*************
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
************
Hi David,
I quote below your original request.
------
I am trying to figure out what the "not included postulates" are
supposed to
be, because Dennis is somewhat ambiguous and confusing for me.
The meaning of this quote from the book is not exactly clear to me:
If you?ve been following this closely you?ll have realized that
at the overwhelm level we have the semblance of a no game
situation, for there is no longer any conflict between the
postulates; they are, indeed, complementary.
Does the above quote mean the following:
(In other words, is the following correct in the way I have included the
postulates in lines 1A and 2B on my chart for my own understanding
(in small text and brackets) that Dennis did not include on the original
chart?:
Self /SDP PDP / Others /SDP PDP
1A (MBK) MK MBK (MK)
Motivator
Overwhelmed You are forced to know. /Infliction/ You have
been
inflicted./You lost
2B MNK (MNBK) (MNK) MNBK
Overt
Overwhelm Preventing from being known. /Rejection/ You
rejected the
other guy. /You win
Again,..... I want to get certainty on this:
Does Dennis mean that the self and others postulates are also the same in
lines: 3A and 4B, 5A and 6B, 7A and 8B?
------
At first let us have the following conventions for our convenience:
SDs = Self Determined Postulate from SELF
PDs = Pan Determined Postulate from SELF
SDo = Self Determined Postulate from OTHER
PDo = Pan Determined Postulate from OTHER
SELF = You
OTHER = someone else
Exercise 1:
a) Please define the following words:
Self
Other
to determine
Determination
Pan- (as used in conjunction with other words)
Pan-determinism
Self-determinism
Postulate
b) Now define those words:
(to) know
not
be
create
effect
--------
--------
Any goals package is composed from four postulates.
(Dennis calls them the "legs" of the goals package).
According to his theory those legs are cycled through in a fixed
sequence (1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4) which he calls "Postulate Failure Cycle".
(Note: you audit them in reverse order as given in the chart)
For the "To Know" package the following postulates ("legs") are
of relevance:
Leg 1: MBK = Must Be Known
Leg 2: MNBK = Must Not Be Known
Leg 3: MK = Must Know
Leg 4: MNK = Must Not Know
In the above postulates you can find certain peculiarities.
Firstly you can see that there are two logical negations symbolized
by the word "Not" (as in MBK versus MNBK and MK versus MNK).
Secondly, we have the differentiation by the word "Be"
(as with MK and MBK; MNK and MNBK).
The two symbols (words) "Not" and "Be" alter the meaning of
the whole symbol chain (sentence). If the meaning is changed
it follows that the postulates denoted by those sentences
are different as well. E.g. If we make a postulate MK it
certainly creates a different effect than, let's say, the
postulate MNBK.
Now, at closer inspection of those four postulates you will
find out that certain postulate-pairs do each other complement
while other pairs are opposing each other.
Exercise 2:
a) Define the words:
(to) complement
(to) oppose
opposition
agree
disagree
b) Try to figure out which postulates complement each other
and then which postulates oppose each other.
(All this under the condition that one of the postulates
is put up by one person and the other by another person.)
(I give you a small hint: Do not pay any attention to pan-
or self- determination. That's not important at this stage.
we'll consider that in a moment.)
Please do not read any further before you have noted down your solutions!
-----
-----
Solution for Exercise 2b:
The complementing postulates in our case of the "To Know" goals
package are:
Leg1 (MBK) and Leg3 (MK) complement each other
and
Leg2 (MNBK) and Leg4 (MNK) also complement each other.
In other words: The two persons involved - the SELF and the
OTHER are in harmony and thus are in high ARC with
each other. They certainly do not perceive each other as
opponents or enemies. Since there are no opponents present
we call this postulate configurations a "no-games condition"
(no game is going on between self and the other).
Example:
You're eager to show a friend the photos of your last vacation.
Corollary your consideration or postulate is of the Leg1 (MBK)
flavor.
The other (your friend) is already looking forward to see you
and curious to experience your vacation through your words and
photos. He operates in that case on Leg3 (MK).
Make up more examples on your own for this Leg1 - Leg3
pairings and as well for Leg2 and Leg4 pairing. Do that until
you feel confident about this.
In order to combine the legs in pairs of opposing configuration
to each other we have to do the following:
Leg1 (MBK) and Leg4 (MNK) opposing each other
and
Leg2 (MNBK) and Leg3 (MK) oppose each other as well.
In other words: The two parties involved are in a conflict
with each other and thus have low ARC for each other.
They regard each other as opponents or even as enemies.
We call that a "game-condition".
(The postulates there, are not aligned with each other.
Instead their force vectors point toward each other. The
opposing forces clash against each other which causes a ridge
which is perceived as sensation by the beings involved.
Those sensations perceived may range from "pleasant" to "painful".
How it is perceived is a matter of force-magnitude applied and
the beings sensitivity.)
Example:
a) Two amateur boxer doing some training rounds.
Their fight is playful. The postulates are exerted with
moderate intention. The fight ends after a previously
agreed upon period of time. One or other may have received
a small cut or a bleeding nose, but none was overwhelmed
so far (e.g. beaten into unconsciousness, coma or even
to death).
The opponents shake hands, might go for a drink afterwards.
This is an example where you have a game-condition, but
no overwhelm.
There are several possible reasons why this fight was not
escalated into a life-or-death struggle.
One reason could have been that at least one of the opponents
had no interest that anyone gets hurt seriously. Even if that
one opponent is so much stronger that he could for sure
overwhelm the other he might rather decide to let the other
have his way (he does that by voluntarily deciding to adopt
the complementary postulate to the opponents postulate.
It follows that the game must end here).
An other reason could be, that both opponents are well aware
that the game they are playing is only a game of low priority
which is embedded in the framework of an even larger game
(that larger game may be to prepare for a real champion fight
or to become professional fighters someday.)
That's one way to end a game.
The other one is through overwhelm of the opponent:
b) A few years later those two training buddies have
become professional boxers now. One of them holds currently
the title of world-champion in his weight-class.
The other one is second in ranking and feels ready to
challenge the champion. There is much money involved in
all of this, perhaps corruption as well. The spirit of
play has long since gone, some way or other things got
more solid and generally went down-tone.
I skip here the ugly details of that fight which raged on
ruthlessly over many painful rounds.
The game ended like that:
One of the opponent was overwhelmed by the other by finally
landing a couple of hard blows which sent the opponent to
the floor. He was already unconscious from the impact of
the other's fist in his face before his body hit the ground.
He woke up two weeks later from a coma. A physician, talking
to the press, said: "He had suffered severe brain damage.
We're not certain to which degree he will ever recover. But
we know for sure that this is the end of his career as a
boxer."
Note: I've deliberately chosen here examples which have
a peculiarity which - to my knowledge - was not explicitly
mentioned by Dennis. From the Postulate-Failure-Cycle-Chart
(PFCC) one could get the impression that there exist only
situations where one of the opponents is the hunter and the
other the prey. One is the offender the other the defender.
One creates the effect (he is the originator), the other is
the one who has to experience the effect (the receiver of the
effect).
In the example it may seem that both boxer have the same
postulates in mind. Both want to leave the ring as victors.
At closer inspection we can find out that one of them was
the initiator of the game, the challenger. While the other
may assume the role of the defender of a title.
But even if that is not the case and the opponents have
equal intentions initially; while the fight rages on it can
be seen by the attentive spectator that the fighters are
changing. One reaches out to land a blow on the other's
chin. The other assumes the role of a defender and raises
his arm in defense. The next moment he slips into the
attacker role compelling the other to defense himself.
Sooner or later it will become apparent who is the stronger
one. The other may get more and more exhausted. You see him
gradually slip more and more into the defender's role while
the other one - sensing the opponents weakness - attacks even
more fierce.
So do not get confused when you watch a game that is just about
to start. Wait some time and you will see which way the
postulates will finally settle.
In terms of postulates we have following choices:
Leg1 (MBK) and Leg4 (MNK) opposing each other
and
Leg2 (MNBK) and Leg3 (MK) oppose each other as well.
In our example when we look at what is going on in the
instant when the attacking fighter reaches out to strike
the other his postulate is: MBK (MBK is the generalized
form. It is an abstraction which may be confusing when related
to a specific example. You may ask: "Ok, but what is it that
"Must Be Known" in that example with the boxers. Well, the
attacker wants the opponent to experience (= to know) the effect
of his (the attacker's) fist crashing into the opponent's face.
He wants the other to feel the pain in order to give up.
If the attacker is a sadist he does it to derive perverse
pleasure from inflicting pain. In professional boxing this
is usually not the case. There it is a necessity to convince
the other of the attackers superior strength (or the relative
weakness of the attacked). The goal is not to inflict maximum
pain, but rather to establish a ranking (this is regarded as
desirable in terms of admiration, money, status, survival, ...)
On the other hand the attacked has that postulate in mind which
best prevents him from feeling pain. His intention is obviously
opposing the attackers intention. Therefore he operates on Leg4
in this case which is MNK ("Must Not Know". Which translates
into our example down to: "must not experience that fist in my
face". He regards it as painful, thus undesirable and counter-
survival for himself. He reacts accordingly with moving up his
fists in front of his face in defense.)
This seems to be a good moment to go into the subject of "overwhelm".
Before we go into the next round with the example you may take
a break. Let the above sink in for a while and then move on with
Exercise 4:
Define the following keywords:
to overwhelm
to be overwhelmed
forcing to
preventing from
overt
motivator
--------
--------
Now, the boxer in the role of the defender may fail to prevent
himself from the attacker's fist reaching his face. Perhaps his
defense is not strong enough to stop the fist from breaking
through beyond his arms or he is simply reacting too slow.
He may still stand on his feet, but if such failure of warding off
attacks successfully occur more and more frequent the
defender gradually develops doubts in his own abilities.
Accordingly he adjusts his believes regarding his own strength
compared to the strength of the opponent to the advantage of the
opponent.
Pain can be convincing on a physical level. A series of failure
is even more devastating on a mental level for the being.
Somewhere along that line the defender will receive a final blow
which knock him off his feet. His analytical abilities may be
attenuated to a more or lesser degree. Often he shuts off and
falls into a state of unconsciousness. In which case it is
beyond any doubt who has lost this game. An overwhelm has
occurred. Latest at the instance of the shut-off it even becomes
real to the loser that he has lost. He had finally been convinced
and must - as a matter of fact - agree with the opponents postulate.
There is no way left for arguing any more. Fact is, he lies defeated
on the floor unable to make the slightest move.
If he did not already surrender earlier he has to give in now.
The evidences are overwhelming. He _must_ accept that his opponent
was right and he was wrong (because obviously the opponent survived
better than he does). Consequently he had agreed with his opponent.
Technically that means, that latest at the moment where the overwhelm
is carried out he replaces his original postulate (which was: MNK)
with the opponent's postulate (which was: MK). Obviously he knows
now how it feels to be beaten into unconsciousness by another's fist.
He must accept that his MNK postulate was too weak to prevent him
from knowing the effect.
He may not remember that incident afterwards consciously, but he
still is effect of the engramatic power of the incident.
To be more precise: The problem is not the pain itself. It's the
postulate which he was forced to adopt against his will which was
not his own and which he mis-owns now.
If the being later manages to find out about this
(e.g. during clearing), he will regain his original good shape
again plus the bonus of having made an experience which he can
understand now in its entirety and thus contributes to his conscious
knowledge and is no more part of any stimulus-response pattern which
could be triggered involuntarily.
[As a side-note: The overwhelm can lead to the physical death of the
organism. Physical death marks the zero-point on the tone scale.
Just right below that you have "total failure" - which the thetan
assumes immediately afterwards.]
Exercise 3:
Write up why the "To Know" goals package plays a mandatory role
in TROM and how "To Know" relates to the creation of an effect.
-------
-------
Please post your write-up for discussion.
In case you can't do this exercise - don't worry - just formulate
the difficulty or questions that pop up and let me know.
-------
-------
A pictorial example:
Imagine a long wooden stick to which you apply force in order
to bend it. You apply a moderate amount of force at first. The
stick bends slightly. You can feel the counter force the stick
exerts onto your hands. It snaps back into its original form as
soon as you release the force. You apply more force, stick bends
and makes creaking noises. You release force, stick does not
return completely to its original shape. You do that several times
... until - with a bang - the stick is broken into two parts.
If you apply all force you can muster you break the stick in one
go. The result is a broken stick. It had been overwhelmed and
lost against you.
(If this stick was the broomstick of a witch it never again will
serve her as a riding vehicle. This particular use will be out
of discussion. The next game position will be of a lower order ;-)
This was to demonstrate that the actual overwhelm happens
usually in a short span of time.
A war may rage for years; the actual defeat might take place in
a couple of hours.
There is one thing left to make the picture (the PFC-chart) complete.
That's the question: "Why do we need pan-determined postulates (PD)
at all?"
If you are on your own in the universe, with no other life-unit
around, only you and MEST, it's good enough to operate on SD only.
You'll not be challenged by anyone except nature. But nature's
indifference, its stoic emotionlessness in regard of all your
activities (creations) will drive you crazy sooner or later.
You're longing for other life units in order to play a game
and derive sensation thereof.
We are in the fortunate situation to operate on more than just
the first dynamic. With other life units around, one has to accept
that others have their own free will as well and thus may have
intentions which are in opposition to our own. Initially all beings
were made equal in rights and power.
Under the above assumption it is mandatory to make others comply
or agree somehow with the effect you create.
Depending on where you operate on the tone-scale you can use
various methods to convince others to agree with you.
The methods may ranges from very ethereal to very solid.
You may inspire someone with a thought, shove an idea down
ones throat with loud voice, use your fists, use bullets,
atom-bombs, ... to name a view.
What you actually need in order to win a game is, that the
opponent changes his mind in a way that furthers your end.
(But you do not want that happening too fast. It is no fun to
win an easy game too fast.)
Some way or other you have to inform the opponent of your intention.
Be it nonverbal, through body language, words, firing a shot at him, ...
what ever; he must get the idea what his postulate should be,
in order to satisfy you.
Imagine someone intends to rob your money. He threatens you,
beats you, holds a gun in your face, ... but never tells you
what he wants. You're clueless. You yell: "please, please stop
torturing me, tell me what you want, I do everything, ...
In real life it's the first (and sometimes the last) thing a robber
tells you: "Give me your money, or ...!"
Otherwise it is not a robber's game.
Now, how do we have to complete the first line of the PFCC?
(It is line 1A we're talking about.)
*Before* the overwhelm occurs we have this situation:
You (SELF), in that instant case, is confronted with OTHER who
wants that you experience a certain effect he creates.
Therefore OTHER's SDo is MBK.
You do not like to experience the effect the OTHER wants to
inflict on you (SELF).
Therefore your SDs is MNK initially. Which is in opposition
or conflict with the OTHER's MBK.
The OTHER in addition to his SDo must put his PDo in you to
make it clear what he wants from you.
Which postulate in you would suffice the criterion to satisfy
the OTHER ?
-------
-------
The only postulate that suffices would be MK.
Why?
Because MK is the only complementary postulate to OTHER's MBK
Now there is only one field left empty in the first line of the
PFCC. That is your (SELF's) PDs.
You place that postulate in the space of your opponent (OTHER).
The reason is, to signal to OTHER that you disagree and want
him to stop making you experience the effect he creates.
Which postulate would suffice that criterion?
------
-------
Since your (SELF's) SDs is MNK the postulate which you
wish that OTHER assumes is the complementary to MNK.
This would be MNBK.
*After* the overwhelm had occurred:
You (SELF) have involuntarily accepted your opponent's (OTHER)
postulate. You're confronted with a new reality now and be
convinced that you have to agree with it.
That's the anatomy of any defeat.
(On an analytical level, in the now, this may appear to you
as absolutely unacceptable and unreal. But bear in mind that
when the overwhelm occurred you were not as analytical as you're
now. You were under heavy duress and pain and it appeared to you
as a question of "rather experiencing the other's effect or
succumb".)
Technically that means that - since you're defeated - your
postulates have no relevance anymore. It has been proven
conclusively to you that the OTHER was greater, stronger,
better, fitter for survival than you.
Under the given circumstances it was only logical to give
up your own postulates and instead fill the "vacuum" with the
opponent's postulates. This meant the end of this game-cycle.
The final situation, after overwhelm, in the PFCC's first
line (1A) is therefore:
SELF:
SDs = MK
PDo = has no relevance any more. Was MK before overwhelm.
OTHER:
SDo = MBK
PDs = has no relevance any more. Was MNBK before overwhelm.
This is the state of affairs we're interested in. The rather
lengthy explanations above serve only to make you better
understand how we end up in this situation.
Final exercise:
Listen/read the tape/transcript where Dennis explains the
procedure of Level 5 "How to Run Level 5" (page 181ff in the
printed version "Book 06 TROM Therapy Manual".
Best regards
Robin
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
TROM@lists.newciv.org
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
