*************
The following message is relayed to you by  [email protected]
************
Correction: "know" in the last sentence should be "now".


On 16 August 2014 12:42, Jesus Garcia <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Pete.
> Understood. Words are symbols that represent something and they are not
> the thing itself. Still we need to agree on the meaning of those symbols if
> we are to understand each other.
>
> To answer your question first, yes, it makes it clearer why you want to
> change the label of the package and no, I do not agree that the change
> would be helpful.
>
> I understand that your decision stems from the cognition you had doing
> level 5. Nothing to say about your cognition.
> It is the conclusion that that cognition applies to everyone what makes me
> a bit uneasy. Dennis has done a great deal of work to get to the point of
> producing TROM and any correction should be done in a separate work. I
> have no way of knowing if your corrections are correct other than
> evaluating them using the knowledge and experience I have so I prefer to
> listen to both and make up my own mind.
> In this case, if I am not mistaken in some way -which has been known to
> happen- I see that you take the goal "to be known" stemming from the
> cognition "I create effects so others will notice I am here" and propose to
> substitute the following, from the THEORY section:
> "1. The purpose of bringing an effect into existence is to make it known"
> I personally can think readily of a few purposes for "bringing an effect
> into existence", one of them being "to be known". They are not more or less
> important saving for the fact that each one of us attached importance to
> that goal at some point; and this is what makes them important to us,
> individually.
> However, "to make it known", at this point and from my state of awareness,
> seems to be the more basic one; so I do not see a reason to change that. It
> is workable and it makes sense.
> I hope I did not invalidate any cognition while expressing my thoughts as
> it was not my intention.
>
> On a related subject, "to bring into existence", "to make known", "to
> create" all seem to be complimentary goals to "to know", "to see", "to
> perceive". They make a pair that I see as inseparable, that is, one cannot
> exist without the other.
> Together with the negatives "make not known" and "not know" I see games.
> I see that when we introduce force, must, importance, win-lose, conviction
> etc., it means introducing charge, energy.
> I believe I am not saying anything new when I say that once the emotional
> charge is off the goal, everything looks much better. When the being has
> the choice to play or not any game, the problems disappear. It does not
> matter how degrading the game seems, as long as you play it WILLINGLY and
> CONSCIOUSLY, that is FREELY; and for me, know, this means free of emotional
> charge, of energy blockage and opposing goals.
>
> Have a nice day
>
> Jesus
>
>
>
>
> On 15 August 2014 15:31, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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: Feedback on "Mus be Known" (Pete Mclaughlin)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 06:34:43 -0700
>> From: Pete Mclaughlin <[email protected]>
>> To: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: [TROM1] Feedback on "Mus be Known"
>> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Hi Jesus
>> The words used to describe the postulates are not the postulates. The
>> words are only labels that we use so we can communicate about the
>> postulates.
>>
>> In reading over your statements I see that you are saying the to be known
>> and to know postulates are all about creating stuff as in inanimate objects.
>> You end with a confusion on whether to know is actually the creative
>> postulate.
>>
>>
>> Dennis did spend a lot of time talking about creating effects in the TROM
>> manual and this is misleading.
>>
>> The cognition I had that started my effort to change the label for the
>> basic goals package to "to be known" was that creating effects is only
>> being done so that I can get others to know that I am here.
>>
>> This is the most important thing to learn from the level 5 of TROM. I
>> CREATE EFFECTS SO OTHERS WILL NOTICE I AM HERE.
>>
>> I want to be known and I want others to know me.
>>
>> Creating stuff doesn't matter except as it serves this purpose.
>>
>>
>> So "to be known" means I want to be known by others. This is the most
>> important goal and why it is the purpose behind all the other goals a
>> person has.
>>
>>
>> Does this make it clear why I want to change the label for the basic
>> goals package to "to be known" and do you now agree the change would be
>> helpful?
>>
>> Sincerely
>> Pete
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> > On Aug 14, 2014, at 1:33 AM, Jesus Garcia <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > *************
>> > The following message is relayed to you by  [email protected]
>> > ************
>> > 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
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.newciv.org/pipermail/trom/attachments/20140815/fb05efa8/attachment.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Trom mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
>>
>>
>> End of Trom Digest, Vol 121, Issue 20
>> *************************************
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom

Reply via email to