************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Hi Pete, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR DETAILED REPLY. IT IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. I WROTE IN CAPS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO READ AND FOLLOW. SEE INTERSPERSED; On 15-Nov-09, at 8:21 PM, Pete McLaughlin wrote: > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] > ************ > Hi David > These are excellent questions. Your understanding of TROM is > imporving. THANK YOU. I THOUGHT I MIGHT GET SCORN AND REBUKE. IT JUST OCCURRED TO ME THAT LIKELY MY PRIME POSTULATES ARE TO GET SCORN, REBUKE, REJECTION, SUPPRESSION, RIDICULE, ETC. THAT HAS BEEN MY LIFE. > > The formulations for the goals packages are correct. I know that one > of my > difficulities was getting from the basic goal package to the junior > universe and then to the incidents I could actually timebreak so here > are > some examples. > > On the to sex goals package if you listen to Dennis Lecture on sex you > will > get that the basic package in the vulgur is > must fuck > must not fuck > must be fucked > must not be fucked > > to put these in the Level 5 Chart we have to reverse the order to: > must not be fucked > must be fucked > must not fuck > must fuck WHY REVERSE ? I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY TO PUT ON THE LEVEL FIVE CHART, YOU HAVE TO REVERSE THE ORDER? I SEE: "MUST KNOW " AS THE FIRST ENTRY ON THE CHART NOT "MUST NOT BE KNOWN" . YOU ARE SAYING > > > The conflicts would be "must not be fuck" IS THE ABOVE A TYPO? DO MEAN "MUST NOT BE FUCKED" > opposed by "must fuck" and "must > not fuck" opposed by must be fucked". > The questions then could be phrased: > > 1. Did someone force me from "must not be fucked" to "must be > fucked"? > 1A. Is someone trying to force me from "must not be fucked" to "must > be > fucked"? > 2 Am I forcing someone from "must fuck" to "must not fuck." > 2A. Did I ever force someone from "must fuck" to "must not fuck." > > 3 Did someone force me from "must be fucked" to "must not be > fucked"? > 3A. Is someone trying to force me from "must be fucked" to "must not > be > fucked"? > 4. Am I forcing someone from "must not fuck" to "must fuck." > 4A. Did I ever force someone from "must not fuck" to "must fuck." > > 5 Did someone force me from "must not fuck" to "must fuck"? > 5A. Is someone trying to force me from "must not fuck" to "must fuck"? > 6. Am I forcing someone from "must be fucked" to "must not be > fucked." > 6A .Did I ever force someone from "must be fucked" to "must not be > fucked." > > 7. Did someone force me from "must fuck" to "must not fuck"? > 7A. Is someone trying to force me from "must fuck" to "must not fuck"? > 8 Am I forcing someone from "must not be fucked" to "must be > fucked." > 8A. Did I ever force someone from "must not be fucked" to "must be > fucked." > > As you pose these opposing postulates you will find incidents come to > mind > that have to do with fucking and being fucked. Timebreak anything that > comes up Then re-pose the opposing postulates until nothing shows up. > > When you do enough running of the "to fuck" questions you will realize > that > it is just a junior universe of trying to be known to a sex partner > and this > is the collapse of a junior universe that Dennis talks about. OK, I FIND THIS INTERESTING . I GUESS I CAN RUN ANY JUNIOR UNIVERSE OR JUNIOR GOALS THIS WAY? BUT WHERE DOES THE GETTING RID OF POSTULATES COME IN AND HOW IS IT ACCOMPLISHED? > > > "To Be or Not to be, that is the question." Hamlet. To be is a > question > that cannot be answered at the level of awareness of a human being. I > suggest you leave it alone till after level 5. WELL IN MY EXPERIENCE, I WAS HAMMERED SO MUCH AS A KID, THAT I THOUGHT THAT I MUST NOT BE. OR THAT I MUST I MUST NOT BE ME. THAT I WAS WRONG. I TRIED TO BE SOMEONE ELSE. I CREATED AND TESTED SEVERAL VALENCES OR MANY VALENCES OVER THE YEARS. I OFTEN SAID TO MY AUDITOR I FEEL LIKE YOU ARE PROCESSING SOMEONE ELSE OTHER THAN ME. CAN YOU SEE OR UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN? SO THAT IS WHY I BRING UP THE QUESTION. HOW CAN I ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF TO BE WHO SHOULD I BE.? WHAT NOT TO BE" WHAT TO BE " WHO CAN I BE THAT MY DAD WOULD ACCEPT ME AND NOT BEAT ME. I STILL SOMETIMES FEEL I AM NOT THE REAL ME. I THINK MY REAL ME WAS HAMMERED DOWN BELOW DEATH ON THE TONE SCALE. MAYBE I AM NOW A " WALK IN" ? OR SOME VALENCE? OR VALENCE UPON VALENCE UPON VALENCE, ETC. DO YOU KNOW WHAT WALK INS ARE? IT HAS JUST COME TO MIND THAT " TO NOT BE KNOWN " HAS INTEREST AND SIGNIFICANCE TO ME. MAYBE ALL MY ISSUES ARE UNDER " TO NOT BE KNOWN" > If you are curious about > where it fits in see the expanded tone scale of Geoffery Filbert in > "Excaliber Revisited or The Ghost Danse articles by Ouran.(look up > ghost > danse spelled just that way on google.) OK > > To Do. All the goal conflicts are doingnesses. Run Level 5 and > doingness > will take care of itself. OK , I STILL AM NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT YOU MEAN, BUT I WILL DEAL WITH IT LATER. > > To Have. havingness is a lie. I NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE. > The triangle of creation is as-is, alter-is, > not-is. > This can be restated be, do, have. Have then is a mis ownership of > all created objects. > Everything you see in the apparency of the universe > around is stuff you can have, and not what it seems. I THINK THIS IS QUITE CONTRARY TO WHAT I HEARD ON THE HAVINGNESS TAPES IN SCIENTOLOGY. WHAT IS : WHAT MOST PEOPLE HAVE ; HOUSES, FAMILIES, BUSINESSES, MONEY, THINGS. I HAVE STRUGGLED ALL MY LIFE OF 57 YRS AND HAVE NOT GOT A POT TO PEE IN. THAT DOES NOT FEEL VERY GOOD. SO YOUR COMMENT DOES NOT SIT WELL WITH ME. IT MAY BE PHILOSOPHICAL BUT WE HAVE TO LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD WHERE THERE ARE CERTAIN AGREEMENTS AND DEMANDS. > You can do some > interesting therapy discovering the real isness of objects like money > but if > you do the money will cease to exist. I WAS NOT CONSIDERING THE ISNESS OF MONEY. I JUST WANT / NEED TO HAVE SOME. THINGS ARE PRETTY TIGHT RIGHT NOW. ALSO COMPLICATED BY SOME MEDICAL ISSUES WHICH PREVENT ME FROM BEING ABLE TO HAVE REGULAR JOBS OR TO WORK WITH OTHERS. IT MAY SEEM CONTRADICTORY BUT I HAVE TO APPLY FOR DISABILITY. BUT I CAN WORK FOR MYSELF WITH NO ONE TO SCREW ME AROUND. MY HISTORY HAS BEEN ONE OF BEING VERY PTS. DENNIS SAID THAT A MAGNETIC PERSONALITY IS ENTIRELY THE USE OF CONSCIOUS OR UNCONSCIOUS PD POSTULATES. MY POSTULATES ARE AT THE FAR OPPOSITE END OF THAT SCALE. SEE MY STORY BELOW THAT I POSTED YESTERDAY TO A FREEZONE SCIENTOLOGY WEBSITE; IVy post. > > For example I wanted to know what money was so I looked into its > isness and > found. At one time the US dollar was 1/20 of an ounce of gold. Then > in > 1913 congress created the Federal Reserve bank which creates money out > of > nothing. In 1932 Franklin D Roosevelt confiscated all the gold coins > held > by the people in the US. In 1934 the Supreme Court ruled that "money" > was > the denomination printer or stamped on the face of the coins or bills > not > the market value of the coins so what FDR did was not an "illegal > taking". > "Money" now is created by the Fed as digits in a computer. They can > create > trillions of dollars as fast as a clerk can type zeros in a computer. > Now you know the isness of money. Is you havngness better or worse > than > before? What else would you like to know the isness of? I KNOW ALL THE STUFF ABOVE. I HAVE BEEN STUDYING IT FOR A LONG TIME ALSO. I AM IN THE PROCESS OF WRITING A BOOK ON IT. BUT MY MIND IS SO FRIED THAT I CANNOT COMPLETE IT. I WANT TO CLEAR MYSELF SO I CAN THINK BETTER AND WRITE BETTER. > > How to have money. Knowing the above you will still need US dollars > to by > food and gas so you need some. THAT IS THE CONTRADICTION. > With the understanding that the dollars have > no value except what others feel they have you do not want to hold onto > dollars any longer than the minimum time it takes to earn it and > exchange it > for what you really want. WELL I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE SOME RESERVES FOR DRY SPELLS. > In the next two years the Fed will destroy the > credit markets. Paper money will increase in purchasing power and > stocks > bonds, houses and many other things will get cheaper. Credit cards > will > become unaffordable to most as fees and interest rates skyrocket. > Once the credit markets are destroyed the Fed will continue its money > creation and we will have inflation again. If you can figure out when > that > point is reached you can buy stuff at the cheapest prices you will see > in > your lifetime. The last time this occurred was 1932 to 1938. IN MY OPINION THE ABOVE IS CONJECTURE, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. THE ONLY THING THAT IS CERTAIN TODAY IS CHANGE AND LOTS OF IT. > > How to get money. Create goods and services that others need and > exchange > them for money. The financial institutions are dying so avoid those > kinds > of businesses. Get into real goods production. My suggestion is to > buy > land and start an Organic Farm using heirloom seed. Keep it small. > Sell to > local resturants and markets. Any similar business that uses locally > produced raw materials and sells to local people will have a chance of > working in the comming years. WELL.........BY TRAINING I HAPPEN TO BE AN ADVANCED ORGANIC AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER SPECIALIZING IN GROWING HIGH NUTRIENT DENSITY FOODS, OR NUTRICEUTICAL GRADE FOODS. AND I AM LOOKING FOR MONEY TO BUY A FARM. > > Money therapy. Formulat at junior universe on "to have money" and run > out > all overts and motivators on the subject. WHAT ARE MOTIVATORS IN REGARDS TO MONEY? THE CONCEPT OF MOTIVATORS IS VAGUE TO ME. I DO UNDERSTAND IT IN SOME RESPECTS BUT NOT TO MONEY. DO YOU MEAN WHAT MOTIVATED ME TO COMMIT OVERTS IN REGARDS TO GETTING MONEY OR MONEY IN GENERAL? > Once free of those you will still > have to create goods and services to exchange for money but you will > then > find that the "effort" is minimal and the self destructive reactive > mind > causes will happen less often. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE FLOW OF THE UNIVERSE AND CAN MANIFEST PRETTY WELL ANYTHING THEY WANT JUST BY POSTULATING. THAT IS THE STATE I WANT TO BE IN. > > > As you can see I have been studying the money issue for many years. AS I SAID BEFORE I HAVE ALSO STUDIED IT WELL. > Hope > this helps. YES INDEED I HAVE SOME BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE MATTER NOW. BUT I HAVE A WAYS TO GO YET. THANKS AGAIN. I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR NEXT REPLY. David > Keep the good questions comming. > > > Keep on TROMing > > > Pete MY STORY: AS POSTED ON IVy > > Hi all, > > I have been away for a few weeks and away from the computer also. > > It is good to be away from the computer. It is sort of a reality > check from cyberspace. > > > I have a couple of things to say and comment on: > > First: > > Even though I was away from cyberspace, the unfortunate or > disconcerting fact is: > > I was working for a very SP person. > > I have been working for him off and on since 1991. > > Well, actually we were business partners for four years from 91 to > 94, but my/ our efforts failed and it is now very clear to me, why > . > > Oddly enough he was the financier and I was the engineer and the one > with the know how. > > No one can create in a negative or condescending environment with an > antagonistic SP always criticizing, complaining, going on witch hunts, > fault finding, invalidating, looking for a fight or wanting to get > into a pissing contest, always pulling in the wrong direction, crapping > on my work, and what ever other kind of insanity he can come up with > . > > I have caved in a few times while working for him over the years. > > I went back because I needed the work to make some extra money and to > not burn any bridges and possibly fix things up. And unfortunately as > I recently read some one on this site mention, it also a matter of > being so PTS, that I usually land up work for SPs of one kind or > another. > > (That is why I brought up the subject of the PTS rundown last summer, > on this list. ) > > The last few times ( prior to this this time ) I went back, thinking > that I knew a little more about handling SPs, and that I would not > cave in, but I was wrong. > > This guy is a professional relentless SP. > > I was honestly near death several times over the years. > > > But this last few months I have been studying TROM. > > I think I have much of level four done. I have not been able to > follow the patter as written, but I can't find much charge , at least > not yet. (Still going to try and do more work with level four. ) > > I haven't got level five figured out yet. > > But what I mainly learned up to now in TROM is about games, ( > conflicting and complimentary postulates) and the how the downward > spiral works step by step to the point where we hit bottom and all > flows are blocked. > > This knowledge as well as other, helped me survive the insanity and > abuse without caving in. > > Now there will not likely be another time for me to work for him. > > If anything; possibly hopefully some law suits. > > But what I want to stress is the extraordinary invaluable data I > learned from TROM as I mentioned above. > > Ron did not discover this, and that is one reason at least, from my > present viewpoint, why scio does not work as well as it should in some > cases, at least to the degree it should. > > Scio does very well as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. > The idea that the bridge is complete may be true for some, but not for > all. The way I see it now is that it all depends on one's case. > > > > Quote from the TROM chapter on "stability" : > > In the early 1960s I had done the Saint Hill Briefing Course. I > reviewed everything I had learnt on that, but none of it helped. Back > on my own again, I learned how to handle postulates in conflict --- and > found out that Ron had never learnt how to do it. There was a certain > fundamental truth in that area that he had not spotted. > > My own techniques for resolving postulates in conflict ---- handle > correct goals packages. I found what the true goals packages look like > and how to take them apart. You will find this, and it is in Levels > Four and Five of TROM. > > The research on goals and so forth took me about a year to iron out and > turned out to be a lot more complex than I had thought it would be, > especially Level Five. I understood why Ron had failed in 1960. His > efforts were valiant. He was almost doomed to fail. > > The actual legs, the actual postulates of the true GPMs aren't in the > reactive bank. They're in the analytical mind. If you search in the > bank, you will do it all wrong. > > It is an analytical construct, so they're in the analytical mind. All > that is in the bank is a mish-mash of wrong opposers. The lies. The > truth is in the analytical mind. > > So the mistake Ron made on the subject of goals was to look into a mass > of lies, in the bank, for the truth. That is why the search went on > forever, and why he nearly killed himself in the 1960s. > > end of quote... > > I never heard anyone mention this before. > > > > > Over all Dennis' style of writing is really frustrating to me, but I > have to give credit where credit is due on what i understand so far, > ( the above few lines are an exception to this frustration, they are > clear and straight forward, but otherwise he tends to talk in clues, > in my opinion. ) > > Otherwise Dennnis' discoveries are invaluable. I cannot find a better > word to describe it. > > > Also level two and three of TROM has released tons of charge for me on > this life time track on incidents that I have had over 300 hours of > processing on over the last 12 years. > > So my thanks go out to Dennis. Scientology was a life saver for me > back in 1997 and this summer TROM was another life saver. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Trom mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom > _______________________________________________ Trom mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
