Rationnalism Vs. Revelation

The natural Evolution of Scientology


NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED to mean that I would have departed in any way from applying standardly and correctly the technology in which I was expertly trained. Anyone making such claim has either misunderstood the article or else misunderstood the actual way the technology was meant to be applied.

For anyone interested in continuing and extending the ideas and practical applications found in the Scientology philosophy there remains two fundamental approaches: Rationalism or Revelation.

Rationalism as an approach rooted in Science and Logic

Rationalism, consist of empirical observations and logical deductions based on as many observations and cases as possible. This is accompanied by sound theory and observable results. Put in simpler words: One can deduct and elaborate day to day practical applications by applying the principles within the Scientology philosophy theory and practical applications. Examples of developments by others include: Volney Mathieson development of the E-Meter, practical Application of the Tone scale in life and in raising children by Ruth Minshull (the books: How to choose your people, Miracles for Breakfast) and William Benitez’ Narconon program. Since I view myself as a Rationalist, my own contributions include successful therapy for Autistic children, effectively addressing Whole-Track Amnesia through OT VIII Extensions, increasing telepathic and other so called “OT abilities” through subsequent levels and developing a Rundown primarily directed at Athletes and other professionals to enhance their ability to focus and perform.

An approach based on Rationalism implies an avoidance of “a priori” conclusions. That is: any statement or application must be based on verifiable experience and results, rather than assumptions. Further one seeks independently verifiable results, because subjective evaluations based on inner feelings or self-evaluation are often difficult to discern from mere faith. Ultimately the true test of success will be measurable by those who are entirely impartial and have no vested interest in the proposed approach.

For example: a rationalist approach to handling a problem (both theory and practice) on which someone is fixated consist of first discharging the solutions” one has had for it, followed by identifying the earliest locatable instance of the problem, and finally blowing the prior confusion to it through the appropriate techniques.

One best handle PTS conditions that way, because the main characteristic of PTS-ness is having a problem. (Note that if all PTS conditions can be found to create a problem, the reverse is not necessarily true as not all problems are readily attributable or entirely resolvable by addressing a PTS condition). This is why running Quad Rudiments and O/Ws on PTS terminals tend to be productive of a remarkable amount of case gain and increase in stability.

A non-rationalist approach would be to tell the individual: “Acknowledge (or Spot) your involvement with the Devil (or the equivalent Evil Being). This approach has been widely used in Christianity and has sometimes even been copied by select individuals in the Free Zone. It is based on the priori assumption that the Devil/Evil Being is not only a true identity but also the basic PTS item on that case, and that PTS-ness is what is fundamentally wrong with the individual being addressed. Not only is that a violation of the auditor Code, but it tends to stick the individual being addressed late on the chain (on the involvement, rather than its prior confusion).

Any approach must be logically organized and follow a single line of approach at a time. By long and hard-earned experience, and from much background theory, I have established that mixing too many disparate elements within a single approach tend to create instability in an individual, because rather than handling one thing at a time, one is seeking to handle the entire case at once. This also introduce unpredictability because too many variables are being dealt in conjunction. When non-optimum results occur (and they inevitably occur at least occasionally – anyone claiming otherwise has merely quietly swept them under the carpet), it then becomes impossible to determine where things actually went wrong and to do an effective correction and repair. This is the prime reason for forbidding the mixing Rundowns in Scientology.

Consequently, to be valid, any approach must be highly disciplined.

This is why “experimenting/researching on self” as a case is rarely successful: the instinctive case reaction is to seek to address the entire case at once (because case is an unpleasant thing to confront: if it were otherwise, it would hardly merit being labeled as “case” and the solutions to the riddles of the Mind and Spirit would have long ago been entirely found.). Further, the automatic response of any being toward charge and aberration is to avoid it. (The tendency to eventually develop blind spots is from my personal observation, an almost universal occurrence, among researchers using self or auditing self as their prime avenue of research).

The author has therefore entirely refrained from experimenting on himself. In this way, it much is easier to avoid tainting the results. And it assumes, correctly that the aberrations or case manifestation of an individual are not necessarily universal.

Adopting a particular approach as working is not necessarily a condemnation of all possible alternates.

Rather, it means that based on experience and knowledge, the approach taken is the most practical and proven to be conducive to long term stability and results.

Revelation as Faith or Conviction based approach

Revelation is situated at the other end of the Spectrum of the Rationalistic approach. In Revelation, an asserted truth from within or perceived as having been received from another are used as the cornerstone of its philosophy.

Among the very worst instances of revelations are those “enhanced” by the usage of psychoactive substances, such as peyote or coca-ethylene (the result of a combination of cocaine and alcohol, far more hallucinatory than either substance taken separately). There is credible evidence to support the theory that many of the Christian concepts of Heaven and Hell that cannot be found anywhere in the Bible, actually trace their origin that way.

The Scientology philosophy was not originally designed around Revelation. The dictum: “What is true for you is what you have observed to be true for yourself” is in fact directly pointing at Rationalism as its underlying viewpoint.

Revelation by definition is a set of alleged Truths that are revealed by a figure of authority. As such they must therefore remain unchallenged, lest one become branded as a heretic or apostate. Such “Truths” are also considered valid in large part due to the amount of respect and credibility that is granted to its Prophet (a prophet is by definition, the one chosen to impart a revelation onto others). Because only a newer Revelation can subsequently amend a Revelation that has already been accepted as fact, the ultimate culmination of a series of Revelations becomes Dogmatism.

Truth by definition is the exact time, place, form and event. If one accepts a truth as such without first examining its validity and its agreement with known facts and experience, one has no choice but to automatically reject any potential observation that could contradict it. This is not only the exact opposite of Science but is also at the root of the condition of existence known as NOT-IS-NESS.

“Revealed truths” can therefore only be expanded by a further act of Revelation or worse by “Deus ex Machina” . (the Latin expression Deus Ex Machina, literally meaning “God out of a Machine”, refers to a contraption or ploy evolved to disentangle a plot as in a work of fiction or theater play. Applied to the Scientology philosophy arena, it refers to a development, not based on its internal logic and empirical research, but as an expedient explanation for what would remain otherwise unexplainable or illogical).

Rationalism is largely based on establishing a theory based on observable facts and experience and continually refining and evolving its as new facts and discoveries are made. In contrast, Revelation seeks to interpret all observation in the light of an immutable premise. Because that immutable premise was received without questioning it, it subsequently could only be accepted at face value outside any applicable context. This inevitably leads to a departure from the truth.

Because the ultimate Truth is a static and hence simplicity itself, theories gradually evolving in more and more complex and arcane explanations are merely an indicator of their descent from a pure IS-NESS toward an ALTER-IS-NESS (lies leading to persistence). At the very bottom, a total Revelation would consist of near complete state of NOT-IS-NESS.

A good example is the assumed Divine Revelation that Earth was the Center of the Universe. This led to increasingly complex models to explain the orbits of planets.

Eventually someone had to break with tradition in order to explain things accurately. At the very opposite end, the true OT Levels (VIII and beyond) deal with ever increasing simplicities and truths. (The last significant hurdle and complexity – the composite case and its roots – is finally addressed and resolved prior to OT VIII – aptly called Truth Revealed)

In some circles there is a belief that a Supreme Council of the Most Wise and Good benignly supervise the actions and future of this planet and is allowed to intercede when needed to protect it from a loathsome but most potent and Evil Being. That Evil Being is served by a horde of renegade or fallen entities and together they are hell-bent on enslaving and controlling all free Beings (thetans).

The above is of course an accurate description of the medieval concept of Heaven and of the Devil. It also appears to bear some resemblance to a number of theories I have observed floating around in the Free Zone. To my knowledge those ideas evolved as a result of “inner research” by a number of individuals. Hubbard collided with similar restimulations in his early R6 research and in 1963 even wrote a Bulletin called “Heaven” to communicate his findings.

The Dangers of relying on Revelation rather than observation to elaborate any technology is that there is no objective way to control whether or not the “revelation” actually came from a Superior Being or from one’s own composite case.


If one is to believe the materials written by Hubbard in Science of Survival and the 1963 time Track Bulletins, uncontrolled restimulation of the whole track first results in increased whole-track amnesia.

This is eventually followed by a gradual deterioration on the inverted scale of Case from Level V: dub-in to Level VI: dub-in of dub-in, and finally to Level VII: Aware only of one’s own evaluations. Therefore the likelihood of obtaining accurate and reliable information about the Physical Universe and the Mind, when they are primarily based on an assessment of one own case becomes more and more remote as an individual become restimulated.

According to the Chart of Human Evaluation, the pro-survival handling of truth by an individual is a direct function of the amount of actual charge that has been removed from his track and his ability to reason and prosper in life free of the petty emotions (anger, criticism, envy, resignation,…) found at the lower end of the tone scale.

Hence a rationalistic approach should be expected to lead to at least a partial recovery of abilities, independently verifiable whole-track recall and a flourishing life.

Pierre Ethier

Class XII

Copyright © 2006-2007 by Pierre Ethier.


One comment on “Rationnalism Vs. Revelation

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s