*************
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
************
Hi Pete,
I have a suggestion.
When one looks at the 'To Know' postulate, the one doing that is
taking an action and is therefore a cause point. When one is looking
at the 'To Be Known' postulate, one is looking for another to take
the action of being known or knowing and the one looking is then at
an effect or neutral observing position. By keeping this in mind and
always including the viewpoint as to whether one is the cause or
effect point then the proper use between 'To Know' and 'To Be Known'
is easily discernible.
One of my biggest gripes in writing and in conversations is that the
party making the comment never puts enough information into the
communication for any party who is reading or listening to get
exactly what is really being communicated without making and assuming
what is meant. It's actually a failure on the part of the
communicator in not giving sufficient data for the listener or reader
to know exactly what is being communicated. Someone high up the
scale on TROM or in Tone will have quite a high flexibility and
facility for seeing all possibilities at the same time and therefore
will see the confusion between the two and look for more data or just
ask a question while someone lower in flexibility and facility will
only see what he is used to seeing or compulsively sees all the time
and has the chance of being wrong 50% of the time when listening or
reading something.
As an example, this is why some of the Levels in the Postulate
Failure Chart work and some don't. Then after many passes thru the
chart active games will go blank to no reaction and others will now
become active that were not before. Dennis does not go into this at
all but it is a common phenomena that will occur through any raising
of one's ability and emotional tone as one eliminates their
compulsions from the mind. It is synonymous with one becoming a
master game player as to one who can only have a limited amount of
actions and is not a master game player but in a sense is played by
the game itself.
keep on TROMming, Paul
On Aug 4, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Pete Mclaughlin wrote:
*************
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
************
Hi Leo
Thank you for the offer.
The section of the logical note I gave as an example is technically
correct as published in the original TROM book because Dennis and
Greg define X as to know and Y as to be known.
The problem is that through out the book the postulate failure
cycles for the junior goals packages are named after the leg 1
postulate:
To create, to love, to have etc.
but the "to be known" postulate failure cycles is named after the
leg 3 postulate, to know.
For me as a student trying to learn TROM the lack of a definition
of "to be known" and this repeated referral to a "to know"
postulate failure cycle created a confusion. I asked myself, Where
did "to be known" go? Is "to know" and "to be known" the same thing?
Once I defined "to be known" and read back through the TROM book
these misuses of "to know" in place of "to be known" stuck out like
a sore thumb.
In the logical note section X should be defined as the leg one
postulate so that any leg one postulate can be plugged into X. This
is necessary to make the frequent use of Boolean algebra consistent.
X must always be:
To be known, To Create. To Love. To Admire. To Enhance. To Help. To
Feel. To Control. To Own. To Have. To Eat, or To Sex.
Y must always be
To know, To be Created. To be Loved. To be Admired. To be Enhanced.
To be Helped. To be Felt. To be Controlled. To be Owned. To be Had.
To be Eaten, or To be Sexed.
I have made these changes in the manual that I am proof reading now
and it is much more understandable than the previous version.
Does this make sense to you?
Sincerely
Pete
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 4, 2014, at 3:05 AM, Leo Faulhaber
<leo.faulha...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Pete
I just saw your post.
Per my knowledge everything is ok the way it is stated and I
believe that it must be an MU on your side.
If you want me to help you to find and clarify it I can do so.
For a beginning please let me know your definitions of:
- x
- y
- (1-x)
- (1-y)
Best regards
Leo Faulhaber
_______________________________________________
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
