Veda
Sponsor
IMO, essentially, Hubbard's basic behavior didn't change from the very beginning.
Hubbard hiding out in Queens, New York, in 1973:
__________
Hubbard's mistress from 1951 was interviewed by BBC television for the late 1990s 'Secret Lives' Program, and told of seeing Hubbard in 1951 after an absence of a few months. She described him as having long hair and fingernails like talons.
See 7:50 - 8:30:
But he bounced back.
Hubbard at the 1979/1980 New Years party at "X" in Hemet, California:
Monthly price increases began in 1976.
After the July 1977 FBI raids, Hubbard briefly regressed into his "Incident 2" (the 75 million years ago super engram), which was his 1966/67 explanation to himself, and to others, for his failures in Southern Africa (his failure to, as the reincarnation of Cecil Rhodes, find his buried treasure and make Rhodesia a Scientology country where he - in the background - could "pull the strings.")
In the wake of the 1977 movie hit Star Wars, Hubbard, once again clutching onto "Incident 2" - the super engram necessary to explain his failures - in this case his failure to apply his spying and covert dirty tricks tech without it massively backfiring on him - wrote the "Incident 2" themed screenplay Revolt in the Stars, and this was to be made into a hit movie much like Star Wars. The difference would be that it would be loaded with whole track implant significance that would send the "wogs" streaming into their local orgs for handling. It was a bad idea for a number of reasons and was eventually dropped.
In its place - as Hubbard hid out from the FBI - came Battlefield Earth, followed by the Mission Earth series. Feeling betrayed by wife #3 Mary Sue (who committed the sin of getting caught while following his secret instructions), Hubbard had apparently regressed back to the time before Mary Sue, a time when he was writing pulp science fiction and promoting Dianetics as the route to Clear. Writing was Hubbard's therapy.
The more successful Scientology Missions (Scientology franchises) had become rich, and Hubbard wanted their money and property. Hubbard's "discovery" of Dianetic Clear, past life Clear, and Natural Clear, all served to move people out of Missions and "up lines" to Advanced Orgs and Flag. Ultimately, this wasn't enough, and Hubbard ordered the looting of the Missions themselves
In 1970, Hubbard had written of Dianetic Clear:
"Only about 2 percent actually go clear on Dianetics. A Dianetic Clear as any other Dianetic PC now goes up through the Grades of Scientology and on to the proper Clearing Course. The Dianetic Clear of Book 1 was clear of somatics. The Book 1 definition is correct. This is the end phenomena of Dianetics as per the Classification Chart and Book 1."
A Clear of somatics Clear!
And don't forget those (actual) GPM Clears, with "one GPM Clears" and "two GPM Clears" and "three GPM Clears," and, I think, Hubbard was supposed to have made "5 GPM Clear."
And then - if I recall correctly - there was the lecture, 'The Story of Dianetics of Scientology', where Hubbard stated that he had made the first Dianetic Clears in 1947, and that these were Theta Clears. At the time of that lecture, Book 1 Clears were not regarded as being as Clear as the Clears then being produced. They were said to have been Theta Clears (stably outside the body), but later became (1970) Somatic Clears, but then with keyed out Clear being redefined as Clear (1978), and hundreds of Scientologists deciding they had "gone Dianetic Clear in 1947 after having been audited by Ron," and going "up lines" with checkbooks in hand, they became acceptable as Clears somehow...
And it goes on and on...
Hubbard left Scientologists with a whole lot of loose-ends, each tightly shrink-wrapped in cellophane as "LRH datums."
This can become perplexing to them, IF they omit the rest of the "Tech" left to them by Hubbard. It's really the senior Tech of Scientology, and can be found in this booklet Brainwashing-front.jpg (JPEG Image, 566 × 856 pixels) - Scaled (53%) and it overrides all the loose-ends, leaving a Scientologist will a contented sense of total certainty.
Turns out that the loose-ends are just a medium, used as a means to an end. Hubbard's system of mental-healing only needs to "work" up to a point, since it was only a front and a medium, or means, for something else.
That something else was inadvertently revealed in his 1938 'Excalibur' letter and in his 1946 'Affirmations':
"I have high hopes of smashing my name into history... [so] that it will take a legendary form... That goal is the real goal as far as I am concerned."
"Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler."
___________
Sometimes, when people leave organized Scientology, that part of the tech is largely "dropped out." This leaves the person with a bunch of the tech loose ends, and there sometimes follows a struggle to make sense of the various loose ends. This can be a frustrating exercise if the rest of the tech - the "total package" - is not taken into consideration.
In the event that someone hasn't seen it yet, here's an article on Clear, from 1989, by former Senior Case Supervisor International David Mayo, expressing his views, and sharing his experience, having been out of the organization, then, for six years:
http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html
________________________________________________
START QUOTE
Clear
By David Mayo, USA.
In late 1978, the state of "dianetic clear" was announced. Within a few months two other "states of clear" were introduced: the state of "natural clear" and the state of "past life clear".
This change had two immediate consequences:
1. The number of people attesting (correctly or falsely) to having attained the "state of clear" increased enormously.
2. During and after that period, there was a considerable amount of upset and confusion about the "state of clear".
There were those who considered that a dianetic clear was not a "real clear" and that the only "real clear" was one who (like them) had done the Clearing Course. Some felt that they had gone clear in their last lifetime. Some felt that dianetic clear explained why they had never been able to run dianetic auditing successfully. A large number of auditors, C/Ses, and others felt that there were a lot of people falsely attesting to the state of clear and either
a. Felt unethical about letting the person attest, or
b. Tried to handle it and ended up involuntarily invalidating the pc. No matter how this was "handled", it has persisted as a problem. So we can at least assume that there are aspects of it that haven't been taken into account and handled.
Let us examine more closely what happened in late 1978 and early 1979. LRH was being audited and concluded that one of the things wrong with his case was that he had been audited on dianetic auditing after he had attained the "state of clear" (which he at first thought had occured in objective processing). He then issued a bulletin forbidding the running of dianetic auditing on clears and made various other technical and administrative changes.
He cancelled the state of "keyed out clear" by stating that it was the same state as "clear". He changed the definition of "clear" (and subsequently changed it several more times). He order ed that the folders of pcs (and the pcs themselves) who might have gone clear in orgs and missions be routed to Advanced Orgs. This action resulted in an emptying out of the orgs and missions and a flood of people arriving at the AOs.
At first, people were being declared clear regardless of what they thought they had gone clear on or when this had occurred. More importantly, they were being declared clear regardless of the state of case or condition they were in. In fact, one bulletin went so far as to advise that case and ethics trouble could be caused by a person having attained clear without having the state acknowledged. As a result, many persons who were declared clear were actually in very poor condition. This practice reflected badly on the "state of clear" and the workability of the tech. It caused a great deal of upset and confusion on the subject of clear.
At that time there was a shortage of instructions on how to handle dianetic clear technically and a general lack of data on the new subject of "dianetic clear". However persons accused of mis-handling dianetic clear were handled with heavy ethics. The "invalidation of clear" was named a Suppressive Act, while permitting someone to attest falsely was also a serious ethics offense.
A step in the procedure for handling these new clears was to establish the date when the person went clear. Sometimes the date so found would be before scientology or even prior to the pc's lifetime. When LRH heard that some persons considered that they had attained the "state of clear" in an earlier practice such as Buddhism, he became very upset. He stated that the idea that a person could go clear through any other means than scientology was "suppressive". At a certain point, he also got upset at the fact that people were concluding that they had gone clear in scientology auditing. So he specified that a person can validly go clear only in dianetic auditing. He handled the "earlier than this life time" clears by deciding that they either went clear in their last lifetime in dianetic auditing (presumably if they were young enough for this to be possible) or had attained a new state he dubbed "natural clear". His new theory was that some people had never been anything but clear. However, he refused, thereafter, to issue any further clarification of what he meant by this assertion.
Throughout this period, the definition of clear and/or dianetic clear kept changing - in the direction of dilution. Thus people came to expect less and less from the "state of clear", while the number of new clears (and thus new arrivals at AOs and Gross Income) steadily increased. None of the new definitions of "clear", and none of the new techniques for handling clears or programming them for further actions, really solved any of the problems caused by the advent of dianetic clear.
It is of interest that the definition of "clear" had already been changed several times between its first definition in DMSMH (The book, Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health, 1950, by L. Ron Hubbard) and the time the idea of "clear" was put forth. 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. The states of "MEST Clear", "Theta Clear", "Cleared Theta Clear", "Clearing Course Clear", "Clear-OT", and, finally, "Dianetic Clear", and "Word Clear" were equally absolutistic when first stated, but when people started attesting to them, the definition of each, or the criterion for allowing a pc to attest to each, was similarly watered down. This sequence has been repeated over and over throughout the history of scientology.
LRH correctly stated that absolutes are unattainable. And the notion of "clear" is an absolute. It's like the notion of "clean" or "pure". When is water pure? When it has only one part per million of arsenic and rat poop? Nowhere in the universe is there water which is 100% pure. To obtain complete Clarity would require a complete as-isness of any universe the thetan was in and a return to complete native state. Everyone does have a reactive mind - his own reactive mind. That's why one flies ruds and goes E/S and gets off BPC on anyone regardless of their point on the grade chart. The mechanics of the reactive mind continue to exist all the way up.
"Clears" have always had trouble explaining why they still act reactively at times, or a lot of the time, and why they still have problems in life and in getting along with people. The amount of mileage you can get from the notion of a "cleared Cannibal" is very limited. Even a cleared cannibal, if he were really clear, would get along wonderfully in life, never manifest misemotion, and love all his fellow beings, even as he was having their bodies for dinner!
The idea of "harmonics of clear" is quite accurate. The main reason why LRH blew up at the idea of "harmonics of clear", as expressed in the HCOB I wrote, was, as he told me, that this idea tended to leave him open to the charge that the claims he had made in DMSMH and elsewhere concerning the "state of clear" were fraudulent.
The truth appears to be that there are various stages of release, at each one of which you are clear-er than you were. A person experiencing the glee of insanity is clear-er than someone who is just completely unconscious. It was PR and marketing considerations that led Hubbard to decide that certain people were "clear" at a certain point, and that they therefore had no reactive mind. However this assertion is a lie, and a very destructive one, one that denies case gain to a great many people and provides a too-convenient rabbit button for pc's, auditors and C/S's who are having trouble with the pc's case. The claim that case and ethics problems can be caused by being clear was:
1. Absurd on the face of it.
2. A declaration of open rabbitting season.
Trying to define "clear" is difficult because it is being done over a lie. We either have to restore the meaning of clear to its original absolute meaning (which means that there aren't any clears in existence), or we have to say that what people have attested to as clear is actually only a state of release or reduction.
We can say that the purpose of auditing is to clear aberrations and that if all aberrations were cleared, a "state of clear" would be attained. The concept of "clear" is useful as an ultimate goal, like the goal of perfect happiness or of perfect anything. It is a direction in which to continue to progress. It is not an attainable state (at least given our present level of technology).
Another part of the problem is that the states of release and clear are only subjective. Asking an aberrated person to decide when he feels or thinks that he is no longer aberrated, is asking for a delusory "cognition" from the start. At one time [ca. 1959. Ed.], LRH postulated that the state of clear could be objectively proven by the presence of a "free or floating needle" and a TA position of 2.0 (Female) or 3.0 (Male). But this was an unverified guess that did not stand the test of time.
Perhaps what we have been calling "clear" is "no longer chronically affected by engrams" or "engrams no longer in chronic restimulation." As such, the state would be more accurately described as a state of release or as a state of reduction. In other words, it would mean that the majority of a person's aberrations had gone into abeyance.
Regardless of what the state is named, the recognition that a person can continue to be come clear-er, restores hope and makes progress possible again.
Three years earlier, during 1986, David Mayo had been interviewed by author Russell Miller, and this is that interview:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/mayo.htm
By the early 1990s David Mayo had ceased being any kind of Scientologist and had moved on to other things.
It takes a while to sort out all the information that becomes available on Scientology, and Hubbard, once one leaves the organization.
Hubbard hiding out in Queens, New York, in 1973:
__________
Hubbard's mistress from 1951 was interviewed by BBC television for the late 1990s 'Secret Lives' Program, and told of seeing Hubbard in 1951 after an absence of a few months. She described him as having long hair and fingernails like talons.
See 7:50 - 8:30:
But he bounced back.
___________
Hubbard at the 1979/1980 New Years party at "X" in Hemet, California:
One of the last photos of Ron
Researching gambling
Researching gambling
___________
Monthly price increases began in 1976.
After the July 1977 FBI raids, Hubbard briefly regressed into his "Incident 2" (the 75 million years ago super engram), which was his 1966/67 explanation to himself, and to others, for his failures in Southern Africa (his failure to, as the reincarnation of Cecil Rhodes, find his buried treasure and make Rhodesia a Scientology country where he - in the background - could "pull the strings.")
In the wake of the 1977 movie hit Star Wars, Hubbard, once again clutching onto "Incident 2" - the super engram necessary to explain his failures - in this case his failure to apply his spying and covert dirty tricks tech without it massively backfiring on him - wrote the "Incident 2" themed screenplay Revolt in the Stars, and this was to be made into a hit movie much like Star Wars. The difference would be that it would be loaded with whole track implant significance that would send the "wogs" streaming into their local orgs for handling. It was a bad idea for a number of reasons and was eventually dropped.
In its place - as Hubbard hid out from the FBI - came Battlefield Earth, followed by the Mission Earth series. Feeling betrayed by wife #3 Mary Sue (who committed the sin of getting caught while following his secret instructions), Hubbard had apparently regressed back to the time before Mary Sue, a time when he was writing pulp science fiction and promoting Dianetics as the route to Clear. Writing was Hubbard's therapy.
The more successful Scientology Missions (Scientology franchises) had become rich, and Hubbard wanted their money and property. Hubbard's "discovery" of Dianetic Clear, past life Clear, and Natural Clear, all served to move people out of Missions and "up lines" to Advanced Orgs and Flag. Ultimately, this wasn't enough, and Hubbard ordered the looting of the Missions themselves
___________
Some More Background
In 1978, Hubbard decided that "keyed out Clear is Clear," and that Dianetic Clears should not do PP, R6ew, and CC.Some More Background
In 1970, Hubbard had written of Dianetic Clear:
"Only about 2 percent actually go clear on Dianetics. A Dianetic Clear as any other Dianetic PC now goes up through the Grades of Scientology and on to the proper Clearing Course. The Dianetic Clear of Book 1 was clear of somatics. The Book 1 definition is correct. This is the end phenomena of Dianetics as per the Classification Chart and Book 1."
A Clear of somatics Clear!
And don't forget those (actual) GPM Clears, with "one GPM Clears" and "two GPM Clears" and "three GPM Clears," and, I think, Hubbard was supposed to have made "5 GPM Clear."
And then - if I recall correctly - there was the lecture, 'The Story of Dianetics of Scientology', where Hubbard stated that he had made the first Dianetic Clears in 1947, and that these were Theta Clears. At the time of that lecture, Book 1 Clears were not regarded as being as Clear as the Clears then being produced. They were said to have been Theta Clears (stably outside the body), but later became (1970) Somatic Clears, but then with keyed out Clear being redefined as Clear (1978), and hundreds of Scientologists deciding they had "gone Dianetic Clear in 1947 after having been audited by Ron," and going "up lines" with checkbooks in hand, they became acceptable as Clears somehow...
And it goes on and on...
Hubbard left Scientologists with a whole lot of loose-ends, each tightly shrink-wrapped in cellophane as "LRH datums."
This can become perplexing to them, IF they omit the rest of the "Tech" left to them by Hubbard. It's really the senior Tech of Scientology, and can be found in this booklet Brainwashing-front.jpg (JPEG Image, 566 × 856 pixels) - Scaled (53%) and it overrides all the loose-ends, leaving a Scientologist will a contented sense of total certainty.
Turns out that the loose-ends are just a medium, used as a means to an end. Hubbard's system of mental-healing only needs to "work" up to a point, since it was only a front and a medium, or means, for something else.
That something else was inadvertently revealed in his 1938 'Excalibur' letter and in his 1946 'Affirmations':
"I have high hopes of smashing my name into history... [so] that it will take a legendary form... That goal is the real goal as far as I am concerned."
"Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler."
___________
Sometimes, when people leave organized Scientology, that part of the tech is largely "dropped out." This leaves the person with a bunch of the tech loose ends, and there sometimes follows a struggle to make sense of the various loose ends. This can be a frustrating exercise if the rest of the tech - the "total package" - is not taken into consideration.
_______________
In the event that someone hasn't seen it yet, here's an article on Clear, from 1989, by former Senior Case Supervisor International David Mayo, expressing his views, and sharing his experience, having been out of the organization, then, for six years:
http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html
________________________________________________
START QUOTE
Clear
By David Mayo, USA.
In late 1978, the state of "dianetic clear" was announced. Within a few months two other "states of clear" were introduced: the state of "natural clear" and the state of "past life clear".
This change had two immediate consequences:
1. The number of people attesting (correctly or falsely) to having attained the "state of clear" increased enormously.
2. During and after that period, there was a considerable amount of upset and confusion about the "state of clear".
There were those who considered that a dianetic clear was not a "real clear" and that the only "real clear" was one who (like them) had done the Clearing Course. Some felt that they had gone clear in their last lifetime. Some felt that dianetic clear explained why they had never been able to run dianetic auditing successfully. A large number of auditors, C/Ses, and others felt that there were a lot of people falsely attesting to the state of clear and either
a. Felt unethical about letting the person attest, or
b. Tried to handle it and ended up involuntarily invalidating the pc. No matter how this was "handled", it has persisted as a problem. So we can at least assume that there are aspects of it that haven't been taken into account and handled.
Let us examine more closely what happened in late 1978 and early 1979. LRH was being audited and concluded that one of the things wrong with his case was that he had been audited on dianetic auditing after he had attained the "state of clear" (which he at first thought had occured in objective processing). He then issued a bulletin forbidding the running of dianetic auditing on clears and made various other technical and administrative changes.
He cancelled the state of "keyed out clear" by stating that it was the same state as "clear". He changed the definition of "clear" (and subsequently changed it several more times). He order ed that the folders of pcs (and the pcs themselves) who might have gone clear in orgs and missions be routed to Advanced Orgs. This action resulted in an emptying out of the orgs and missions and a flood of people arriving at the AOs.
At first, people were being declared clear regardless of what they thought they had gone clear on or when this had occurred. More importantly, they were being declared clear regardless of the state of case or condition they were in. In fact, one bulletin went so far as to advise that case and ethics trouble could be caused by a person having attained clear without having the state acknowledged. As a result, many persons who were declared clear were actually in very poor condition. This practice reflected badly on the "state of clear" and the workability of the tech. It caused a great deal of upset and confusion on the subject of clear.
At that time there was a shortage of instructions on how to handle dianetic clear technically and a general lack of data on the new subject of "dianetic clear". However persons accused of mis-handling dianetic clear were handled with heavy ethics. The "invalidation of clear" was named a Suppressive Act, while permitting someone to attest falsely was also a serious ethics offense.
A step in the procedure for handling these new clears was to establish the date when the person went clear. Sometimes the date so found would be before scientology or even prior to the pc's lifetime. When LRH heard that some persons considered that they had attained the "state of clear" in an earlier practice such as Buddhism, he became very upset. He stated that the idea that a person could go clear through any other means than scientology was "suppressive". At a certain point, he also got upset at the fact that people were concluding that they had gone clear in scientology auditing. So he specified that a person can validly go clear only in dianetic auditing. He handled the "earlier than this life time" clears by deciding that they either went clear in their last lifetime in dianetic auditing (presumably if they were young enough for this to be possible) or had attained a new state he dubbed "natural clear". His new theory was that some people had never been anything but clear. However, he refused, thereafter, to issue any further clarification of what he meant by this assertion.
Throughout this period, the definition of clear and/or dianetic clear kept changing - in the direction of dilution. Thus people came to expect less and less from the "state of clear", while the number of new clears (and thus new arrivals at AOs and Gross Income) steadily increased. None of the new definitions of "clear", and none of the new techniques for handling clears or programming them for further actions, really solved any of the problems caused by the advent of dianetic clear.
It is of interest that the definition of "clear" had already been changed several times between its first definition in DMSMH (The book, Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health, 1950, by L. Ron Hubbard) and the time the idea of "clear" was put forth. 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. The states of "MEST Clear", "Theta Clear", "Cleared Theta Clear", "Clearing Course Clear", "Clear-OT", and, finally, "Dianetic Clear", and "Word Clear" were equally absolutistic when first stated, but when people started attesting to them, the definition of each, or the criterion for allowing a pc to attest to each, was similarly watered down. This sequence has been repeated over and over throughout the history of scientology.
LRH correctly stated that absolutes are unattainable. And the notion of "clear" is an absolute. It's like the notion of "clean" or "pure". When is water pure? When it has only one part per million of arsenic and rat poop? Nowhere in the universe is there water which is 100% pure. To obtain complete Clarity would require a complete as-isness of any universe the thetan was in and a return to complete native state. Everyone does have a reactive mind - his own reactive mind. That's why one flies ruds and goes E/S and gets off BPC on anyone regardless of their point on the grade chart. The mechanics of the reactive mind continue to exist all the way up.
"Clears" have always had trouble explaining why they still act reactively at times, or a lot of the time, and why they still have problems in life and in getting along with people. The amount of mileage you can get from the notion of a "cleared Cannibal" is very limited. Even a cleared cannibal, if he were really clear, would get along wonderfully in life, never manifest misemotion, and love all his fellow beings, even as he was having their bodies for dinner!
The idea of "harmonics of clear" is quite accurate. The main reason why LRH blew up at the idea of "harmonics of clear", as expressed in the HCOB I wrote, was, as he told me, that this idea tended to leave him open to the charge that the claims he had made in DMSMH and elsewhere concerning the "state of clear" were fraudulent.
The truth appears to be that there are various stages of release, at each one of which you are clear-er than you were. A person experiencing the glee of insanity is clear-er than someone who is just completely unconscious. It was PR and marketing considerations that led Hubbard to decide that certain people were "clear" at a certain point, and that they therefore had no reactive mind. However this assertion is a lie, and a very destructive one, one that denies case gain to a great many people and provides a too-convenient rabbit button for pc's, auditors and C/S's who are having trouble with the pc's case. The claim that case and ethics problems can be caused by being clear was:
1. Absurd on the face of it.
2. A declaration of open rabbitting season.
Trying to define "clear" is difficult because it is being done over a lie. We either have to restore the meaning of clear to its original absolute meaning (which means that there aren't any clears in existence), or we have to say that what people have attested to as clear is actually only a state of release or reduction.
We can say that the purpose of auditing is to clear aberrations and that if all aberrations were cleared, a "state of clear" would be attained. The concept of "clear" is useful as an ultimate goal, like the goal of perfect happiness or of perfect anything. It is a direction in which to continue to progress. It is not an attainable state (at least given our present level of technology).
Another part of the problem is that the states of release and clear are only subjective. Asking an aberrated person to decide when he feels or thinks that he is no longer aberrated, is asking for a delusory "cognition" from the start. At one time [ca. 1959. Ed.], LRH postulated that the state of clear could be objectively proven by the presence of a "free or floating needle" and a TA position of 2.0 (Female) or 3.0 (Male). But this was an unverified guess that did not stand the test of time.
Perhaps what we have been calling "clear" is "no longer chronically affected by engrams" or "engrams no longer in chronic restimulation." As such, the state would be more accurately described as a state of release or as a state of reduction. In other words, it would mean that the majority of a person's aberrations had gone into abeyance.
Regardless of what the state is named, the recognition that a person can continue to be come clear-er, restores hope and makes progress possible again.
END QUOTE
___________________________
___________________________
Three years earlier, during 1986, David Mayo had been interviewed by author Russell Miller, and this is that interview:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/mayo.htm
By the early 1990s David Mayo had ceased being any kind of Scientologist and had moved on to other things.
It takes a while to sort out all the information that becomes available on Scientology, and Hubbard, once one leaves the organization.
