************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
ОК. Leave and forget this examle of ordinary algebra.
But If you change x to y, you will get always one:
XY + X(1-Y) + Y(1-X) + (1-X)(1-Y) =1 and YX + Y(1-X) + (1-Y)(1-X) = 1
Yes. It is a Boolean algebra, Just ordinary algebra proves that:
The changing the order of items does not change the sum
x=3, y=2 then 3*2 + 3(1-2) + 2(1-3) + (1-3)(1-2) = 1
and
X=2 y=3 then 2*3 + 2(1-3) + 3(1-2) +( 1-2) (1-3) = 1
Funny, isn't it?
It's not so seriously. Let's leave it to mathematicians.
16.08.2014, 20:26, "[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: Trom Digest, Vol 121, Issue 22 (Pete Mclaughlin)
2. Re: Trom Digest, Vol 121, Issue 20 (Pete Mclaughlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 08:42:21 -0700
From: Pete Mclaughlin <[email protected]>
To: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [TROM1] Trom Digest, Vol 121, Issue 22
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi Svoboda
Unfortunately no.
This is Boolean algebra which is used to make logical analysis. The only numerical values allowed are zero and one.
X can be any pustulate or thing. Y can be any postulate or thing. When these postulates or things are used the equation equals 1 which is everything in the universe.
Sincerely
Pete
Sent from my iPadOn Aug 15, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Svoboda Vladimir <[email protected]> wrote:
*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
OK, Pete. I'll add the algebra theme.The changing the order of items does not change the sum, if we say about logical note :
XY + X(1-Y) + Y(1-X) + (1-X)(1-Y) =1
If you change x to y, you will get one.
In ordinary algebra if we take x=3, and y=2, any numbers, or take x=2 and y=3, and deliver in equation, then we get the unit.
Universe is always unity.
Is it OK?
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 09:25:51 -0700
From: Pete Mclaughlin <[email protected]>
To: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [TROM1] Trom Digest, Vol 121, Issue 20
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Jesus
Thanks for your reply. You are right that I am making these changes because of my cognition that everything I do, all the junior goals I pursue are only being done so I can be known by others or to know what I have created. The most important of these two is to be known by others.
Dennis makes this point also where he says that we will keep running the junior goals until we realize they are just efforts to be known at which point the charge will move to the basic goals package.
By changing the name of the basic goals package to "to be known" I am nudging the student toward an earlier recognition of this realization. TROM becomes very easy to understand once you realize that everything you do is an effort to "be known".
However I am up against the bank. People are emotionally invested in believing their game is what is important and has nothing to do with being known.
As Paul pointed out recently "you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink"
There have been some complaints in the past that TROM is to hard to understand as written but if the real problem is hat students are not willing to change their minds until they expend a great deal of effort studying the material then my changes to the manual will not improve the situation.
I am bringing up these points for discussion to test this theory. So far it looks like I should make no changes as change upsets people who won't change their minds till their good and ready to do so anyway.
Sincerely
Pete
Sent from my iPadOn Aug 16, 2014, at 3:47 AM, Jesus Garcia <[email protected]> wrote:
*************
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
JesusOn 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 iPadOn Aug 14, 2014, at 1:33 AM, Jesus Garcia <[email protected]> wrote:-------------- next part --------------
*************
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
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-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.newciv.org/pipermail/trom/attachments/20140816/d847ac91/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
End of Trom Digest, Vol 121, Issue 26
*************************************
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
