************* The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org ************
Hi Michel I agree. If a game ends with someone being forced to accept a condition they do not want it is aberrative. Playing with very weak willed opponents will bring this win/lose result with surprising ease. Games can be played with no loss of ability if I am careful to ensure that the opponent is not overwhelmed. For instance, I can play checkers with my 3 year old grandson by letting him win and praising him for winning. If I instead win and laugh at his Loss he will suffer a loss and I will feel bad for causing him to be unhappy.
It is possible to play even important games without ending in a win Lose result. E.g. Some American Indian tribes worked on the basis that when anyone found food all would eat. I have adopted the standard for myself that I want everyone who works for me to get paid for their work. I do not want anyone to feel they were underpaid. Also, when i trade or barter I work the deal so that both sides are happy with what they are getting and happy to let go of what they are trading away. All of this is simply taking pan determined responsibility for the results of my interactions with others. Keep onTROMing Pete Sent from my iPad On Feb 2, 2012, at 8:12 AM, Michel Matil <michelma...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org > ************ > Hi, > > I did not go back to the book to study the texts, but it seems to me > that the point is not that you should not play a game and win or lose. > The point is not to go into a games condition, that is a game connected > to a "MUST". > Saying that games should be avoided is like saying that life should be > avoided. > Does not seem right to me. > > Michel > > Art > www.michelmatilart.com > www.imagemakersvancouver.com/get_painted > Internet business > www.onfirematrix.net > www.onfirematrixdreamteam.com/onfirematrixbizmm.htm > http://onfirematrix.com?id=avar > > > > > To: pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com > From: pti...@proftitleserv.com > Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 01:31:08 -0800 > CC: trom@lists.newciv.org > Subject: Re: [TROM1] RI and The Secret > > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org > ************ > > You guys have really been busy while I've been gone! "I have been noticing > that TROM processing is generally raising my tone and making my life run > smoother. I do not engage in the conflicts that I used to stress over. I do > postulate that things I need will come to me as I need them and they do." [I > really like hearing that. My viewpoint is that you are more into a control of > flows and they don't have to be the kind that 'must' be a cause or 'must' be > an effect everything is much more in ARC. I feel this is how one goes from > ARC into KRC. Too much emphasis is put on ... which is it ... it better be > cause ... it better not be effect. Well just don't even characterize it in > those contexts. Leave it as simple as ... it went from A to B or from B to A > or from A to Q and from B to Z. Let's not be so serious, let's just have what > it was and nothing else.] "I haven't run this changed RI long and have not > seen a big change from it." [What change is that? Have I missed something?] > "My last big cognition was from Paul's statement that winning a game causes > the negative effects of committing an overt. This shocked me and still amazes > me, that both Wining and Losing reduce a beings ability." [I'm really glad > that communicated to you. On this same line and being on Level 5, I realize > that the silly kick yourself in the head, shoot yourself in the foot is the > idea that all of the postulates in the Postulate Failure Chart have a 'must' > in front of them. As I go thru each level, as the last step I look at what I > was running and get the idea that I don't have to have the 'must' and neither > does the pan-determined postulate. That little exercise caps the whole > thing off and puts it to bed for that session. I wind up with full and > complete determinism as does the other terminal (there is no opposition in > either direction). Not necessarily a win/win nor a lose/lose. It's just an > event, just an action, just something that happened, no seriousness. Also no > force fields or barriers or resistance.] "Wow, I have to be very careful to > not get into any games. Before I was operating on the notion that I could > play a game and win and that would be good. Not so a win is as bad as a loss. > I must operate on the basis that I will have what others are happy for me to > have so there are no winners or losers. [Ok, let's take that carefulness off > altogether. Ron's definition of a win is to decide to do something and do it, > to decide not to do something and not do it. That's all. The only other > factor to apply is, 'the greatest good for the greatest number of Dynamics'. > Don't even get into the subject of overts and motivators.] This is working > nicely." Keep on TROMing Pete [I've been away for a while researching, > working on something I discovered about Dennis' TROM. In doing so I also went > to the T4R group and got introduced to other techniques which I am getting a > feel for. More on that in the future.] [Right now let me put some simplicity > into the 'winning Lottery number'. Don't even use the word, the term, the > characterization 'winning'. Using something of the nature ... These numbers > came up at the Lottery. I have the same numbers that came up on the Lottery. > This ticket has the numbers that just came up. Notice that I'm using past > tense. You can also use present tense and future. If you use all three, see > that you get them in the right order. It would go future, present, past. > Another thing to notice is the win/ lose viewpoint has been eliminated and > you are not in contest with anyone or anything. It's also not so serious or > special and more on a ho-hum basis. Do not set it up as a Postulate Failure > Chart episode/event.] [Concerning the "Secret", I studied it when it first > came out years ago and found it interesting and very good. I also discovered > that there was a critical concept/idea, something that I can't remember what > now that was left out altogether. Can't remember what it was. It has been > years.] Keep on TROMing, Paul, Level 5 in progress > You guys have really been busy while I've been gone! > > "I have been noticing that TROM processing is generally raising my tone and > making my life run smoother. I do not engage in the conflicts that I used to > stress over. I do postulate that things I need will come to me as I need them > and they do." > > [I really like hearing that. My viewpoint is that you are more into a > control of flows and they don't have to be the kind that 'must' be a cause or > 'must' be an effect everything is much more in ARC. I feel this is how one > goes from ARC into KRC. Too much emphasis is put on ... which is it ... it > better be cause ... it better not be effect. Well just don't even > characterize it in those contexts. Leave it as simple as ... it went from A > to B or from B to A or from A to Q and from B to Z. Let's not be so serious, > let's just have what it was and nothing else.] > > "I haven't run this changed RI long and have not seen a big change from it." > > [What change is that? Have I missed something?] > > "My last big cognition was from Paul's statement that winning a game causes > the negative effects of committing an overt. This shocked me and still > amazes me, that both Wining and Losing reduce a beings ability." > > [I'm really glad that communicated to you. On this same line and being on > Level 5, I realize that the silly kick yourself in the head, shoot yourself > in the foot is the idea that all of the postulates in the Postulate Failure > Chart have a 'must' in front of them. As I go thru each level, as the last > step I look at what I was running and get the idea that I don't have to have > the 'must' and neither does the pan-determined postulate. That little > exercise caps the whole thing off and puts it to bed for that session. I > wind up with full and complete determinism as does the other terminal (there > is no opposition in either direction). Not necessarily a win/win nor a > lose/lose. It's just an event, just an action, just something that happened, > no seriousness. Also no force fields or barriers or resistance.] > > "Wow, I have to be very careful to not get into any games. Before I was > operating on the notion that I could play a game and win and that would be > good. Not so a win is as bad as a loss. I must operate on the basis that I > will have what others are happy for me to have so there are no winners or > losers. > > [Ok, let's take that carefulness off altogether. Ron's definition of a win > is to decide to do something and do it, to decide not to do something and not > do it. That's all. The only other factor to apply is, 'the greatest good > for the greatest number of Dynamics'. Don't even get into the subject of > overts and motivators.] > > This is working nicely." > > Keep on TROMing > Pete > > [I've been away for a while researching, working on something I discovered > about Dennis' TROM. In doing so I also went to the T4R group and got > introduced to other techniques which I am getting a feel for. More on that > in the future.] > > [Right now let me put some simplicity into the 'winning Lottery number'. > Don't even use the word, the term, the characterization 'winning'. Using > something of the nature ... These numbers came up at the Lottery. I have the > same numbers that came up on the Lottery. This ticket has the numbers that > just came up. Notice that I'm using past tense. You can also use present > tense and future. If you use all three, see that you get them in the right > order. It would go future, present, past. Another thing to notice is the > win/lose viewpoint has been eliminated and you are not in contest with anyone > or anything. It's also not so serious or special and more on a ho-hum basis. > Do not set it up as a Postulate Failure Chart episode/event.] > > [Concerning the "Secret", I studied it when it first came out years ago and > found it interesting and very good. I also discovered that there was a > critical concept/idea, something that I can't remember what now that was left > out altogether. Can't remember what it was. It has been years.] > > Keep on TROMing, Paul, Level 5 in progress > > _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list Trom@lists.newciv.org http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
