************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Thanks much, Paul Aarre
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 3:05 AM, Paul Tipon <[email protected]>wrote: > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] > ************ > Hi Aarre and All, > > Aarre, you are correct as I see it in your assessment. > > As I said earlier, 'Wrong' can be interchanged with 'Cross' as Dennis is > using the word cross, especially since we are not talking about > complimentary words but about same and similar meanings and useage. The > semantics of these two words are similar and interchangeable. > > With respect to TROM, I see that you are right there too. The words > 'Love' and 'Lovable' are similar but have different meanings and use. They > are not therefore interchangeable. They both have their own particular > concept and when used in postulates, they will then have their own > particular concept, meaning and postulate and these cannot be interchanged. > > On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:46 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Pete, >> The word 'exact' in 'exact oppositions' is the keyword. If the wording >> is even slightly off, it can't be complementary or opposing. >> > > But in a simple or even a convoluted way it may be opposing. The end of > your statement would be better stated as complementary and opposing. It is > not an either or (A or B) but it is an A plus B. > > To bear the same relationship, the wording must correlate the same way. >> >> example... >> 1. must know 3. must be known >> 2. must not know 4. must not be known >> >> correct same relationship as the above >> 1. must love 3. must be loved >> 2. must not love 4. must not be loved >> >> altered wrong relationship to the above >> 1. must love 3. must be lovable >> 2. must not love 4. must not be lovable >> >> Changing the wording from loved to lovable puts two different >> postulate sets (mismatched) into the same package, so that it is >> cross-packaged and un-erasable. >> > > Yes. > > The word 'cross' means that the word lovable 'crossed' into this package >> from some other package. Loved, not lovable is the correct word in this >> package. Must love and must be lovable are* NOT* complementary! To be >> willing to receive love and to powder one's face and wear a better dress to >> be more lovable isn't the same thing at all; what if she's making herself >> lovable for another man and not even for yourself ! She may be making >> herself more lovable for some ego crap and not willing to receive love at >> all ! If you tell someone that you want an apple to eat and he say's, >> 'here's a nice orange for you to eat', he just invalidated what you asked >> for, which was an apple. I believe that salesman do that kind of bullshit >> quite often. >> > > Dennis mentions the importance of exact wording in many places and I >> don't have the time to find them all right now. >> > > I can't pull up a reference either and in different terms, 'correct' > wording must be used, not wording 'crossed' to or 'crossed' from whatever. > I don't believe it is any more complex than this. Let's keep it simple, > we don't have to pull in other additional and obscure significances to make > a truth. > >> >> Can anyone else comment upon this ? >> >> Aarre Peltomaa >> > > Paul, Level 5 in progress > ______________________________**_________________ > Trom mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.newciv.org/**mailman/listinfo/trom<http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom> >
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
