ACT - 32
                            15 December 1993
                 Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
       Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
     In discussing the posting on other determinism in Ross's
ARBITRARIES, it has come to my attention that I was not clear in what I
said the conflict was.
     The term other determinism has two very different meanings in RON's
writings and tapes, and Ross's contention is that the two meanings have
been intentionally confused by the Church in order to better dominate
and suppress their followers.
     The higher definition of other determinism is TO BE OPPOSED BY
     The lower definition of other determinism is TO BE CONTROLLED BY
     It is clear that a being who is controlling both sides of a game,
like someone who is turning the chess board around after every move and
playing both sides of the game against himself, is being pan determined.
     In wishing to become self-determined, in other words to play as
himself against other real players, the being must select out some part
of the game or other players that he himself is not controlling.
     The part of the game or collection of other players which the being
is himself not controlling, fall collectively under the term other
     He is controlling his side of the game, and they are controlling
their side of the game.
     The being is being opposed by the other determinisms.  Opposition
does not have to be a negative thing, like someone fighting you trying
to make you lose.  Even someone cooperating with you is opposite to you
in some sense, and is an 'opposing' other determinism.
     Opposing other determinism is merely that other determinism which
is playing parts of the game which you aren't.
     This is the higher definition of other determinism and as such is
EQUAL in level on the tone scale to full self determinism, because it
takes two to tango, you and the other.
     You can't be SELF determined with out having some one or something
be OTHER determined.  You can't have an OTHER determinism without being
SELF determined.
     However as a being begins to fail in life and starts to make
mistakes and has regrets and wishings that 'it never happened', he will
begin to rue playing his own side of the game, and he will reject his
own self determinism.
     This means he is in the market for someone else to play his side of
the game for him.  He wants to BE DETERMINED by an OTHER determinism.
     Only in this case the other determinism will not only be playing
the other side of the game, but his side too.  This is a total flip from
pan determinism, where the being is playing both sides of the game,
because now the being is playing neither side of the game.
     The way a being does this is by handing control of his side of the
game to an other determinism.  He becomes a slave, or an addict to
orders, or a true believer and follower of a Great One, or whatever.
     Control is not taken way, HE GIVES IT AWAY.
     In the absence of an actual living being to hand over control to,
he will hand control over to a FACSIMILE that he has in his engram bank
of someone he knew in the past.  This is called a valence.
     Facsimiles are not single memory image pictures, they are complete
and vast collections of what the other person was like and would do in
any situation.  Facsimiles are built up over thousands of years of being
with this person or people like him, and suffering what he has done to
you and recording how he reacted when you did things back, or when
others did things to him.
     Facsimiles are enormous packages of data concerning another being
or thing.
     Perhaps mother used to bitch about how it was father's fault every
time she made a mistake.  Many years later the pc, finding herself
making many mistakes, one day gives up trying to fix the situation, and
starts to blame her boy friend.
     That is called shifting valences, the girl is becoming her mother.
What she is really doing is handing CONTROL of her side of the game over
to an other determinism, namely the apparent or virtual other being
contained in the facsimile of her mother.
     What the mother would do is BITCH.  So that is what the facsimile
of the mother does THROUGH THE PC once the pc gives over control to it.
     The pc says 'I AM YOURS, DO WITH ME WHAT YOU WILL' and the
facsimile runs the pc on a stimulus response basis from there on out.
     This is the lower definition of other determinism, BEING CONTROLLED
BY ANOTHER or others, or allowing others to act for you or through you.
     Ron VERY OFTEN talked about pcs who are so low toned they have
become other determined, meaning they are allowing valences to run them
and act for them, thus they dramatize and act out what others did to
them or around them in their past.
     Pcs who are out of valence do not make case gain, because only the
valence gets any auditing, and the valence is on a make wrong.  The
valence IS a solution to the pc's problems, so acts ITSELF as
competition to any cognition the pc might have on how to handle or as-is
the problem directly as herself.  She is too busy BITCHING, to run the
process and have any cognitions.  The prior solution crowds out the
auditing and any new solution that might appear.
     Most old time auditors and clearing technicians instinctively use
the lower toned definition of the word other determinism whenever they
or someone mentions other determined.  If you say, 'The pc was other
determined', they don't mean that he suddenly found some OPPOSITION and
fell down to self determinism and now has a real game to play.
     They mean the pc gave up his self determinism and no longer wanted
a game to play, and INTENTIONALLY handed control OF HIMSELF over to an
other determinism.
     Being other determined means letting someone else control you, NOT
having someone enter your pan determined game suddenly and unexpectedly
and 'other determine' you into a lower state of self determinism.
     The two definitions are very similar to each other, the higher
definition is 'being OPPOSED by another', the lower definition is 'being
CONTROLLED by another'.
     Ross contends that the Church intentionally put other determinism
(being opposed by another) higher on the scale of responsibility (which
is correct) knowing that people would confuse it with other determinism
(being CONTROLLED by another).
     Their intention was to make their followers more pliable to taking
orders, being controlled and generally forbidden to be self determined,
since being other determined was 'higher' on the scale of responsibility
than being self determined.
     The Church does frown on self determinism except when it doesn't
interfere with being other determined by them.
     OT III is itself an incident of being overwhelmed that can only be
escaped by shifting out of valence INTO the valence of what overwhelmed
you and dramatizing overwhelming others into the same state.
     That is why certain people are so obnoxious, they are always trying
to overwhelm you so that they don't feel so overwhelmed themselves.
     They take on the valence of what is or was overwhelming them.  so
they feel the power and freedom of DOING IT TO OTHERS, rather than the
overwhelm of having it done to them.
     The only people who tolerate this kind of valence shifting behavior
in others are those who are guilty of it themselves.
Homer Wilson Smith           This file may be found at
homer@rahul.net              ftp.rahul.net/pub/homer/homer/act32.memo
Posted to usenet newsgroup:  alt.clearing.technology