Talk:Clear (Scientology)/Archive 1

Bad Definition
Since this article is all about the definition of a particular word and rests for its existence on a particular word having a specific meaning, should it not quote from a refutable source what the exact meaning of that word is? From that then, associated uses of the word might be specified, i.e. pre-clear folder, pre-clear as a student and then, possibly, pre-OT (though another article might be more appropriate. Terryeo 19:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't it obvious? I medical dictionary will give you a medical definition of a word in it.  A Scientology Technical Dictionary will give you a definition of a word in it.  Therefore, "Clear" is a statement, cited, with a source of information.  It complies with WP:CITE and needs to be presented as a cited fact per that guideline.  If you wish to talk about its validity, the article gives you plenty of room to talk about it being valid, invalid, true, false or anything else.  As a Wikipedia Fact, it is.  As a belief, it may or may not be.  Definition first, then controversy.  Make a statement, cite a source, make a statement, cite a source.  Don't insert your original research into cited sources of information because it pleases your POV. Terryeo 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * When Scientology makes a statement and publishes in books for 50 years, then it is a statement. The validity of the statement is subject to individual points of view.  But, the statement itself is itself.  Scientology states a condition called "Clear" exists.  That is a statement.  If you believe it, ok. if you don't that's okay too.  But your belief has nothing whatsoever to do with what that statement is. Therfore "belief" does not belong in the definition of Clear.  You are substituting your POV for Scientology's statement.  Terryeo 02:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The definitions you've written are up there with defining God as "existing." --Davidstrauss 13:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Find a source, quote a source, cite a source. Terryeo 17:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To-do list
(add others at will) - David Gerard 18:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The various First Clears (e.g. the woman who couldn't remember the colour of Hubbard's tie) before John McMaster
 * quick research indicates the tie woman was Sonia Bianca, renamed "Ann Singer" in some accounts.
 * John McMaster - he did a lot of publicity work in the '60s as the First Clear
 * Critics on the State of Clear - Cyril Vosper and Robert Kaufman go into some detail on this
 * The various types of states of Clear (theta clear, Dianetic clear, Scientology clear, natural clear etc., etc.)
 * Changes to the "State of Clear" HCOB over the years


 * I have to laugh at this. If a critic considers the body of information which is Scientology to be "original research" then they would not pay any attention to actual statements but would simply remove any statement from any "research document" and substitue "claims ... so and so" instead of "HCOB of 23 Jan 54 states..."  The basic thing here, guys, is this:  Is Scientology and its data to be considered "original, unsubstantiated research?" for purposes of writing Wikipedia articles?  Or is the Scientology data to be considered "Primary Source" and various controversial and neutral points of view presented in juxtaposition to it? Terryeo 16:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But the Scientology data you're trying to include is unsubstantiated. --Davidstrauss 13:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no indication that Martin Gardner is associated with Scientology and is a clear as it states in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.115.116.11 (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is just wrong. Clear is a Dianetics word
"Clear" has perfectly good english useage. It has a number of meanings and is found applied in a lot of areas. It is used in Scientology but its use in Scientology begin about 1948 or 1950 with Dianetics and today that use of the word in Scientology is as it was in those days. Though today, the word, due to discoveries about the mind, etc, has a more explicitly defined, less subject to misinterpretation definition. In any event, Clear(Scientology) isn't going to be informative to people. Instead this link should redirect to an article about Dianetics which defines "Clear" or possibly to an longer, Scientology history article or any other source of information that defines Clear, placing it as a Scientology used word, used when talking about Dianetics, Dianetic states or levels, and so on. Its a wrong article. Terryeo 01:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing you just said gives me any reason to see why the article needs to be changed. Your edit, which I just reverted, completely whitewashes the connection between Dianetics and Scientology, which seems to be your modus operandi lately: to keep Dianetics safely distanced from Scientology's recent surge in unpopularity. It won't wash. wikipediatrix 14:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Gee, Wikipediatrix, I am laughing so hard, and thank you for letting me understand how you understand my edits. Terryeo 16:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed an HCOB here for discussion and citing
This was in the References section: Anyone familar with HCO Bulletins can tell by looking at it, the reference is false, untrue and simply doesn't exist. The reason why is that "revisions" of HCOBs do not use Roman Numberals (IV). Revisions are done in another manner. So, I looked at the HCOBs which are published today. On 24 Sept 78, three HCOBs were written. They are sequenced; "Issue I", "Issue II," and "Issue III." In addition of course, each has a title. None of them are titled The State of Clear. So, it isn't a good reference because it doesn't exist today but more to the point, it has never existed because revisions have not been handled by roman numeral since HCOBs were introduced. Looking further I looked for a title: "The State of Clear" and didn't find such a title. Terryeo 16:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * L. Ron Hubbard, The State Of Clear, HCO Bulletin of September 24, 1978 (revision IV)

context first ? oh really !
lol, context first. why not controversy first? Bring in all of the possible controversy available, cite it, fill the whole introduction space with controversy. Then, context, then of course, at the very end of the article, introduce the title, and finally the word itself. Maybe that would be more sensible than "topic, context, prepare the reader for what follows.  This is chinese to everyone, where we read left to right but perform right to left? Terryeo 08:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's it, Terryeo. Dig yourself in deeper.  Give one of your signature "lol"s in response to information that is clearly available on the very page which you claim that everyone else has been failing to read.  Go back and read Introductions again.  Oh, wait; I know you won't do that, so let me spell it out for you.  Here it is, straight from Introductions


 * "The first paragraph also normally establishes the context in which the topic of the article is being considered; for example Introduction (essay) begins 'In an essay or article, an introduction...' while Introduction (music) begins 'In music, the introduction...'"


 * There you go. If you had actually read Introductions to understand what it said, rather than just to have a pretext to rearrange introductions as serves your POV, you would have clearly seen it demonstrating that when an article topic is to be understood as applicable within a particular context, the first paragraph begins with the context.  The context goes first.  But if you continue to pretend that somewhere in Wikipedia "Term, topic, context" is or ever has been an inviolable policy that you're entitled to belittle everyone else for not following, well, then, we can't stop you.  We can just keep careful notes on how many times you continue to do it even after you've been clearly shown your error. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It really amuses me that you people rewrite guidelines when I cite them as criticisms for the way an article is presented, usually after creating my own rendition of the cited guideline. Really amuses me.  My score so far is:  Guidelines modified because I cited their misperformance in an article:  2.  (other guys) 0.  lol. Terryeo 17:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad you're continually so amused, Terryeo... I've noticed that many of your responses, in fact, make a point of saying things like "I am amused" or "I have to laugh" or "I am laughing so hard", or just plain "hahahahahahaha!" But nowhere in your really amused reply did you actually come back with any facts to show Antaeus where he's wrong. Because you can't. Because he isn't. wikipediatrix 17:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * While I am amused from time to time, and willing to say so, the main point of your edits, Wikipediatrix, my edits, Antaeus' edits, etc revolves around the issue. "Is Scientology original research?"  If you can only reply to controversy then of course you won't address this issue.  What shall it be?  Do you and Antaeus and Povmec and ChrisO and a handful of others view Scientology that way?  Or do you view it as Spirit of Man and myself (and perhaps others) as a body of information, treating it as a "primary source" per WP:CITE ?
 * You still won't answer Antaeus' question or mine, so I see no reason to answer yours, except to say the issue is not the way you're trying to frame it as. wikipediatrix 19:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The answer to Antaeus' question is that while I quoted the guideline, the guideline was later re-written. Not all of us freely edit guidelines, but the "term, topic, context" sequence is no longer part of the Introductions as it once was.  I assumed, since Antaeus' was quoting it, he understood the guideline had been edited.  I further assumed he was showing off that it had been edited and no longer held the information my earlier quotes of it said it held. Terryeo 20:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you are proving the old adage about what you are doing when you "assume". Actually, I shouldn't even dignify your pretense that you were just "assuming" things that you could have checked yourself with a tiny bit of effort and could have found to be false; in this case you were specifically told where to check and specifically told where to find the unmistakable evidence and you still are making unjustified attacks against others based on nothing more than these "assumptions".
 * The question is not "was Introductions edited to remove the sentence 'The introduction defines the term and topic and context'"; it is "did Introductions ever support what Terryeo claimed for it, namely that it was a matter of Wikipedia policy for every article to first define a term, then define a topic, and then define a context?" The answer is no, as Terryeo should know since it was shown to him above and he replied to it.  He was clearly shown that every version of Wikipedia:Introductions, until the page was turned into a redirect on 27 January 2006, contains an illustration of how the guideline should be applied which directly contradicts the idea that "term and topic and context" meant, or was ever intended to mean "1. Term 2. Topic 3. Context", as Terryeo has been known to claim.  His claim, therefore, that this was a "Guideline[...] modified because I cited their [presumably, mine and BTfromLA's] misperformance in an article" is knowingly false.  The guideline was edited (not, incidentally, my doing or even something I was aware of until Terryeo started making allegations about why it had been edited) to keep people from forming exactly the same mistaken rigid interpretations that Terryeo did.  For Terryeo to pretend, as he does here, that he caught someone violating the guideline and the violators modified the guideline to make their act no longer a violation is a knowingly false claim intended to damage the reputations of those editors; that is a very serious breach of Civility. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. Let me be sure I understand what you are saying. you use the old joke, "assume" in order to demand civility?   Doesn't the juxtaposition of implying someone is an ass while requiring them to remain civil preclude the seriousness of your request for an understanding?  I would feel better if you didn't dignify me Antaeus.  really.  You don't understand the most basic element on here.  On one hand you treat Anything Hubbard published as "orignial research," by removing any direct citation to him and artfully putting "claims...." instead of "says..." but on the other hand you admit the Xenu.net is accurate in quoting direct blocks of Hubbard's work.  Xenu.net's quotations move Hubbard's work from "orginal research" to being a "primary source" of information.  Your double standard, (Criticize Scientology as original research) and (Support Xenu.net's criticism of Scientology as a "primary source" of information) beguiles your intelligence.  Don't dignify me Antaeus. Terryeo 08:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Terryeo, actively telling damaging lies is an act of incivility far above suggesting that someone is making an ass of themselves. And lying is exactly what you are doing.  You might have once honestly believed that Introductions contained a sentence which dictated an inviolable order of "1. Term 2. Topic 3. Context".  You might have once honestly believed that any editor who was removing that sentence, was doing so in an underhanded attempt to change policy.  However, you have already had it proven to you that that sentence never meant what you claimed it meant; for you to claim that you caught someone in an act of "misperformance" (i.e., violating a rule that you know never existed except in your own mind) and to further more claim that their editing of the text of the guideline was to cover wrongdoing rather than to prevent anyone else from making the same misinterpretation that you did, is to be knowingly lying to smear other editors.  You would, if you had the morals and the guts, apologize for such a cowardly act.  But instead, you compound your offense, by telling more lies.  You claim I treat anything Hubbard published as "original research".  Well, this is utter nonsense, based on the fact that you still don't comprehend what "original research" means on Wikipedia.  "Original research" is only a subset of unreliable sources, not a synonym.  But when you actively accuse me of "Criticizing Scientology as original research", you are lying.  You can scour Wikipedia from here until doomsday and you will never find an instance of me calling Scientology "original research".  Why would I?  I, unlike you, know what "original research" means; I know why edits that certain Scientologists would like to make would qualify as "original research" but I also know why nothing Hubbard published would ever be accurately described as original research.  For you to claim I ever said such a thing is for you to again lie about another editor. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Terryeo is trolling. Even if what you were saying was getting through to him, he wouldn't acknowledge it. It's a game that cannot be won by logic, common sense, or even proof. Terryeo has falsely misattributed statements to me so many times I can no longer chalk it up to stupidity - it is most likely being done deliberately, just to piss people off. By getting sucked into long and drawn-out arguments with him, you're only furthering the dischord he apparently seeks to sow here. And you already know he's going the change the subject the moment you prove him wrong anyway, so why bother?  wikipediatrix 03:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Defined as" vs. "believed to be"
When presenting a theoretical construct, one must be careful to avoid inducing the existential fallacy, having one's presentation of a definition taken as an assertion that the thing defined exists. For this reason I have changed the opening sentence to note what the state of Clear is 'believed to be' rather than what it is 'defined as'. This should be satisfactory to all editors; I can't see any reason anyone would object to this change, unless they don't like that this acknowledges Dianetics and Scientology as belief systems that are not shared by all. Such editors, of course, would be not understanding the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Does it seem to you that the central theme we dance around is this one? "Scientology is original research, it publishes its own works but all of them are Scientology's original research."  A parallel might be an archeologist who is "proving" that man came to earth on spaceships and populated the planet.  If he published his work in 100 different books and distributed it all over, but no one commented on his work.  That would also be "original research" right?  Does it seem to you that our back and forth is mainly around whether Scientology is original research or not ? I don't just mean you Antaeus, but I mean to include what seems to be 2 points of view editing these Scientology articles. Terryeo 20:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly, Terryeo, I think you need to do your homework and actually read No original research before doing any more dance steps. From the way you've been misusing the term, it's hard to believe that you've read that policy at all. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you have commented without replying. Hello again. Terryeo 21:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What am I supposed to do? You clearly have not read the policy; it's pointless for me to try and explain how the policy applies to the particular situations at hand when you have not read the policy.  If you had read the policy you would not be trying to apply the label "original research" to situations so ludicrously clearly not original research.  There are grey areas but nothing I say about those grey areas is going to make the slightest bit of sense to you when you haven't even bothered to learn what distinguishes black from white. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you could talk without accusing, Antaeus. I am asking you if you classify the vast library of Scientology and Dianetics material as "original research" or if you classify it as a "primary source."  Further, I am asking other persons too because most of the editing action on these pages hinges on this perception.  Terryeo 12:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Gee, that's funny, Terryeo, about ten minutes ago in Talk:Suppressive_Person you accused ME of creating the "Suppressive Person" article with some sort of agenda, but then I had to remind you that you were wrong as usual and that I was NOT the creator of the article. It would be helpful if YOU could talk without accusing, and it would be helpful if you would stop misquoting WP rules. wikipediatrix 12:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I misread and you didn't create that article. Terryeo 09:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason I ask that question, most of my edits here are to be found following No_original_research and particularly this line: "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary ... sources is strongly encouraged." That's what I do.  I quote from a Technical Dictionary, maybe something like "A Clear is a condition ...."  and people edit it saying, "A clear is a believed to be condition...."   and we go back and forth.  I cite a source, make a quote.  People edit out the source, water down the quote.  Back and Forth.  But if we can arrive an agreement about what Wikipedia allows it will save us all a lot of effort.  What do you say, let's talk about it, okay? Terryeo 20:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How can we resolve the good-guy, bad-guy editing
WP:NPOV asks this question: "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?"

It appears to me that many of the edits which happen in Scientology articles revolve around whether or not Scientology information is to be considered "original research" which is not established and not generally accepted. To state it a little differently, some gentlemen presented "Cold Fusion" a few years ago. A wikipedia article at that time would have presented their research as "original research."

Apparently this is how some editors are treating the body of information which is Scientology because when I enter this sort of statement into an article: "Hubbard stated the mind is composed of mental energy" (Technical dictionary, page 32, definition #4) it gets deleted. Substituted in its stead I find: "Hubbard claimed the mind is composed of mental energy." Because Hubbard didn't state it, the citation is removed.

Is that the situation, are other editors maintaining that Hubbard's work, the body of information which is Dianetics and Scientology is "original research?" Frankly I have been treating is as "primary source." Can we reach an understanding on this matter?Terryeo 16:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No one willing to confront this subject and comment? If "original research" we treat it one way, if it is a "primary source" we treat it another way.  Which will it be, people ? Terryeo 18:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see my comments at Talk:Dianetics. BTfromLA 23:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have seen your comments there and replied to them there. Its good with me if we resolve this issue there.  I am pretty sure it is the core around which our condradictory edits revolve.  Not only myself, vs. you and others, but anyone who knows the subject Dianetics or knows the subject, Scientology, vs. people who don't but are editing. Terryeo 09:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As noted above, the discussion was continued elsewhere. For those who might not be choosing to follow, it should be clarified that some of the claims above are incorrect:  a Wikipedia article reporting the available information on the Fleischmann and Pons experiment would not be "original research". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Pasting the uncited, cut from the article sentence here
"in which one removes one's body thetans (souls attached to or making up the body), each of which has its own reactive mind" Isn't cited. I have removed it, pasted it here for discussion and citing. Now I know certain editors will insist that this sentence is accurate. Yet those same editors insist that "Clear is believed to be ....." must stand in the article instead of "Clear is defined to be ....." and you simply can not have it both ways. Either the definitions of Scientology are "primary sources" and may be cited or they are not and can not be cited. This cut and pasted sentence about body thetans has to read, "in which one's porported body thetans are porported to be removed...." or not. One or the other. Either Scientology is a body of information which can be cited. Or it is not and is all Original, unproven research. Which will it be, people ? Terryeo 18:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You want a qualifier? You got it. You want a cite? You got that too. And by the way, the word is spelled "purported". wikipediatrix 19:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well hello, WIkipediatrix and thank you for wishing me a nice day. I'll do my best to achieve that.  I see you have pointed out the spelling of "purported."  Are we treating the body of information, Scientology, to be original research by L. Ron Hubbard or are we treating it as a body of information?  On this hinge rests how to cite the above, cut-from-the article sentence of information. Terryeo 19:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

believed to be
I want to make a differentiation between "defined (by scientology)" and "believed to be" (in a general consensus). I understand, of course, that it is just simply unbelieveable. That's just fine. But we shouldn't state anything other than what is stated, we should state it and cite it. Because if we interpret "what Scientology believes" then we are doing original research. Scientology defines a word, "Clear" and states what it means. We can do that. Scientologists (if you ask them) might say they don't believe it. Scientologist might say they believe it. But that is their individual belief. Or not. We are citing a body of information, we are not citing someone's belief. It is a body of published material which we are citing and the written word should be stated, not interpreted because intepretation by an editor is original research Terryeo 08:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Such generalities are acceptable, I think, when talking about a religion, which Scientology purports to be. Few would consider it problematic to say "Christians believe that Christ rose from the dead, ascended to Heaven, and will return to Earth one day", even if there are some Christians out there who don't quite believe their own religion's dogma. Is there really such a thing as a Scientologist who doesn't believe in the concept of "Clear"? wikipediatrix 15:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to be able to say yes or no, but I don't know what any scientologist believes. It is presented as a datum, a factoid, whatever you want to call it. You read it and understand what it means and decide whether that is a valid piece of information you can use or not.  I would say offhand that most scientologists who have been in scientology for a few months accept "clear" as being realistic.  Its okay to call it a theory that "clear" is a state of existence.  I'm pretty sure that Hubbard meant that it appear to be a theory sort of thing to most people. Terryeo 02:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Such generalities may be acceptable in common talk, in newspaper articles, news broadcasts and day - to - day life. But to include them in an encyclopedic work is another matter.  WP:V states the threshold for inclusion, verifiability.  I would maintain that the datum, "what christians believe happened to Christ's body" is less important to an article than "what the bible says happened to Christ's body".  It is my understanding that few Scientologists believe in Clear.  I'm not sure how to communicate this to you.  From the point of view of someone in the city, the western frontier might have been a romantic place with wide open places and vast vistas.  But, from the point of view of a person living on the frontier, it was a place of sweat, blood and tears where you weren't sure you were going to survive the day, sometimes.  Likewise, from the point of view of a person with little education in Scientology, Clear might appear inconceivably strange.  But if you are in there working and sweating with engrams for a while, it is no longer "belief" but knowledge that you speak from.Terryeo 19:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am trying to be direct, honest. If you ask me if I believe in Clear I would say no, I know about Clear.  The difference I am trying to communicate is the difference between believing and knowing.  I know of clear pretty well.  I know the technology I know well, mostly.  Clear isn't a belief with me, clear is a state of existence like "blonde" or "clear thinking" and not a belief like, "ohhh gosh, maybe someday everyone will be clear, wheee".Terryeo 19:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Terryeo, I can tell that you are in fact trying to be direct and honest with these posts. The difference in the way you write, in the way you express things, shows through.  And I appreciate that honesty, and I want to thank you for it.
 * Unfortunately, the desire you're expressing, while understandable, is one that Wikipedia just cannot grant, not without betraying its principles. You are drawing a distinction between "belief" and knowledge, but that distinction is entirely subjective.  You are asking us to handle the subject differently, based on your subjective perception that you know, rather than just "believe in", the state of Clear and all its associated properties.  But if we did that, where would it stop?  We couldn't do it just for you; we'd have to do it for every belief that someone claimed was not just their "belief" but their knowledge.  Just think how many beliefs that horrify you that would include.  There are groups that "know" that cannabis makes them see the truth of things more clearly; would you want what they "know" about marijuana to be given the same treatment as what you "know" about the state of Clear?  Do you think "ganja" should have an entry in Wikipedia saying it is "defined as 'the healing of the nations'"?  I think you can see the problem with that, but can you then see why it's a problem that you keep trying to substitute "defined as" for "believed to be" when it comes to the beliefs of Scientologists? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It makes sense to me that we follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If we are confronting belief or knowledge then we are talking about a "key issue" of theory, aren't we?  then we are confronting "theory" are we not?  We are agreed that "Clear" is a key issue which is not immediately apparent to the reader and is therefore key theory issue as per WP:NOR that we need to reach a consensus about for it to stand in an article? So we need to state the key concepts of the theory.  And then state the known and popular concepts about the key issues.  I've tried an alternative which doesn't hold Clear up as a Definition.  Terryeo 02:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A person at cause over their mental energy?
"at cause over": isn't scientologese? Unless the reader is familiar with scientology, it is unlikely he can make sense of this sentence. Comments? Raymond Hill 14:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur, it's hard to make sense of it, since it appears to be Scientology phrasing rather than conventional English. The phrase appears to mean, roughly, "in control of" -- the theoretical Clear is the "cause" and his own mental energy receives the "effect", rather than the other way around.  However, for obvious reasons I'm not about to assume that this is in fact the meaning. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is not a scientologese word in the phrase, "at cause over" and it means what anyone would glean by using standard dictionarys in standard ways. I believe, myself, that is just as simple as it can possibly be stated.  umm, as an example.  A person could think of a piece of cake when they chose to, right?  That would be "cause over thought" at that moment.  Now a tougher example.  The batter hits a line drive at the pitcher and the pitcher flashes on last time a line drive was hit at him, the pitcher freezes up for a moment.  During that moment the pitcher is not at cause, he is at effect, he is the effect of a memory.  If he were at cause over his thoughts at that moment, what do you think he would be thinking?  Well, probably nothing, he would probably be catching the ball or moving out of the way. Terryeo 19:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the meaning of "the lights are on but no one's home" fully given by understanding the definitions of "the", "lights", "are", "on", "but", "no", "one", and "home"? Sorry, but I think it's already been demonstrated false that "anyone would glean" the meaning of this idiom just from knowledge of the words. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you have gleaned an arguement Terryeo 19:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I also would like to mention that I have no idea what "mental energy" means, so the whole sentence probably needs to be rephrased to make it intelligible for non-scientologists. Raymond Hill 19:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * excellent, so let us define "mental" as Scientology uses the word so that the phrase, "mental energy" can become understood.  Mental would be a thought.  Say for example, you have the thought, "I want a bacon sandwich" well, that is a mental activity and comprises some amount, however slight, of mental energy. Terryeo 19:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

is "clear" to be dealt with as a theory
WP:NOR tells how to deal with theories. If "clear" is a theory then we would want to arrive at a concensus of opinion. But if it is an information intuitive in concept to a reader then we simply present it as we would apples or oranges, citing primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Which way do we go with this one? It seems likely that "theory" fits Terryeo 15:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a theory: «a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.» Hubbard made predictions about Clear which have been debunked, and even the first Clear "drew a blank". Dianetics is just a set of ideas, which were rejected by the scientific community not long after it was presented by Hubbard. Even nowadays, intellectuals reading Dianetics find it pointless.  Raymond Hill 16:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I propose we treat the word "Clear" and its surrounding definition as a theory perWP:NOR, and we do this so we can write an article. Raymond Hill says it is not appropriate to treat "Clear" as a theory.  In stating that Hubbard made predictions about "Clear" which have been debunked, Povmec gives "Clear" the status of "Theory" (disproven).  Is that where you stand, Povmec?   I ask you this so we can move on, rather than asking you this so that you can cite more and more and more "debunked" information.  You see, I am asking about the status of an idea.  That it is cited, published, is not in question.  That it is cited, published, debunked is not in question.  The question I am asking is about how to treat the information in an article.  The reason I ask it, so we can quit editing each other's edits and produce an article that might stand.  So Povmec, if "Clear" is not a theory, exactly what sort of information is it? Terryeo 20:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Quote: «if "Clear" is not a theory, exactly what sort of information is it?» A belief? Raymond Hill 22:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am really glad we are at last to the core of the constant edits and counter-edits. So let is proceed to clasify the information surrounding the ideas represented by the word "Clear(Scientology)".  I maintain that "Clear" is an idea.  That is, as "subtraction" represents an idea, so too, "Clear" represents an idea.  While everyone knows what idea is represented by the term "subtraction" I would maintain that not everyone knows what idea is represented by the word "Clear"  and therefore, if we are doing an article about it, we need some kind of definition to seperate it from other ideas.  Whether it actually could exist or could never exist, whether it is debunked many times or is a workable idea, it still needs some sort of definition or we can't write an article about it.  So, where should we get this definition from?  May I suggest some primary source of information?  How does that sound, would that be all right? After all, if Raymond Hill is going to present his debunking information, and if User:Wikipediatrix is going to present her debunking information, it has to debunk something doesn't it?  You can't debunk clear space, we need some kind of definition, some clue of what is going to be debunked, right?  Then, after whatever idea "Clear" represents is presented, then we can begin to classify it.  While I would think it a "theory" you might think otherwise.  So let us talk about it.Terryeo 00:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * More time has gone by. The editing back and forth continues. No resolution is coming about.  I am suggesting we treat this specific article in the manner that "Clear" and the discriptions of it be considered "theory".   I would like to get some consenus on this consideration.  Yes, I understand that at least two other editors are convinced anything about scientology is "debunked".  That's fine.  So we would treat an information as a "debunked theory?", is that what everyone wants?  I obviously see problems with treating it as "debunked theory" because scientology owns millions of dollars of property and continues to expand and be successful.  Let me make a point here.  In the 1950s, Psychiatry was presented with Hubbard's ideas, it was his first effort to present his ideas and move on.  Psychiatry refused to consider in any serious way, Hubbard's ideas.  Hubbard then presented it to the public.  Psychiatry, having refused to recognize Hubbard's ideas were then in a position that they either had to recognize them or not comment on them.  Generally they didn't comment on them, though according to Hubbard, Psychiatry did variious actions to destroy what was then Dianetics and later to destroy what became Scientology.  Today Scientology's official policy is "flourish and prosper" and when someone accuses Scientology to "advocate freedom".  This is exactly what they did in Europe, in Germany with the slogan, "Think for yourself" and the result was that Scientology is now recognized by the German government as being a religion.  So hey, I'm saying, don't ignore it.  HOW DO WE TREAT THIS INFORMATION?  IS IT THEORY?  If it is we treat it per WP:NOR.  If it is something besides theory, say "debunked theory" then we find the wikipedia policy and treat it that way.   For those things we need some consensus or this dumb edit war will continue, feelings will continue to be roused, etc, etc.  Terryeo 16:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I obviously see problems with treating it as "debunked theory" because scientology owns millions of dollars of property and continues to expand and be successful.  So, you're saying that the truth or falsity of major propositions about the nature of the universe itself, such as that one who achieves a certain level of clear-headedness will have control over matter, energy, space and time, is determined by which view has proponents that own the most money and property?  I find at least one part of your last barrage I can agree with, Terryeo; it's your part about a "dumb edit war". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You have quoted me. You are attempting to tell me what I say.  You have quoted me again, ("dumb edit war") and used that quote to deny responsibility for being part of it.  HEH !  At no point have you in any way replied to my communication.  HEH! Terryeo 18:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The introduction
Version 1:


 * In Dianetics and Scientology, Clear is believed to be a "condition", or state, in which a person is free of unwanted influences of past memories, unwanted emotion or painful difficulties not existing in present time.

Version 2:


 * Dianetics defines a state of existence using the term, Clear. The definition purports there exists a condition such that a person is free of unwanted influences of memories, of unwanted emotion and of influences of past, painful experiences.

Version 1 reads smoothly. It gives the context, it introduces the term, it notes that it is "believed to be" (as opposed to other phrasings which might mislead readers into thinking this state is believed to exist outside of Dianetics or scientology), and then states what properties comprise this state.

Version 2 removes half the context, reads very artificially, and misuses terminology. A definition does not "purport [that there] exists" anything; a definition merely establishes what properties are denoted and/or connoted by the term. You can define "unicorn" but the existence of a definition does not "purport", prove, or even imply that any unicorns exist. Dianetics and Scientology may define a state, and Dianetics and Scientology may purport that such a state exists, but the definition does not do the purporting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * At last ! Thank you for replying.  I appriciate that what you say about smoothness of read might well be valid.  But "Clear" is a Dianetics word.  Scientology is only involved because it practices Dianetics.  The "Scientology" in the definition does not contribute to understanding the meaning.
 * Many definitions do not purport a situation. Some do. At dictionary.com, engram  states: "Engram; A physical alteration thought to occur in living neural tissue in response to stimuli, posited as an explanation for memory."  In that case, a purport or posited situation.  In this case, with this word, (and some others too) Hubbard defines a word and gives the idea meant.  But those ideas didn't exist until Hubbard has dreampt them up.  He could have presented his drempt up idea by itself without introducing a word.  But that wasn't his style.  He used Dianetics as a springboard to introduce postulated situations, "free of past influences.." and simutaneously introduced a word for those proposed, postulated (call them theoritical) situations.
 * The difficulty I have with the first sentence is it implies, "practitioners of Dianetics and no one else believes...." but I would like the idea to be presented in a more pure form, as an idea.  Perhaps, "Dianetics defines a theory and states a definition, Clear to be ...."  ?    Would that work for you, Feldspar ? Terryeo 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, in chewing on it, if we can blow off the quote marks around condition, I can agree to go with it. Terryeo 21:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Version 1 seems the way to go, though I can't make sense of "unwanted emotion or painful difficulties not existing in present time." What does that mean? Is this scientologese again? Raymond Hill 15:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * An example of an "unwanted emotion" would be that while standing in a line at an airport a person sees a terrorist looking guy and begins to feel fear and can't shake the fear off, it becomes an "unwanted emotion" which he doesn't want but can't get rid of. An example of a "painful difficulty" might be how some people will have stuck attention in a lost loved one or perhaps stuck attention in the pain of a past divorce.  You know, emotions and emotional pains which is unwanted but which a person can't fully let go of, can't shake off. Terryeo 03:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Clear" in Buddhism
I once promised someone to present where Hubbard drew the parallel of Buddhism's goal or state of existence or Nirvana or whatever Buddhism calls it, and Clear. ''For much more than 2,500 years man has dreamed of this goal. When Gautama Siddhartha (632 B.C.) rose in the East as a Buddha, he could bring about the state of bodhi in a man. Nearly all of his teachings concerned the attainement of this goal. The state of bodhi is evidently our "Clear." (It is accidental that the goals compare.) From The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology, Volume IV pg 288 ISBN 0884044750, a reprint of Ability'' The Magazine of Dianetics and Scientology, early Feb 1958. Terryeo 17:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of Clears?
Could someone include some information about the number of Clears? That is, is it something that only a small handful of people achieve, or are there Clears in every town where there's Scientology? Perhaps also the amount of time it typically takes to become Clear?

Series Template
Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 15:15, 10 January 2006 (PST)

We need a description of the alleged characteristics of a Clear
I'm looking over the article and amazed to find that the very specific promises that Hubbard made for those who achieved Clear are not covered. Yes, these promises changed over time, but we should still cover them. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it will need to be heavily cited to not be deleted. Neverwake (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Chronology
I revised the section on early (alleged) Clears to follow the chronology of Hubbard making the claims. The previous ordering attempted to place them in order of when clearing was allegedly achieved. However, this is a problematic approach because we simply do not have the necessary time information available.

Yes, Hubbard's late-50s declaration that he secretly cleared several people in the late 40s working as a swami would seem to imply that those people were the world's first Clears, and not Sonya Bianca. However, this is not necessarily so. We know when Hubbard announced Bianca as the world's first Clear; we do not know when she allegedly achieved this state. Notably, she could have become Clear (let's just take the reality of the state at face value for purposes of argument) in the mid-40s, which means she really would be "the world's first Clear" and should be listed before and not after the unnamed others cleared by Hubbard the Swami. However, we simply don't know whether Sonya Bianca's clearing occurred before or after the "Hollywood others"; what we do have chronological information for is when Hubbard made the claims. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WillOakland has restored the previous ordering with no talk page discussion. The only explanation offered for the reversion was " I happen to think it works better ordered by occurrence. The timing of when he mentioned it is accidental."


 * The first sentence is pointless and need not even have been said. If he didn't think it worked better ordered by occurrence, he would not persist in returning it to that ordering.  Will's focus should have been on communicating what he thinks makes the ordering by alleged date of occurrence superior.


 * The second sentence does indeed provide that reasoning, but that reasoning does not satisfy, since it is Will's own original research. We do not in fact know why Hubbard did not mention, at the time when he was publicly presenting "the world's first clear", that she was only one of several Clears in existence at this point.  To say it was only "accidental" that Hubbard said nothing about these other Clears at this time -- that he might have as easily disclosed their existence as kept it secret for most of the decade to come -- is to make the unsupported claim that those others existed.  Obviously, those who are familiar with Hubbard's proven history of prevarication will suspect quite a different explanation, namely that Hubbard's career as a swami and those supposedly Cleared by him in that career were entirely fictional.  If this is the case, the timing is hardly accidental; the more time elapsed between the telling of the story and the time when the story allegedly occurred, the less questions would be raised about why no evidence to support the story was being presented.


 * If Will can not or will not give a more satisfactory explanation of why events should be ordered by their unverifiable timing, I will restore the chronology that can be verified, that is, the chronology of when Hubbard is known to have made the claims. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow
"L. Ron Hubbard took the word from the idea of an adding machine and clearing an adding machine of previous errors posing an analogy to it as removing "held down sevens" and the like. An adding machine working with a held down key would present wrong answers, but after being "cleared" of this held down seven error would now function properly."

This is the funniest shit ive ever heard. Whoever edited this in is a genius. For the record, can we get a citation needed? =P --98.167.162.178 (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder, why here is not explained about homo novis?
It's clear, that person who is "Clear" is no longer Homospaiens - they are different species, why this important information is not here laid out comparison what they think about people who is not "clear"? It's not just common belief around "Clear" people but its actually written down in "Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary"  where L. Ron Hubbard describes homosapiens "no better than that of a field mouse, or a zombie" and higher being homo-novis who is also "the only hope for this section of the galaxy, starting with planet Earth" If you pay attention of some Tom Cruise vidoes then he talks like: "they" "people need OUR help" Waffa 01:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Jason Beghe also talking on this exact same subject  (this point is staring from 6'th minute).

Waffa 22:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Most likely because Scientology is a lie and anything they say is pure bullshit.

Zolstijers, innit brah!? 18:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolstijers (talk • contribs)

Change in box thingy on top right page
It read: "Subject: philosophy, psychology." We are discussing a religion here, not Nietzsche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwawaygull (talk • contribs) 01:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)