*
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
Pete,
Thanks much for the charts; do you have any more stuff that I've never
seen before ?
Perhaps I haven't been through the A-Z of the TROM site yet. I'm still
taking it all in.
Thanks, Aarre
On Sat,
*
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
Pete,
The word 'exact' in 'exact oppositions' is the keyword. If the wording is
even slightly off, it can't be complementary or opposing. To bear the
same relationship, the wording must correlate the
eck that the complementary postulates are indeed complementary, and that
> the opposing postulates are exact oppositions. This can only be done
> empirically, on the basis of cold, hard logic. To do it any other way is to
> court disaster.
>
> Dennis Stephens. The Resolution of Mind (Kindle Loca
*
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
Hi Pete,
I don't think you are helping to clarify matters at all with your examples.
It seems to me that you have a number of things mismashed here.
Reordering the postulates is not really what Denn
*
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
Hi Aarre
Here is where Dennis states that the postulates must be as in the basic package.
Sincerely
Pete
Cross-packaging
When a junior package is not erasing cleanly the most common fault is that the
pa
*
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
Pete,
According to the definition that Dennis gave us, these are not crossed
because of complementary or opposing postulates, but because there are two
different sets of postulates here. It's like mixing
