************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Hello Leo Mar. 31/'11
I agree with your response. It's a shame we can't bring back Dennis and get him to edit the materials, since he's source. I think we could be allowed to have introductory separate materials preceding the new person getting into the full Dennis' manual, agree? As long as the full manual is quite available, and 'made' known (no pun intended) or allowed to be known, I don't think Dennis would protest. Which language are you translating into? Thanks, Aarre Peltomaa [email protected] (647) 202-7267 On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Leo Faulhaber <[email protected]>wrote: > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] > ************ > > > > 2011/3/31 <[email protected]> > >> Send Trom mailing list submissions to >> [email protected] >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> [email protected] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [email protected] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Trom digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Possible error in the original TROM manual (Aarre Peltomaa) >> 2. Re: Possible error in the original TROM manual (Leo Faulhaber) >> >> > Dear Aarre > > Thanks for your answer. > > I'm only on Level 2, but that doesn't hinder me from detecting illogics. > > I agree: If something should be known then one also wants it to make known, > at least to oneself or to a certain degree. > > I agree: Either they should all be with 'made', or all be without it. > > I agree: If the word "made" is correct, then it could be just a matter of > importance. > > However I tend to believe that the word "made" is not correct. The > left part of the statement is the SD postulate and the right part is the PD > postulate, which is formulated in passive voice. > > I agree: One could apply "Evaluation of importances". However importances > are relative. So for most of the readers of TROM it probably has only very > little importance. For me, as I'm working on a translation, it has quite > some importance. And the illogic also worked somehow like a misunderstood > for me. > > It does have no influence on the processes/exercises, as the chart uses a > slightly different wording and lists only the SD postulates. > > Best wishes > > Leo Faulhaber > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:48:45 -0400 >> From: Aarre Peltomaa <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [TROM1] Possible error in the original TROM manual >> To: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]> >> Message-ID: >> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> 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 >> [email protected] >> (647) 202-7267 >> >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Pete McLaughlin < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > ************* >> > The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] >> > ************ >> > >> > >> > >> > --- On *Wed, 3/30/11, Leo Faulhaber <[email protected]>* wrote: >> > >> > >> > From: Leo Faulhaber <[email protected]> >> > Subject: Re: Possible error in the original TROM manual >> > To: "Pete McLaughlin" <[email protected]> >> > 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 <[email protected]< >> http://mc/[email protected]> >> > > >> > >> > Hi Pete >> > >> > Thanks for your answer! >> > >> > 2011/3/21 Pete McLaughlin <[email protected]< >> http://mc/[email protected]> >> > > >> > >> > 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 <[email protected]< >> http://mc/[email protected]> >> > >* wrote: >> > >> > >> > From: Leo Faulhaber <[email protected]< >> http://mc/[email protected]> >> > > >> > Subject: Possible error in the original TROM manual >> > To: [email protected]< >> http://mc/[email protected]> >> > 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 >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom >> > >> > >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> http://lists.newciv.org/pipermail/trom/attachments/20110330/6c79b4a2/attachment-0001.html >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Trom mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom >> >> >> End of Trom Digest, Vol 80, Issue 12 >> ************************************ >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Trom mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom > >
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
