************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************ I may be dance here but this looks like running a terminal not a postulate. Cats is a item not a postulate. Run it out with creative processing.
Paul. > On Oct 29, 2016, at 5:00 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Send TROM mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of TROM digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. TROM: Replay 58 (The Resolution of Mind list) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 07:11:54 +0200 > From: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]> > To: TROM <[email protected]> > Subject: [TROM1] TROM: Replay 58 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > 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]*** > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.newciv.org/pipermail/trom/attachments/20161029/4ae266e5/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > TROM mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom > > > End of TROM Digest, Vol 144, Issue 29 > ************************************* _______________________________________________ TROM mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
