*************
The following message is relayed to you by  [email protected]
************
HI Ant
Thanks for posting these reruns.  I really like Homer Smith's point:

> Havingness is the need to have terminals and things to play for and on.
> >
> >When a game is done the player keeps around tokens. These are hopes the
> >game will start again. When that hope is dead the token, the terminal,
> >is hidden. And it becomes an automacity - a game going on below the
> >level of knowingness. Truthfully, one never stops playing a game once
> >started. He plays old games in secret - even from himself - while
> >playing or not playing new ones. The only _real_ game one can have is
> >in present time. All others are in the past or in the future. Anxiety
> >for a game takes one into the past.

Sincerely
Pete Mclaughlin


Sent from my iPad

> On Sep 25, 2015, at 9:32 PM, The Resolution of Mind list 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> *************
> The following message is relayed to you by  [email protected]
> ************
> From: Ant Phillips <[email protected]>
> 
> Subject: 
>              TROM: Replay B9
>         Date: 
>              Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:28:56 +0100
>        From: 
>              Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
> Organization: 
>              International Viewpoints
>           To: 
>              [email protected]
> 
> 
> Ä TROM (2:235/159.10) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> TROM-L Ä
>  Msg : 69 of 289                          Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
>    
>  From : Dimitry Ivakhnenko                 236/174.10     Sun 02 Apr 95
> 12:27 
>  To  : [email protected]                                  Sun 02 Apr 95
> 21:36 
>  Subj : RI
>    
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> ÄÄÄÄ
> Apparently-to: [email protected]
> From: Dimitry Ivakhnenko <[email protected]>
> Subject: RI
> 
> Hello everyone,
> Hi Flemming,
> 
> >>Meanwhile I am learning to apply TROM. I would like to propose a process
> >>similar to Timebreaking. It seems more natural to look at the terminal
> >>and co-locate it with the similar terminal that pops up. I think that
> >>the less significant the process is the better. Imagined objects embrace
> >>past, present, future and even more. So maybe this process and
> >>co-locating imagined terminals can have its place. I even thought about
> >>running imaginary engrams. I remember Hubbard's "lie factories" but it
> >>seems to me a much better processing. It's more creative, less
> >>significant, and of course is much more pleasant. However I still have
> >>doubts about it. Maybe more serious people are right about "confronting,
> >>confronting, confronting, your own, your own past".  ?    ?       ?
> >
> >Nah, it is actually better to take it lightly. Not much to gain from
> >agreeing solidly that the past is serious and has to be confronted. Better
> >to work from cause in a playful way. Running imagined incidents is just as
> >useful as "real" incidents. Because, actually they aren't just imagined.
> >What one imagines is usually what needs to be run anyway.
> 
> Yes, timebreaking with the imagined objects and scenes turns out to be
> all right. It is not limited to the past.
> 
> I said to my friend Igor, "I have a lack of communication",
> and he answered, "So repair it".
> 
> So there came up again the old replenishing of communication (L. Ron
> Hubbard, "Dianetics 55!", chapter 13). Why Stephens uses two flows of
> RI? I think it is a two-way communication. I noticed that for me
> communication is far more important than any dead masses. I came to the
> old idea of Hubbard that the essential repair is the repair of
> communication. I think that the goal of the game is communication, that
> masses are importantant because they are condensed communications, and
> so the repair of communication can be more simple and straightforward
> process than the repair of importance. What do you think about that?
> --
>                 Dimitry Ivakhnenko
>           Phone:+7 (044) 224 7323
>      E-mail: [email protected]
> PO Box 298-9 Kiev 252034 Ukraine
> 
> 
> 
> --- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
> 
> Ä TROM (2:235/159.10) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> TROM-L Ä
>  Msg : 71 of 289                          Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
>    
>  From : Flemming Funch                     236/174.10     Sun 02 Apr 95
> 07:04 
>  To  : [email protected]                                  Mon 03 Apr 95
> 06:14 
>  Subj : Re: RI
>    
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> ÄÄÄÄ
> Apparently-to: [email protected]
> From: [email protected] (Flemming Funch)
> Subject: Re: RI
> 
> At 1:27 PM 4/2/95 +0300, Dimitry Ivakhnenko wrote:
> >I said to my friend Igor, "I have a lack of communication",
> >and he answered, "So repair it".
> >
> >So there came up again the old replenishing of communication (L. Ron
> >Hubbard, "Dianetics 55!", chapter 13). Why Stephens uses two flows of
> >RI? I think it is a two-way communication. I noticed that for me
> >communication is far more important than any dead masses. I came to the
> >old idea of Hubbard that the essential repair is the repair of
> >communication. I think that the goal of the game is communication, that
> >masses are importantant because they are condensed communications, and
> >so the repair of communication can be more simple and straightforward
> >process than the repair of importance. What do you think about that?
> 
> Sure. Everything is communication, and masses are really just accumulated,
> undelivered communications.
> 
> But good communication is also intimately intervowed with the ability to
> notice or create importances. One need to be clear on what to communicate
> and what is communicated, to avoid that unfinished cycles stack up.
> 
> - Flemming
> 
> 
>    o                                                        o
>   / \------------------ Flemming A. Funch ------------------/ \
>   / * \ World Transformation/New Civilization/Whole Systems / * \
>  / * * \                [email protected]                / * * \
> o-------o ------ http://www.protree.com/worldtrans/--------o-------o
> 
> 
> 
> --- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
> 
> Ä TROM (2:235/159.10) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> TROM-L Ä
>  Msg : 73 of 289                          Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
>    
>  From : Dimitry Ivakhnenko                 236/174.10     Mon 03 Apr 95
> 11:07 
>  To  : [email protected]                                  Wed 05 Apr 95
> 07:51 
>  Subj : Re: RI
>    
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> ÄÄÄÄ
> Apparently-to: [email protected]
> From: Dimitry Ivakhnenko <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: RI
> 
> Flemming Funch wrote:
> 
> >Sure. Everything is communication, and masses are really just accummulated,
> >undelivered communications.
> >
> >But good communication is also intimately intervowed with the ability to
> >notice or create importances. One need to be clear on what to communicate
> >and what is communicated, to avoid that unfinished cycles stack up.
> 
> Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
> 
> >    Masses are the end point TERMINALS of a two way communication line,
> >they are the reason FOR communication, and the significance behind most
> >two way communications.
> 
> L. Ron Hubbard (Dianetics 55!, Copyright (C) 1954) wrote:
> 
> >The preclear must be kept at his job. His mocking up of communications
> >must be kept in a simplicity and out of deep significances, and if his
> >attention seems to fixate upon flows and he begins to "wrestle with
> >mass", the auditor should get him back into mocking up communications
> >as fast as possible.
> >
> >What degree of originality is required of the preclear mocking uo any
> >of those originated communications, answers or acknowledgments? The
> >answer to this is "none." No variety is necessary whatsoever. Simply
> >the idea of communication, with some sort of a specific idea being
> >communicated, is all that is necessary.
> 
> >It has not been found necessary to remedy havingness on the preclear if
> >one is actually remedying the scarcity of communication.
> 
> >Havingness is the need to have terminals and things to play for and on.
> >
> >When a game is done the player keeps around tokens. These are hopes the
> >game will start again. When that hope is dead the token, the terminal,
> >is hidden. And it becomes an automacity - a game going on below the
> >level of knowingness. Truthfully, one never stops playing a game once
> >started. He plays old games in secret - even from himself - while
> >playing or not playing new ones. The only _real_ game one can have is
> >in present time. All others are in the past or in the future. Anxiety
> >for a game takes one into the past.
> >
> >The command is, "Invent a game," and when the preclear has, again,
> >"Invent a game." Then: "Mock up somebody else inventing a game."
> 
> 
> So that's how I understand it in the terms of communication and play:
> 
> Being enters the game to have communication (to play).
> He assigns the importance to all flows of communicaton.
> He assigns the importance to communication terminals.
> He uses importances as the "reasons for" communication.
> He assigns importance to the games.
> Wrong cycles of communication (game failures) stuck up as
> important masses.
> He begins to communicate (play) obsessively with the past.
> His ability for actual communication (play) lessens.
> Exercises (processes) remove old important masses -
> important communication and terminals (games).
> He lacks important communication and terminals because of his
> disability for actual communication (play).
> RI repairs this lack by creating new important masses on all flows and
> giving him the confidence that he can do it.
> 
> What I suppose is that since the consideration of importance is
> secondary to the communication and game, the essential repair is the
> repair of terminals and flows of communication, repair of the ability to
> create terminals and flows of communication (repair of games and the
> ability to create games). Importance is secondary. @:)
> --
>                 Dimitry Ivakhnenko
>           Phone:+7 (044) 224 7323
>      E-mail: [email protected]
> PO Box 298-9 Kiev 252034 Ukraine
> 
> 
> 
> --- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
> 
> Ä TROM (2:235/159.10) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> TROM-L Ä
>  Msg : 74 of 289                          Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
>    
>  From : Lenny or Jevan Gray                236/174.10     Tue 04 Apr 95
> 13:31 
>  To  : [email protected]                                  Wed 05 Apr 95
> 07:51 
>  Subj : Re: RI
>    
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> ÄÄÄÄ
> Apparently-to: [email protected]
> From: Lenny or Jevan Gray <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: RI
> 
> 
> On Mon, 3 Apr 1995, Dimitry Ivakhnenko wrote:
> >  ...
> > L. Ron Hubbard (Dianetics 55!, Copyright (C) 1954) wrote:
> > >  ...
> > >When a game is done the player keeps around tokens.
> 
> Sometimes. Not always.
> 
> > >                                                   These are hopes the
> > >game will start again. When that hope is dead the token, the terminal,
> > >is hidden. And it becomes an automacity - a game going on below the
> > >level of knowingness. Truthfully, one never stops playing a game once
> > >started.
> 
> "Truthfully", but incorrectly.
> 
> > >         He plays old games in secret - even from himself - while
> > >playing or not playing new ones. The only _real_ game one can have is
> > >in present time.
> 
> True. However, in _real_ "present time" there _are_ no games. The game
> is _always_ about the future, and the knowledge of whether it was or wasn't
> a "game" is from the "memory" of whether one was started. Spontaneity,
> (aka: "Creativity"), the only thing to _actually_ exist in purely "present
> time", cares about _neither_ past nor future.
> 
> > >                 All others are in the past or in the future. Anxiety
> > >for a game takes one into the past.
> 
> Careful analysis of the word "anxiety" points to precisely the connection 
> of past to future _by_ "a game" as referenced in this statement. Anxiety 
> is _literally_ about the future. _Only_ the time-duration of the "game"
> could possibly "take one into the past".
> 
> >  ...
> >
> > What I suppose is that since the consideration of importance is
> > secondary to the communication and game, the essential repair is the
> > repair of terminals and flows of communication, repair of the ability to
> > create terminals and flows of communication (repair of games and the
> > ability to create games). Importance is secondary. @:)
> 
> Possibly, the most useful point is that it's _separate_.
> 
> - Lenny -
> 
> --- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
> 
> Ä TROM (2:235/159.10) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> TROM-L Ä
>  Msg : 75 of 289                          Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
>    
>  From : Flemming Funch                     236/174.10     Tue 04 Apr 95
> 19:31 
>  To  : [email protected]                                  Thu 06 Apr 95
> 05:59 
>  Subj : Re: Level 2/3
>    
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> ÄÄÄÄ
> Apparently-to: [email protected]
> From: [email protected] (Flemming Funch)
> Subject: Re: Level 2/3
> 
> At 6:36 PM 4/3/95 +0200, Andreas Mittermayr wrote:
> >could you please tell me what commands you gave yourselve on level 2/3 to get
> >objects/scenes to timebreak ?
> 
> I didn't use commands at all. Just looked at objects and scenes. For me, if
> I had to involve verbal commands in it I couldn't do it so well.
> 
> - Flemming
> 
> 
>    o                                                        o
>   / \------------------ Flemming A. Funch ------------------/ \
>   / * \ World Transformation/New Civilization/Whole Systems / * \
>  / * * \                [email protected]                / * * \
> o-------o ------ http://www.protree.com/worldtrans/--------o-------o
> 
> 
> 
> --- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
> 
> Ä TROM (2:235/159.10) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> TROM-L Ä
>  Msg : 77 of 289                          Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
>    
>  From : ASC Missions Group                 236/174.10     Thu 06 Apr 95
> 10:40 
>  To  : Dimitry Ivakhnenko <[email protected]>           Fri 07 Apr 95
> 07:38 
>  Subj : Re: Perfect Time
>    
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
> ÄÄÄÄ
> Apparently-to: [email protected]
> From: ASC Missions Group <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Perfect Time
> 
> On Thu, 6 Apr 1995, Dimitry Ivakhnenko wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I am interested in the goals time usage since I am translating TROM in
> > Russian. As I understand "To be known" and "To know" are finished goals.
> > What about "To become known" and "To learn" ? I mean, must the goals in
> > packages be finished? What is preferable?
> 
> As you know, I am not a TROMmer. But I do invest a lot into the 
> questions used in any procedure.
> 
> I find that, Yes, goals must be worded as "done deeds".
> 
> This is most easily done by phrasing them in the future perfect tense 
> after conceptualizing them under the definition:
> 
>   Goal: the event-instant that signals the end
>        of a game
>        or activity sequence.
> 
> The objective of a question is to stimulate a conceptualization. The 
> future perfect tense presents the concept as a fixed target that can be 
> visualized from its relevant time period, and thus seen clearly and 
> examined closely.
> 
> The time-variable question leaves the client sliding through a time 
> duration, which allows the concept to remain a moving target, and thus 
> more difficult to "apprehend" and scrutinize.
> 
> Remember,
> 
>    "There is beingness, but man believes there is only becomingness."
> 
> Clearing is most successful when addressed to actualities rather than 
> assumptions. So, questions should ask for beingness (stable image) 
> rather than becomingness (moving target).
> 
> Deal with time as a label upon an image (Space/location too, is another 
> label). The concept, then, is either stable by reason of a definitive 
> label, or fluid because it contains a variable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some questions and commentary:
> 
> "To be known"
> 
>   When? Varible time. Becomingness.
> 
> "To have been known"
> 
>   Better, but implies that IT happened but is now completed and terminated.
> 
> "To have become known"
> 
>   After the fact of accomplishment,
>   the done deed that continues thenceforth. Beingness.
> 
> 
> "To know"                      }
> "To have known"                 } comments same as previous set
> "To have become knowledgeable" }
> 
> 
> And so on,
> 
>   Improving this:                       To this:
> -------------------              ------------------------
>  "To become known"                "To have become known"
> 
>  "To learn"                       "To have learned"
> 
> 
> This may take a small bit of adjusting, to get the feel and see the 
> difference.
> 
> Say to yourself, "I want to know."
> 
>   Do you feel a frustration about that you don't know?
>   Doesn't the statement reaffirm that you don't know?
>   And doesn't that imply that you lack something?
> 
> Now say to yourself, "I want to have known."
> 
>   Is this different?
>   Doesn't this one "move" you into the future, the time-place relevant to 
> the objective?
>   Doen't it imply that you can and will have acheived this?
>   Doesn't it put you into the frame of mind of accomplishment?
>   Doesn't that validate your capacity to be there, to have done it?
> 
> 
> Watch out for the objection of, "Yes, but that's not my/the original 
> wording".
> 
> Most of us don't say exactly what we mean, every time. Most of the time, 
> in fact, we just loosely approximate the actual concept.
> 
> Thus it is not an invalidation to consider the clarification of the 
> target concept by contemplating a more accurate wording of what it really 
> is. 
> 
> After all, clearing is about becoming more at cause over one's mind, is 
> it not?
> 
> That is not a destination, it is a process.
> 
> And there's no time like the present.
> 
> -0-
> 
> Reference: _Future_Perfect_ -Stanley M. Davis, ISBN 0-201-51793-0
> 
> Speaker for Acceptance  <[email protected]>  Acceptance Services Center
> Acceptance is appreciation without significance.     |    (415) 964-3436
> Appreciation is willingness to experience as-is.   --8--   PO Box 390696
> Significance is interpretation, or added-on meaning. |   Mtn Vw CA 94039
> 
> 
> --- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>       Ant                               Antony A Phillips
>       [email protected]
>                                         tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69
>                                          Box 78
>                                          DK - 2800 Lyngby
> Editor, International Viewpoints (= IVy). See Home Page:
> http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/
> Administrator: trom-l, selfclearing-l, superscio-l, IVy lists     [end of 
> repeat/replay]
> --  [Present time signature:] --
> 
> Antony Phillips.
> www.antology.info
> Danish interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmXZ4X_uYRo 
> English interview Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdgqweh-4WI 
> English interview Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8sGp6AwuK4 
> English biography http://scientolipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Phillips 
> [email protected]
> (+45) 45 88 88 69 
> Admin to SelfClearing2004, SuperScio, Cosmic History    mailing lists 
> Jernbanevej 3f 4th
> DK 2800 Lyngby
> Skype (by appointment only) 
> _______________________________________________
> TROM mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom

Reply via email to