*************
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
************
Hi Aarre and All,
Aarre, you are correct as I see it in your assessment.
As I said earlier, 'Wrong' can be interchanged with 'Cross' as Dennis
is using the word cross, especially since we are not talking about
complimentary words but about same and similar meanings and useage.
The semantics of these two words are similar and interchangeable.
With respect to TROM, I see that you are right there too. The words
'Love' and 'Lovable' are similar but have different meanings and
use. They are not therefore interchangeable. They both have their
own particular concept and when used in postulates, they will then
have their own particular concept, meaning and postulate and these
cannot be interchanged.
On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:46 PM, trom-requ...@lists.newciv.org wrote:
Pete,
The word 'exact' in 'exact oppositions' is the keyword. If the
wording is even slightly off, it can't be complementary or opposing.
But in a simple or even a convoluted way it may be opposing. The end
of your statement would be better stated as complementary and
opposing. It is not an either or (A or B) but it is an A plus B.
To bear the same relationship, the wording must correlate the same
way.
example...
1. must know 3. must be known
2. must not know 4. must not be known
correct same relationship as the above
1. must love 3. must be loved
2. must not love 4. must not be loved
altered wrong relationship to the above
1. must love 3. must be lovable
2. must not love 4. must not be lovable
Changing the wording from loved to lovable puts two different
postulate sets (mismatched) into the same package, so that it is
cross-packaged and un-erasable.
Yes.
The word 'cross' means that the word lovable 'crossed' into this
package from some other package. Loved, not lovable is the
correct word in this package. Must love and must be lovable are*
NOT* complementary! To be willing to receive love and to powder
one's face and wear a better dress to be more lovable isn't the
same thing at all; what if she's making herself lovable for
another man and not even for yourself ! She may be making herself
more lovable for some ego crap and not willing to receive love at
all ! If you tell someone that you want an apple to eat and he
say's, 'here's a nice orange for you to eat', he just invalidated
what you asked for, which was an apple. I believe that salesman
do that kind of bullshit quite often.
Dennis mentions the importance of exact wording in many places and
I don't have the time to find them all right now.
I can't pull up a reference either and in different terms, 'correct'
wording must be used, not wording 'crossed' to or 'crossed' from
whatever. I don't believe it is any more complex than this. Let's
keep it simple, we don't have to pull in other additional and obscure
significances to make a truth.
Can anyone else comment upon this ?
Aarre Peltomaa
Paul, Level 5 in progress
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
Trom@lists.newciv.org
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
