*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Hi All,
Yes, the basic is 'Creating' and 'Knowing'. I said it in a post
yesterday that basically you can lead a horse to water but you can't
make it drink. Every individual, every entity has its own ability of
choice and self determinism. Any action taken after 'Create' and
'Know' is a games condition for any action after those two is an
effort to cause another entity 'To Know'. Obviously then there is
the idea that one has power and control over another or others, more
games again. The only unhindered ability one has is to create, to
present to one's self, another or others. After that it's all a
factor of each and every individual as to what they know and don't
know, what they agree with and disagree with.
Level 5, the Postulate Failure Chart, the running out of the idea
that one can win over another is what gets run out on Level 5.
Obviously this mis-guided idea becomes an ill concluded fact in the
first leg of a game when someone considers that they have achieved
getting another or others 'To Know'. This is not really what has
happened so then one has placed themselves on the Postulate Failure
Chart with a mis-conception and all that can then occur is for one to
experience failure after failure interspersed with wins all the way
down to the bottom of the Chart.
This is the trap of 'Games' and why it is always a trap. One cannot
win absolutely every game so it is inevitable that one traverses the
Chart all the way down to the bottom interspersed with all those ill
conceived instances where one believes they have caused another 'To
Know'. No one causes another to 'Know' or for that matter, to do
anything. Knowing is solely a self determined action and ability and
it never occurs from another's postulate, another's know, another's
to know or another's to be known. The given fact that there are
agreements and disagreements between any and all entities is another
way to look at this. How else would one ever have a failed postulate
unless they went with the idea 'To Know or 'To Not Know' and decided
to apply that to another or others rather than to just themselves.
This is why I mentioned in my post yesterday that placing 'To' in
front of a postulate covertly has the idea that one can cause 'Know'
or 'Knowing'. This just is not true. One simply for himself, knows
and this knowing does not depend on anyone else but one's self. Or
of course, one can decide to 'Not Know' which is a very high self
determined action of getting one's self into a game. The silly part
here is one has to know before he can decide on what not to know.
Looks like one is in a game with themselves here all the way up and
down the Postulate Failure Chart.
And that's the really funny thing about Level 5. Somewhere along the
line at the conclusion one will realize that the biggest game they
are playing, the game that is totally hidden from them is the game
they are playing with themselves.
Really! Run Level 5 and see 'Know' and 'Not Know' all you want, in
all the different manners you want and when you finally come out of
it, see that it was all based on ideas and compulsions which were
never true and never ever happened. You just placed them there to
have a game.
Paul, keep on TROMming
On Aug 14, 2014, at 1:33 AM, Jesus Garcia wrote:
Hello Peter.
I am answering your call to give feedback on the clearing up of the
concept "To Be Known".
I believe It is of the utmost importance to understand the goal
package "To know"; it is not coincidence that it is the core of
TROM. This understanding is also the end result of the practice of
TROM. I also found it difficult to understand; steep gradient indeed.
I will try to explain why I think your addition to the book is
unnecessary and also resolve the misunderstanding, at least to the
point that I found allowed me to work with TROM and get results. I
will try to do this within the confines of the TROM manual. If this
is of any use to you or any other TROM colleague, I will be quite
content.
You have written the following heading: What is "Must be known?"
and then go and define the "to be known " postulate. I have not
been able to find the "to be known" postulate in the manual, so at
this moment I am not going to work with this specific set of words,
as I would like to keep to the manual as strictly as I can.
From the first addendum of the manual:
- "BE KNOWN
This is the creative postulate; the postulate that brings the
effect into existence. His PD postulate that goes with it at the
other end of the communication line is ‘know’. This twin postulate
structure is still present even if the effect is only being created
for the benefit of the creator; in this case he merely responds to
his own PD postulate and knows his own creation."
From the section "Theory":
- "Life is a spiritual quality. It has four basic abilities:
1. It can bring things into existence."
- "1. The purpose of bringing an effect into existence is to make
it known."
" The four basic actions of life each have a twin postulate structure:
1. The postulate bringing the effect into existence, and the
postulate that it shall be known.
3. The postulate to know the effect and the postulate that it shall
be made known."
From the second addendum:
- "Purpose, Intention, Goal and Postulate can be regarded as
synonyms. A game is a contest in conviction."
Ok then!
What I understand here is that "BE KNOWN" is the creative
postulate, the postulate that brings the effect into existence,
same as "TO MAKE IT KNOWN". I have used "TO CREATE" in level 4 and
run very well with it.
I believe "BE KNOWN" here has a specialized definition whereas
"shall be known" in the twin postulate structure above is the
Passive Form of the Simple Future of the verb to know.
I would like to keep it simple so I will not engage in further
explanations. See if it makes sense.
From the section "THEORY":
- " All games contain conviction. Conviction, by definition, is an
enforcement of knowingness. Enforcement of knowingness is called
importance. Importance is the basis of all significance.
Essentially, importance is a "must".
In games of play our four basic abilities become:
SD: Must be known PD: Must Know"
So we have games, we have conviction, enforcement, importance and
MUST. Then "Must be known" is here as the specialized definition,
meaning "must make known" and "must bring into existence". It fits
all right, as the twin-complementary postulate is "Must know".
Again, see if it makes sense; this is just a theory.
This is all I have to say at this point of the definition of "must
be known".
I would like now to get into the "To know" package.
From first addendum:
- " KNOW
This is the postulate that permits the being to know the effect.
His matching PD postulate at the other end of the comm line is ‘Be
Known’ - so the effect is there for him to know.
Cause is the action of bringing an effect into existence, taking an
effect out of existence, knowing, or not-knowing. That which is
brought into existence, taken out of existence, known, or not-known
is called an effect.
When two or more beings adopt complementary postulates regarding a
creation they share that creation, which is now a co-creation. They
are said to be in agreement regarding that creation. Thus,
agreement is a shared creation.
Beings, by means of their willingness to create complementary
postulates (affinity) and by actually creating complementary
postulates (communication), achieve co-creation (reality). Thus
understanding is achieved between beings."
Here again, in the first paragraph, ´be known´ is a specialized
definition. "KNOW" is the perception of the effect made known at
the other end of the comm line. It is the duplication, the
acknowledgment of having seen the creation (effect).
See above " The four basic actions of life each have a twin
postulate structure:"
Of the four it is only the first and the third ones which bring
into existence communication. In the first the action of bringing
an effect into existence (with its postulate) and the action of
knowing the effect (with its postulate), both of them self-
determined, are absolutely necessary to have communication,
therefore reality; in other words, co-creation.
In the third we take the point of view of the PD postulate(although
the actions are the same) and if we take notice of the tense of the
verbs we could understand that first there is the postulate "to
know" and then the postulate that it shall be "made known".
May be we believe creation is the first action, prior to anything
and of course, prior to the perception of that being created. But
what if "TO KNOW" were the postulate of creation?
There is an intriguing sentence in the second addendum:
"The main list of life goals, headed by ‘To Know’ and continuing
with ‘To Create’ etc., form a scale of increasing condensation, or
solidity."
It may very well be that our confusion with the "TO KNOW" package
means we still have some more work ahead of us.
In the second addendum Dennis says:
" Knowing
If one were to inquire into the nature of the quality or ability
that is closest to life itself one would eventually arrive at the
subject of knowing. Life can know. All else is the subject of
methods or systems of knowing.
The basic law, or agreement, of this universe is that one will only
know that which is brought into existence to be known. Thus, this
universe sets a limitation upon knowing as only being possible for
the class of things which are brought into existence to be known.
This law is peculiar to this universe. A being can only operate,
i.e. play games within this universe while in agreement with this
law. Once he starts to know outside of this law he is operating
outside the universe.
The action of bringing something into existence so that it can be
known is called creation. Thus, in this universe knowing is limited
to those things which have been created in the universe.
It should never be considered that knowing is by nature limited to
those things which are created to be known. Life can know; it can
know anything, whether it has been brought into existence to be
known or not. In order to operate in this universe life considers,
or agrees, that it will not-know until something is brought into
existence to be known.
This limitation upon knowing is the basic law, and the only basic
law, that governs this universe. Other universes can be constructed
upon other basic laws, but they would all be some type of
limitation of knowing, for while knowing is unlimited any type of
universe or game is impossible. Bear the basic law of this universe
in mind as you do the Practical Exercises, for all the games you
have ever become trapped in in this universe have been based upon
the basic law of the universe. "
It seems to say that "TO KNOW" is senior and more basic than "TO
BRING INTO EXISTENCE".
Definitely all seems to come down to knowing and creating.
Have a nice day
Jesus Garcia
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
