************* The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org ************ Hi Leo I put the email up on the list so everyone can benefit from the discussion.
In the supplemental lectures Dennis makes the point repeatedly that the basic goals package is the to be known package. All the other junior goals are means of effecting the postulate to be known. To be known is the first postulate a being does in order to come out of non existence in a new area. To be known is the creative impulse and until it is done there is nothing to know. So it is important to make it clear to the student of TROM that the goals package is first to be known then to not be known, to know and finally to not know. Dennis' mislabeling of the goals package by calling it the to know goals package made my learning curve longer. So I made the changes in the books to always refer to the basic package as the to be known goals package. I suspect that you are right in that Dennis and Greg were so familiar with the subject that they automatically knew that to know was referring to the to be known goals package but a student will not be able to make this transposition. I could not and it made it hard for me to figure out what TROM was about. Since there have many complaints over the years about TROM being difficult to learn I suspect others have had this problem also. So I have made the changes and put these second edition TROM books up at www.tromhelp.com/books. I hope everyone will download a copy, read them and let me know if this helps. Keep on TROMing Pete Sent from my iPad > On Aug 6, 2014, at 5:58 AM, Leo Faulhaber <leo.faulha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Pete > > Thanks for your response. > > I am a little confused on why my mail to you appeared on the public list. I > deliberately used your personal emal account. I wanted it to be between you > and me. Anyway. > > Here are my answers interspersed: > > >Hi Leo > >Thank you for the offer. > > Your're welcome. > > >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. > > I'm happy that you can see that. When I wrote my mail I thought that it would > be that one that you think is incorrect. > > >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. > > Per my understanding the package is always named with the verb. I cannot see > exactly what you mean. There's no special "To be known" failure cycle. The > failure cycle changes between "to know" and "to be known". > > >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? > > I cannot quite follow. > > >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. > Might be true for you. > > >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. > I guess it's a problem of inflow and outflow. Some verbs in their basic form > are inflowing verbs, like "to know", and some are outflowing verbs like "to > control". > > >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. > I can see that. However I think that it must have been clear to Dennis and > Greg and that it just doesn't matter. > > >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? > > To some extent, yes. Although I am not sure if you increase or decrease > confusion with that change. > > It's a pitty that Dennis isn't around anymore and we cannot ask him (about so > many things). > > Best wishes > Leo > > _______________________________________________ Trom mailing list Trom@lists.newciv.org http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
