************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Sent Saturday, 30th of January 2016 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, 09 Oct 1999 07:31:15 +0200
[We still need some one to edit these replays, and form up new ones from more
recent entries] [[[ That was then. Still waiting ]]]
Subject:
TROM Replay 28
Date:
Fri, 26 Jun 1998 08:38:00 +0200
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
Organization:
International Viewpoints
To:
[email protected]
Note: these replays are _old_. We really need someone to edit them.
Something of a large job. In this case some of the data you find below
has been corrected later. In particular The track Blaster was
originated by Rowland Barkey (it talks about Filbert in the following),
who has written to TROM-l clarifying some of the data. I have briefly
dipped into the files and here is what Rowland Barkley wrote on Fri, 20
Mar 1998 22:47:52 +0100:
> I described the Track Blaster to Dennis in 1982, and printed it in 1984,
> years before Greg Pickering compiled TROM. It is really useful that he put
> out a more primitive form of it out, safer for solo work than the Track
> Blaster. Most of my processes are unsafe solo.
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ TROM-L
Ä
Msg : 269 of 289 Rcv Pvt K/s
From : JHS <[email protected]> Thu 22 Feb 96
03:36
To : [email protected] Thu 22 Feb 96
18:43
Subj : One year of TROM-L
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
. (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for [email protected]); Thu, 22 Feb 1996 04:34:36 +0100
for <[email protected]> Thu, 22 Feb 1996 04:07:36 +0100
(Note: the NETCOM.COM mailing list for TROM is somehow still active. Since
I do not have an account with netcom anymore, I do not have any influence on
its operation. If you see a reference to TROM-L being on netcom please drop
me (or whatever Webmaster) a note so that I can make the change to
NEWCIV.ORG.)
**** The letter below is for TROM mailing lists subscribers only and is not
intended to be published on newsgroups or public mailing lists! Pls
respect this decision of mine. If there is interest, I can polish the
text up and make a Web page (myself!).*****
Dear TROM mailing list participant:
as you perhaps know already my name is Joachim and I am the host of this
mailing list.
In the past, I've rarely posted on this list. For now, I want to make an
exception and explain my own intentions and viewpoints regarding TROM and
its benefits and drawbacks.
The 'history' of TROM-L
-----------------------
Sometime in early 1994, Flemming Funch ([email protected]) gave me a
transcript
of 'The Resolution of Mind' (TROM) by Dennis Stephens. It was inputted into
a computer file by Greg Pickering (who, like Stephens, is living in
Australia).
The reason that Flemming said I should have a look at it was that I was
looking
at some goals and games stuff at that time, and how to create computer models
describing the same. Dennis' approach seemed to be more systematical than the
'traditional' concept of goals by Hubbard, i.e. the Goals-Problems-Mass (GPM)
handling. (I'm not aware of any other systematic approaches in (even more
'traditional') fields of psychology.)
The first thing I noticed was the 'time breaking' process, something that was
very similar to an approach I tried myself in the middle of 1986 but that
I applied only in certain areas and abandoned as life went on in a rather
rough way.
I liked what I read but couldn't get a practical grip on the Level 4 processes
even though the theory made a lot of sense.
The TROM transcript was part of stacks of other paper for another half year
until it occured to me that TROM may be perhaps a good starter for people
who have
not had any previous training in 'mind-altering' thought processes and may
even catch on on the 'net.
My motives were to kick-start the reading and usage of Flemming's
'Transformational
Processing' manuals of which he had finished the first volumes at that time.
I posted (for the first and only time) on the alt.clearing.technology
newsgroup
and 'advertised' TROM. This happened in October 1994. In late 1994, I had
created a couple of mailing lists on netcom.com, one of which was trom-l.
At that time, both Flemming and I were in snail-mail contact with Dennis. In
his
letters to me he was not concerned about potential revenues created from the
sale of TROM manuscripts (the one transcribed by on Greg Pickering), but about
the possibility of 'alter-is' of his tape-recorded TROM manual by other
people.
Neither Flemming nor I managed to educate Dennis regarding the copyright
issues involved and the specifics of the 'net before he Dennis in mid-December
1994.
His wife and heir seemingly did (does?) not really understand the issues
neither, especially pertaining to the Internet.
Since the manuscript is very reasonable priced and readily available via
Flemming ([email protected]) who was always paying the royalties as he agreed
upon with Dennis, none of this was really a concern for me.
In especially, since I hoped that Flemming would get around to write a 'Time
Breaker's Cookbook' one day because TROM has just too many shortcomings. That
never happened, though, unfortunately, and I myself don't feel I would do a
good job in writing such a manual.
The history of TROM and Time Breaking
-------------------------------------
Stephens claimed that TROM was the result of twenty (or more) years of working
hard trying to come up with a workable 'tech' for everyone which could not be
monopolized by a few as it happened with other 'mind-tech'.
Geoffrey Filbert claims that it wasn't until after he met with Stephens in
Australia
and discussed Filbert's 'track blaster' process that Stephens spoke his the
text of TROM into a dictaphone and sent it to Greg who transcribed it.
Be it as it may, the process itself is indeed the most powerful process I
know of and certainly warrants attention.
The second major portion of TROM is 'goals processing'. Whereas the theory
sounds good, there are some basic problems 'running' it the way Stephens is
describing it.
Actually, there is a third 'piece of tech' in TROM which Stephens presents
as both a
remedy and catalysator for time breaking. The creation of importance on
several
flows ('own' importance, 'other's' importance) that he shortened to RI is what
I would call a 'creative havingness process'.
Everybody I talked to is running RI a different way. This is good (as Flemming
pointed out) as it does not restrict a "trom'er" in any way and allows for an
optimized choice of process for the individual.
On the flip side, it takes away from the predictiveness of results. If
someone reports having 'completed Level III', for example, s/he may have
simply
chosen an inappropriate way of running RI, effectively *obstructing*
time breaking. At least in one case which was mentioned on trom-l
I'm convinced that that is what happened.
But one cannot, of course, over the net be absolutely sure what really is
the case, especially if more languages than English are involved.
Before going into the details of the processes, a couple of words to the
latter problem and to the concept of 'nirvana'.
TROM and Language
-----------------
Interestingly, Stephens vehemently objected to 'translations' of TROM as a
clear and certain way of 'alter-ising' his materials.
This, of course, is in direct contradiction to what can be observed regarding
the way people run RI (based upon the English original) - everybody is
doing it differently already.
A translation of TROM is an opportunity, a challenge and a potential pit fall
because a translation aggravates the problematics around 'words and their
meanings'.
An opportunity as it gives a chance to reformulate TROM in a way that is less
dependent on 'words'. A challenge because the translator must confront the
issues
at hand thoroughly him/herself. A potential pit fall if the translator
amplifies the original dependency on words of the author.
Clearly, the 'time-breaking' process is _wordless_. The same is true for RI.
The 'goals processing' the way Stephens is presenting it, however, is rooted
deeply
in 'words' and this is IMHO exactly the reason why it will fail to work and
why a 'literal' translation will add to the confusion even more.
'Nirvana'
---------
Few concepts have been more abused than 'nirvana'. In a 'traditional' sense
it meant literally 'extinguished', like a fire that is was running out of
fuel.
Theoretically (even though 'theories' aren't worth much in a discussion like
this),
Stephens' nirvana concept would coincide with the traditional concept if one
would
equate what he called 'goals' with 'desires' in the Buddhist way of seeing
this.
However, after exchanging letters with him, it is clear to me that Stephens
never understood nor cared about other philosophies than Hubbard's and that he
used the word nirvana as 'PR' and attention catcher.
Of the few results he hoped to gain from this list TROM-L which had been
founded
during his last days, was to hear from anybody 'who has done the complete
Level IV' (verbatim quote) because he himself didn't finish it.
So much for the claim of a 'do-it-yourself nirvana handbook'.
It is my sincere opinion, however, that applying the TROM processes can be a
major step in the evolution of a human being and that one should not
underestimate the tremendous power of timebreaking.
Timebreaking
------------
Filbert warns that his 'track blaster' process - as an undercut to all other
processes known as 'auditing' or 'processing' - has such a power that he
himself does not advocate the use of it. The reason he mentions it in a short
paragraph of his book 'Excalibur Revisited' is for 'purposes of completeness'
of his
materials.
In my opinion, the 'track blaster process' or 'time breaking' is indeed the
COMMON
DENOMINATOR to all methods of psychotherapy known to me (I'm not a 'real'
expert in an 'academic' sense, however).
Be it methods of associations, recall technologies, reliving past incidents,
etc:
a past picture is brought into vicinity of a present-time picture.
(The only exceptions are so-called 'creative processes' of which RI actually
is a
prototype.)
The difference in TROM is that the pictures ('mental masses' in Hubbardian)
are
brought together in a rather mechanical way and irregardless of their
individual
contents.
This can indeed in some instances cause 'too fast a progress' for a trom'er
and
can become a (temporary) problem of magnitude.
It is not that 'time breaking' itself would have caused any harm but that
the trom'er
erased 'mechanically' a protective measure that he/she installed in his/her
past
WITHOUT being yet able to confront whatever it was meant to hide in the
first place.
I was partially aware of this problem when I started promoting TROM in late
'94.
But then, like today, I wanted to see TROM as the entry step to a more
comprehensive
study of the mind, especially the study of Flemming's material.
Goals
-----
One recurring issue in TROM discussions is the 'wording' of
goals.
Stephens, in Hubbard's footsteps, was often fixated on words.
Whereas for Hubbard it was a way or attempt to allow 'untalented'
people to become 'auditors' by telling them how questions should be
asked, Stephens went so far to even insist on his English wording
(no translations!!).
The fixation on certain words and phrases for goals is a major
drawback. Using the word 'goal' already is a drawback.
'Goal' implies, at least for me, a conscious decision of what to
have or not to have. While those 'goals' (and their counter parts)
sometimes need to be addressed in processing, they're not all
there is.
Far more important are those mechanisms who are _above_ the
conscious level (assuming time-breaking has cleaned up body-level
automatic picture associations).
The 'Buddha' called this 'thirst' and it appears in many colors
and shapes, if one could call it that way. Because of a lack of
another 'word', I'll use 'thirst' in the following.
If 'thirst' is there, any goal will be recreated over time, no matter
how careful the goal combination has been 'erased'.
Besides Flemming, also Enid Vien and Alan Walter have observed and
mentioned this phenomenon recently. It seems to get some attention,
at last.
I don't know Enid's 'Game Spheres' program and Alan Walter's
Meta-commands(?) because both make a game of not publishing any
specifics about their processes except claiming a complete 'handling'.
But a 'complete handling', IMNSHO, *MUST* involve addressing the
'thirst' as such.
Using 'words' to question this 'thirst' is an utterly futile attempt.
Even trying to 'list' items in the old Scn tradition wouldn't work
because a verbalization already alters the perfectly hidden 'thirst'
structures.
Furthermore, this 'thirst' is so natural, so self-evident to a
person that s/he would never, ever get consider it to be an item
anyhow.
I don't know of any concise method other than an honest self-finding
attempt over a period of time. Once observed, it will vanish,
or, in Scn lingo, 'as-is' automatically.
That means, rather than offering 'words' in this process, one
should learn how to identify the frequencies/vibrations that
underly one's activities, keeping in mind that every human condition
is *forcefully and constantly* held in place by a person.
Stephens states in TROM that the basic 'goal' of every being would be
the goal 'to know' (which I find to be utter nonsense for various
reasons.)
Stephen's idea (like Hubbard's) is that of a linear world and a
straight, linear timetrack. Then it would make sense to assume
a 'basic aberration' or 'postulate' to which all others 'goals' are
linked together in a daisy-chain.
Funny enough, timebreaking is resolving exactly this fixation on a
fixed, unique timetrack (or so it should).
But if there is no 'FIRST', then even a logical dependency structure
does not make sense anymore (at least not theoretically).
Conclusion
----------
TROM's timebreaking process is like a sharp knife: it can cut
bread or a throat.
Well, it's not that bad ;-) Enough rest and simple 'havingness'
processes like a long walk at the beach will restore wellbeingness
again after a while.
And, whatever happens, it cannot but help the person in the long
run.
That's why I continue to provide this forum on the 'net and why I mention
TROM in the 'Logs of JD Flora' and elsewhere.
However, I would not want to advertise it or make any claims about it.
I assume that whoever happens to find TROM will be able enough to cope with
it.
Joachim
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950801
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ TROM-L
Ä
Msg : 270 of 289 Rcv Pvt K/s
From : JHS <[email protected]> Thu 22 Feb 96
10:20
To : [email protected] Thu 22 Feb 96
18:43
Subj : Re: One year of TROM-L
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
for <[email protected]> Thu, 22 Feb 1996 10:38:48 +0100
>At 6:36 PM 2/21/96, JHS wrote:
>>Geoffrey Filbert claims that it wasn't until after he met with Stephens in
>...
>That was Rowland Barkley. I don't think Filbert ever had anything to do
>with Stephens.
>
>What Rowland said was that he met with Stephens, in 84 I think, and told
>him about his Track Blaster process. It didn't seem to find any resonance
>with Stephens and he didn't mention anything about working on anything
>similar.
>
>- Flemming
>
Filbert's 'Excalibur Revisited' is describing the timebreaking process.
That must have been the reason I mixed up the names. Except for the
passage above, it should still read 'Filbert' in the text after that.
Joachim
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950801
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ TROM-L
Ä
Msg : 271 of 289 Rcv Pvt K/s
From : Ray Harman <[email protected]> Sun 25 Feb 96
01:14
To : [email protected] Sun 25 Feb 96
20:04
Subj : observations
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA13213 for <[email protected]> Sun, 25 Feb 1996
08:09:33 +0100
Dear All,
Greetings from me, Ray Harman, IVy and L. Kin distributor
in Australia.
Thank you Joachim for an interesting and informative post.
What is "The Logs of J.D. Flora"?
At the end of level three, Dennis says the E-meter no longer reads.
How true is this, like, has anyone had this happen and then gone to
a different freezone practitioner and been regarded with amazement
because nothing will read??? Has anyone any experience of this? What
conclusions were drawn about it? How would a non-TROM freezone
professional auditor explain it or cope with it?? Surely some
learned person could write a thesis about it??
My observations, generally:
Some, being perhaps already Clear, may assume they pass the test and
go straight to level two, or, having passed the test, go straight to
level two... wrong. Level one must first be flattened. This error is
purely a case of not duplicating the instructions.
Level two, part two, using past persons. The literal following of
the instructions is that a past person is compared to an OBJECT
which you can see with your eyes. This seemed wrong to me, in that
it would be appropriate to compare a past person with an actual
person who you could see with your eyes. But there are no people in
the auditing room. Wrong. There is. You. When I was running this, I
found my chief difficulty was in finding anything to run. So I
decided to be a masochist and picked a significant past person
rather than an insignificant one... a particularly nasty one came to
mind. Comparing him to me gave a very considerable jolt. And I had
for the first time a subjective reality on what "valence" meant.
Round this time I had a big cog about "there is only present time"
which makes it considerably easier to sneer at the bank.
The level four commands: the four inflow commands, get the idea of
being... forced to know. Okay, but the four outflow commands, if you
take the text with the literality of a computer, become,
"get the idea of being...preventing from being known". So on these
four, the word "being" should be omitted. Am I right?? This should
be stated in the text; one should not have to assume it.
Every copy of TROM should have attached to it the transcript of
Dennis demonstrating how to run level five.
Okay, those are my comments!
Regards,
Ray Harman.
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950801
***************
just after B28 was posted for the first time, the following was also posted to
TROM-l (remember that you can write in with queeries, comments, wins, etc):
********************************'
Subject:
Re: TROM Replay 28
Date:
Thu, 25 Jun 1998 21:28:17 -0700
From:
"Maximilian J. Sandor" <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected], [email protected]
At 08:38 AM 6/26/98 +0200, Antony Phillips wrote:
>Note: these replays are _old_.
...
as far as I'm concerned they're still valid and of actual
_and_ historical interest ;-)
Since many do not know that I changed my name since then,
'JHS' was my previous name and I was the author of the
summary. Parts of this went into my online book PNOHTEFTU,
btw, ( http://transmillennium.net/pnohteftu/ ) but I forgot
that this article existed. Thank you, Ant, for digging it
out :-) . I'm contemplating to edit/revise the article and
add it there in a new context.
Max
--
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]
***************
_______________________________________________ TROM mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
