************* The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org ************
Hi Leo, Mar. 30/'11
Thanks so much for your email. I'm only on level 3, so take that into your eval of my email. I looked at this point in my mind, and what popped up was.. If a thetan postulates 'that it should be known', doesn't that by default also encompass 'that it should be made known' automatically? Remember, the thetan wants something, and then he makes the postulate for that to happen. He's already decided that it should be known, so doesn't it automatically by default become 'made' by the simple fact of his postulating the effect into existance? I could be wrong on this, but it 'feels' like the only thing the word 'made' would do is imply more import on the intention, more 'must have' on doing it? I agree that consistency gives me a more confident feeling; either they should all be with 'made', or all be without it. We could apply the 'Student Hat' tape of L. Ron Hubbard of 'Evaluation of Importances' to this? Dennis said that all of Scientology with the exception of half of one axiom, fits into TROM, so we may use that tech also. Does the process run just as well either way to you? Thanks, Aarre Peltomaa peltomaa.aa...@gmail.com (647) 202-7267 On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Pete McLaughlin < pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com> wrote: > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org > ************ > > > > --- On *Wed, 3/30/11, Leo Faulhaber <leo.faulha...@gmail.com>* wrote: > > > From: Leo Faulhaber <leo.faulha...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Possible error in the original TROM manual > To: "Pete McLaughlin" <pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com> > Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 12:08 AM > > Hi Pete > > I haven't got an answer from you so far. Did I say anything in my mail that > annoyed you? > > Best wishes > > Leo Faulhaber > > 2011/3/22 Leo Faulhaber > <leo.faulha...@gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=leo.faulha...@gmail.com> > > > > Hi Pete > > Thanks for your answer! > > 2011/3/21 Pete McLaughlin > <pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com<http://mc/compose?to=pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com> > > > > hi Leo > > The original notes of Dennis were typed up by Greg Pickering. The text > found on the Freezone website is that original material. Judith Anderson > complained to Dennis that there were a number of grammar errors in the text > and corrected these before she started selling her version of TROM. > > > Thanks for letting me know. I read that about Greg in your introduction. > > > i also found many grammar errors and other inconsistencies in the Greg > Pickering text so corrected these and added some footnotes and definitions > etc. to produce the TROM text you can download at tromhelp.com. > > I do habe your "version" of TROM. > > > Dennis found he had made an error in wording on the level 5 chart which > he mentions in one of the tapes. i corrected the copy of TROM that i > publish on tromhelp.com to include this correction. > > > Well done. I listened to that tape too and it's "correctly corected" now. I > mean, it makes sense now and that's what it should do. > > > I see the point of logic you are making but it does not rise to the level > of being an error that will stop progress in resolving the mind. > > > Great that you can see it. For most of the people it won't be problem. For > me it is (was) one. I got somehow stuck there. It worked like a > misunderstood if you know what I mean. > > > I hesitate to make changes in the text i post on the website beyond what > i have done so far. i could already be accused of altering the original text > with what i have done. > > > You don't need to make this change. But I would be happy if you could > publish my post on the mailing list so we can have a duscussionon it. If we > then see 90% agreing with my point of view, you can have another look at it. > (Or if we have only 10% agreeing with me, I can have another look at it.) > > > You of course should make any changes you want in your copy so as to make > TROM work better for you. > > > I will mention it in my translation. Just a note in parentheses. > > > i keep my active copy of TROM on my laptop computer and make changes and > add notes when ever i feel the need. the addition or removal of even a > comma can greatly alter the meaning of the written document. as my > understanding of TROM increases i find that my earlier interpretation was > incorrect and make changes. > > > I agree it's a heavy one to duplicate and duplication can change as one > progresses. > > > i expect this process to continue so i do not have a PERFECT text for > TROM. i feel it is best to leave it as close as possible to what Dennis > approved at present. > do bring up these observations as you find them and i hope others on the > site will benefit from relooking at the text to question if they understood > it right. > > > I appreciate that you maintain the site with the written and tape > materials. On the other hand I do have a slight disagreement with adding LRH > definitions for certains words or concepts out of the Tech Dictionary. For > example that one for "games condition". No need to define it per > Scientology. Dennis does define it much better in the text. Or that one for > "communication". Dennis gives a much better definition (in my opinion). It > also might put TROM into danger because of copyright infringements. It's > already quite risky on the part of Dennis to use the words "overt" and > "motivator". > > By the way: My translation is now being checked by Happyharry. > > All the best > > Leo > > > > Keep on TROMing > > Pete > > --- On *Sun, 3/20/11, Leo Faulhaber > <leo.faulha...@gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=leo.faulha...@gmail.com> > >* wrote: > > > From: Leo Faulhaber > <leo.faulha...@gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=leo.faulha...@gmail.com> > > > Subject: Possible error in the original TROM manual > To: > trom-ow...@lists.newciv.org<http://mc/compose?to=trom-ow...@lists.newciv.org> > Date: Sunday, March 20, 2011, 9:01 AM > > > Hello > > I think there is an error in the original TROM manual. There is an > additional word in the following point 2). It says: > > The four basic actions of life each have a twin postulate structure: > > 1. The postulate bringing the effect into existence, and the postulate that > it shall be known. > 2. The postulate taking the effect out of existence, and the postulate > that it shall be made (this is the word in question) not-known. > 3. The postulate to know the effect and the postulate that it shall be > made known. > 4. The postulate to not-know the effect and the postulate that it shall be > made not-known. > > My reasoning goes as follows: > > If the word "made" is correct in point 2) then it should also be present in > point 1) which should then read: ... that it shall be made known. > > But "to make known" or "to make not-known" are postulates on the self-side > (bringing something into existence). But here we have it to do with a twin > postulate structure. First part of the sentence is the "self-determined" > postulate and the second part of the sentence is the "pan-determined" > postulate. And the purpose for the "other side" (not self) is that it should > be known or not-known. So the word "made" is an additive and should be > deleted. > > Please let me know your ideas about this. > > Leo Faulhaber > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Trom mailing list > Trom@lists.newciv.org > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom > >
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list Trom@lists.newciv.org http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
