*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Dear Ant,
While I agree that TROM is not Scientology - it has its foundations in
Scientology. Stephens regarded himself as a Scientologist and used
Scientology terms in TROM.
If one examines and compares Scientology definitions with those of TROM
they accord. for example, the pan-determined definition that was
recently discussed.
In TROM its "Determining the action of self and others (non-self)"
and in the tech dictionary the following is given:
" the ability to regulate the considerations of two or more identities,
whether or not opposed. (COHA, p. 110) 4. full responsibility for both
sides of a game. (Scn 0-8, p. 119).
Hubbard loved using absolute terms like "full responsibility" but
nevertheless the definition parallels the definition given in TROM.
There are a few more definitions used such as motivator, overt,
Postulate, overrun, valence etc.
In "More of the 50's" Dennis Stephens says in Ivy 24, """In later
years, I realized that his research of goals, in 1962, had been killing
him. When I began my own investigation into conflicting goals and
purposes, I realized the pit-falls that Ron had fallen into and how
dangerous those are. Those traps nearly slaughtered me too but,
fortunately, I solved them. Ron never did, and he suffered cruelly from
his bank in the 1960s, which stayed in restimulation for the rest of his
life.
In '62, Ron really felt that he was unravelling the thing. We all
thought that he had done so, for he would talk so highly about his
technology - yet it was killing everyone who tried it. I know no-one who
got any benefit from it. That was the awful thing. Once you play with
goals and put them into conflict with each other, you must do it exactly
right or you will slay the preclear. That is a technical datum. (In TROM
I know how to do it right, and it is the only technology known to me
that will do so.)"""
As most Trommers started our search for spirituality within the confines
of the Church of Scientology, I think it relevant to know where Ron
Hubbard went wrong. As a matter of fact the point where he started to
fail becomes very apparent as early as level three on TROM.
So Hubbard can be used as an example of success until he went down "The
long night of the soul" in search of basic goals. The evidence cannot be
hidden any longer.
Martin
Ant Phillips wrote:
*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
At 03:13 03-05-2009, [email protected] wrote:
The problem with his presentation are the associations in the text
to scientology terms and concepts. And since the first part is just
repeating Trom I would leave this article alone and forget it. Stick
to the TROM manual and you will get there.
This is not a Scientology list, and perhaps not the best place to
discuss "LRH's failure". He had possibly more successes than
failures. After 55 years associated with Scientology, I still find
new things with regard to both his successes and failures. But they
do not belong on a TROM list.
All best wishes,
Ant
--
Antony Phillips.
[email protected]
(+45) 45 88 88 69
Admin to SelfClearing2004 and
Cosmic History mailing lists
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.15/2093 - Release Date: 05/02/09 14:23:00
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
