Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Replay B9

8 views

Skip to first unread message

Ant Phillips

unread,

Oct 14, 2005, 2:05:59 PM10/14/05

--
(2005) list Home page with access to Archives:
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
--

Sent Previously:
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 03:37:00 +0200
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:24:00 +0200
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 23:55:00 +0100
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:23:00 +0100
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 06:20:23 +0100

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) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄTROM-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

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
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) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄTROM-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

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
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:
{Snipped}
>process than the repair of importance. What do you think about that?

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.

- 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) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄTROM-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

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
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.

>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 communication.
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) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄTROM-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
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Apparently-to: a...@jacome.ping.dk
From: Lenny or Jevan Gray <lenn...@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) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄTROM-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
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
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

--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303

Ä TROM (2:235/159.10) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄTROM-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
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Apparently-to: a...@jacome.ping.dk
From: ASC Missions Group <spe...@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 <spe...@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,
previous-life-scio and IVy lists

0 new messages