*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Sent Saturday 28th of October 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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: TROM: Replay 58
From: [email protected]
Received: from [email protected]
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:29:16 EDT
To: [email protected]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: cats
Hello all,
There is a sentence from Dennis H. Stephens which I don't understand
quite. So
maybe someone can help me. The sentence is at page 64, second line:
"This limited goals package is erased in the usual manner. In the case
of cats
it would be erased from the level of Forced to know cats up to the level of
Cats Forcing to know."
I draw two different pictures to understand this sentence better. One
picture
is a games condition with me as effect the other with me at cause.
With me at cause I get four postulates with cats:
leg 1: Cats forcing to know
leg 2: Cats preventing from knowing
leg 3: Cats forcing to be known
leg 4: Cats preventing from being known
With me at effect I get four postulates either:
leg 1: Forced to know cats or is it "From cats forced to know"
leg 2: Prevented from knowing cats or is it "From cats prevented from
knowing"
leg 3: Forced to be known cats or is it "From cats forced to be known"
leg 4: Prevented from being known cats or is it "From cats prevented from
being known"
If I take leg 1 from Dennis' book which means "Forced to know cats". But
didn't we talk about a games condition I have with cats?
By "forced to know cats" it would mean that somebody else forcing me to know
about cats and cats are not the second terminal in this game I play
actually,
isn't it?
So is it with
leg 2 : somebody preventing me to know something about cats.
leg 3 : somebody forcing me to be known about cats.
leg 4 : somebody else is preventing me from being known about cats.
But then I have a game with another terminal, my uncle, my sister, my father
which will hinder me or forcing me to know something about the theme cats.
So I have no games condition with cats themself, isn't it?
But for my understanding according to junior universes with cats, it means
that I have a games condition with cats and so I do an overt against
them and
they do an overt against me (for me it is a motivator).
Then I have to say that:
leg 1: From cats forced to know (it doesn't matter what ever)
leg 2: From cats prevented from knowing (it doesn't matter what ever)
leg 3: From cats forced to be known (it doesn't matter what ever)
leg 4: From cats prevented from being known (it doesn't matter what ever)
If not I also would have to change the postulates at the cause side in:
leg 1: forcing (somebody) to know about cats
leg 2: preventing (somebody) from knowing about cats
leg 3: forcing (somebody) to be known about cats
leg 4: preventing (somebody) from being known about cats
It would be appreciated if somebody can share his thougts about this
subject.
Sincerly
Peter
------------------------------------------------
Sun, 2 Aug 1998 20:32:11 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 199820:32:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Roy Eugene Vinner <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: cats
Peter,
I have not done myself level 5 but I attempt to answer your questions. It
seems to me that the problem here is merely linguistic.
> leg 1: Cats forcing to know
> leg 2: Cats preventing from knowing
> leg 3: Cats forcing to be known
> leg 4: Cats preventing from being known
>
> With me at effect I get four postulates either:
>
> leg 1: Forced to know cats or is it "From cats forced to know"
They appear to mean the same to me. They both mean that you are forced to
know cats, a pan determined postulate of an actor (someone) or
self-determined postulate of a patient (you). I prefer to use the first
statement in the leg-- it is less criptic to me.
> leg 2: Prevented from knowing cats or is it "From cats prevented from
knowing"
Similar to the above.
> leg 3: Forced to be known cats or is it "From cats forced to be known"
> leg 4: Prevented from being known cats or is it "From cats prevented from
> being known"
> If I take leg 1 from Dennis' book which means "Forced to know cats". But
> didn't we talk about a games condition I have with cats?
I understand it to be a game condition with someone about cats, not the
cats themselves.
> By "forced to know cats" it would mean that somebody else forcing me
to know
> about cats and cats are not the second terminal in this game I play
actually,
> isn't it?
I agree.
> So is it with
> leg 2 : somebody preventing me to know something about cats.
> leg 3 : somebody forcing me to be known about cats.
...snip...
> which will hinder me or forcing me to know something about the theme
cats.
> So I have no games condition with cats themself, isn't it?
True. In the beginning of the book where Dennis describes the theory he
talks about games between beings, not between a being and an object, such
as a cat.
> But for my understanding according to junior universes with cats, it
means
> that I have a games condition with cats and so I do an overt against
them and
> they do an overt against me (for me it is a motivator).
I disagree with your understanding here.
> Then I have to say that:
>
> leg 1: From cats forced to know (it doesn't matter what ever)
Forced to know cats (a type of Must know with cats being a object=
=Must know cats). For another being, who is in the game with you, the
postulate is
cats Must be known
(I read this from the postulate failure cycle chart)
> leg 2: From cats prevented from knowing (it doesn't matter what ever)
Preventing from knowing cats == must not know cats.
> leg 3: From cats forced to be known (it doesn't matter what ever)
Forced to be known about cats == cats must be known.
> leg 4: From cats prevented from being known (it doesn't matter what ever)
> If not I also would have to change the postulates at the cause side in:
>
> leg 1: forcing (somebody) to know about cats
I read this as someone must know cats (a pan determined postulate for you)
and cats must be known (a self-determined postulate for you). Two
postulates correspond to one pair which comprise leg 1.
> leg 2: preventing (somebody) from knowing about cats
cats Must not be known ( self-determined postulate for for you )
and
someone Must not know about cats (a pan determined postulate for you)
> leg 3: forcing (somebody) to be known about cats
> leg 4: preventing (somebody) from being known about cats
Similar to the above.
Roy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sender in 2016: Antony Phillips*[email protected]***
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
