*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Hi All,
( Probably directed to Pete and Alex, as they were in comm on this a
few days ago) ( But meaningful or useful or helpful comments or
experiences are welcome from anyone and everyone )
( This would at least remove some of the rust off this comm line. )
: )
I am trying to get my head wrapped around level five, in particular
understanding life goals that are in addition to the "to know"
package.
This is along the same line of effort as Alex posted the question a
fews ago to Pete on how to formulate the "To sex" package" .
Dennis states that they must be worded exactly correct or else... so I
do not want to go wrong.
I have tried to word these on the partial list which follows and I ran
into a few areas of doubt.
Reading the book again on the Theory section on the " know stuff "
only confused me more.
Copy quote:
A partial list of life goals follows. Each of them, in addition to the
‘To know’ package, have been tested and found to be therapeutic and
erasable.
To Create. To Love. To Admire. To Enhance. To Help. To Feel. To
Control. To Own. To Have. To Eat. To Sex.
There are also the perception packages. These are all within the ‘To
Know’ leg of the basic package, and are therefore therapeutic and
erasable.
To See. To Hear. To Touch. To Smell. To Taste.
End of quote.
Now to work these out based on Pete's reply to Alex:
Must be known To sex
Must not be known To not sex
Must know To be sexed
Must not know To not be sexed
Then the rest would be:
To create
To not create
To be created
To not be created
To love
To not love
To be loved
To not be loved
To admire
To not admire
To be admired
To not be admired
To enhance
To not enhance
To be enhanced
To not be enhanced
To help
To not help
To be helped
To not be helped
To feel
To not feel
To be felt
To not be felt
To control
To not control
To be controlled
To not be controlled
To own
To not own
To be owned
To not be owned
To have
To not have
To be had
To not be had
To eat
To not eat
To be eaten
To not be eaten
It seems to me that the above are straight forward and would be correct.
Am I correct?
Now a couple of more came to mind
Along the line of "Be" "Do" "Have".
Could "To be" and "To do" be formulated?
And in particular " To have money "
And
"To have things"
If so how?
They seem relevant to me.
Alex: I would like to know what you did or and how you worked that
data into the postulate failure chart and how you ran it?
And the results you got.
Thanks,
David
PS:
Contrary to Dennis' comment that no success stories are necessary
because there is nothing to sell>
I think that is primarily a product of Dennis' arrogance.
There may be or is some truth to that statement or viewpoint, but not
always. Scientologists, other groups and businesses tend to mis
use it or overdo it which creates skepticism.
I think inviting lessons learned, extra insights, helpful tips in
running TROM , experiences and successes with TROM would most
definitely be helpful to the greater good.
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
