*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Sent Saturday, 30th of April 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]
************
Subject:
TROM: Replay B41
Date:
Fri, 25 Sep 1998 22:02:04 +0200
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
Organization:
International Viewpoints
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
Re: trom-l postings to clear-l (2)
Date:
Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:58:22 +0100
From:
Judith Methven <[email protected]>
To:
Robert Ducharme <[email protected]>
CC:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Robert
>
>In reading the article by Michael Bacon, I thought about how TROM might,
>under certain circumstances or conditions, work well with what I do (GPM
>Clearing). I had no doubts that the masses he stirred up but didn't run out
>could be fully and terminatedly cleaned up with GPM Clearing. I also
>thought a process like TROM, if it stirs up masses the way it apparantly
>does, would be a useful tool for uncovering masses to run out, whether with
>TROM, GPM Clearing, or some other method.
>
Personally, I have found Trom is wonderful for stirring up masses. I
haven't met a simple process that covers such wide areas so deeply and
thus stirs up so much. Then you can clear the masses up any way that is
best.
It tends to stir up so, so much that it is good to have an auditor
available to help clear them out. And then, most important, put in the
RI. So that the huge spaces made by the negative gain are filled with
desirable postulates. As an auditor, I try always to ensure that the
vacuums of the person with whom I'm working are filled with new
desirable postulates. No balance if one doesn't balance the negative
gain with positive gain. No balance equals a fall from grace!
Best wishes
Judith
--
Judith Methven
Subject:
Re: trom-l postings to clear-l (2)
Date:
Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:58:22 +0100
From:
Judith Methven <[email protected]>
To:
Robert Ducharme <[email protected]>
CC:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Robert
>
>In reading the article by Michael Bacon, I thought about how TROM might,
>under certain circumstances or conditions, work well with what I do (GPM
>Clearing). I had no doubts that the masses he stirred up but didn't run out
>could be fully and terminatedly cleaned up with GPM Clearing. I also
>thought a process like TROM, if it stirs up masses the way it apparantly
>does, would be a useful tool for uncovering masses to run out, whether with
>TROM, GPM Clearing, or some other method.
>
Personally, I have found Trom is wonderful for stirring up masses. I
haven't met a simple process that covers such wide areas so deeply and
thus stirs up so much. Then you can clear the masses up any way that is
best.
It tends to stir up so, so much that it is good to have an auditor
available to help clear them out. And then, most important, put in the
RI. So that the huge spaces made by the negative gain are filled with
desirable postulates. As an auditor, I try always to ensure that the
vacuums of the person with whom I'm working are filled with new
desirable postulates. No balance if one doesn't balance the negative
gain with positive gain. No balance equals a fall from grace!
Best wishes
Judith
--
Judith Methven
Subject:
Using TROM to get something to handle
Date:
Fri, 24 Oct 1997 07:18:58 +0200
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Dear Trommers
In the thread we had running (trom-l posting to clear-l) some one
brought up the idea of using TROM to restimulate something, and then
using other techniques to handle what was restimulate.
What do you think of that?
My stable datum, from when I was teaching auditors (HPA Course, London)
in 1957/8 was that the motto was "That which turns a condition on, if
continued will turn it off. And also the Scientology auditors code
stated: "Always continue a process as long as it produces change...."
which also seems to be violated by switching to something else as soon
as something to be handled turns up on TROM.
Not that what was said in Scientology in the 50's is necc. an
everlasting truth (Ron changed many things since) - I am just curious
as to the thought process of the proponent of this method. In the "good
old days" we would have called it Q and A (changing when the pc
changed). That sort of action was not well regarded.
All best wishes,
Ant
--
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://home.sn.no/home/trone/IVy.html
Subject:
Replay 43
Date:
Fri, 24 Oct 1997 08:22:46 +0200
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ TROM-L
Ä
Msg : 210 of 289 Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
From : Bill Maier 236/174.10 Mon 21 Aug 95
12:04
To : Andreas Mittermayr <[email protected]> Tue 22 Aug 95
07:20
Subj : Re: Auditing and RI
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
Apparently-to: [email protected]
From: [email protected] (Bill Maier )
Subject: Re: Auditing and RI
You wrote:
>
>Hello,
>
>When doing auditing ( not solo ), for example old Dianetic style, why
do
>the preclears do not go mad due to the lack of RI ? In LRH's
'Dianetics'
>or the L. Kin book II I never read about repair of importance or
>something similar.
I think that Stephen's RI process is really the same as Havingness as
used in Scientology. Whether RI is run or not, I think it would tend
to equalize out in the long run, since simple confront actions like
looking around or dusting the furniture tend to restore havingness.
Not too long ago I ran a session of TROM where I erased some very heavy
incidents, and I neglected to run RI at the end of session. I was very
uncomfortable later on. Although I didn't then have time or the
privacy for a session, I went out and took a walk and just looked
around. That was enough to restore the lack of havingness, at least
for a while. That evening I ran RI and completed the cycle.
Last time we heard from you, I believe you were starting Level 3. How
are things going for you?
Bill
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ TROM-L
Ä
Msg : 211 of 289 Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
From : Dimitri Ivakhnenko 236/174.10 Tue 22 Aug 95
09:08
To : [email protected] Tue 22 Aug 95
20:55
Subj : Re: Auditing and RI
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
Apparently-to: [email protected]
From: Dimitri Ivakhnenko <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Auditing and RI
Andreas wrote:
>When doing auditing ( not solo ), for example old Dianetic style, why do
>the preclears do not go mad due to the lack of RI ? In LRH's 'Dianetics'
>or the L. Kin book II I never read about repair of importance or
>something similar.
I like the term 'grounding' from the Flemming Funch's 'Transformational
Paths'. It seems that life has a lot of built-in safety mechanisms. For
example, social mechanisms. People usually set a portion of their time
for talking, collectively drinking tea, watching TV, eating, going for a
trips, etc., thanks to which they stay sane.
There are plenty ways of 'grounding' and 'replenishing resources'.
Personally I may dance along with creating something, take a shower,
take a walk, playing with reality, sleep, or go to the river.
As to the auditing in Hubbard's style, I have run a lot of repetitive
processes and now I can compare it with making music on one big drum and
nothing more. Surely it works but thanks to the safety mechanisms which
protect the ears. With additional instruments, for example RI, music
sounds much better.
And BTW, there were are cases of insanity in CofS, maybe partly due to
the lack of RI-type techniques.
Dimitri
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ TROM-L
Ä
Msg : 212 of 289 Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
From : Bill Maier 236/174.10 Tue 22 Aug 95
10:43
To : Andreas Mittermayr <[email protected]> Wed 23 Aug 95
07:22
Subj : Re: Auditing and RI
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
Apparently-to: [email protected]
From: [email protected] (Bill Maier )
Subject: Re: Auditing and RI
You wrote:
>I don't know if TROM is the right thing for me. Level 2 and 3
>are so ... I can't really say... let me try to explain it the other way:
>I think Level 4 and 5 would be ok for me because it has specific commands
>( get the feeling of beeing not known for example). You are guided what to
>do. But Level 2 and 3 are so general. I don't know what scenes to timebreak.
>In one of your last mail to me you said on level 2/3 it is not so important
>what scenes I take to timebreak. Well I can't really describe what the
>problem is, but something keeps me away from making progress with TROM. By
>now I am also uncertain if I really get changes while RI. Perhaps I should
>run a good amount of objective processing before starting with TROM again.
>Perhaps an e-meter would help me to recognize the changes. I don't know.
>Perhaps a co-auditing style would be better for me to start with, but there
>is nobody interested in my area.
>
It is difficult to know what to do when you are entirely on your own.
Sometimes having an auditor is helpful. I started off having rather good
gains with TROM, but I would even then occasionally run across times when
things would not go well. A few weeks ago I got really bogged down with
TROM, to the point where every time I would try to do it I would get very
massy and scattered, unable to focus. So I decided to lay off for a while,
although I'm sure I will go back to doing it again some day. For right now
I'm exploring other auditing.
Incidentally, I have found an E-meter to be very useful in solo auditing,
since it gives me an objective indication of what is happening. However, I
have not found it very useful in doing TROM. The distraction of trying to
keep the needle on the dial breaks my concentration enough to where it
becomes difficult to Timebreak. Dennis did say it could be used for TROM,
though, so it might work for you.
Bill
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ TROM-L
Ä
Msg : 213 of 289 Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
From : Dimitri Ivakhnenko 236/174.10 Wed 23 Aug 95
10:45
To : [email protected] Wed 23 Aug 95
20:29
Subj : Re: Auditing and RI
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
Apparently-to: [email protected]
From: Dimitri Ivakhnenko <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Auditing and RI
Andreas wrote:
>>Well I can't really describe what the
>>problem is, but something keeps me away from making progress with TROM. By
>>now I am also uncertain if I really get changes while RI. Perhaps I should
>>run a good amount of objective processing before starting with TROM again.
>>Perhaps an e-meter would help me to recognize the changes. I don't know.
>>Perhaps a co-auditing style would be better for me to start with, but there
>>is nobody interested in my area.
Well, I am in a similar situation. Just now I have no partner. I have
run a lot of objectives, have run TROM without auditor and with auditor,
and have marvellous gains.
But.
The problem is well described in the Flemming's book in the chapter
'Three Bands of Development'. The processes exteriorized me, gave me a
lot of realizations, but they were very slow in solving my problems. So
the gains were difficult to observe, forceful and not very stable.
So what I do now is translating 'Transformational Dialogues' to find
afterwards a partner, first of all to solve problems and get tangible
results. Meanwhile what I do is general activity like visualization,
imagination, etc. mostly simultaneously with some physical activity.
Translating is too an excellent instrument for development. I
successfully used some problems-oriented techniques from 'Trans-Dial',
for example Unblocking, Unburdening, Swish Pattern, but nevertheless
working with a partner will be much more effective.
As to the E-Meter, I yet have no possibility to get a good one, and to
be sincere I don't like it very much. It seems to me that the personal
development must be fun, and I don't find much enjoyment having to watch
the needle and trusting it rather than myself.
I am going to get a lot of skilled potential partners and then I will
resolve any time-tracks, goals packages, astral pimples and cosmic flu
if I will be interested in that. It will be easy to find partners since
I will be able to help them in resolving their actual problems.
Personal development is fun.
Dimitri
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
Subject:
Re: Using TROM to get something to handle
Date:
Fri, 24 Oct 1997 11:12:11 -0400
From:
[email protected] (Robert Ducharme)
To:
[email protected], [email protected]
At 07:18 AM 10/24/97 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
>Dear Trommers
>
>In the thread we had running (trom-l posting to clear-l) some one
>brought up the idea of using TROM to restimulate something, and then
>using other techniques to handle what was restimulate.
>
>What do you think of that?
>
>My stable datum, from when I was teaching auditors (HPA Course, London)
>in 1957/8 was that the motto was "That which turns a condition on, if
>continued will turn it off. And also the Scientology auditors code
>stated: "Always continue a process as long as it produces change...."
>which also seems to be violated by switching to something else as soon
>as something to be handled turns up on TROM.
>
>Not that what was said in Scientology in the 50's is necc. an
>everlasting truth (Ron changed many things since) - I am just curious
>as to the thought process of the proponent of this method. In the "good
>old days" we would have called it Q and A (changing when the pc
>changed). That sort of action was not well regarded.
>
>All best wishes,
>
>Ant
>
>--
> 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://home.sn.no/home/trone/IVy.html
That's a good point you bring up. And I can see your logic. I just don't
think any rule covers all circumstances.
I remember one telephone PC I once was handling who, between sessions, had
done some self auditing on Black and White processing frome Scientology
8-80. He told me of being spun in for a few days and even feeling suicidal,
and that the feelings wouldn't go away. So we proceeded to run GPM Clearing
on the mass that was keyed in, that is, tracing it back to its point of
origin and taking the moment of shift apart to release and run out all the
postulates. The result was that, as he put it, the feeling was 90% gone
after the session, and within a day or two it was all gone.
I feel that "Q and A" was justified in this case because the process I was
using was more specific than technique 8-80. Truly bad Q and Q would be to
run an engram chain, and then bogging down and thereafter running a
Scientology style process on it to run it out instead of finding a way to
unbog the pc with the Dianetic type process.
Robert
Subject:
Re: Using TROM to get something to handle
Date:
24 Oct 1997 09:28:49 -0700
From:
John V LuValle <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected] (IPM Return requested), [email protected] (IPM
Return requested)
This doesn't seem any stranger than listing to get a service fac,
then running a ser fac handling, or AESP assesments to find engrams to
run.
You use whatever tools you have to handle material as it presents itself.
The strict 'what turns it on turns it off' approach would preclude using
correction lists, taken literally.
Regards, John
Subject:
Re: Using TROM to get something to handle
Date:
Sat, 25 Oct 1997 10:21:23 +0100
From:
Judith Methven <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
CC:
[email protected]
In message <[email protected]>, Antony Phillips
<[email protected]> writes
>Dear Trommers
>
>In the thread we had running (trom-l posting to clear-l) some one
>brought up the idea of using TROM to restimulate something, and then
>using other techniques to handle what was restimulate.
>
>What do you think of that?
>
>My stable datum, from when I was teaching auditors (HPA Course, London)
>in 1957/8 was that the motto was "That which turns a condition on, if
>continued will turn it off. And also the Scientology auditors code
>stated: "Always continue a process as long as it produces change...."
>which also seems to be violated by switching to something else as soon
>as something to be handled turns up on TROM.
>
When doing TROM, I found it sometimes stirred up so much that I was
simply frozen, couldn't take any more stirring up - couldn't find itsas
that brought the charge down.
When this happened, it was advantageous to reduce the gradient and use a
different approach to reduce the charge.
Without changing the gradient, no apparent change happened, I just
became stuck.
Also, I would like to state that in my opinion, one does not necessarily
have to 'switch to something else as soon as something to be handled
turns up on TROM'. Only switch if you are getting stuck. What
advantage is there to being stuck. Remember this is solo auditing -
make sure you handle it so that you can control it.
Also, when you are unstuck, go back to the original TROM process to
check what happens and thus either continue or end that cycle.
>Not that what was said in Scientology in the 50's is necc. an
>everlasting truth (Ron changed many things since) - I am just curious
>as to the thought process of the proponent of this method. In the "good
>old days" we would have called it Q and A (changing when the pc
>changed). That sort of action was not well regarded.
Much of my auditing was done Q and A. I know for a fact that if it had
not been, I would long since have ceased to follow this path - too
limiting.
I did lots of auditing in the standard way too - on lower grades and for
specific purposes. I now regard the true value of these exercises to
have been that it made my mind very agile - able to take differing
viewpoints - able to remember - to communicate - don't think it did much
deep case clearing - but it did enable me to develop the ability to do
deep case clearing.
I use a lot of Q and A when I give auditing sessions - always going back
to the original item that was being processed to see that it is cleared
before ending the auditing on it.
In my opinion many different methods of auditing work. If it works
well, use it!
If you try and keep something inflexible, its value usually diminishes.
Best wishes
Judith
--
Judith Methven
Subject:
Overrestimulation
Date:
Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:24:00 +0200
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
(I sent this yesterday, but it appears to have bounced on its way to
trom-l)
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:09:55 +1000 Ron Van Haarlem wrote:
> And as you noticed I posted the article by
> Michael Bacon. This I thought would be of interest on clear-l, as it
> indicates just how powerful this technique is.
The second sentence I regard as doubtfull. In this world it is not
difficult to key things in. In Scientology we have the auditors code,
and smooth comm cycles to prevent keying the pc in "too much" (and
handling safely what has been keyed in).
You can key a person in "over his head" by auditing when tired, or
unsessionable for other reasons. So that a process produces a lot of
phenomena does not necc. indicate the process is powerfull.
I'd only measure powerfullness by long term good results.
Reminds me of a fellow we had in Copenhagen. Seemed he boasted about how
much TA (Tone Arm action he quoted enourmous figures) he got out of
processes, and I can't remember talking about any gain.
All best wishes,
Ant
--
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://home.sn.no/home/trone/IVy.html
Subject:
re post from Judith Methven
Date:
Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:47:02 +0200
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Probably only an insignificant hiccup --- but.
Mail Delivery System (<[email protected]>)
has reported to me that 48 addresses, including my own, have not
received the following. I have received it, but just to be on the safe
side I am sending to the whole list (again).
All the best,
Ant
/PASTED/
Subject:
Re: trom-l postings to clear-l (2)
Date:
Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:58:22 +0100
From:
Judith Methven <[email protected]>
To:
Robert Ducharme <[email protected]>
CC:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Robert
>
>In reading the article by Michael Bacon, I thought about how TROM might,
>under certain circumstances or conditions, work well with what I do (GPM
>Clearing). I had no doubts that the masses he stirred up but didn't run out
>could be fully and terminatedly cleaned up with GPM Clearing. I also
>thought a process like TROM, if it stirs up masses the way it apparantly
>does, would be a useful tool for uncovering masses to run out, whether with
>TROM, GPM Clearing, or some other method.
>
Personally, I have found Trom is wonderful for stirring up masses. I
haven't met a simple process that covers such wide areas so deeply and
thus stirs up so much. Then you can clear the masses up any way that is
best.
It tends to stir up so, so much that it is good to have an auditor
available to help clear them out. And then, most important, put in the
RI. So that the huge spaces made by the negative gain are filled with
desirable postulates. As an auditor, I try always to ensure that the
vacuums of the person with whom I'm working are filled with new
desirable postulates. No balance if one doesn't balance the negative
gain with positive gain. No balance equals a fall from grace!
Best wishes
Judith
--
Judith Methven
--
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://home.sn.no/home/trone/IVy.html
Subject:
Re: Using TROM to get something to handle
Date:
Sat, 25 Oct 1997 20:45:06 +0200
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
In her contribution to this thread (see also it in full, it is good)
Judith methven said: "Only switch if you are getting stuck. What
advantage is there to being stuck."
I did not quote the auditors clause bit in full. It is:
Always continue a process as long as it produces change and no longer.
I would consider being stuck as very synonomous ( (-: ) with no change
and you therefore no longer continue the process -- what do you do? Ah,
there lie sounds basics and intuitive flairs.
Also some one else (John V LuValle <[email protected]>) says:
"This doesn't seem any stranger than listing to get a service fac,
then running a ser fac handling, or AESP assesments to find engrams to
run." (and more see his entry)
Which reminds me of another important set of data we taught in the HPA
course in 57/8, namely the two (or three) times when you could end a
process and the two (or three) times when you must end a process. When
you carry on processing beyond the right item, you normally continue to
get change..... But (I guess) you have passed a point when you must end
the process.
Life was too simple in 57, with the rule "That which turns a condition
on, if continued, will turn it off".
I can remember one weekend when we had to have all HPA students audit
each other 8 (or was it ten) hours straight off on op pro by dup. I was
the instructor. Someone apparently got a slipped disk. I insisted on
continueing, and she did. I don't know whether any good came out of it,
but I would not do that now. So the rule needs a lot of ifs and ands,
not to say a few ohs, and ahs. Like "that throughly tested therapeutic
action which turns....." , and given that other items like sufficient
food, sleep, little alchohol, auditor comm cycle etc are in order.
With time, one becomes wiser, soberer, and more serious....... (Oh,
think of the young, apathetic and very innocent Ant of 57...)
But I do feel that sometimes protests and (apparent) deviance from what
was taught in the good old days can be due to not fully analysing what
was said, and sume times to accepting some glib explanation of what was
meant rather than thorughly analysing what was said, and the context. Oh
even a glib reference to "Ron said....." without quote where and (more
important) when he said it .... some "Ron saids" become blurred with
passing on (like rumours) or slightly deficisnt memory.
Is that off context for a trom list? I think not, as my reading of TROM
is that it is an attempt to improve on, and make self-auditable, basic
(workable/sensible) scientology.
P.S, here in Europe the clocks go back tonight - so Europeans have an
extra hour to ponder on the deep significance of my words.
Hi,
Ant
--
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://home.sn.no/home/trone/IVy.html
Subject:
Re: Re replay 42 - on TROM-l
Date:
Sat, 25 Oct 1997 23:36:33 -0400
From:
"Dustin W. Carr" <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
CC:
[email protected], [email protected] (Dustin Carr),
[email protected],
[email protected]
Ant,
I have been away for a week and had limited access to email. It looks like
this whole thread has been thoroughly discussed, but I wanted to say that I
remembery my initial exposure to this post a few years back was actually
quite positive.
I have always been a little too adventurous in the area of the mind (never
been afraid of it is the problem) so I quickly dug in after reading this to
try and get something like this to happen to me. It sounded quite fun. I
was unsuccessful in this endeavour.
Just wanted to say that this is not necessarily bad exposure. It is
certainly not very good, either. A friend of mine has hardly touched trom
since he first read this.
Dustin
At 07:57 PM 10/19/97 +0200, you wrote:
>That's the My Trip one by Roger Bacon, which I posted about a couple of
>hours ago.
>
>Interesting. Just logged in again and
>
> "RVH" <[email protected]>
>
>who is on TROM-l
>
>has reposted it to Clear-l, and thus to the news group a.c.t.
>
>He has ommitted the four lines and on word preface I made, merely
>prefacing with: "This may be of interest to some. rvh"
>
>Interesting - The message contains an isolated case of some one
>freewheelling, containing the sentence: "I had sat there and spun for
>more than 50 hours! "
>
>Frantic rush to spread bad news (out of context). I had thought
>(worried) a lot before putting it on, but I had imagaination enough to
>think of that happening.
>
>Lets see what comments it gets on a.c.t and Clear-l.
>
>Rather annoying.
>
>All the best,
>
>Ant
>
>
>--
> 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://home.sn.no/home/trone/IVy.html
>
>
Dustin W. Carr
607-255-2329
Technical Research Associate
[email protected]
Cornell Nanofabrication Facility
Knight Laboratory
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
Subject:
Re: Using TROM to get something to handle
Date:
Sat, 25 Oct 1997 23:58:04 -0400
From:
"Dustin W. Carr" <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Ant,
Isn't TROM, as defined by Stephens, performed by using a certain exercise
(putting self and other postulates in place) and then using a separate tool
(timebreaking) to clear any mass that shows up?
The exercise that stimulates the charge has no relation to timebreaking,
therefore using any exercise that handles the charge would be equivalent.
That may be Q and A, but it is the way that Stephens designed it.
Dustin
At 07:18 AM 10/24/97 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear Trommers
>
>In the thread we had running (trom-l posting to clear-l) some one
>brought up the idea of using TROM to restimulate something, and then
>using other techniques to handle what was restimulate.
>
>What do you think of that?
>
>My stable datum, from when I was teaching auditors (HPA Course, London)
>in 1957/8 was that the motto was "That which turns a condition on, if
>continued will turn it off. And also the Scientology auditors code
>stated: "Always continue a process as long as it produces change...."
>which also seems to be violated by switching to something else as soon
>as something to be handled turns up on TROM.
>
>Not that what was said in Scientology in the 50's is necc. an
>everlasting truth (Ron changed many things since) - I am just curious
>as to the thought process of the proponent of this method. In the "good
>old days" we would have called it Q and A (changing when the pc
>changed). That sort of action was not well regarded.
>
>All best wishes,
>
>Ant
>
>--
> 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://home.sn.no/home/trone/IVy.html
>
>
>
Dustin W. Carr
607-255-2329
Technical Research Associate
[email protected]
Cornell Nanofabrication Facility
Knight Laboratory
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
Subject:
Re: Using TROM to get something to handle
Date:
Sun, 26 Oct 1997 00:20:14 -0400
From:
"Dustin W. Carr" <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Hello,
>When doing TROM, I found it sometimes stirred up so much that I was
>simply frozen, couldn't take any more stirring up - couldn't find itsas
>that brought the charge down.
>
I have found this, and I continue to find this to be true. I usually let
myself be stuck for awhile before I am even aware of it. I tend to get too
involved in the struggle. That can be fun, but is unproductive and
time-consuming.
>When this happened, it was advantageous to reduce the gradient and use a
>different approach to reduce the charge.
How do you reduce the gradient? Can you be more specific about the
different approach?
I have found that when I am stuck, I usually will stop in the middle and do
RI, lots of it. Sometimes for several different sessions before I come back
to the place I was stuck. It has always been the case that I am no longer
stuck after this.
>
>Without changing the gradient, no apparent change happened, I just
>became stuck.
>
>Also, I would like to state that in my opinion, one does not necessarily
>have to 'switch to something else as soon as something to be handled
>turns up on TROM'. Only switch if you are getting stuck. What
>advantage is there to being stuck. Remember this is solo auditing -
>make sure you handle it so that you can control it.
>
>Also, when you are unstuck, go back to the original TROM process to
>check what happens and thus either continue or end that cycle.
>
This is all very useful information. Thanks for contributing it.
>>Not that what was said in Scientology in the 50's is necc. an
>>everlasting truth (Ron changed many things since) - I am just curious
>>as to the thought process of the proponent of this method. In the "good
>>old days" we would have called it Q and A (changing when the pc
>>changed). That sort of action was not well regarded.
>
>Much of my auditing was done Q and A. I know for a fact that if it had
>not been, I would long since have ceased to follow this path - too
>limiting.
>
Yes, this is a good point. We have great freedom in how we can go about
things, especially with trom since it is all solo. We shouldn't be afraid
to try and go in a direction that seems worthy, even if it is counter to
Ron's best suggestions.
>If you try and keep something inflexible, its value usually diminishes.
>
Agreed. I use the processes in TROM as a guideline, always seeking ways
that I can expand them into something that will work better for me. It has
changed many times for me, and it always seems to get better.
Sincerely,
Dustin
>Best wishes
>
>Judith
>
>
>--
>Judith Methven
>
Subject:
Re: Overrestimulation
Date:
Sun, 26 Oct 1997 22:32:01 +1100
From:
"RVH" <[email protected]>
To:
"Robert Ducharme" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
"TROM-L" <[email protected]>
>(I sent this yesterday, but it appears to have bounced on its way to
>trom-l)
>
>On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:09:55 +1000 Ron Van Haarlem wrote:
>
>
>> And as you noticed I posted the article by
>> Michael Bacon. This I thought would be of interest on clear-l, as it
>> indicates just how powerful this technique is.
>
>The second sentence I regard as doubtfull. In this world it is not
>difficult to key things in. In Scientology we have the auditors code,
>and smooth comm cycles to prevent keying the pc in "too much" (and
>handling safely what has been keyed in).
>
>You can key a person in "over his head" by auditing when tired, or
>unsessionable for other reasons. So that a process produces a lot of
>phenomena does not necc. indicate the process is powerfull.
>
>I'd only measure powerfullness by long term good results.
I hear what you are saying, but I find it difficult to find charge anywhere
these days. I have to go looking for it, where not too long ago I could just
process what came up. I am interested in tech that can stir up the most
charge and then handle/erase it. As I said before, I am still on level 3,
and find the charge coming up is not very strong, so I find I don't even
have to run RI's very often anymore. I have been using other tech at times
to get something to run, and then timebreak it. This I find works well for
me.
>
>Reminds me of a fellow we had in Copenhagen. Seemed he boasted about how
>much TA (Tone Arm action he quoted enourmous figures) he got out of
>processes, and I can't remember talking about any gain.
Yes, point taken. :-))
But my point is, the more charge stirred up *and handled*, usually means
maximum case gain. Everyone has their own max gradient, but not everyone
necessarilly wants the dramas involved with that. Then again, there are
those like myself that don't mind a few dramas for max case gain.
Best wishes
Ron Van Haarlem
>
>
>All best wishes,
>
>Ant
Subject:
Re: Trom - when available on net
Date:
Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:03:04 +1000
From:
Judith Anderson <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
CC:
[email protected]
Dear Neil, Please don't despair about TROM on the net, I am in the final run
to send the disk to Homer who will then do what he has to do and
bingo........
love Judith A.
At 03:53 PM 10/21/97 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear Neil
>
>Judith anderson is the one to answer that question-- so I am sending on
>to her.
>
>Hope you have it good (translating literally out of the Danish) -
>curious to know how the payment for IVy cycle is going - IVy 34 has
>nearly arrived at you with new details of how to pay (let me know if you
>want new invoice).
>
>Hi,
>
>Ant
>
>Neil Gordon wrote:
>>
>> Ant,
>>
>> When (if ever) will Trom be available on the net?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Neil
>
>--
> 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://home.sn.no/home/trone/IVy.html
>
>
>
Judith K. Anderson ^..^
Tel/Fax. 61-7-3844 7576 ~ \\
\\
\\
\\ __________
\ /// // \
1 ________ 1 \
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
Subject:
Re: Steps for running Trom
Date:
Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:03:21 +1000
From:
Judith Anderson <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Dear Trommers, Replay 42 has prompted me to re-enter the following which
appeared in April as I feel session readiness is very important and may be
a factor in the phenonomen in Replay 42.
Also just to let you know the disks with TROM will be sent to Homer this
week for him to enter to the net.
love Judith A.
At 01:03 PM 4/3/97 +1000, you wrote:
>Dear Trommers, I have been introduced a number of times by Antony as the
>Distributor of
>TROM for Australia and Europe, but this is the first time I have entered
>anything on this list as I
>am new to the workings of Microsoft etc and was having difficulty in getting
>a hang on to how to
>type a long piece without being on line. However with lots of help I hope
>I've got it right.
>
>Some time ago it was suggested to me that it would be useful especially for
>Trommers new to
>clearing techniques to have the steps set out for easy reference. I was
>reluctant at first to do
>anything in this line, because each person gains an understanding of aspects
>of written
>material that is often different to the next person's understanding,
>however I have set out what I
>consider the steps of running TROM with a warning. (I have not inserted page
>numbers as the
>manual distributed by me is a typographically corrected version of the
>original distributed
>elsewhere and the page numbers are different, so as not to confuse, I have
>left the pages for
>you to fill in below)
>____________________________________________________________________________
> STEPS FOR RUNNING TROM
>
>Distributor's Warning: The text in the manual must be read by you and
>understood before
>running each level - I have merely extracted the steps of each level and
>laid them out for your
>convenience. It is your responsibility to check these steps to ensure they
>are as you interpret
>the manual....................Judith Anderson, Distributor
>
>SESSION PREPARATION
>
>1. Be session ready - not tired, hungry, suffering from disease or dietary
>deficiency, or under
>the influence of drugs or medication or alcohol.
>2. Find a quiet place away from interruption or distractions, and alone.
>3. Do the exercises with the body's eyes open at all times.
>4. Have pencil and paper to hand to take notes of actions run.
>
>STEPS OF SESSION
>
>1. Run RI (Repair of Importances) (see below - also in manual - page
......)
>2. Do exercise for the level you are on.
>3. Continue an exercise as long as it produces change - then leave it. The
>exercises are
>intended to produce CHANGE (mood changes, body changes such as temperature
>changes,
>twitching, pain or sensations turning on, awareness changes, yawning,
>overstimulation of
>body's nervous system, queasy stomach etc). If there is NO CHANGE - go to
>next exercise
>this level.
>4. WHEN IN DOUBT RUN RI (especially during the session if the going gets
>rough eg. you
>suffer an intolerable amount of unpleasant sensation)
>5. Continue level exercises until you decide to finish session.
>6. Run RI (Some Trommers have run RI as much as 2/3rds of the session)
>7. Finish Session (feeling good)
>
> ___________________
>
>RI (REPAIR OF IMPORTANCES)
>
>Creative RI Commands (3 pairs)
>
>a) "Bring something into existence" [run repetitively until no change,
>then run b)]
>b) "Have another bring something into existence". [Run repetitively until
>no change, then run
>a), then run b), to no change]
>
>[It is not necessary to perceive with ones' eyes one's creation. The
>certainty that one has
>created is sufficient. (see page .......)
>
>OR
>
>a) "Create something" [Run repetitively until no change then run b)]
>b) "Have another create something" [Run repetitively until no change then
>run a) etc. to no
>change, then b) to no change etc]
>
>OR RI by Perception
>
>a) Grasp any solid object with your hands. (Really feel it) Let go.
>Grasp another solid object
>with your hands. Let go. Walk around the room contacting walls, floors,
>tables etc. with your
>hands, doing this to no change. Run it until it is ho-hum. It doesn't
>matter how long it takes.
>(RI by Perception can be done to the top of Level 4 but Dennis suggests
>doing the creative
>exercises above, in preference, as they are what should be used for Level
>5). See page .........
>
> _________________________
>
>RI cannot be overrun. It can (emphasised) be underrun.
>When in doubt run RI.
>Use RI at the beginning of every session
>Use RI at the end of every session
>Use RI during the session if the going gets rough [e.g. if you suffer an
>intolerable amount of
>unpleasant sensation]
>When in doubt, run RI.
>
> ___________________________
> ___________________________
>
>
>LEVEL 1
>
>Read "The Test" in the Manual.
>
>Test yourself to see if this level is necessary for you. It is very simple.
>Work your way through
>the RI Commands, creative ones first. Give each pair a good run
>(a,a,a,a,a,a,a,a, to no
>change, then b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b, to no change etc) before you move on. You are
>looking for
>changes. Any changes (queasy stomach, twitching, yawning, mood changes,
>etc). It if
>produces any change it is a usable command.
>
>If none of the creative list produce a change, then do Perceptive RI
>(described above) until you
>feel better. You have now topped up your reservoir of importances, and are
>ready for Level
>Two.
>
>If you need a separate therapist to assist in getting you through this,
>contact the distributor of
>the manual for suggestions.
>
>For technical help Judith Methven and Leonard Dunn can be contacted through
>Judith at
>[email protected]
>
> ________________________
>
>LEVEL 2
>
>Purpose: Learning to Timebreak
>
>Read the chapter in your manual for Level 2 - fully.
>
>Do "Session Preparation" as above 1-5
>
>Commands:
>
>a) "Select a past scene" (start with a non-significant one, gradually using
>more and more
>significant past scenes, and eventually past persons, one at a time,
>completing the exercise
>with each to conclusion)
>b) "Select an object from this scene."
>c) "Find an object in present time (one you can see with your eyes) that is
>different from the
>past object."
>d) "How is it different?"
>
>Repeat c) and d) (It is permissible to use the same present time object
>over and over again if
>you wish) until no more change; then:
>
>e) "Find an object in present time (one you can see with your eyes) that is
>similar to the object
>in the past scene" (selected in a).
>f) "How is it similar?"
>
>Repeat e) and f) until no more change, then repeat c) and d). Continue
>until both c) and d),
>and e), and f) produce no more change.
>
>g) "Select a new past object, either from the same past scene or a
>different one"
>
>Repeat c) and d) and e) and f) with this new past object until no more
change.
>
>Continue until no more change occurs with any past person you care to
>select. Use RI
>liberally, also reread manual for Level 2.
>
>End result: you will find that it becomes progressively easier to place the
>'then' and 'now'
>objects side by side for comparison purposes until you are quite easily able
>to view both
>objects simultaneously. You are learning to Timebreak. The exercise
>continues to produce
>changes as long as this compulsive games condition is highly charged. As
>the compulsive
>games condition quietens down between you and your own past, so the exercise
>ceases to
>produce change.
>
> _____________________________
> _____________________________
>
>LEVEL 3
>
>Read the chapter in your manual for Level 3 - fully
>
>Do "Session preparation" as above 1-5.
>
>Commands:
>
>a) "Select a past scene. Become simultaneously aware of the scene and
>present time around
>you. Don't try and Timebreak all of the scene at once. Take it a bit at a
>time. Continue to do
>this until the past scene 'fades' - i.e. begins to 'fall away' in intensity
>compared to present time."
>
>b) "Select a new past scene, and repeat a)"
>
>Continue until you are willing and able to Timebreak all your known past.
>This exercise will take
>many (joyful) hours, with you gaining all the way. Run RI as necessary, it
>will speed your
>progress.
>
>If a scene does not Timebreak drop back to Level 2 on it and find some
>differences and
>similarities between the scene and present time. Run RI. Timebreak it.
>Note it for Level 4 and
>5.
>
>End result: You will be free of your past, with no enforcement to view it,
>and therefore it will no
>longer be pressing in on you. You will be able to occupy any viewpoint you
>so desire in any
>scene, whether 'then' or 'now' and be able to continuously operate your body
>in present time
>from a viewpoint exterior to it, and no doubt you will get your first
>preview of Nirvana.
>
> ________________________
> ________________________
>
>LEVEL 4
>
>Purpose: The systematic discharge of the eight classes of overwhelm. (A
>start in the direction
>of having the enviroment loose its power to restimulate your mind by
>preparing you to become
>an expert in games play by taking a look at the subject of overwhelms and
>freeing you up thus
>untying a lot of your 'livingness'). Vanishing another large and unwanted
>chunk of your mind.
>
>Read the chapter in your manual for Level 4.
>
>Do "Session Preparation" as above 1-5
>
>The eight classes of overwhelm are:
>
>1) Forced to know
>2) Preventing from being known.
>3) Prevented from knowing.
>4) Forcing to be known.
>5) Forced to be known.
>6) Preventing from knowing.
>7) Prevented from being known.
>8) Forcing to know.
>
>Commands:
>
>1) "Get the idea of being forced to know".
>
>Punch the concept into your mind. Timebreak everything that shows up as you
>go, the guilt
>feelings, the blame, the shame, the regret, the whole works. Take your
>time. Now punch out
>the "Forced to know' idea again. Continue till it is dry. Now run RI.
>
>2) "Get the idea of preventing (something) from being known". (Run
>repetitively till dry; Run
>RI)
>
>Continue through the list. Run plenty of RI, for this Level tends to chop
>it up a wee bit. When
>you've completed to 8), go back and start again at 1). New material will
>show up. Continue
>round and round the list until there is no further new material, and no
>further change. When in
>doubt - run RI.
>
>End result: You will not be bothered by any of the overwhelms (upsets) on
>your known time
>track. The environment is now virtually incapable of triggering your mind
>against your
>conscious choice. Only you can do it now, - and even you are having trouble!
>
> ___________________________
> ___________________________
>
>
>LEVEL 5
>
>Purpose: To exercise the being in the creation of complementary and
>conflicting postulates in
>accordance with the Postulate Failure Cycle Chart.
>
>Read the chapter in your manual for Level 5 - fully.
>
>Do "Session Preparation" as above 1-5 plus Timebreak the events of today.
>
>Make a photocopy of the Postulate Failure Cycle Chart for your working copy,
>with cardboard
>backing.
>
>Follow instructions from tape and text.
>
>The following 3 pages are the most important part of the tape Dennis
>Stephens sent to Judith
>Methven on how to run Level 5 of TROM. In the latter part of the tape he is
>again admonishing
>everybody to stick to his instructions especially to doing RI generously.
>He also warns not to
>leave a level before all the charge has been taken off it, that is, there is
>no more change being
>produced when running it. He says you cannot overrun any of the levels of
>the failure cycle
>chart. You simply get bored if you overrun them.
>
>Another point he makes is that it is no loss of face to drop back a Level if
>you are not doing well
>on the higher one. Simply drop back, run it till no more change and then go
>back to the higher
>level. (Some have said that from their experience this was something that
>brought enormous
>gains)..............................Judith Anderson - Distributor
>
>
>The Tape by Dennis
>
>"[The best way to follow this is when you have the postulate failure cycle
>chart in front of you]
>
>"I will go through the chart as if I'm the subject and I'm running Level 5.
>I'm starting at Level 1A
>and the goal-package I'm using is the basic To Know goal package. Before I
>start as given in
>the manual I'd timebreak all the day's activities and also I would make sure
>the Levels 1,2,3,
>and 4 have been run to no more change. I wouldn't, of course, attempt Level
>5 until those first
>4 levels have been run to no more change and also I've timebroken the day's
>activities.
>
>"Ok, here goes. Level lA. The first thing we need is a little bit of space
>around us. Now, it
>doesn't matter which space you use, you can use the space of the present
>time universe
>around you or you can use the space of any past moment in time. It doesn't
>matter. You are
>not limited in any form whatsoever. You just need some space in which to
>work. It doesn't
>have to be present time physical universe space, it can be past physical
>universe time space.
>You just need some space there to work.
>
>"So, we are at Level lA and the first thing you would do is put up the
>postulate, the Other's
>postulate "Must be Known". The postulate is "Must be Known" and that is in
>the class of not-
>self. Now, it doesn't matter where you put the postulate. Most people find
>it easier to put the
>postulate into a mass. Even a created mass of your own choice or into a
>wall, a part of the
>physical universe, a fence, a passing car. It doesn't matter where you put
it.
>
>"The important thing is that it is a "Must be Known" postulate and it's in
>the class of not-self.
>That is important. You must be certain that it's in the other's, the class
>of other's to which I will
>refer for more precision as the class of not-self. So you put up that
>postulate "Must be Known"
>in the class of not-self. You yourself then create the postulate "Must
>Know". If you go over the
>column 1 on the chart you see that the level here is "Forced to Know. It's
>you being forced to
>know. Get that? Doesn't matter what it is, you don't have to specify as we
>are just working with
>the postulates. So you would put up "Must be Known" over tht way in the
>class of not-self and
>then get yourself there.
>
>"Don't see yourself over that way doing this. You get yourself right where
>you are, right where
>you are with the "Must Know" postulate. There's a little danger there that
>you could say, Oh
>well, get me over that way. Oh no, that's wrong. You get right where you
>are - with the "Must
>know" postulate. Then you simply timebreak out anything that shows up, any
>sensations that
>show up. Your whole situation is of cameo, as a scenario, as a scene, and
>you timebreak out
>anything that happens. Anything that shows up, you time break it. Time
>break it out until it's
>gone away and then you put the postulates back up again.
>
>"You put the postulates back up and more scenes show up from the past, you
>timebreak those
>back out, have a good look at them, timebreak them out of existence and put
>the postulates
>back up again. And you keep on doing this until you can put the postulates
>up at level 1A with
>no more change occuring and you can quite happily put up the postulate "Must
>be Known" in
>the class of not-self over that way while you're sitting there with "Must
>Know". And you got the
>idea that you're being Forced to Know. That's quite OK. Nothing is
>happening and it's all
>quietened down. Right, now you're ready to move on. You started to get
>bored with that level.
>You've done all you can with that level, it's now time to move on. So we
>now more from 1A to
>level 1B.
>
>"Now that is signified by you changing your postulate from "Must Know" to
>"Mustn't know".
>You're still at receipt point, but you're changing your postulate from "Must
>Know" to "Mustn't
>know". The postulate "Must be known" is still out there in the class of
>not-self. But now it's a
>game. We now have a games condition. We now have the opposition. We now
>have an
>opposition situation. We have "Must be Known" in the class of not-self and
>"Mustn't Know" in
>the class of self and they are opposing postulates and that is a games
>situation. So, you just
>now hold that. Just hold that situation and timebreak out everything that
>shows up. Everything
>that shows up there.
>
>"And you continue with it until there's no more change. You've timebroken
>out everything you
>quite happily have that situation there where you have "Must be known" over
>there in the class
>of not-self and "Mustn't know" in the class of self and you can hold that
>situation. And there's
>nothing else, it's all quietened down. There's nothing else happening. And
>you're getting bored
>with it, so it's time to move on. So you now move on from 1B to 2A.
>
>"Now this involves a definite change, you're going from origin now to
>receipt. That is a bigger
>change that happens there between 1B and 2A. When we go from 1B to 2A you
>start off by
>still feeling yourself at receipt point. You start off by saying, well, I'm
>in "Mustn't know" across
>to the other person, to the "Must be Known" there. In other words, instead
>of him being the
>originator and you being at the receipt at level 2A you're the originator
>"Mustn't know" and you
>drive him into the receipt of "Must be Known". In other words, you're
>beginning to get at him.
>So you're beginning to get at the opponent. So it's you with "Mustn't know"
>and him still holding
>his postulate of "Must be known", but instead of him being at the origin
>point he's now at the
>receipt point.
>
>"But it's still a game. Then again you would do all the necessary
>timebreaking, the handling of
>all that shows up, clean everything up until you're quite bored with that
>Level, the whole Level
>2A. Then you would go to Level 2B where now you are going to actually
>overwhelm the
>opponent. You still stay in your "Mustn't know" postulate, you're
>originating your "Mustn't
>know" postulate at level 2B and now you drive him, you actually force him,
>you drive him by the
>sheer power of the postulate, you drive him from "Must be Known" into
>"Mustn't be known". In
>other words, you make him comply with your postulate. So he's driven from
>"Must be known"
>he held at level 2A he now goes to "Mustn't know" at the origin and the
>opponent with "mustn't
>be known" at receipt point there.
>
>"So now we've gone through a whole little cycle, haven't we. We've gone
>through a whole little
>cycle. We had the complementary postulates at level 1A with "Must be known"
>and "Must
>know". We've gone through two game cycles and now we've gone back to
>complementary
>postulates again. But notice that the postulates have changed. We are now
>at 2B. At 2B we
>have "Mustn't Know" - "Mustn't be known" and we are back with complementary
>postulates
>again. But now you are at the origin point and the "Mustn't be Known" is at
>the receipt point.
>
>"Basically the difficulty is a lack of understanding that you're dealing
>purely with postulates.
>You're not dealing with effects here on the chart, you're dealing with
>postulates. That's all you
>are putting up, it's postulates. You're not putting up effects, you're not
>putting up sensations, or
>you're not creating people, you're not mocking up people, you are not
>mocking up walls, or
>floors, or situations. You're simply mocking up postulates. What we're
>working with are just
>postulates. That's the whole level of level 5, it's postulates. That is
>all we are working with at
>level 5, it's postulates. We don't work with anything else, we timebreak
>out anything else that
>shows up. We only work with postulates at Level 5.
>
>"It is an incredible thing to work with. At first it seems very strange and
>so forth, very odd and
>peculiar to be just working with postulates. But after one gets used to it,
>when you get into level
>5 you get to a point eventually where you wouldn't dream of working with
>anything else but
>postulates because you get the fastest results working with postulates and
>you always work with
>just postulates. You simply timebreak out everything else that shows up.
>Any incidents that
>show up, or sensations, or emotions or whatever shows up. You simply
>timebreak them out.
>So at level 5 you are working purely with postulates. Once you grasp that
>you have got it. You
>have got it. You can work then on level 5 and realize what you're doing."
>
>END OF TAPE
>
>
>
>I hope this helps those of you who have not asked me specifically for a
>transcript of the tape as it
>has been available for a long time, and that it encourages use of the
>fantastic materials of
>TROM.
>
>Judith
>
>
>.
>
>
Judith K. Anderson ^..^
Tel/Fax. 61-7-3844 7576 ~ \\
\\
\\
\\ __________
\ /// // \
1 ________ 1 \
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
Subject:
Re: Using TROM to get something to handle
Date:
Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:05:38 +1000
From:
Judith Anderson <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Dear Trommers and Judith M, re getting Stuck.
Dennis says - when in doubt run RI.
To Judith I ask can one run RI if one is stuck? Could you?
cheers, and love Judith A.
At 08:45 PM 10/25/97 +0200, you wrote:
>In her contribution to this thread (see also it in full, it is good)
>Judith methven said: "Only switch if you are getting stuck. What
>advantage is there to being stuck."
>
>I did not quote the auditors clause bit in full. It is:
>
>Always continue a process as long as it produces change and no longer.
>
>I would consider being stuck as very synonomous ( (-: ) with no change
>and you therefore no longer continue the process -- what do you do? Ah,
>there lie sounds basics and intuitive flairs.
>
>Also some one else (John V LuValle <[email protected]>) says:
>"This doesn't seem any stranger than listing to get a service fac,
>then running a ser fac handling, or AESP assesments to find engrams to
>run." (and more see his entry)
>
>Which reminds me of another important set of data we taught in the HPA
>course in 57/8, namely the two (or three) times when you could end a
>process and the two (or three) times when you must end a process. When
>you carry on processing beyond the right item, you normally continue to
>get change..... But (I guess) you have passed a point when you must end
>the process.
>
>Life was too simple in 57, with the rule "That which turns a condition
>on, if continued, will turn it off".
>
>I can remember one weekend when we had to have all HPA students audit
>each other 8 (or was it ten) hours straight off on op pro by dup. I was
>the instructor. Someone apparently got a slipped disk. I insisted on
>continueing, and she did. I don't know whether any good came out of it,
>but I would not do that now. So the rule needs a lot of ifs and ands,
>not to say a few ohs, and ahs. Like "that throughly tested therapeutic
>action which turns....." , and given that other items like sufficient
>food, sleep, little alchohol, auditor comm cycle etc are in order.
>
>With time, one becomes wiser, soberer, and more serious....... (Oh,
>think of the young, apathetic and very innocent Ant of 57...)
>
>But I do feel that sometimes protests and (apparent) deviance from what
>was taught in the good old days can be due to not fully analysing what
>was said, and sume times to accepting some glib explanation of what was
>meant rather than thorughly analysing what was said, and the context. Oh
>even a glib reference to "Ron said....." without quote where and (more
>important) when he said it .... some "Ron saids" become blurred with
>passing on (like rumours) or slightly deficisnt memory.
>
>Is that off context for a trom list? I think not, as my reading of TROM
>is that it is an attempt to improve on, and make self-auditable, basic
>(workable/sensible) scientology.
>
>P.S, here in Europe the clocks go back tonight - so Europeans have an
>extra hour to ponder on the deep significance of my words.
>
>Hi,
>
>Ant
>--
> 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://home.sn.no/home/trone/IVy.html
>
>
Judith K. Anderson ^..^
Tel/Fax. 61-7-3844 7576 ~ \\
\\
\\
\\ __________
\ /// // \
1 ________ 1 \
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
Subject:
Re: Using TROM to get something to handle
Date:
Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:48:24 +0000
From:
Judith Methven <[email protected]>
To:
"Dustin W. Carr" <[email protected]>
CC:
[email protected]
Hi
>>When this happened, it was advantageous to reduce the gradient and use a
>>different approach to reduce the charge.
>
>How do you reduce the gradient? Can you be more specific about the
>different approach?
>
First I would stop applying pressure by ceasing to apply the postulate
failure chart.
That I would carefully examine the feeling that was apparent. I would
try to have a good look at it bit by bit, to get as full a picture as
possible, and maybe as is it.
I would try and describe fully what was happening - lots of itsas.
I would use what I call a Q & A approach. This approach as I use it is
as follows.
Ask a question, get an answer, make a new question from that answer, get
the answer and so on. Whilst doing this, however, one has to try and
stick to the main problem, so that you don't move too far away from it.
If I feel I am moving too far from it, losing the thread, I would just
go back to it.
I think some call this method Socratic questioning. It may also be a
variation on what I've heared called postulate auditing. For me, it
helps to ease the gradient.
In the end, it is important to look right at the original problem which
contained so much charge, and see how you stand in relation to it now.
Perhaps it has gone. If not, you tend to get a different view of it, so
can do different Q and A with it.
What I am really trying to find is why I accepted the overwhelm. How
did I end up at unwanted effect - what sort of being key's me in - what
sort of place - what sort of circumstances - what is the game - how I
became involved and why.
Then when you've found that out, RI to put in what you do want.
If you think the problem has gone, but it has not - no need to worry, it
will definitely present itself to you again - albeit slightly
differently!
>I have found that when I am stuck, I usually will stop in the middle and do
>RI, lots of it. Sometimes for several different sessions before I come back
>to the place I was stuck. It has always been the case that I am no longer
>stuck after this.
That's interesting.
Best wishes
Judith
--
Judith Methven
Subject:
Change of environment
Date:
Wed, 29 Oct 1997 19:34:37 +0100
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
LRH in Science of Survival (Book II page 8 in my The Wichita Publishing
co. edition) talks about three valid therapies. These are change of
environment, education and processing.
Michael J. Bacon, quoted from Replay 42 says "Anyway... I do feel
better. I do feel the experience was worthwhile, and now that I've
slept some, I feel much less massy."
I am wondering whether what Michael J. Bacon expereinced was not
processing, but change of environement. (and therefore if you believe
Ron in this matter, a valid therapy). And if you believe me, it was not
processing.
Let me explain a bit. There a religious experiences, or mystical
experiences as they are some times called. I can't recall one myself,
but I am certainly prepared to believe that they occur, and suspect that
they involve, amongst other things, going into universes completely
different from the one I am communicating to you in. More or less
dimensions, different perceptions, lots of differences it would be
practically impossible to explain (for example via email!).
Having had a brief look at Shamanism, where these religious/mystical
experiences can be induced (if I remember rightly) by dancing, rythm
(including drums), natural local grown drugs, etc., I have made the
tentative conclusion that wiser folk have taught mankinds forebears in
different parts of the world how to achieve these mystical states (the
correct dose of the local drug, for example, in drug cases). Similar
mystical expereinces occur in the other religions.
They are very valuable, I feel. Give a glimpse of the spiritual nature
of man. Thus encouraging people to be a little more humane (including
more humble, and more willing to grant beingness).
So perhaps Michael J. Bacon changed his environemnt in that 50 hour
"spin" (we used to talk about taking a spin in the car when I was a kid
- it was not a negative meaning). Made a trip of other universes. And
was only able to describe to us a very small portion which was similar
to our common universe.
In other words, he had a profound mystical experience.
Had a win, and that was fine.
But that was not what Dennis Stephens intended TROM to be used for.
You can get these mystical experiences with street drugs. But it is a
case of sometimes you are lucky, some times you are not. A bit like
tossing a coin.
I'd suggest that someone who really wants mystical experiences accepts
the guidance of someone who knows about these things. There are many
such people, and the sincere seeker finds them - but not in large type
on the yellow pages of the telephone directory.
Some one told me some time ago of a friend of his who took a street
drug, and had a profound mystical experience. His life was completeloy
changed (for the better), but he never went near a street drug again.
Just some stray thoughts that have been bobbing around in my mind.
Can you spot my antagonism (oh, on such an extremely high harmonic)
against people who use TROM just to "restimulate charge"?
It seems to me to devalue TROM, and any other form of processing to talk
about stirring things up so one can run them out. The search for
phenomena. TROM, and many other therapies can give positive changes
observable (by self and often by others) in ones happiness and
effectiveness in life.
Fortunately I have some other things to do, so I'll shut up.
--
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://home.sn.no/home/trone/IVy.html
--
Antony A Phillips [email protected]
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
