*************
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
************
From: Ant Phillips <ant.phill...@post8.tele.dk>
Subject:
TROM: Replay B9
Date:
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:28:56 +0100
From:
Antony Phillips <i...@post8.tele.dk>
Organization:
International Viewpoints
To:
tro...@newciv.org
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TROM-L Ä
Msg : 69 of
289
Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
From : Dimitry
Ivakhnenko
236/174.10 Sun 02 Apr 95
12:27
To :
tro...@netcom.com
Sun 02 Apr 95
21:36
Subj : RI
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
Apparently-to: a...@jacome.ping.dk
From: Dimitry Ivakhnenko <d...@insight.kiev.ua>
Subject: RI
Hello everyone,
Hi Flemming,
>>Meanwhile I am learning to apply TROM. I would like to propose a
process
>>similar to Timebreaking. It seems more natural to look at the
terminal
>>and co-locate it with the similar terminal that pops up. I think
that
>>the less significant the process is the better. Imagined objects
embrace
>>past, present, future and even more. So maybe this process
and
>>co-locating imagined terminals can have its place. I even thought
about
>>running imaginary engrams. I remember Hubbard's "lie
factories" but it
>>seems to me a much better processing. It's more creative,
less
>>significant, and of course is much more pleasant. However I still
have
>>doubts about it. Maybe more serious people are right about
"confronting,
>>confronting, confronting, your own, your own past".
? ? ?
>
>Nah, it is actually better to take it lightly. Not much to gain
from
>agreeing solidly that the past is serious and has to be confronted.
Better
>to work from cause in a playful way. Running imagined incidents is
just as
>useful as "real" incidents. Because, actually they aren't
just imagined.
>What one imagines is usually what needs to be run anyway.
Yes, timebreaking with the imagined objects and scenes turns out to
be
all right. It is not limited to the past.
I said to my friend Igor, "I have a lack of
communication",
and he answered, "So repair it".
So there came up again the old replenishing of communication (L. Ron
Hubbard, "Dianetics 55!", chapter 13). Why Stephens uses two
flows of
RI? I think it is a two-way communication. I noticed that for me
communication is far more important than any dead masses. I came to
the
old idea of Hubbard that the essential repair is the repair of
communication. I think that the goal of the game is communication,
that
masses are importantant because they are condensed communications,
and
so the repair of communication can be more simple and
straightforward
process than the repair of importance. What do you think about that?
--
Dimitry Ivakhnenko
Phone:+7 (044)
224 7323
E-mail: d...@insight.kiev.ua
PO Box 298-9 Kiev 252034 Ukraine
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TROM-L Ä
Msg : 71 of
289
Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
From : Flemming
Funch
236/174.10 Sun 02 Apr 95
07:04
To :
tro...@netcom.com
Mon 03 Apr 95
06:14
Subj : Re: RI
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
Apparently-to: a...@jacome.ping.dk
From: ffu...@netcom.com (Flemming Funch)
Subject: Re: RI
At 1:27 PM 4/2/95 +0300, Dimitry Ivakhnenko wrote:
>I said to my friend Igor, "I have a lack of
communication",
>and he answered, "So repair it".
>
>So there came up again the old replenishing of communication (L.
Ron
>Hubbard, "Dianetics 55!", chapter 13). Why Stephens uses
two flows of
>RI? I think it is a two-way communication. I noticed that for me
>communication is far more important than any dead masses. I came to
the
>old idea of Hubbard that the essential repair is the repair of
>communication. I think that the goal of the game is communication,
that
>masses are importantant because they are condensed communications,
and
>so the repair of communication can be more simple and
straightforward
>process than the repair of importance. What do you think about
that?
Sure. Everything is communication, and masses are really just
accumulated,
undelivered communications.
But good communication is also intimately intervowed with the ability
to
notice or create importances. One need to be clear on what to
communicate
and what is communicated, to avoid that unfinished cycles stack
up.
- Flemming
o
o
/ \------------------ Flemming A. Funch ------------------/
\
/ * \ World Transformation/New Civilization/Whole Systems / *
\
/ * *
\
ffu...@netcom.com
/ * * \
o-------o
------
http://www.protree.com/worldtrans/--------o-------o
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TROM-L Ä
Msg : 73 of
289
Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
From : Dimitry
Ivakhnenko
236/174.10 Mon 03 Apr 95
11:07
To :
tro...@netcom.com
Wed 05 Apr 95
07:51
Subj : Re: RI
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
Apparently-to: a...@jacome.ping.dk
From: Dimitry Ivakhnenko <d...@insight.kiev.ua>
Subject: Re: RI
Flemming Funch wrote:
>Sure. Everything is communication, and masses are really just
accummulated,
>undelivered communications.
>
>But good communication is also intimately intervowed with the ability
to
>notice or create importances. One need to be clear on what to
communicate
>and what is communicated, to avoid that unfinished cycles stack
up.
Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
> Masses are the end point TERMINALS of a two way
communication line,
>they are the reason FOR communication, and the significance behind
most
>two way communications.
L. Ron Hubbard (Dianetics 55!, Copyright (C) 1954) wrote:
>The preclear must be kept at his job. His mocking up of
communications
>must be kept in a simplicity and out of deep significances, and if
his
>attention seems to fixate upon flows and he begins to "wrestle
with
>mass", the auditor should get him back into mocking up
communications
>as fast as possible.
>
>What degree of originality is required of the preclear mocking uo
any
>of those originated communications, answers or acknowledgments?
The
>answer to this is "none." No variety is necessary
whatsoever. Simply
>the idea of communication, with some sort of a specific idea
being
>communicated, is all that is necessary.
>It has not been found necessary to remedy havingness on the preclear
if
>one is actually remedying the scarcity of communication.
>Havingness is the need to have terminals and things to play for and
on.
>
>When a game is done the player keeps around tokens. These are hopes
the
>game will start again. When that hope is dead the token, the
terminal,
>is hidden. And it becomes an automacity - a game going on below
the
>level of knowingness. Truthfully, one never stops playing a game
once
>started. He plays old games in secret - even from himself -
while
>playing or not playing new ones. The only _real_ game one can have
is
>in present time. All others are in the past or in the future.
Anxiety
>for a game takes one into the past.
>
>The command is, "Invent a game," and when the preclear has,
again,
>"Invent a game." Then: "Mock up somebody else
inventing a game."
So that's how I understand it in the terms of communication and
play:
Being enters the game to have communication (to play).
He assigns the importance to all flows of communicaton.
He assigns the importance to communication terminals.
He uses importances as the "reasons for" communication.
He assigns importance to the games.
Wrong cycles of communication (game failures) stuck up as
important masses.
He begins to communicate (play) obsessively with the past.
His ability for actual communication (play) lessens.
Exercises (processes) remove old important masses -
important communication and terminals (games).
He lacks important communication and terminals because of his
disability for actual communication (play).
RI repairs this lack by creating new important masses on all flows
and
giving him the confidence that he can do it.
What I suppose is that since the consideration of importance is
secondary to the communication and game, the essential repair is the
repair of terminals and flows of communication, repair of the ability
to
create terminals and flows of communication (repair of games and the
ability to create games). Importance is secondary. @:)
--
Dimitry Ivakhnenko
Phone:+7 (044)
224 7323
E-mail: d...@insight.kiev.ua
PO Box 298-9 Kiev 252034 Ukraine
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TROM-L Ä
Msg : 74 of
289
Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
From : Lenny or Jevan
Gray
236/174.10 Tue 04 Apr 95
13:31
To :
tro...@netcom.com
Wed 05 Apr 95
07:51
Subj : Re: RI
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
Apparently-to: a...@jacome.ping.dk
From: Lenny or Jevan Gray <lenng...@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: RI
On Mon, 3 Apr 1995, Dimitry Ivakhnenko wrote:
> ...
> L. Ron Hubbard (Dianetics 55!, Copyright (C) 1954) wrote:
> > ...
> >When a game is done the player keeps around tokens.
Sometimes. Not always.
>
>
These are hopes the
> >game will start again. When that hope is dead the token, the
terminal,
> >is hidden. And it becomes an automacity - a game going on below
the
> >level of knowingness. Truthfully, one never stops playing a game
once
> >started.
"Truthfully", but incorrectly.
> > He plays old
games in secret - even from himself - while
> >playing or not playing new ones. The only _real_ game one can
have is
> >in present time.
True. However, in _real_ "present time" there _are_ no games.
The game
is _always_ about the future, and the knowledge of whether it was or
wasn't
a "game" is from the "memory" of whether one was
started. Spontaneity,
(aka: "Creativity"), the only thing to _actually_ exist in
purely "present
time", cares about _neither_ past nor future.
>
>
All others are in the past or in the future. Anxiety
> >for a game takes one into the past.
Careful analysis of the word "anxiety" points to precisely the
connection
of past to future _by_ "a game" as referenced in this
statement. Anxiety
is _literally_ about the future. _Only_ the time-duration of the
"game"
could possibly "take one into the past".
> ...
>
> What I suppose is that since the consideration of importance is
> secondary to the communication and game, the essential repair is
the
> repair of terminals and flows of communication, repair of the
ability to
> create terminals and flows of communication (repair of games and
the
> ability to create games). Importance is secondary. @:)
Possibly, the most useful point is that it's _separate_.
- Lenny -
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TROM-L Ä
Msg : 75 of
289
Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
From : Flemming
Funch
236/174.10 Tue 04 Apr 95
19:31
To :
tro...@netcom.com
Thu 06 Apr 95
05:59
Subj : Re: Level 2/3
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
Apparently-to: a...@jacome.ping.dk
From: ffu...@netcom.com (Flemming Funch)
Subject: Re: Level 2/3
At 6:36 PM 4/3/95 +0200, Andreas Mittermayr wrote:
>could you please tell me what commands you gave yourselve on level
2/3 to get
>objects/scenes to timebreak ?
I didn't use commands at all. Just looked at objects and scenes. For me,
if
I had to involve verbal commands in it I couldn't do it so well.
- Flemming
o
o
/ \------------------ Flemming A. Funch ------------------/
\
/ * \ World Transformation/New Civilization/Whole Systems / *
\
/ * *
\
ffu...@netcom.com
/ * * \
o-------o
------
http://www.protree.com/worldtrans/--------o-------o
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TROM-L Ä
Msg : 77 of
289
Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
From : ASC Missions
Group
236/174.10 Thu 06 Apr 95
10:40
To : Dimitry Ivakhnenko
<d...@insight.kiev.ua>
Fri 07 Apr 95
07:38
Subj : Re: Perfect Time
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
Apparently-to: a...@jacome.ping.dk
From: ASC Missions Group <spea...@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Perfect Time
On Thu, 6 Apr 1995, Dimitry Ivakhnenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am interested in the goals time usage since I am translating TROM
in
> Russian. As I understand "To be known" and "To
know" are finished goals.
> What about "To become known" and "To learn" ? I
mean, must the goals in
> packages be finished? What is preferable?
As you know, I am not a TROMmer. But I do invest a lot into the
questions used in any procedure.
I find that, Yes, goals must be worded as "done
deeds".
This is most easily done by phrasing them in the future perfect tense
after conceptualizing them under the definition:
Goal: the event-instant that signals the end
of a game
or activity sequence.
The objective of a question is to stimulate a conceptualization. The
future perfect tense presents the concept as a fixed target that can be
visualized from its relevant time period, and thus seen clearly and
examined closely.
The time-variable question leaves the client sliding through a time
duration, which allows the concept to remain a moving target, and thus
more difficult to "apprehend" and scrutinize.
Remember,
"There is beingness, but man believes there is only
becomingness."
Clearing is most successful when addressed to actualities rather than
assumptions. So, questions should ask for beingness (stable image)
rather than becomingness (moving target).
Deal with time as a label upon an image (Space/location too, is another
label). The concept, then, is either stable by reason of a definitive
label, or fluid because it contains a variable.
Some questions and commentary:
"To be known"
When? Varible time. Becomingness.
"To have been known"
Better, but implies that IT happened but is now completed and
terminated.
"To have become known"
After the fact of accomplishment,
the done deed that continues thenceforth. Beingness.
"To
know"
}
"To have
known"
} comments same as previous set
"To have become knowledgeable" }
And so on,
Improving
this:
To this:
-------------------
------------------------
"To become
known"
"To have become known"
"To
learn"
"To have learned"
This may take a small bit of adjusting, to get the feel and see the
difference.
Say to yourself, "I want to know."
Do you feel a frustration about that you don't know?
Doesn't the statement reaffirm that you don't know?
And doesn't that imply that you lack something?
Now say to yourself, "I want to have known."
Is this different?
Doesn't this one "move" you into the future, the
time-place relevant to
the objective?
Doen't it imply that you can and will have acheived this?
Doesn't it put you into the frame of mind of accomplishment?
Doesn't that validate your capacity to be there, to have done
it?
Watch out for the objection of, "Yes, but that's not my/the original
wording".
Most of us don't say exactly what we mean, every time. Most of the time,
in fact, we just loosely approximate the actual concept.
Thus it is not an invalidation to consider the clarification of the
target concept by contemplating a more accurate wording of what it really
is.
After all, clearing is about becoming more at cause over one's mind, is
it not?
That is not a destination, it is a process.
And there's no time like the present.
-0-
Reference: _Future_Perfect_ -Stanley M. Davis, ISBN
0-201-51793-0
Speaker for Acceptance <spea...@netcom.com>
Acceptance Services Center
Acceptance is appreciation without significance.
| (415) 964-3436
Appreciation is willingness to experience as-is.
--8-- PO Box 390696
Significance is interpretation, or added-on meaning. | Mtn
Vw CA 94039
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
--
Ant
Antony A Phillips
i...@post8.tele.dk
tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69
Box 78
DK - 2800 Lyngby
Editor, International Viewpoints (= IVy). See Home Page:
http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/
Administrator: trom-l, selfclearing-l, superscio-l, IVy
lists [end of repeat/replay]
-- [Present time signature:] --
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
TROM@lists.newciv.org
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom