************* The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org ************
There are no grammar errors. DHS laid it out intensionally as it is . Made make know known. He was grammatically focused in every way. : )
As you dissolve the illusion of time thru time breaking you'll understand more. You'll also be seeing yourself in a spiritual nature and as a timeless being that transcends all time without death yet with a spiritual body . Games? Huge games that are being played and you don't even realize it until you've gotten well into level five . Games where it takes a whole life time to make a single move . You'll see yourself as immortal like most people see themselves as only meat bodys that expire. Have a nice day . : ) Sent from my iPad On Apr 6, 2011, at 6:16 AM, Leo Faulhaber <leo.faulha...@gmail.com> wrote: > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org > ************ > Dear Aarre > > 3. Re: Possible error in the original TROM manual (Leo Faulhaber) > >> > >> 1. Re: Possible error in the original TROM manual (Aarre Peltomaa) > >> 2. Re: Possible error in the original TROM manual (Leo Faulhaber) > >> > >> > > Dear Aarre > > > > Thanks for your answer. > > > > I'm only on Level 2, but that doesn't hinder me from detecting illogics. > > (totally correct) > > > > I agree: If something should be known then one also wants it to make known, > > at least to oneself or to a certain degree.(right) > > > > I agree: Either they should all be with 'made', or all be without it. > > > > > > (Hey, live dangerously, why don't you put 'made' on all 4 knowing > > postulates and make it 'symetrical and consistant' in the translation?) > > > > Symmetrical is good as long as it is also logical. Actually the symmetry is > as follows (in abbreviated form): > > 1. Make known (SD) and know (PD active voice) or be known (PD passive voice) > 2. Make not-known (SD) and not-know (PD active voice) or be not-known (PD > passive voice) > 3. Know (SD) and make known (PD active voice) or be made known (PD passive > voice) > 4. Not-know (SD) and make not-known (PD active voice) or be made not-known > (PD passive voice) > > > > I agree: If the word "made" is correct, then it could be just a matter of > > importance. > > > > However I tend to believe that the word "made" is not correct. The > > left part of the statement is the SD postulate and the right part is the PD > > postulate, which is formulated in passive voice. ( congratulations; you are > > one of the few people who intimitdates me on grammar. I better study this, > > and watch my 'p's and 'q's. Whew ! Did I make any mistakes? ) (I'm going > > to study this above-mentioned point further. I was German in my past life > > too, and am kind of exacting. ) > > No intention here to intimidate you. Alright, let me know your findings. > > > > > I agree: One could apply "Evaluation of importances". However importances > > are relative. So for most of the readers of TROM it probably has only very > > little importance. For me, as I'm working on a translation, it has quite > > some importance. And the illogic also worked somehow like a misunderstood > > for me. > > > > > > ( how important is it that the translation be perfect the first time out > > ? One idea that I had is that you just translate the thing as verbatum as > > you can the first time, and then, when you get up the levels more highly > > yourself, then re-evalutate the data for an edited 2nd edition with slight > > corrections; my gut feeling is that just getting the data to our German > > speaking friends as soon as possible is more important than perfection. I > > think the least perfect thing is to not get the data to them as soon as > > possbile. Perhaps in the editorial notes, you can apologize in advance, and > > recognize the outpoints; They will forgive you any transgressions. I'm > > 99.999999% sure of that. If I'm wrong, come and kick my butt personally; I > > invite you. I understand that Scientology is having some problems with the > > German government, so the public may be ready for an alternative that > > doesn't have the 'bad name' of Scientology. Maybe they are really ready? ) > > It has quite some importance. There are a couple of existing German > translations. Some are quite good, others are quite faulty. Yes, maybe I'll > change some of my viewpoints later on. I'm really glad that you think that > people will forgive me for any transgressions. Most of the German speaking > people are German but there are also Swiss and Austrian people. > > > > > It does have no influence on the processes/exercises, as the chart uses a > > slightly different wording and lists only the SD postulates. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Leo Faulhaber > > Best wishes > > Leo Faulhaber > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:48:45 -0400 > >> From: Aarre Peltomaa <peltomaa.aa...@gmail.com> > >> Subject: Re: [TROM1] Possible error in the original TROM manual > >> To: The Resolution of Mind list <trom@lists.newciv.org> > >> Message-ID: > >> <aanlktins-ckv_hxwxsstumdgthj7chsb7lrk6r2iu...@mail.gmail.com> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >> > >> Hi Leo, Mar. 30/'11 > >> > >> Thanks so much for your email. I'm only on level 3, so take that into > >> your > >> eval of my email. I looked at this point in my mind, and what popped up > >> was.. > >> If a thetan postulates 'that it should be known', doesn't that by default > >> also encompass 'that it should be made known' automatically? Remember, > >> the > >> thetan wants something, and then he makes the postulate for that to > >> happen. > >> He's already decided that it should be known, so doesn't it automatically > >> by default become 'made' by the simple fact of his postulating the effect > >> into existance? I could be wrong on this, but it 'feels' like the only > >> thing the word 'made' would do is imply more import on the intention, more > >> 'must have' on doing it? I agree that consistency gives me a more > >> confident > >> feeling; either they should all be with 'made', or all be without it. We > >> could apply the 'Student Hat' tape of L. Ron Hubbard of 'Evaluation of > >> Importances' to this? > >> Dennis said that all of Scientology with the exception of half of one > >> axiom, > >> fits into TROM, so we may use that tech also. > >> Does the process run just as well either way to you? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Aarre Peltomaa > >> peltomaa.aa...@gmail.com > >> (647) 202-7267 > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Pete McLaughlin < > >> pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >> > ************* > >> > The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org > >> > ************ > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > --- On *Wed, 3/30/11, Leo Faulhaber <leo.faulha...@gmail.com>* wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > From: Leo Faulhaber <leo.faulha...@gmail.com> > >> > Subject: Re: Possible error in the original TROM manual > >> > To: "Pete McLaughlin" <pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com> > >> > Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 12:08 AM > >> > > >> > Hi Pete > >> > > >> > I haven't got an answer from you so far. Did I say anything in my mail > >> that > >> > annoyed you? > >> > > >> > Best wishes > >> > > >> > Leo Faulhaber > >> > > >> > 2011/3/22 Leo Faulhaber <leo.faulha...@gmail.com< > >> http://mc/compose?to=leo.faulha...@gmail.com> > >> > > > >> > > >> > Hi Pete > >> > > >> > Thanks for your answer! > >> > > >> > 2011/3/21 Pete McLaughlin <pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com< > >> http://mc/compose?to=pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com> > >> > > > >> > > >> > hi Leo > >> > > >> > The original notes of Dennis were typed up by Greg Pickering. The text > >> > found on the Freezone website is that original material. Judith > >> Anderson > >> > complained to Dennis that there were a number of grammar errors in the > >> text > >> > and corrected these before she started selling her version of TROM. > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks for letting me know. I read that about Greg in your > >> introduction. > >> > > >> > > >> > i also found many grammar errors and other inconsistencies in the Greg > >> > Pickering text so corrected these and added some footnotes and > >> definitions > >> > etc. to produce the TROM text you can download at tromhelp.com. > >> > > >> > I do habe your "version" of TROM. > >> > > >> > > >> > Dennis found he had made an error in wording on the level 5 chart > >> which > >> > he mentions in one of the tapes. i corrected the copy of TROM that i > >> > publish on tromhelp.com to include this correction. > >> > > >> > > >> > Well done. I listened to that tape too and it's "correctly corected" > >> now. I > >> > mean, it makes sense now and that's what it should do. > >> > > >> > > >> > I see the point of logic you are making but it does not rise to the > >> level > >> > of being an error that will stop progress in resolving the mind. > >> > > >> > > >> > Great that you can see it. For most of the people it won't be problem. > >> For > >> > me it is (was) one. I got somehow stuck there. It worked like a > >> > misunderstood if you know what I mean. > >> > > >> > > >> > I hesitate to make changes in the text i post on the website beyond > >> what > >> > i have done so far. i could already be accused of altering the original > >> text > >> > with what i have done. > >> > > >> > > >> > You don't need to make this change. But I would be happy if you could > >> > publish my post on the mailing list so we can have a duscussionon it. If > >> we > >> > then see 90% agreing with my point of view, you can have another look at > >> it. > >> > (Or if we have only 10% agreeing with me, I can have another look at > >> it.) > >> > > >> > > >> > You of course should make any changes you want in your copy so as to > >> make > >> > TROM work better for you. > >> > > >> > > >> > I will mention it in my translation. Just a note in parentheses. > >> > > >> > > >> > i keep my active copy of TROM on my laptop computer and make changes > >> and > >> > add notes when ever i feel the need. the addition or removal of even a > >> > comma can greatly alter the meaning of the written document. as my > >> > understanding of TROM increases i find that my earlier interpretation > >> was > >> > incorrect and make changes. > >> > > >> > > >> > I agree it's a heavy one to duplicate and duplication can change as one > >> > progresses. > >> > > >> > > >> > i expect this process to continue so i do not have a PERFECT text for > >> > TROM. i feel it is best to leave it as close as possible to what Dennis > >> > approved at present. > >> > do bring up these observations as you find them and i hope others on the > >> > site will benefit from relooking at the text to question if they > >> understood > >> > it right. > >> > > >> > > >> > I appreciate that you maintain the site with the written and tape > >> > materials. On the other hand I do have a slight disagreement with adding > >> LRH > >> > definitions for certains words or concepts out of the Tech Dictionary. > >> For > >> > example that one for "games condition". No need to define it per > >> > Scientology. Dennis does define it much better in the text. Or that one > >> for > >> > "communication". Dennis gives a much better definition (in my opinion). > >> It > >> > also might put TROM into danger because of copyright infringements. It's > >> > already quite risky on the part of Dennis to use the words "overt" and > >> > "motivator". > >> > > >> > By the way: My translation is now being checked by Happyharry. > >> > > >> > All the best > >> > > >> > Leo > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Keep on TROMing > >> > > >> > Pete > >> > > >> > --- On *Sun, 3/20/11, Leo Faulhaber <leo.faulha...@gmail.com< > >> http://mc/compose?to=leo.faulha...@gmail.com> > >> > >* wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > From: Leo Faulhaber <leo.faulha...@gmail.com< > >> http://mc/compose?to=leo.faulha...@gmail.com> > >> > > > >> > Subject: Possible error in the original TROM manual > >> > To: trom-ow...@lists.newciv.org< > >> http://mc/compose?to=trom-ow...@lists.newciv.org> > >> > Date: Sunday, March 20, 2011, 9:01 AM > >> > > >> > > >> > Hello > >> > > >> > I think there is an error in the original TROM manual. There is an > >> > additional word in the following point 2). It says: > >> > > >> > The four basic actions of life each have a twin postulate structure: > >> > > >> > 1. The postulate bringing the effect into existence, and the postulate > >> that > >> > it shall be known. > >> > 2. The postulate taking the effect out of existence, and the postulate > >> > that it shall be made (this is the word in question) not-known. > >> > 3. The postulate to know the effect and the postulate that it shall be > >> > made known. > >> > 4. The postulate to not-know the effect and the postulate that it shall > >> be > >> > made not-known. > >> > > >> > My reasoning goes as follows: > >> > > >> > If the word "made" is correct in point 2) then it should also be present > >> in > >> > point 1) which should then read: ... that it shall be made known. > >> > > >> > But "to make known" or "to make not-known" are postulates on the > >> self-side > >> > (bringing something into existence). But here we have it to do with a > >> twin > >> > postulate structure. First part of the sentence is the "self-determined" > >> > postulate and the second part of the sentence is the "pan-determined" > >> > postulate. And the purpose for the "other side" (not self) is that it > >> should > >> > be known or not-known. So the word "made" is an additive and should be > >> > deleted. > >> > > >> > Please let me know your ideas about this. > >> > > >> > Leo Faulhaber > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Trom mailing list > >> > Trom@lists.newciv.org > >> > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom > >> > > >> > > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >> URL: > >> http://lists.newciv.org/pipermail/trom/attachments/20110330/6c79b4a2/attachment-0001.html > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Trom mailing list > >> Trom@lists.newciv.org > >> http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom > >> > >> > >> End of Trom Digest, Vol 80, Issue 12 > >> ************************************ > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Trom mailing list > > Trom@lists.newciv.org > > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.newciv.org/pipermail/trom/attachments/20110403/0db0b457/attachment.html > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Trom mailing list > Trom@lists.newciv.org > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom > > > End of Trom Digest, Vol 81, Issue 8 > *********************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Trom mailing list > Trom@lists.newciv.org > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list Trom@lists.newciv.org http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
