************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
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. > (totally correct) > > I agree: If something should be known then one also wants it to make known, > at least to oneself or to a certain degree.(right) > > I agree: Either they should all be with 'made', or all be without it. > > (Hey, live dangerously, why don't you put 'made' on all 4 knowing > postulates and make it 'symetrical and consistant' in the translation?) > > 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. ( congratulations; you are > one of the few people who intimitdates me on grammar. I better study this, > and watch my 'p's and 'q's. Whew ! Did I make any mistakes? ) (I'm going > to study this above-mentioned point further. I was German in my past life > too, and am kind of exacting. ) > > 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. > > ( how important is it that the translation be perfect the first time out > ? One idea that I had is that you just translate the thing as verbatum as > you can the first time, and then, when you get up the levels more highly > yourself, then re-evalutate the data for an edited 2nd edition with slight > corrections; my gut feeling is that just getting the data to our German > speaking friends as soon as possible is more important than perfection. I > think the least perfect thing is to not get the data to them as soon as > possbile. Perhaps in the editorial notes, you can apologize in advance, and > recognize the outpoints; They will forgive you any transgressions. I'm > 99.999999% sure of that. If I'm wrong, come and kick my butt personally; I > invite you. I understand that Scientology is having some problems with the > German government, so the public may be ready for an alternative that > doesn't have the 'bad name' of Scientology. Maybe they are really ready? ) > > 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
