*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
HI
Another thought on Cross-Packaging in life. It only occurs? when you are stuck
in a compulsive game.
for instance with "to eat"
When you see a donut that screams "must be eaten" and you are in a voluntary or
no games condition you can pick whether you adopt the "must eat" or "must not
eat" postulate but if you are compulsively in the "must eat" and have eating
problems and see a donut you make the "must be eaten" postulate your enemy and
get the cross packaged goal:
1. must eat 3. must not be eaten
2. must not eat 4. must be eaten
Where 2 is not available because of your previous decision that you "must eat"
and 4 is your opponent because it is now off your diet but 3. is not a
complement of 1 so you are cross packaged.
Therefor compulsion is a necessary component of cross packaging in life?
Keep on TROMing
Pete
>________________________________
> From: Pete McLaughlin <[email protected]>
>To: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]>
>Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 8:18 AM
>Subject: Re: [TROM1] Cross Packaging? again
>
>*************
>The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
>************
>
>
>Hi Paul and Svoboda
>Thanks for the responces. They got my brain working again.
>
>Here is what i have come up with so far.
>
>the normal to sex goals package has male and female complementing each other.
>
>1. must sex 3. must be sexed
>
>
>by making females and males opponents in a game we move the female postulate
>to the opponents position and the negative female postulate to the
>complementary position.
>
>1. must sex 3 must not be sexed
>
>2. must not sex 4 must be sexed
>
>This is by definition a cross package as 1 and 3 are not exactly complementary.
>
>Does this look like a correct interpretation of Dennis' statement that:
>
> "As a male, he soon starts to get opposed to females, and
vice-versa. Very soon he is in a terrible state on the subject, for the
two genders are not intrinsically in opposition to each other.
>
> You end up with a classic case of
cross-packaging. We find the male desperately asserting his masculinity,
while heavily suppressing any feminine characteristics in his
personality, and vice-versa for the female. The whole subject soon takes
on the quality of a nightmare, and becomes one big unsolvable problem.
And it stays this way until the being regains his full freedom of choice
to occupy, at will, any one of the four classes available to him on the
subject."
>
>IF so then on any goals in life if you make what should be a complementary
>postulate into the opposition postulate in a game you are cross packaging.
>
>
>
>Keep on TROMing
>Pete
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Paul Tipon <[email protected]>
>>To: [email protected]
>>Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:19 AM
>>Subject: [TROM1] Cross Packaging? again
>>
>>*************
>>The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
>>************
>>Hi Pete,
>>
>>After reading further, I see that I may have muddied the waters a little
>>more. With the following definition here is what I see.
>>
>>On Jan 23, 2013, at 11:44 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> OK
>>> Here's the definition of cross packaging. it doesn't apply so Dennis
>>> misspoke in the TROM manual.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cross-packaging
>>> When a junior package is not erasing cleanly the most common fault is that
>>> the package is not a true package. This is known as
>>> cross-packaging. It is one of the 'deadly' sins. When two or more junior
>>> packages are crossed up into one package neither of the
packages will erase and the whole mish-mash just grinds on forever. The
therapist who tries to resolve a man's drinking problem by addressing his
infantile sex life is guilty of cross-packaging. This is why the 'therapy'
goes on forever with no relief for the patient.
>>
>>The packages are not the little differences that exist between the sexes,
>>male to female or female to male but the fact that male is different than
>>female and vice versa. So it is not the differences that exist between a
>>male and a female but the simple fact that male is different than female and
>>female different than male. To heck with all the differences thereby
>>derived, it is that male is not female and female is not male.
>>
>>With two separate things which are not the duplicate of the other, there will
>>always be a difference. To then go into all the differences that one can
>>spot between the two sexes will not address the basic. So one can
process out all of the differences that they can find between sexes and
totally miss the basic. The basic is that one sex is not the other.
>>
>>So if one then processes on those differences between two items, one may miss
>>the fact that there is an opposition and games condition because there are
>>two different things, not that there are two or more differences in sexual
>>characteristics. Basically not being able to see the forest for the trees.
>>Processing out all the different trees and all of their differences between
>>each other will not process out the opposition terminal of the forest. Just
>>process on 'the forest'. As in Dennis' sample, process alcohol not
>>"infantile sex life". A person may give you or you yourself may give
>>yourself housekeeping as the opposition subject when it is really male vs
>>female or female vs male and nothing more non-esoteric than that.
>>
>>I believe Dennis calls this 'Cross-Packaging'
as all crossed or mixed up and not addressing the correct item.
>>
>>Paul, Level 5 in progress
>>_______________________________________________
>>Trom mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Trom mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
