

However, regarding Scientology It Is certainly a soul (theta) trap..it did not required any electronic device to be trapped, only lies and mind manipulation of a Sociopath and followers who thought there was either power, truth and freedom to buy, or world salvaging to accomplish for others.

 

[Babel]

@Babel
I wasted most of my life with this group.....and can't really get up any interest to discuss it with you.

Of course. Respect and all the best.

 

[Babel]

Yeah, i have very similar interests. I pretty much love to learn about cults and the similarities....because i have this distant feeling that cultic thinking/behavior is also true in our own cult of one (1) . I mean how the mind works to create beliefs, feelings, certainties, false beliefs etc. I was always fascinated with hoaxes, whether religious or otherwise.

I won't derail further but cults all pretty much figured out the same way to dupe humans and survive. They are very very very good at it, so naturally they found the same methodologies worldwide.

Agreed. I see similar thought loops everywhere. Political and religious beliefs especially. Just nice to know what to look out for.

 

[Babel]

Re the Clear Cog: People interpreted "I'm mocking up my own reactive mind" in different ways. To some it did mean "the incidents I'm running aren't real." I took it to mean, "At some point in the very remote past, I as a thetan made the decision to make pictures of my experience and then be affected by the force and mass in them. Now that I know I'm doing it, I can stop."

That does make sense to me. I suppose that mocking up the reactive mind doesn't really indicate that the incidents themselves aren't real.

It does seem to mean that auditing isn't necessary once you get the clear cognition. Am I correct in thinking that to hit clear, you don't need to handle every engram, and after clear the engrams don't need to be handled individually? (it's a little weird trying to bounce back and fourth between trying to understand on a theological level where I'm assuming the tech is correct, and a cult level where I assume everything is done in bad faith.)

 

[marra]

When I was in the cult I attested to being Clear and I never knew anything about this "Clear Cognition" until I left and saw it on the internet. I think too much emphasis is being put on this.

I was an auditor and case supervisor so I know that someone couldn't just say the so-called Clear Cognition and be declared Clear. That doesn't make any sense to me. The case supervisor would look at the person's history of auditing and many other things before sending them to attest to Clear.

As to how many case supervisors there are to auditors, this question doesn't make sense because it all depends on the size of the organization and how many trained auditors and trained case supervisors there are and how many people needing auditing. In my org there was one case supervisor and one auditor and they were both the same person! I used to help out as a volunteer auditor and c/s so I suppose that makes two of each. But I have no idea how many there are at orgs like LA or Flag.

As regards the state of Clear and Theta Traps etc it is probably best to just assume Hubbard was making it all up and not try to understand it.

 

[Babel]

When I was in the cult I attested to being Clear and I never knew anything about this "Clear Cognition" until I left and saw it on the internet. I think too much emphasis is being put on this.

I was an auditor and case supervisor so I know that someone couldn't just say the so-called Clear Cognition and be declared Clear. That doesn't make any sense to me. The case supervisor would look at the person's history of auditing and many other things before sending them to attest to Clear.

Really? If going clear isn't determined by the CC, how is it? What would you be looking for in the case history that influenced whether or not you sent them to attest?

When a PC attests to clear, are they automatically clear or does it go to someone else for approval?

As to how many case supervisors there are to auditors, this question doesn't make sense because it all depends on the size of the organization and how many trained auditors and trained case supervisors there are and how many people needing auditing. In my org there was one case supervisor and one auditor and they were both the same person! I used to help out as a volunteer auditor and c/s so I suppose that makes two of each. But I have no idea how many there are at orgs like LA or Flag.

That makes sense. Thanks.

As regards the state of Clear and Theta Traps etc it is probably best to just assume Hubbard was making it all up and not try to understand it.

That ship has sailed. I'm just checking here before i try to look for it in the tech.
I assume he made it up, but I've got misunderstood words.

 

[marra]

Really? If going clear isn't determined by the CC, how is it? What would you be looking for in the case history that influenced whether or not you sent them to attest?

When a PC attests to clear, are they automatically clear or does it go to someone else for approval?

I think the problem here is you are trying to get quick answers to questions that some of us have spent years studying.

If a person is sent to attest to Clear then it is because the case supervisor has seen something that seems to indicate the person may be Clear. That "something" isn't easy to describe here. It depends on what has come up in the person's auditing or, if the person hasn't had much auditing but they are saying they are a past-life Clear then you would have to look at dates to see if this was possible. It isn't possible to say exactly what the case supervisor looks for. It's like asking what a detective looks for to solve a murder. They use their experience to try to find out what happened.

If the c/s thinks the pc is Clear then they will be sent to an org that can perform the Clear Certainty Rundown. When I was in the cult my org couldn't do this so the pc would be sent to an Advanced Org. Then the c/s at that org would look at the evidence and make their own decision on the situation.

None of this is an exact science. One guy at my org had received almost no auditing but he kept insisting he was Clear. So the c/s (not me) sent him to the Advanced Org. I don't know why but that's what happened. At the Advanced Org he somehow managed to convince them he was Clear so he attested. Some time later he started saying he didn't feel like he really was Clear so he was sent to the Advanced Org again to de-attest. Then again, some time later, he started saying he was a Cleared Theta Clear which would have put him way above OT 8. The org didn't accept this so he eventually left scientology and went to a psychiatrist who put him on Prozac. When I saw him walking along the street he told me that the Prozac didn't have any effect on him because it "doesn't work on Clears".

I think it's best not to spend time trying to understand any of this. Those of us who lived it are just glad to be out of it.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Really? If going clear isn't determined by the CC, how is it? What would you be looking for in the case history that influenced whether or not you sent them to attest?When a PC attests to clear, are they automatically clear or does it go to someone else for approval?

.
TECH TIP: There is no standard whatsoever of what constitutes the "State of Clear". Because, the qualifications to "attest" to being Clear have changed constantly since 1950, largely dependent upon:

-- The latest thrilling "miraculous breakthrough Clearing discovery", which solved the reason the previous "miraculous breakthrough Clearing discovery" failed to produce a Clear.​

​

-- The economics of what auditing rundown, grade chart level or sellable services were the most profitable.​

​

ANALOGY: In order to better understand Scientology's states of "Clear" and "OT", it's very helpful to momentarily avoid the use of Scientology terms and concepts, because each of those is densely embedded with false, random and contradictory definitions. Thus, to understand the state of Clear, one could begin by noting that SCIENTOLOGY TECHNOLOGY IS A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM THAT HAS NEVER BEEN SOLVED. Let's assume that in 1950 Hubbard released a different book than "Dianetics" and called it "Ghettonetics", billing it as the first time in human history that the reason for impoverished and violent war zones exist in modern cities.

-- And "Ghettonetics" promised a 'world without Ghettos"​

-- And since 1950 every place where Ghettonetics was sold and "applied", no ghetto ever once experienced any statistical improvement in its crime rates, employment rates, personal income or other quality of life metrics. ​

-- And since 1950 the number of square miles of ghettos and number of people living within ghettos dramatically spiked up. ​

-- And since 1950 all of Hubbard's professional organizations and staff members themselves lived in ghetto conditions. ​

-- And since 1950 the world headquarters of Ghettonetics was a vast desert village that had worse living conditions than the rest of the ghettos not under applying the 100% workable technology of Ghettonetics.​

Having articulated this analogy, take a moment and attempt to imagine why it would be impossible to have a rational discussion about the state of Ghetto-Clear, an imaginary "ideal scene" that results after applying Ghettonetics to any village, town or city.

CONCLUSION: None of the above absurdities would prevent the heroic leaders of the Ghettonetics movement from regularly scheduling gala public awards events and parades in hell-hole ghettos--- to celebrate their miraculous achievements and victories that solved and "erased" ghettos.

.

 

[pineapple]

That does make sense to me. I suppose that mocking up the reactive mind doesn't really indicate that the incidents themselves aren't real.

It does seem to mean that auditing isn't necessary once you get the clear cognition. Am I correct in thinking that to hit clear, you don't need to handle every engram, and after clear the engrams don't need to be handled individually? (it's a little weird trying to bounce back and fourth between trying to understand on a theological level where I'm assuming the tech is correct, and a cult level where I assume everything is done in bad faith.)

Well, further dianetic auditing isn't necessary once you're (supposedly) clear. In fact it isn't allowed, as of 1978. Prior to 1978, clears got loads of dianetic auditing. LRH said, circa 1969, "OT or not, if he [the pc] has somatics, he needs dianetics!"

Dianetics had been almost entirely out of the scn mix since the early 50's and was cautiously reintroduced in the late 60's. (At first it was stressed this was for "training purposes.") The reason it was out of the mix: 1) Hubbard wanted us to forget that the original hadn't lived up to the hype, and 2) he didn't want to be accused of practicing medicine without a license. So there were plenty of OT candidates for it.

After clear you don't need to address your own engrams further, because you're no longer mocking them up. You've stopped mocking up your own reactive mind, so it's no longer there -- theoretically.

So why do you still have a case? Didn't Hubbard say in DMSMH that the reactive mind was the single source of aberration? Well, there are these nasty BT's, see, which are introduced on OT III. So just in case you thought clear was a sham, oh no! it works all right. It's just these BT's, see ....

You sure as hell need auditing to address those BT's. Lots and lots of it. YEARS of it.

 

[pineapple]

When I was in the cult I attested to being Clear and I never knew anything about this "Clear Cognition" until I left and saw it on the internet. I think too much emphasis is being put on this.

I was an auditor and case supervisor so I know that someone couldn't just say the so-called Clear Cognition and be declared Clear. That doesn't make any sense to me. The case supervisor would look at the person's history of auditing and many other things before sending them to attest to Clear.

I think this is a difference based on the time we were in scn. I attested in 1979 and left scn in 1981. I think you were in after that.

Phenomanon (rip), on ESMB 1, said she did "hundreds" of clear checks in '78-79, and you had to have the "I'm mocking up my own reactive mind" cog to attest, unless you were a "natural." Then VVGI's and a floating TA were sufficient.

How I did it: I went to the org and told them I wanted to attest to Dianetic Clear. After a short wait I got ushered into a D of P interview where I was asked, "Tell me what happened when you went clear?" I told them, knowing I had it. The interviewer smiled and indicated my F/N.

I went back to reception and shortly thereafter got called in to attest. Back to reception where I was announced and made a short speech.

I took the bus back to the mission where I was on staff. That was it. I don't think the org even had my folder.

There was no CCRD at the time. There was the DCSI (dianetic clear special intensive), but IIRC it was only being given to people who tried to attest and didn't make it. Even then, there were some. I think I remember one girl who tried to attest, didn't make it, had the DCSI and attested afterwards.

 

[Chuck J.]

I lurked a bit on the old site a while ago but a lot of the lingo in the cooler threads went over my head. I think i could probably keep up better now. If anyone could link some of the heavier must read threads, I'd appreciate it. (Heavy as in dense, not necessarily long.)

The main reason I'm asking about theta traps is that in that great jason beghe video he talks about how it warns you about brainwashing as it's doing to you what it's warning you about, and you brainwash yourself. Just trying to get a grip on exactly what he's talking about. For example:



It seems totally plausible to me that he includes the emeter in that category. I'm partially curious about to what extent he was conciously fucking with people. The clear cognition really seems like a mean joke that he knew he could get away with. Like, maybe the "research" was sincere early on, but then auditing didn't produce actual clears.
"You realized none of this is real? Hey, me too. Congrats, you're clear. Let's excersise some immortal parasites and see what that does."
But you don't know that that's the reason you went clear. I'm just wondering how far you have to get to hear that news. I assume almost no one knows it, but i have no idea.

Two MUST read threads are: The Sole Source Myth and Opening Pandora's Box. The latter started by Alan Walter. The Sole Source Myth cracks a lot of ex-$cientologist's cases. And Opening Pandora's Box is where Alan describes how the St. Hill Special Briefing Course came into being and much more of the actual history of the $cn. cult.

The TL;DR - Other people came up with huge sections of scientology, not Hubbard..

 

[Babel]

ANALOGY: In order to better understand Scientology's states of "Clear" and "OT", it's very helpful to momentarily avoid the use of Scientology terms and concepts, because each of those is densely embedded with false, random and contradictory definitions. Thus, to understand the state of Clear, one could begin by noting that SCIENTOLOGY TECHNOLOGY IS A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM THAT HAS NEVER BEEN SOLVED. Let's assume that in 1950 Hubbard released a different book than "Dianetics" and called it "Ghettonetics", billing it as the first time in human history that the reason for impoverished and violent war zones exist in modern cities.

-- And "Ghettonetics" promised a 'world without Ghettos"​

-- And since 1950 every place where Ghettonetics was sold and "applied", no ghetto ever once experienced any statistical improvement in its crime rates, employment rates, personal income or other quality of life metrics. ​

-- And since 1950 the number of square miles of ghettos and number of people living within ghettos dramatically spiked up. ​

-- And since 1950 all of Hubbard's professional organizations and staff members themselves lived in ghetto conditions. ​

-- And since 1950 the world headquarters of Ghettonetics was a vast desert village that had worse living conditions than the rest of the ghettos not under applying the 100% workable technology of Ghettonetics.​

Having articulated this analogy, take a moment and attempt to imagine why it would be impossible to have a rational discussion about the state of Ghetto-Clear, an imaginary "ideal scene" that results after applying Ghettonetics to any village, town or city..

After thinking on that and Hubbard's Law of Commotion for a bit, it actually clears things up a lot (so to speak).

I do understand that the cult is fundamentally a scam that's always dangling a new carrot, or announcing that they finally realized the last carrot you ate was actually an orange turd and that this time it really is a carrot. I get that asking what the beliefs are is equivalent to asking what the scam is.

On some level though, I really get the impression that it has its own kind of formal logic. It teaches you how to think. Not just what to think. I'm pretty sure that's a constant truth of "mind control" regardless of what group is practicing it.

 

[Babel]

Well, further dianetic auditing isn't necessary once you're (supposedly) clear. In fact it isn't allowed, as of 1978. Prior to 1978, clears got loads of dianetic auditing. LRH said, circa 1969, "OT or not, if he [the pc] has somatics, he needs dianetics!"

Dianetics had been almost entirely out of the scn mix since the early 50's and was cautiously reintroduced in the late 60's. (At first it was stressed this was for "training purposes.") The reason it was out of the mix: 1) Hubbard wanted us to forget that the original hadn't lived up to the hype, and 2) he didn't want to be accused of practicing medicine without a license. So there were plenty of OT candidates for it.

After clear you don't need to address your own engrams further, because you're no longer mocking them up. You've stopped mocking up your own reactive mind, so it's no longer there -- theoretically.

So why do you still have a case? Didn't Hubbard say in DMSMH that the reactive mind was the single source of aberration? Well, there are these nasty BT's, see, which are introduced on OT III. So just in case you thought clear was a sham, oh no! it works all right. It's just these BT's, see ....

You sure as hell need auditing to address those BT's. Lots and lots of it. YEARS of it.

Thanks. I just wanted confirmation that I was thinking about it correctly. That all makes sense.

Am I also correct in assuming that the actual process of auditing BT's is almost the same as auditing engrams?
Auditing an engram mainly consists of running an incident over and over until the engram is handled.
Does auditing BT's consist of running incidents from the BT's POV? Or are you having a conversation with the BT and convincing them to leave?

My think is that besides being a very capable con artist, Hubbard was also capable of MASSIVE self-delusion. In the occult the two important faculties are Will and Imagination. You train these so that you can WILL your imagination into reality. I think Hubbard may have believed that he could actually change reality by willing it, i.e. if he said there were clears -- and believed it strongly enough with his superior Will -- then clears existed.

Yep. Black magic Crowley stuff.

At the very least, it's true that you can will your imagination into your own subjective reality. That's what the memory manipulation in auditing does. As someone who doesn't believe in past lives, I think that past life incidents are just things you imagine and then will into your memories, making them real to you.

Is this also the concept he's trying to convey in the ashtray drill? Like, you're willing an intention into an object that isn't actually capable of intention, and in doing so you manipulate reality?

I'd certainly read and heard stuff like this many times before I attested to clear in 1979. But I convinced myself that at some point I'd "realized" it, which wasn't the same thing as just intellectually knowing it (and Hubbard SAYS it isn't the same thing, in some Dianetic Clear HCOB or other).

Interesting clarification. Thanks again for the replies.