Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

CofS critique part 3

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Jeff Jacobsen

May 24, 1994, 5:59:07 PM5/24/94

by Jeff Jacobsen
PO Box 3541
Scottsdale, AZ 85271

copyright 1992 by Jeff Jacobsen
may be reprinted so long as it is kept in its entirety and not


It would seem that the first person to reach the state of
Clear should stick out in history like a sore thumb. After all,
a Clear -

* never has colds or accidents,
* has a soaring IQ,
* total recall of his entire life from conception on,
* has cancer (possibly) and other physical deficiencies
* can compute in seconds what the average person needs 30 or more
minutes for ,2 and
* is the first case of a truly rational person.3

As Hubbard states, "We are dealing here with an entirely new and
hitherto nonexistent object of inspection, the Clear.".4
A Clear would be an immense boost to many social areas, such
as law enforcement, where a Clear could recall events when he was
a fetus or unconscious and thus help solve crimes he may have
"witnessed" while in an unconscious state. Biology would make
giant leaps if you could really recall what you were thinking
when you were a sperm or ovum (Planned Parenthood might be helped
by having a person recall their life as an ovum; "could you have
stopped the sperm from impregnating you?"). Clears would be the
most sought after people in many sciences, in law enforcement,
medicine, and other fields. Clears, being the most rational and
intelligent of society, should naturally rise to positions of
power and authority in academics and politics, making the world a
better place to live.
This allegedly superhuman condition is the end result of
dianetics and the launching point toward the upper levels of
Scientology training. Any person not yet Clear is an aberrated
person and not capable of full human potential.
It should be obvious to all, considering the incredible
abilities and states of being involved, who the first Clear was.
Just as we know who was the first man to walk on the moon, we
should all be taught who the first person in history to reach the
state of Clear was. L. Ron Hubbard himself should surely have
known who this person was, since he claimed discovery of the
Or was it Hubbard himself? Imagine, says Hubbard, an engineer
who builds a bridge up to a high plateau that had never been
visited by man. After finishing the bridge, "He himself crosses
and he inspects the plateau carefully."5 Others cross after the
engineer. This analogy is obvious. The engineer is Hubbard, and
the plateau is the state of Clear. So Hubbard was the first
Clear, and to support this further is the "Scientology
Catechism", which asks if Hubbard was Clear, and answers "Yes- in
order to map the route for others he had to make it himself."6
Yet, in a speech in 1958, Hubbard said that the first Clears
were people he was treating in Los Angeles while he was disguised
as a swami.7 The first of these became Clear "by 1947"; "these
were the first Clears."8 "There were people who were run on the
old techniques who were Cleared years ago," Hubbard stated on
June 12, 1950.9
On August 10, 1950, Hubbard gave a talk at the Shrine
Auditorium in Los Angeles where he introduced Sonya Bianca (aka
Ann Singer) as the world's first Clear.10 After she miserably
failed recall tests on stage, she was never again referred to as
the first Clear. This declaration, however, seems to contradict
the notion that Hubbard was the first, or even that the "swami's"
patients were.
Hubbard declared Sara, his first wife, as the first Clear
until she divorced him.11 "He stood up on stage in Los Angeles
and announced that I was the first 'Clear.' I was so
Within Dianetics itself several Clears are mentioned, who
would thus have to have been Clear before 1950. A woman with
twelve difficult prenatal engrams finally "progressed to
Clear."13 A husband and wife team Cleared each other.14 A
pianist who was halted by his engrams became "one of the
best-paid concert pianists in Hollywood".15 Others are indirectly
mentioned.16 These pre-Dianetics Clears seem logically to be
necessary, otherwise how would Hubbard have been able to describe
what a Clear was like?
For example, how did Hubbard know that a Clear has "an
increase in longevity which is at least a hundred to one for
every hour of therapy"?17 Wouldn't at least one Cleared person
have had to have lived for quite some time before Hubbard, with
his reported penchant for scientific accuracy, could write this?
Also, how did he know that about 500 hours of auditing is the
average amount needed to produce a Clear,18 and that it otherwise
takes from 30 to 1200 hours?19 This indicates that there must
have been several Clears at the time Hubbard wrote Dianetics.
And last but not least, John Mcmaster was checked and double
checked, and the Church of Scientology officially declared him
the first Clear on March 9, 1966.20
Will the real first Clear please stand up?

Since it seems impossible to understand the state of Clear by
observing the first example, let us come at it from what Hubbard
wrote from his observations of Clears in Dianetics. "If this
person now feels he can solve all the problems of life, lick the
world with one hand tied behind him and feel a friend to all men,
you have a Clear."21 Hubbard is helpful here, although it could
be argued that he is also describing a drunk.
Of course, Hubbard has more scientific sounding definitions:
"the Clear is an unaberrated person... [who] has no engrams which
can be restimulated..."22 This sounds more helpful, but how can
you tell when there are no more engrams?
Engrams, those memories stored in the reactive mind, have to
be found, and gone over and over until the auditor perceives that
the pre-Clear has come up through apathy, anger, boredom, and
finally laughter.23 Once the pre-Clear is having a good time
reliving his father's attack on his mother or his mother
attempting to abort him (to use Hubbard's examples), then the
engram is said to have moved out of the reactive mind and into
the analytical mind, and the auditor moves on to search for
another engram. Simply put, then, an auditor has a pre-Clear
relive an experience (which has pain and unconsciousness in the
experience) stored in the reactive mind over and over until the
auditor is satisfied that the engram no longer affects the
pre-Clear. At this point the engram is considered erased [note:
there seems to be a contradiction here in that the auditor is not
to evaluate for the pre-clear, although here the auditor decides
when an engram is gone].
Although Hubbard declared that anyone can audit (Dianetics is,
after all, a how-to-audit manual) there are many pitfalls an
auditor must watch out for while searching for engrams. He may
encounter a "lie factory" engram that makes the pre-Clear
"remember" things that never really occurred. Hubbard offers no
help in differentiating between actual engrams and "lie factory"
memories, and in fact says you will wind up in a "tangled
The "denyer" engram may hide itself by denying its own
existence. Phrases in an engram like "I'm not here" and "forget
about it" will hide its existence from the auditor because the
pre-Clear, in his aberrated state, takes language phrases in an
engram literally. The method used to find these is to GUESS at a
phrase that may be in the engram. In one example, Hubbard tells
of an auditor who tried 200 phrases before he got one that seemed
to fit the bill.25 This would seem by the auditing methods used
then to probably have taken days of the auditor telling the
pre-Clear to "Repeat this phrase, 'you won't find me' (pre-Clear
repeats many times. No apparent evidence of an engram, so...)
Now repeat 'I can't be found'..." Doesn't this seem to be a way
to drive someone insane rather than therapy? And Hubbard says
there are thousands of denyer phrases!!!26
The "bouncer" engram is another deceptive type, with phrases
like "get out," which kicks the pre-Clear out of the engram.27
Again, the solution is to GUESS at a phrase since this is the
best way to find engrams.28 Consequently a lot of guessing goes
on in this precise "scientific" process of auditing.
The "holder", "misdirector", "grouper", and "derailer" all
offer similar problems to the auditor. And all the above are
simply blocks to FINDING an engram. There are also problems in
eradicating the engram. You may think an engram has been erased,
yet you may only have reduced its effect on the pre-Clear.
There is even the possibility that the pre-Clear has engrams
in another language that he doesn't know about!29 How these can
be declared eradicated when there is no proof of their existence
in the first place strains the imagination to the utmost.
The above (incomplete) examples of problems in auditing are
brought up to show that finding someone who has no engrams is a
difficult task, since engrams according to Hubbard's own words
are often hard to detect. And if just one engram escapes
detection, you do not have a Clear.
Let us consider a theoretical example of a person who knows
Dianetics but is not a Clear. This person, during auditing,
kicks in a "lie factory" engram, and since this person
understands the auditing process he is skillfully able to create
fake engrams, and even can fake its eradication. His mother
lived with her Greek parents until the fifth month of pregnancy,
and engrams in the Greek language were instilled in the fetus.
The auditor found prenatals in auditing (after the fifth month),
and it was assumed that all were eradicated, since the person
became much more assertive, happier, and the like after many
hours of auditing. This person could be declared Clear because
the "lie factory" engrams were skilled at hiding by understanding
the auditing game, and the foreign language engrams were never
restimulated or found because auditing was done in English. This
is a perfectly conceivable case under Hubbard's theories. But a
worse case might be when an auditor continually searches for
weeks trying to find engrams that don't even exist, in other
words, auditing a Clear.
It should be obvious from the above that the entire process of
auditing is subjective. An engram is declared gone because the
auditor perceives that the person has gotten better. A Clear is
declared because the auditor decides he is now free of
"aberration" and "psychosomatic illness."30 Hubbard even states
that "The subjective reality, not the objective reality, is the
important question to the auditor."31 This massive amount of
subjectivity puts a strain on Hubbard's claims of scientific
The auditor is continually required to make subjective
decisions and yet is taught that the entire process is a
mechanistic, scientifically precise exercise. The auditor is
never allowed to consider that a hindrance to auditing is from
anything other than engrams. If a person is skeptical of
engrams, the auditor is assured that an engram is causing the
skepticism32 and certainly not a healthy amount of research on
the part of the skeptic. When someone "resists" auditing, that
is caused by an engram rather than the person's conclusion that
dianetics is stupid.33 Boredom is never from genuine boredom,
according to Hubbard, but from an engram. Consequently, anything
other than full acceptance and submission to dianetics auditing
must be caused by engrams.
This entire process of finding and eradicating engrams is
totally subjective. Although Hubbard tries valiantly to make
auditing seem a mere mechanical process34 with his engineering
and scientific talk, the mind is not a mechanical object. It is
the most complex device nature ever made, and has to this day
baffled those who have tried to figure out how it works.
Personality, culture, upbringing, and more, influence individual
actions, not just a finite set of past events incorrectly stored
in the reactive mind.

In the real world, the state of Clear is basically a rank
within the Church of Scientology. In the real world, the
superhuman qualities of Clear have not been perceived by
independent investigators, nor have these superhumans been able
to take over or at least greatly effect society in any fashion.
In other words, although thousands of people have obtained the
rank of Clear, there is no proof that any of them fit Hubbard's
grandiose claims for them in Dianetics. Nor have they been able
to accomplish what Hubbard claimed they could.

1 DIANETICS, p. 24
2 DIANETICS, p. 228
3 DIANETICS, p. 24
4 DIANETICS, p. 18
5 DIANETICS, p. 543
6 L. Ron Hubbard and staff, WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY? (Los Angeles;
Church of
of California, 1978), p.202
7 L. Ron Hubbard, "The Story of Dianetics and Scientology"
cassette tape, 1958. tape #581OC18
8 ibid.
9 L. Ron Hubbard, RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY SERIES (Copenhagen,
Denmark; Scientology Publications Organization ApS, 1980) vol. 1,
10 Russell Miller, BARE FACED MESSIAH (New York; Henry Holt and
Co., 1987), p.165
11 Stewart Lamont, RELIGION, INC. (London; Harrap, Ltd., 1986)
12 Bent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr., L. RON HUBBARD, MESSIAH
OR MADMAN? (Secaucus, NJ; Lyle Stuart, Inc., 1987) p.288
13 DIANETICS, p. 365
14 DIANETICS, p. 502-3
15 DIANETICS, p. 316
16 DIANETICS, pp. 211,228,311,552
17 DIANETICS, 1975 edition, p.417. This is not in the newer
18 DIANETICS, p.258
19 DIANETICS, p.519
20 RELIGION, INC., pp.53-4
21 DIANETICS, p.414
22 DIANETICS, p.565
23 DIANETICS, p.429
24 DIANETICS, p.256
25 DIANETICS, p.295
26 DIANETICS, p.440
27 DIANETICS, p.282-3
28 DIANETICS, p.369
29 DIANETICS, pp.418-419
30 DIANETICS, p.227
31 DIANETICS, p.522
32 DIANETICS, p.246-7
33 DIANETICS, p.479
34 DIANETICS, p.522

Jeff Jacobsen
PO Box 3541
Scottsdale, AZ 85271 Here I stand - I can do no more.

May 25, 1994, 6:37:11 AM5/25/94

Jeff, must have been a lot of work going into this!
Have you ever *experienced* _any_ Dianetics yourself? I wonder if you
would have written all of the above. I have a subjective reality about
being Clear, and I can tell you that it is the best thing that I ever did.

It's easy to find inconsistencies if you start looking for them with a
preset frame of mind. Actually confronting your reactive mind and getting
rid of it is much more effective on the long term. Find some one to
co-audit with on Dianetics. Doesn't cost a cent since you have a copy of
the book already. Go Clear and then we talk some more... :^))

Warm regards, Stu

Donald Lindsay

May 26, 1994, 7:51:04 PM5/26/94

In article <2rv9on$>,

ST...@DELPHI.COM <> wrote:
>Actually confronting your reactive mind and getting
>rid of it is much more effective on the long term.

That assumes that
- there is a reactive mind, per se
- that it can be got rid of

which is exactly what he was disputing.
Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

Jeff Jacobsen

May 26, 1994, 7:20:09 PM5/26/94
ST...@DELPHI.COM ( wrote:

: Jeff, must have been a lot of work going into this!

What you seem to be suggesting to me is that I can't write on any
religion unless I have been a member of that religion and experienced
what it is like. My response is that I don't need to have broken my arm
to know it hurts. I've seen 2 people break their arm. It hurt. But
hey, if you don't believe that, go ahead and break your arm and
experience it for yourself.
I have a brain that God gave me to figure things out with. If, by
using that brain (well-trained, I might ad), I can discern that something
is baloney, then why should I go try it? But to satisfy you, I have
taken the intro. course, have been to the LRH museum the Big Blue
Building, Clearwater, the Celebrity Center, Golden Era, etc. I have read
17 LRH books, listened to about 44 hours of LRH lectures, spoken with
members and ex-members (some of whom worked with LRH), and been to other
church functions. The fact that I choose not to become a member I don't
think hurts the validity of my research.

: Warm regards, Stu

0 new messages