************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************ I think cross-packaging is bonding of different things because they are seem similar. To be the girl and to wear dresses the various purposes, but they can be crossed or bonded (unconsciously or intentionally) : if the girl, must wear dresses. What is a bond between apples and oranges? These are fruit as a common class. Bond breaking is anti-cross-packaging of high level. When I am looking at secretary Jane, I am admiring and thinking about sex with her, but I am afraid to fool around because my wife will kill me, and I am understanding that I am feeling a disappointment. To admire - to be upset To sex - to be killed It is the slice of terrible and confidential "implant".))))))))))))
27.01.2013, 03:07, "[email protected]" <[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: Games Matrix and cross packaging (Aarre Peltomaa) > 2. Cross Packaging (Pete McLaughlin) > 3. Re: MU's on Cross Packaging (TROM) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:24:26 -0500 > From: Aarre Peltomaa <[email protected]> > To: Pete McLaughlin <[email protected]>, The Resolution > of Mind list <[email protected]> > Cc: "Colleen K. Peltomaa" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [TROM1] Games Matrix and cross packaging > Message-ID: > <canrdadsodcaw7oeo_+h3efxslyy-op+0vcze4c0aab+w9gx...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Pete, > According to the definition that Dennis gave us, these are not crossed > because of complementary or opposing postulates, but because there are two > different sets of postulates here. It's like mixing apples and oranges. > That's why it's crossed-packaged. The only way that it could be not > cross-packaged is to have 4 matched postulates in one set, like 4 matching > tires on a car. To put 2 winter tires and 2 summer tires on a car is > cross-packaging. Of course a properly formed set of 4 matching postulates > contains both complementary and opposing postulates within the same set. > But to say 'I want to eat an apple', and 'an orange wants to be eaten' is > not a matched set; how could this be complementary, if an orange wants to > be eaten, instead of the apple that you asked for. To say 'I want to eat > an apple', and 'an apple wants to be eaten' would be a complementary pair. > To say 'I want to eat an apple', and 'an apple doesn't want to be eaten' > would be opposing postulates within the same matching 4 postulate set. > All of the sets that you gave are mismatched, and therefore > cross-packaged. Opposing or complementary is not part of the definition of > cross-packaged; the same subject matter or not is part of the > definition. Apples with apples, and oranges with oranges. > A spiritual being that is being only male or female is cross-packaged > because that being only has 2 out of 4 postulates, which isn't a full > set. A spiritual being may have had a male body in one lifetime, and a > female body in another lifetime, so therefore the being has to have all 4 > postulates to function properly, and understand the other sex's viewpoint. > Thanks, Aarre > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Pete McLaughlin < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> ************* >> The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] >> ************ >> >> OK Aarre >> Here are your examples plugged into the games matrix. they show that if 1. >> and 3 are not complementary postulates that the package is crossed. >> >> Keep on TROMing >> Pete >> >> I have to have sex with him so that he'll marry me. >> >> 1. to be married 3. must be sexed >> 2. to not be marred 4. to not be sexed >> >> I have to show my virility by giving her a good session in bed. >> >> 1. masculinity 3. satisfied girl >> 2. no masculinity 4. unsatisfied girl >> >> I'll look prettier to others if I wear this sexy dress. >> >> 1. sexy 3. wear dress >> 2. not sexy 4. not wear dress >> >> I can't wear those orange pants, because they're such a 'gay' colour ! >> >> 1. homosexuality 3. gay colour >> 2. not homosexual 4. no gay colour >> >> I'll be the life of the party if I tell them how often 'I scored'. >> >> 1. popular 3. had sex >> 2. not popular 4. not had sex >> >> I can't have sex with him in the first two dates, or he'll think that I'm >> a whore. >> >> 1. sex too soon 3. whore >> 2. not sex to soon 4. not whore >> >> To sex vs. To be sexy. (definitely a cross packaging). >> >> 1. to sex 3. to be sexy >> 2. to not sex 4. to not be sexy >> >> To sex and to be sexed vs. to sensually stimulate and to be sensually >> stimulated. >> >> 1. to sex 3. to sensually stimulate >> 2. to not sex 4. to not sensually stimulate >> >> 1. to be sexed 3. to be sensually stimulated >> 2. to not be sexed 4. to not be sensually stimulated >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20130125/9ca45f55/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 09:18:25 -0800 (PST) > From: Pete McLaughlin <[email protected]> > To: TROM <[email protected]> > Subject: [TROM1] Cross Packaging > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Aarre > Here is where Dennis states that the postulates must be as in the basic > package. > > Sincerely > Pete > > 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. > > 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 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. > > Dennis Stephens. The Resolution of Mind (Kindle Locations 884-886). > tromhelp.com. > >> ________________________________ >> From: Aarre Peltomaa <[email protected]> >> To: Pete Mclaughlin <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:20 PM >> Subject: Re: [TROM1] Cross Packaging? again >> >> Pete, >> I had them numbered incorrectly;? my mistake.?? If 1 is must know,? and 2 is >> must not know,? and 3 is must be known,? and 4 is must not be known,? then >> one will create sensation with 1 and 4,? or 2 and 3.?? Could you show me >> where Dennis states that cross-packaging is defined by whether or not the >> postulates are complementary or opposing?? I need to see that reference. >> Aarre > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.newciv.org/pipermail/trom/attachments/20130126/beed48b2/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 17:24:00 -0500 > From: "TROM" <[email protected]> > To: "'The Resolution of Mind list'" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [TROM1] MU's on Cross Packaging > Message-ID: <81ACC9DC09F945D7BC6503EC9CD41D6D@BrianPC> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi Pete, > > I don't think you are helping to clarify matters at all with your examples. > It seems to me that you have a number of things mismashed here. > > Reordering the postulates is not really what Dennis meant by > cross-packaging. To order the "to eat" postulates like this: > > 1. must eat 3. must not be eaten > 2. must not eat 4. must be eaten > > is just plain stupidity if someone sets up the postulates in that fashion - > it just means they have not understood the most basic fundamentals of what a > package is. This of course could be called cross-packaging because it > completely violates the rules for how to form a package, but this misses the > boat on the subtleties of cross-packaging. > > Your explanation: > > "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." > > just muddies the waters because proper packaging has nothing to do with > whether a postulate is "available" or not. If the person is at "must eat" > then "must be eaten" IS a complementary postulate. This talk about donuts > being "Now off your diet" is spurious. The guy who is going to have a > problem with "must be eaten" and not going to eat the donut is at "must not > eat" not at "must eat". Trying to rationalize bad package formation with > this example doesn't clarify matters. > > 1. must eat 3. must be eaten > > 2. must not eat 4. must not be eaten > > Don't disarrange the postulates, that's just a sure way to goof the floof :) > > Cross packaging is the action of placing a postulate (or postulates) that > belong in a different package(s) into a single package. > > " 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. > > ... > > Check that the complementary postulates are indeed complementary, and that > the opposing postulates are exact oppositions" - Dennis > > Here are some examples of cross packaging: > > Must eat Must be edible (not complementary) > > Must not eat Must diet (not exact opposite) > > Must wash Must be cleaned (not exact > complementary) > > Must be dirty(not opposite) Must not be cleaned (not opposite) > > In this last you have wash and clean packages being crossed up with the > additional screwup of dirty not being a life goal. So I wouldn't say that > you have 3-way cross packaging here (to be dirty would handle by running to > be clean) You've got "To wash" cross packaged with "To clean" > > Hubbard's methods of GPM running were fraught with cross-packaging and why > they nearly killed people. 3D Criss-cross was one of those processes. I have > a feeling that Dennis pulled the "cross package" term from how Hubbard > crossed items using oppose rather than using the exact opposite. If you look > at the goal plots of the 1963 ear you can see the cross packaging that is > going on. > > Best wishes to all, > > Brian > > _____ > > From: Pete McLaughlin [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 5:20 PM > To: Aarre Peltomaa; TROM > Subject: [TROM1] MU's on Cross Packaging > > 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 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. 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 such fine > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.newciv.org/pipermail/trom/attachments/20130126/9b5057cb/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Trom mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom > > End of Trom Digest, Vol 102, Issue 23 > ************************************* _______________________________________________ Trom mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
