************* The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org ************
Sent 20th of August 2016 Saturday by ant.phill...@post8.tele.dk (Antony Phillips)
These replays were sent out every week and it looks that this one was not a busy week! Note that this is a resend of a message sent some years ago, and some data (like addresses) is liable to be inaccurate. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hello all, There is a sentence from Dennis H. Stephens which I don't understand quite. So maybe someone can help me. The sentence is at page 64, second line: "This limited goals package is erased in the usual manner. In the case of cats it would be erased from the level of Forced to know cats up to the level of Cats Forcing to know." I draw two different pictures to understand this sentence better. One picture is a games condition with me as effect the other with me at cause. With me at cause I get four postulates with cats: leg 1: Cats forcing to know leg 2: Cats preventing from knowing leg 3: Cats forcing to be known leg 4: Cats preventing from being known With me at effect I get four postulates either: leg 1: Forced to know cats or is it "From cats forced to know" leg 2: Prevented from knowing cats or is it "From cats prevented from knowing" leg 3: Forced to be known cats or is it "From cats forced to be known" leg 4: Prevented from being known cats or is it "From cats prevented from being known" If I take leg 1 from Dennis' book which means "Forced to know cats". But didn't we talk about a games condition I have with cats? By "forced to know cats" it would mean that somebody else forcing me to know about cats and cats are not the second terminal in this game I play actually, isn't it? So is it with leg 2 : somebody preventing me to know something about cats. leg 3 : somebody forcing me to be known about cats. leg 4 : somebody else is preventing me from being known about cats. But then I have a game with another terminal, my uncle, my sister, my father which will hinder me or forcing me to know something about the theme cats. So I have no games condition with cats themself, isn't it? But for my understanding according to junior universes with cats, it means that I have a games condition with cats and so I do an overt against them and they do an overt against me (for me it is a motivator). Then I have to say that: leg 1: From cats forced to know (it doesn't matter what ever) leg 2: From cats prevented from knowing (it doesn't matter what ever) leg 3: From cats forced to be known (it doesn't matter what ever) leg 4: From cats prevented from being known (it doesn't matter what ever) If not I also would have to change the postulates at the cause side in: leg 1: forcing (somebody) to know about cats leg 2: preventing (somebody) from knowing about cats leg 3: forcing (somebody) to be known about cats leg 4: preventing (somebody) from being known about cats It would be appreciated if somebody can share his thougts about this subject. Sincerly Peter ******************************'' Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 20:32:10 -0500 (EST) From: Roy Eugene Vinner <royp...@indiana.edu> X-Sender: royp...@othello.ucs.indiana.edu To: pdexhei...@aol.com cc: tro...@newciv.org Subject: Re: cats In-Reply-To: <5adafa48.35c05...@aol.com> Message-ID: <pine.hpp.3.96.980802195541.19292a-100...@othello.ucs.indiana.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Peter, I have not done myself level 5 but I attempt to answer your questions. It seems to me that the problem here is merely linguistic. > leg 1: Cats forcing to know > leg 2: Cats preventing from knowing > leg 3: Cats forcing to be known > leg 4: Cats preventing from being known > > With me at effect I get four postulates either: > > leg 1: Forced to know cats or is it "From cats forced to know" They appear to mean the same to me. They both mean that you are forced to know cats, a pan determined postulate of an actor (someone) or self-determined postulate of a patient (you). I prefer to use the first statement in the leg-- it is less criptic to me. > leg 2: Prevented from knowing cats or is it "From cats prevented from knowing" Similar to the above. > leg 3: Forced to be known cats or is it "From cats forced to be known" > leg 4: Prevented from being known cats or is it "From cats prevented from > being known" > If I take leg 1 from Dennis' book which means "Forced to know cats". But > didn't we talk about a games condition I have with cats? I understand it to be a game condition with someone about cats, not the cats themselves. > By "forced to know cats" it would mean that somebody else forcing me to know > about cats and cats are not the second terminal in this game I play actually, > isn't it? I agree. > So is it with > leg 2 : somebody preventing me to know something about cats. > leg 3 : somebody forcing me to be known about cats. > leg 4 : somebody else is preventing me from being known about cats. > > But then I have a game with another terminal, my uncle, my sister, my father > which will hinder me or forcing me to know something about the theme cats. > So I have no games condition with cats themself, isn't it? True. In the beginning of the book where Dennis describes the theory he talks about games between beings, not between a being and an object, such as a cat. > But for my understanding according to junior universes with cats, it means > that I have a games condition with cats and so I do an overt against them and > they do an overt against me (for me it is a motivator). I disagree with your understanding here. > Then I have to say that: > > leg 1: From cats forced to know (it doesn't matter what ever) Forced to know cats (a type of Must know with cats being a object= =Must know cats). For another being, who is in the game with you, the postulate is cats Must be known (I read this from the postulate failure cycle chart) > leg 2: From cats prevented from knowing (it doesn't matter what ever) Preventing from knowing cats == must not know cats. > leg 3: From cats forced to be known (it doesn't matter what ever) Forced to be known about cats == cats must be known. > leg 4: From cats prevented from being known (it doesn't matter what ever) > If not I also would have to change the postulates at the cause side in: > > leg 1: forcing (somebody) to know about cats I read this as someone must know cats (a pan determined postulate for you) and cats must be known (a self-determined postulate for you). Two postulates correspond to one pair which comprise leg 1. > leg 2: preventing (somebody) from knowing about cats cats Must not be known ( self-determined postulate for for you ) and someone Must not know about cats (a pan determined postulate for you) > leg 3: forcing (somebody) to be known about cats > leg 4: preventing (somebody) from being known about cats Similar to the above. Roy -- 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/ [http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/]Administrator: trom-l, selfclearing-l, superscio-l, previous-life-scio and IVy lists *************** Replies, comments, to the list, send to tro...@newciv.org *************** Ant Phillips ant.phill...@post8.tele.dk
_______________________________________________ TROM mailing list TROM@lists.newciv.org http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
