************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Before any rewriting of TROM, make sure to have a clear and working understanding of what clear and plain language means, as I posted today.
And use the principles of clear and plain language writing, in any and all rewrites of TROM. Thanks, David On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Pete Mclaughlin < [email protected]> wrote: > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] > ************ > > > Read the TROM books many times through. > > Coleen and I are working to produce the "clear written" copies of the > supplemental lectures. The process requires that I read the texts through > multiple times to find poorly worded sentences, misspelled words, incorrect > punctuation ect. Each time through my understanding of the nuances of TROM > get better. > For instance in the Lecture Dissociation of Jan 1993 Dennis says: > > "Now the thing is that when you audit the negatives you get a person who's > into "not know" or dramatizing "not know" or dramatizing "to not be known" > and you audit them, you take the person who's into "not know" when you > audit him he comes up scale and he starts to go over more and more to the > "to be known" postulate. > In other words the cycle of the person in the "to be known" postulate is > that his opterm, his opposition terminal is "to not know". That's the enemy > is "to not know" and he takes on the characteristics of it. > Now the further he goes down scale the more he goes into the valence of > "to not know" so as you audit him and he's into "not know" as you audit him > and bring him upscale eventually you'll bring him back up to the "to be > known" postulate so actually the person who's stuck in "to not know" when > you audit him he comes up scale and you find he's a "to be knowner" that's > where he really belongs, up there." > > When I first read this I felt it must be wrong. The must not know should > with auditing move up to leg 3 must know. It was only after reading it > about 10 times that it hit me that he was talking about the exclusion > postulate. > This is the exclusion postulate tech. As "must be known" becomes more > compulsively dramatizing "must be known" he also dramatizes "must not > know". You can't tell an angry man anything. see the book 03 Expanding on > Level 5, Section: The Exclusion Postulate, How Games Become Compulsive. > As the "must be known" is audited he stops dramatizing the "must not know" > exclusion postulate and goes back to operating on his "must be known" > postulate." > > Colleen and I are going through the SupplementalLectures books again to > point out these areas of confusion by putting notes from the editor in the > text amount other things. As soon as we both agree they are ready I will > put them up at tromhelp.com for everyone to download. > > Keep rereading the materials. It helps. > > Pete > > > > _______________________________________________ > Trom mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom >
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
