************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: Leo Faulhaber <[email protected]> > Date: August 11, 2014 at 5:52:12 AM PDT > To: Pete Mclaughlin <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Major Error in TROM Manual > > Dear Pete > > Sorry for my belated answer. > > I can see your point. > > I read across your new edition. > > What I don't like at all are the Scn definitions. For example the ones for > the E-Meter are simply wrong. Dennis explains in great detail what the > E-Meter is all about. It registers the presence (or absence) of postulates. > I'm afraid you have to make up your own definition. With Dennis' help you > simply know it better than the Scnsts. > > Here's a suggestion from me: > > E-Meter: An electronic device that registers the presence or absence of a > persons' postulates. > > Best wishes > > Leo Faulhaber > > PS: Decide for yourself wheter you want to publish this mail or not. > > 2014-08-06 16:41 GMT+02:00 Pete Mclaughlin <[email protected]>: >> Hi Leo >> I put the email up on the list so everyone can benefit from the discussion. >> >> In the supplemental lectures Dennis makes the point repeatedly that the >> basic goals package is the to be known package. All the other junior goals >> are means of effecting the postulate to be known. >> >> To be known is the first postulate a being does in order to come out of non >> existence in a new area. To be known is the creative impulse and until it is >> done there is nothing to know. >> >> So it is important to make it clear to the student of TROM that the goals >> package is first to be known then to not be known, to know and finally to >> not know. >> >> Dennis' mislabeling of the goals package by calling it the to know goals >> package made my learning curve longer. >> >> So I made the changes in the books to always refer to the basic package as >> the to be known goals package. >> >> I suspect that you are right in that Dennis and Greg were so familiar with >> the subject that they automatically knew that to know was referring to the >> to be known goals package but a student will not be able to make this >> transposition. I could not and it made it hard for me to figure out what >> TROM was about. Since there have many complaints over the years about TROM >> being difficult to learn I suspect others have had this problem also. >> >> So I have made the changes and put these second edition TROM books up at >> www.tromhelp.com/books. I hope everyone will download a copy, read them and >> let me know if this helps. >> >> Keep on TROMing >> Pete >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> > On Aug 6, 2014, at 5:58 AM, Leo Faulhaber <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Dear Pete >> > >> > Thanks for your response. >> > >> > I am a little confused on why my mail to you appeared on the public list. >> > I deliberately used your personal emal account. I wanted it to be between >> > you and me. Anyway. >> > >> > Here are my answers interspersed: >> > >> > >Hi Leo >> > >Thank you for the offer. >> > >> > Your're welcome. >> > >> > >The section of the logical note I gave as an example is technically >> > >correct as published in the original TROM book because Dennis and Greg >> > >define X as to know >and Y as to be known. >> > >> > I'm happy that you can see that. When I wrote my mail I thought that it >> > would be that one that you think is incorrect. >> > >> > >The problem is that through out the book the postulate failure cycles for >> > >the junior goals packages are named after the leg 1 postulate: >> > >To create, to love, to have etc. but the "to be known" postulate failure >> > >cycles is named after the leg 3 postulate, to know. >> > >> > Per my understanding the package is always named with the verb. I cannot >> > see exactly what you mean. There's no special "To be known" failure cycle. >> > The failure cycle changes between "to know" and "to be known". >> > >> > >For me as a student trying to learn TROM the lack of a definition of "to >> > >be known" and this repeated referral to a "to know" postulate failure >> > >cycle created a >confusion. I asked myself, Where did "to be known" go? >> > >Is "to know" and "to be known" the same thing? >> > >> > I cannot quite follow. >> > >> > >Once I defined "to be known" and read back through the TROM book these >> > >misuses of "to know" in place of "to be known" stuck out like a sore >> > >thumb. >> > Might be true for you. >> > >> > >In the logical note section X should be defined as the leg one postulate >> > >so that any leg one postulate can be plugged into X. This is necessary to >> > >make the >frequent use of Boolean algebra consistent. >> > I guess it's a problem of inflow and outflow. Some verbs in their basic >> > form are inflowing verbs, like "to know", and some are outflowing verbs >> > like "to control". >> > >> > >X must always be: >> > >To be known, To Create. To Love. To Admire. To Enhance. To Help. To Feel. >> > >To Control. To Own. To Have. To Eat, or To Sex. >> > I can see that. However I think that it must have been clear to Dennis and >> > Greg and that it just doesn't matter. >> > >> > >Y must always be >> > >To know, To be Created. To be Loved. To be Admired. To be Enhanced. To be >> > >Helped. To be Felt. To be Controlled. To be Owned. To be Had. To be >> > >Eaten, or >To be Sexed. >> > >> > I> have made these changes in the manual that I am proof reading now and >> > it is much more understandable than the previous version. >> > >> > >Does this make sense to you? >> > >> > To some extent, yes. Although I am not sure if you increase or decrease >> > confusion with that change. >> > >> > It's a pitty that Dennis isn't around anymore and we cannot ask him (about >> > so many things). >> > >> > Best wishes >> > Leo >> > >> > > >
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
