*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Hi Vladimir,
Thank you for clarifying for the hundredth time what a cross-packaged
postulate set consists of. How can this be so, so, so difficult for the
others to understand ?
It's so, so simple !! The perfect opposition to 'to love' is 'to not be
loved'. The perfect opposition to 'to not love' is 'to be loved'. Two
Complementary and two Opposition postulates are right within the
same four-postulate package which is NOT, NOT, cross-packaged. The
perfect complement of 'to love' is 'to be loved', and the perfect
complement of 'to not love' is 'to not be loved'. How could that be so
damn complicated?
To ask at a baseball game if 'Should I throw the baseball' would be
cross-packaged with 'should I catch the basketball'. One is a baseball,
and one is a basketball. They AREN'T EVEN PLAYING IN THE SAME BUILDING OR
PLAYING THE SAME GAME!! The complement of 'to throw a baseball' is 'to
catch a baseball', not 'to catch a football'. The opposition of 'to
throw a baseball' is 'to not catch a baseball', not 'to not catch a
volleyball'. To find the complement, go sideways/horizontal on the
chart. To find the opposition, go diagonally from top-left to
bottom-right, or from bottom-left to top-right on the chart. To
go vertically/up and down, on the left or right sides of the chart, one
will find the positive or negative, positives on top, and negatives on the
bottom.
The postulate 'to drive a car' is NOT, NOT, NOT the opposition of 'to not
be flown in an airplane'; that is cross-packaged since one is a car, and
the other is an airplane.
There is a more general overall postulate of 'to bring someone somewhere',
or it's opposition of 'to not be brought somewhere', which oversees the
earlier two postulates, but it's still a DIFFERENT postulate, not exactly
the same.
THE TWO PERFECT OPPOSITIONS WITHIN A POSTULATE SET ARE EACH DIAGONAL ON THE
CHART OF A CORRECTLY PACKAGED FOUR-POSTULATE SET. ALL FOUR POSTULATES MUST
BE MATCHED UP TO NOT BE CROSS-PACKAGED; OF COURSE TWO PAIRS WILL BE
OPPOSITIONS, AND TWO PAIRS WITH BE COMPLEMENTS. THERE ARE SIX PAIRS IN A
POSTULATE SET, INCLUDING TWO NEGATIVE/POSITIVE PAIRS.
SIMPLIFIED...
A----------------B COUNT SIX !
- -
- - AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD.
- - -
-
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
C----------------D
COMPLEMENTS... A-B, C-D
OPPOSITIONS.......A-D, C-B
NEGATIVE/POSITIVES...
A-C, B-D
Correct ? ! Thanks to Vladimir.
Aarre Peltomaa
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Svoboda Vladimir <[email protected]>wrote:
> *************
> The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
> ************
> ........and my 4 cents:
> Bonding and Cross-packaging
> I often observe a lot of considerations wich are fotmulated as ''if A,
> then B'': If I don't work, then don't survive. I work to survive. Make
> money or die.
> If I make a package with these goals ( work and survive), it will be the
> classical cross-packaging, because these are different goals.
>
> 1. Must be survived. 3. Must work
>
> 2. Must be not survived. 4. Must'nt work
>
> It's daily madness of somebody.
>
> If I run two separate packages it will be correct and clear.
>
> But what have these goals in common? These goals are methods to know is
> the answer.
>
> It is a simple example how to bond different goals. Paul gave more
> complicated example of this bonding scenario: "Then there is the mind which
> we have all set up and continue to set
> up moment by moment as each of us makes the simple postulate ... next
> time and from now on I will always ........ or never ......... most
> of the time will now ___ when ....... (the old bonding scenario that
> Dennis brings up)"
>
> 10.02.2013, 16:02, "[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: Cross Packaging (Pete McLaughlin)
> > 2. @ Paul T. RE Postulate Failure Chart @ Colleen (Paul Tipon)
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 14:53:35 -0800 (PST)
> > From: Pete McLaughlin <[email protected]>
> > To: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: [TROM1] Cross Packaging
> > Message-ID:
> > <[email protected]>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Hi Roberto
> > You got me on that one:
> >
> > "Thus, a life goal is defined as one which is not opposed to the ?To be
> known? leg of the basic package. Thus, a non-life goal is defined as one
> which is opposed to the ?To be known? leg of the basic package. Non-life
> goals, upon examination, will invariably be found to be part of the
> negative legs of life goal packages."
> >
> > Dennis Stephens. The Resolution of Mind (Kindle Locations 905-909).
> tromhelp.com.
> >
> > by definition there are only life and non life goals.
> >
> > Sincerely
> > Pete
> >
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> >> To: 'The Resolution of Mind list' <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:31 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [TROM1] Cross Packaging
> >>
> >> *************
> >> The following message is relayed to you by? [email protected]
> >> ************
> >>
> >> Hi Pete
> >> ?
> >> There aren't three kinds of goal packages as you say.
> >> ?
> >> I did a search run through the whole manual. The term
> >> Cross Packagedoes not exist. Because there is no such
> >> thing in the mind. There is only "Cross Packaging",
> >> derived from the verb.
> >> ?
> >> When you try to handle charge contained in Life Goal A by
> >> running charge contained in Life Goal B, then you are cross-
> >> packaging. There are Life Goals and Non-life Goals, just
> >> the two of us.
> >> ?
> >> Regards
> >> Roberto
> >> ?
> >> ?
> >> ?
> >> Von:Pete McLaughlin [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Gesendet: Sonntag, 27. Januar 2013 22:36
> >> An: Brian; TROM
> >> Betreff: [TROM1] Cross Packaging
> >> ?
> >> ?
> >> Hi Brian
> >> ? One big missing point in the TROM manual is Dennis did not give a lot
> of examples of some of the things he was talking about.
> >> ?
> >> What is in the mind? How do i recognize it and know what to Timebreak?
> >> ?
> >> There are three kinds of goals packages:
> >> The Life Goals which are the To Know goals package and the Junior goals
> packages Dennis provided.
> >>
> >> The Non-life Goals To Hate or to Degrade etc which we avoid.
> >>
> >> and the Cross Packages which is what the mind is composed of.
> >>
> >> At level 5 i will work with the postulates of the Life goals packages.
> >>
> >> Since Dennis made it very important to know and recognize a Life Goals
> Package by the relationship between its legs it then is equally important
> to know and recognize a the Non-Life Goals and the? Cross Packages so you
> will not try and run it at level 5.
> >>
> >> If we develop skill at formulating and recognizing the three we will do
> better at level 5 of TROM.
> >>
> >> So i am proposing that we use the goals package to formulate both Life
> and cross packaged goals and develop our ability to recognize their
> differences.
> >>
> >> This is not a big exercise.? If i can just recognize that putting To Be
> Sexed in leg 4 requires that To Not Be Sex go in Leg 3 which is a non
> complementary postulate to Leg 1 To Sex proves this is a cross package and
> not usable is sufficient.
> >>
> >> Sincerely
> >> Pete ?
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/20130209/c6b55400/attachment-0001.html
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 22:49:17 -0800
> > From: Paul Tipon <[email protected]>
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [TROM1] @ Paul T. RE Postulate Failure Chart @ Colleen
> > Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
> >
> > On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:00 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> Subject: [TROM1] @ Paul T. RE Postulate Failure Chart
> >>
> >> You say:
> >> "....That is probably true in general for me too. Simple
> >> TimeBreaking is quite sufficient. (Dennis' greatest contribution)
> >> I don't see that it is necessary to go thru a complete Postulate
> >> Failure Chart. I think one gets a little smarter as well as one
> >> does not typically install
> >> all 8 possible complementary postulates packages automatically and
> >> unconsciously if one is no longer into playing games or stuck in
> >> games conditions."
> >>
> >> I find your statement provocative re the Postulate Failure Chart,
> >> and am not sure how to take that. Myself, I see Dennis' greatest
> >> contribution IS the PFC.
> >>
> >> Colleen
> >
> > I look at it this way. TimeBreaking is the process and the PFC is
> > the road map. The PFC was derived from straight forward logic, a
> > mathematical recipe which has existed for ages.
> >
> > TimeBreaking was a new concept for a clearing process that was
> > created out of the blue by Dennis. The minute one realizes that they
> > are forming a games condition, TimeBreak it don't let it hang and
> > then when you fail at letting it hang go on to make another postulate
> > leg and another and another until you then have a complete PFC.
> > Catch it at the beginning before it goes too far or to a complete PFC.
> >
> > As time passes one will certainly run into new complete packages and
> > even incomplete ones that they still have as I wouldn't think that
> > one could possibly catch all the full or partial packages that one
> > has ever made since the beginning of time. And when you have pulled
> > all the charge available on Level 5, that does not mean that you have
> > pulled every package. All that can be said is that you have
> > TimeBroken all of the easily available packages. It does not mean
> > that every single one of them has been located and TimeBroken. I am
> > also sure that there are a multitude more non-life packages than
> > there are pro life packages. What needs to happen is that once the
> > major PFC items get eliminated to see that one does not still make
> > new PFC packages in the future. The question is ... how many times
> > have you efforted to be right or efforted to make another wrong or in
> > fact did both dramatically and with a lot of effort/energy and
> > conviction. How many people go around doing this daily with every
> > person they encounter and not know that they are doing this. Maybe
> > you are doing many of these just mentally too.
> >
> > A major part of Level 5 is not to just pull all of the old PFC's that
> > are being held together with charge but to not make any new ones.
> > Don't get into games conditions and after a while don't even get into
> > games without wholly realizing what you are doing and then deciding
> > to do it just for the fun or the hell of it and casting that PFC or
> > partial PFC off the road and into the ditch when you are done
> > deciding to play that particular game any longer.
> >
> > Then there is the mind which we have all set up and continue to set
> > up moment by moment as each of us makes the simple postulate ... next
> > time and from now on I will always ........ or never ......... most
> > of the time will now ___ when ....... (the old bonding scenario that
> > Dennis brings up)
> >
> > This is why I sign off, Level 5 in progress. I have gotten off the
> > easily available packages but certainly not every single one that
> > exists for me. I can't see that I have TimeBroken every single PFC
> > that I have ever created across a time span of 76 Trillion years.
> > I'm sure that there are many many more that are subliminal and have
> > very little charge after I put them together and they have remained
> > that way if they never became of major concern or importance. This
> > is also why I went to Be, Do, Have to scrape as much off as I could,
> > Lotta charge or just small charge to very little charge or maybe no
> > charge at all but there is still a PFC there.
> >
> > The Major Ultimate Viewpoint to have:
> >
> > At some point in time, the object is to start living again without
> > unwittingly getting into games and game conditions. That is the real
> > goal. The real goal was and is not to just rid one's self of charge
> > but to live life effectively with pro-life goals and not be the
> > adverse effect of or of having to be the effect of non-life goals.
> >
> > The goal is to live life as an OT and not attain OT status. That is
> > unbelievably hollow and unfulfilling.
> >
> > Paul, Level 5 in progress
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Trom mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
> >
> > End of Trom Digest, Vol 103, Issue 18
> > *************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Trom mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
>
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
