*************
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
************
HI Aarre
I agree.
Pete
>________________________________
> From: Aarre Peltomaa <peltomaa.aa...@gmail.com>
>To: Pete McLaughlin <pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com>; The Resolution of Mind
>list <trom@lists.newciv.org>
>Cc: Colleen K. Peltomaa <cygnifi...@gmail.com>
>Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:33 PM
>Subject: Re: [TROM1] Cross Packaging
>
>
>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 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
>unerasable.
>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 areNOT 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.
>
>Can anyone else comment upon this ?
>
>Aarre Peltomaa
>
>
>On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Pete McLaughlin
><pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>*************
>>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 package is not a true package. This is known as cross-packaging. It is
>>one of the ‘deadly’ sins.
>>
>>
>>
>>When two or more junior packages are crossed up into one package neither of
>>the packages will erase, and the whole mish-mash just grinds on forever.
>>
>>
>>
>>The therapist who tries to resolve a man’s drinking problem by addressing his
>>infantile sex life is guilty of cross-packaging. This is why the ‘therapy’
>>goes on forever with no relief for the patient.
>>
>>
>>
>>Indeed, the basic way to confuse a being is to cross-package him. Much
>>thought has been given to this gentle art in the history of the universe, and
>>the most confusing things that have ever happened to beings have been overt
>>attempts to cross-package them - all under the guise of ‘education’, of
>>course.
>>
>>
>>
>>Once cross-packaged the being is stuck within the crossed-up packages
>>forever. Cross-packaging is the primary method of enslaving spiritual beings
>>that has been used in the universe. It is infinitely more effective than the
>>use of rubber truncheons.
>>
>>
>>
>>So make sure that the legs of your junior packages bear exactly the same
>>relation to each other as do the legs of the basic package. Only then will
>>they erase.
>>
>>Check 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 Locations 884-886).
>>tromhelp.com.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>________________________________
>>> From: Aarre Peltomaa <peltomaa.aa...@gmail.com>
>>>To: Pete Mclaughlin <pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com>
>>>Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:20 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [TROM1] Cross Packaging? again
>>>
>>>
>>>Pete,
>>>I had them numbered incorrectly; my mistake. If 1 is must know, and 2 is
>>>must not know, and 3 is must be known, and 4 is must not be known, then
>>>one will create sensation with 1 and 4, or 2 and 3. Could you show me
>>>where Dennis states that cross-packaging is defined by whether or not the
>>>postulates are complementary or opposing? I need to see that reference.
>>>Aarre
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
