*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Sent Saturday, November 28, 2015 by
[email protected] (Antony Phillips)
Note that this
is a resend of a message sent some years ago, and some data (like
addresses) is liable to be inaccurate.
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
***********
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Previously sent Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:35:04 +0200
Subject:
TROM: Replay B18
Date:
Fri, 17 Apr 1998 21:01:13 +0200
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
Organization:
International Viewpoints
To:
[email protected]
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TROM-L Ä
Msg : 173 of
289
Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
From : "Dustin W.
Carr"
236/174.10 Wed 12 Jul 95
21:23
To : trom-l
<[email protected]>
Thu 13 Jul 95
06:44
Subj : The Basis of Life
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
Apparently-to: [email protected]
From: "Dustin W. Carr"
<[email protected]>
Subject: The Basis of Life
I had a few ideas I thought I would share. This is just stuff I have
learned since starting level 5. I am now finally on the last leg of my
first time through the chart.
Those of us in math and science like to create a minimal set of objects
which can be combined to describe all objects of a given type. An
example would be using three simple unit vectors in space to label the
position every other point in space as a linear combination of these
vectors.
So far I have found that the 16 situations on the postulate chart can
serve as a basis for life in this universe. I say this because I believe
these situations satisfy the two conditions for a basis:
a) every life situation can be considered as some combination of these
basis situations (completeness)
b) If a life situation can be completely described by any given step on
the postulate failure chart, then it can in no way be described by any
combination of any other steps on the chart. (orthogonality)
Stephens does try to communicate this with his section on the logic of
trom, but it did not come across very well to me.
Some may argue about the validity of a) based on the ideas of flows, i.e.
that TROM only handles 1 or 2 of the 4 flows of scn. I would like to
dispute that.
Consider others doing to others. Well why would this cause problems in a
being's mind? One possibility would be that others are doing terrible
things to others, things that we would rather not know that others
are doing to others. So we have a not know postulate out there, but
something is making a to be known postulate, otherwise there would not
be a problem. It doesn't matter what that something is, the point is it
is *other* than that which is making a to know postulate. So we have
other(s) making a to be known postulate while the self makes a to know
postulate.
Self doing to self is similar. The point is there is one being making
the receiving postulate and an other being making the originating
postulate. It doesn't have to be an exclusive other.
On a basic level, everything is self doing to self anyway, we just choose
not to be conscious of that. (Sorry, had to throw in that. Hey, we're
headed for Nirvana right, although feel free to stop off at Dhyana on the
way. :-) )
Others have said that TROM would need to be run on each dynamic. I would
say that the 16 basis situations when considered for a single dynamic
would then constitute a sub-basis. Nothing wrong with that, except that
the part of life described by this sub-basis would merely be a subset of
all life, which can be described with the original basis, thus making the
use of dynamics redundant. Of course it may simplify the TROM process for
some to break it up into pieces like this.
As an afterthought, I would say that the actual basis of life would not
include the musts and mustn'ts, but would just consist of the plain old
postulates.
Beware of any that try to make the mind more complicated. It's a simple
toy with many uses. I have grown tired of it, myself, although I try not
to show disdain for those that like to keep it around.
Happy TROMming,
Dustin
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TROM-L Ä
Msg : 179 of
289
Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
From : Andreas
Mittermayr
236/174.10 Tue 18 Jul 95
15:41
To :
[email protected]
Tue 18 Jul 95
21:47
Subj : Completions of Level 2
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
Apparently-to: [email protected]
From: Andreas Mittermayr <[email protected]>
Subject: Completions of Level 2
Hello Bill,
on Sun, 25 Jun 1995 you wrote:
>
> I just completed Level 2. It took me 14 hours of actual Level
2 work,
> with almost as much RI (10.5 hours).
>
> I find it very interesting that the TROM materials are virtually
self-
> regulating. At one point some time ago I thought that Level 2
was
> complete, so I went into Level 3. I found it very difficult,
though, and
> dropped back to Level 2. Now, however, Level 3 is quite
natural. In
> fact, I began doing Level 3 almost automatically near the end
of
> Level 2.
>
> Timebreaking is really an incredible ability! It's fascinating
to see a
> past incident hanging there in PT in front of you Quite
extraordinary,
> unlike anything I've experienced before.
>
> Bill
Could you please explain how it was, when you finished Level 2 ? I am
doing
Level 2 for several hours now (25-30). It works for me to timebreak
objects
and Persons from the scene, doing RI is ok too. And I also get the
feeling
that comparing gets nearly automatic, what shows that I am probably
moving
to Level 3. But I have not the feeling that Level 2 is finished. I
thing
I could do it hundred of hours. I don't feel/see any case gain. I am
feeling good and happy after a session, but I can not say that I have
the
feeling that there 'has gone something away' after any session. I often
have
read articles on this list like: (any level) "I have blown away this
and
this via timebreaking in Level ...". I never had such an
experience.
Could you or anyone explain about there experience when moving from
Level to Level ?
Greetings,
Andreas!
*****************************************************************************
* Andreas Mittermayr, email-address:
[email protected] *
*****************************************************************************
--- 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
Publisher, International Viewpoints (= IVy). See Home Page:
http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/
Administrator: trom-l, selfclearing-l, superscio-l, IVy
lists
--
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,
previous-life-scio and IVy lists
***************
Replies, comments, to the list, send to [email protected]
***************
--
Antony A Phillips [email protected]
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
