*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Hi Aarre
Yes, of course, I have MU's on Cross Packaging. That is why I brought up the
subject for discussion. I need the viewpoints of the talented people on this
tromlist to sort out the subject.
"all the 4 goals that you listed are in the same package, regardless how they
are arranged."
I disagree with you here. Dennis spent some time in the manual detailing the
games matrix:
leg 1 leg3
leg 2 leg4
with the relationships being leg 1 complementary to leg 3 and leg1 in conflict
with leg4 etc. So putting the postulates into different positions in the matrix
demonstrates a change in how the being views the postulates.
leg 1 must sex versus leg 4 must be sexed reflects a games condition and a
cross packaging. this also is masculinity versus femininity which Dennis says
may need to be addressed to handle the problems with sex that all humans have.
The matrix is a useful tool for demonstrating the cross packaging.
The quote you provided demonstrates this point:
"' The legs of a junior package must bear the same relation to each other as
do the legs of the basic package. Otherwise the package is not a true
package and will never erase. E.G. The complementary goal of ‘To free’
is ‘To be free’ not ‘To be freed’. "
Your examples of cross packaging are good and thanks for them.
Sincerely
Pete
>________________________________
> From: Aarre Peltomaa <[email protected]>
>To: Pete McLaughlin <[email protected]>; The Resolution of Mind
>list <[email protected]>
>Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:49 PM
>Subject: Re: [TROM1] Cross Packaging? again
>
>
>Pete,
>You must have an MU (MisUnderstood Word) on 'cross packaging', as all the 4
>goals that you listed are in the same package, regardless how they are
>arranged.
>Slight alterations of wordings, as a covertly hostile person would be happy
>to do, would lead to cross packaging.
>
>
>
>
>Here is the definition's first mention in the manual...
>
>' The legs of a junior package must bear the same relation to each other as do
>the legs of the basic package. Otherwise the package is not a true package and
>will never erase. E.G. The complementary goal of ‘To free’ is ‘To be free’ not
>‘To be freed’. Some care is always required in formulating the exact wording
>of junior packages. When a junior package is not erasing cleanly the most
>common fault is that the package is not a true package. This is known
>ascross-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. Indeed, the basic way to confuse a being is to
>cross-package him. Much thought has
been given to this gentle art in the history of the universe, and the most
confusing things that have ever happened to beings have been overt attempts to
cross-package them - all under the guise of ‘education’, of course. Once
cross-packaged the being is stuck within the crossed-up packages forever.
Cross-packaging is the primary method of enslaving spiritual beings that has
been used in the universe. It is infinitely more effective than the use of
rubber truncheons. So make sure that the legs of your junior packages bear
exactly the same relation to each other
>
>page 85
>
>as do the legs of the basic package. Only then will they erase.
>Check that the complementary postulates are indeed complementary, and that the
>opposing postulates are exact oppositions. This can only be done empirically,
>on the basis of cold, hard logic. To do it any other way is to court disaster.
>One may have a strong ‘gut feeling’ that the goal ‘To eat’ is opposed by the
>goal ‘To not be edible’, however logic tells us that the correct opposition is
>‘To not be eaten’. The difference between the package cleanly erasing and
>grinding on forever is to be found within suchfine shades of meaning. Nowhere
>in life do you have to be more precise than in this area of composing junior
>goals packages. '
>
>That's it right from the 'ol man' himself. If he didn't give examples of
>cross-packaging when he discussed the sex package, then we have to come up
>with and extrapolate our own examples from conjecture, logic, and experience.
>
>Here's some possible examples...
>
>I have to have sex with him so that he'll marry me.
>I have to show my virility by giving her a good session in bed.
>I'll look prettier to others if I wear this sexy dress.
>I can't wear those orange pants, because they're such a 'gay' colour !
>I'll be the life of the party if I tell them how often 'I scored'.
>I can't have sex with him in the first two dates, or he'll think that I'm a
>whore.
>To sex vs. To be sexy. (definitely a cross packaging).
>To sex and to be sexed vs. to sensually stimulate and to be sensually
>stimulated.
>
>None of the above is just 'sex', but rather other
>postulates/goals/purposes/intentions
>mixed in to muddy up the water and complicate things.
>
>Now I understand the man; eg. If you are addressing 'welding steel', you
>aren't addressing 'screwing nuts onto bolts'. They are two different actions,
>and not the same enough to be called one package.
>
>Thanks, Aarre Peltomaa
>
>
>On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Pete McLaughlin
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>*************
>>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
>>
>>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
