DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Trom (The Resolution of Mind)
HTML https://theresolutionofmind.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 655--------------------------------------------------
To Free vs To Be Freed
DIR By: mjh
Date: June 18, 2021, 7:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello Fellow TROMERS,
In the 2014 edition DS states: "E.G. The complementary goal of
‘To free’ is ‘To be free’ not ‘To be freed’. Some care is always
required in formulating the exact wording of junior packages."
Why does this package not use freed? - it doesn’t appear to fit
the pattern of all the other stated packages...
I must not free
I must free
I must not be free
I must be free
Take ‘to be helped’ for instance. ‘To help’ is an action one
does to another. The result of this is that the other is
‘helped’, thus ‘to be helped’.
I appreciate that there is also the other meaning of this
statement, in that ‘one has been helped’, where the individual
is in a state of having been ‘helped’.
In this respect, once I have been ‘freed’, I am free – once I
have been ‘helped’, does this mean I am also ‘helped’?
The same applies 'To See', in this one is receiving a stream
from an external source (as in 'to know'), the source is 'to be
seen'. Though, to be seen and known are ongoing processes, in
which we are extant in - If I present myself, whilst I am doing
this I am embodying the 'To Be Known' postulate, it is flowing
through and out of me.
Interesting to me, that the Helped, Controlled, Owned etc
postulates feel opposite to this - in that they are all effect
constructs. To Control can be Inflicted upon another, but 'To Be
Controlled' is the effect of this...
Or is the package actually:
1. To be Controlled - where one commits the overt "Forcing to
Control"
2. To not be Controlled - where one commits the overt
"Preventing from Controlling"
3. To Control - where one commits the overt "Forcing to be
controlled"
4. To Not Control - where one commits the overt "Preventing from
being controlled"
Though later in the Cross-Packaged section, the numbering
sequence is changed and the 'To Be' postulates sit in 3. and 4.
and the 'To' postulates sit in 1. and 2.
In this case the package would look like:
1. To Control - where one commits the overt "Forcing to be
controlled"
2. To Not Control - where one commits the overt "Preventing from
being controlled"
3. To be Controlled - where one commits the overt "Forcing to
Control"
4. To not be Controlled - where one commits the overt
"Preventing from Controlling"
The second package flows better with me, though is it the
inverse of the original To Know package... If someone has an
answer or can explain this better for me that would be
fantastic.
EDIT
I clearly see the semantic similarity between 'To Be Known' and
'To Be Created' - but the logical function of those experiences
and actions are in my current view contra to each other.
#Post#: 656--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Free vs To Be Freed
DIR By: Colleen
Date: June 18, 2021, 9:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I know someone who is a compulsive "Must Free". Wouldn't that be
a "Must Know" - overts of revelation?
And wouldn't the complementary be the compulsive "Must be
Known's" "I must be free" - overts of infliction? Does that
sound right?
And the remaining two appear to be "must not be known" and its
complementary "must not know".
At his best, Dennis did correctly word the To Know four basic
postulates.
#Post#: 657--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Free vs To Be Freed
DIR By: mjh
Date: June 18, 2021, 9:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Karalee,
Thank you for your reply. Very helpful - I put two
considerations into one post there, though they are related.
In respect to the semantic link between 'To Be' postulates and
simple 'To' postulates, I see that they can be resolved by
looking at the 4 overts: Infliction, Deprivation, Rejection and
Revelation
So with respect to the contra semantics between the 'To Know'
and the 'To Control' packages. I get the following:
MBK: To Be Known – Infliction
MNBK: To Not Be Known – Deprivation
MK: To Know – Revelation
MNK: To Not Know - Rejection
MC: To Control - Infliction
MNC: To Not Control - Deprivation
MBC: To Be Controlled - Revelation
MNBC: To Not Be Controlled – Rejection
I appears that I was caught up in the wording of the packages vs
the flows of the postulate .
With regards to 'To Be Freed vs To Be Free' - yes flipping these
round as above:
Must Free - Infliction
Must Not Free - Deprivation
Must Be Free - Revelation
Must Not Be Free - Rejection
This works perfectly - when they were the other way round it
didn't align correctly [as is: Must Be Free was the Infliction
and Must Free was the Revelation]
Thank you so much! x
I need to review the other packages to see which ones have 'To
Be' as the Revelation vs 'To Be' as the Infliction.
#Post#: 658--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Free vs To Be Freed
DIR By: Colleen
Date: June 18, 2021, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad you get a good flow with that arrangement.
Every overt type is fixated on that particular wonderful
sensation.
I live with a "must know" and the need to free with
revelation/exposure looms large, lol. You might call it enforced
enhancement, and that's how they get their jollies :-)
Myself, a must-be-known, just wants to murder the ones who try
to keep me from expressing my creative compulsions, or negate
me, lol. I must be free to be me, lol. Oh, god I hate social
media trolls - not as much as I used to. My must-know buddy can
keep his TRs in on rejection, but he hates lies and obfuscation
(must-not-be-known?)
I won't reveal the nasty underbelly of this society to people if
I think it will spin them or they outright will reject, even
though I hate to see them play losing games for lack of
knowledge. However I know some very high harmonic
must-not-know's who seem to be very peaceful. Eckhart Tolle is
an example - a smooth rejecter person. Not someone I follow,
lol.
Thank god for Dennis pointing me north and learning that one can
be complementary to all four types :-) He did say he started
out as a "must know" - I can have that :-)
Anyways, thank you for your more detailed reply and how you
worked out the flows that feel right for you. I will have to
trial it too, as you say, and see how it feels.
#Post#: 675--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Free vs To Be Freed
DIR By: mjh
Date: June 21, 2021, 12:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Karalee,
I have collated the list of given junior universe packages into
two lists - an Active list like (To Create or To Love) and a
Being Present list like (To be Known or To be Felt).
These lists split the packages up by the semantic delivery in
Leg 1 :
Being Present:
# Leg 1 Leg 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Active:
# Leg 1 Leg 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Happy to have these discussed and shifted as required
#Post#: 676--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Free vs To Be Freed
DIR By: Colleen
Date: June 21, 2021, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For copy -> paste -> print. Thank you.
#Post#: 687--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Free vs To Be Freed
DIR By: mjh
Date: July 1, 2021, 2:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In the TROM Therapy Manual 'Book 6' - we can see that Level 4
'To Enhance' (pg.45) provides the same postulates at the same
legs as above.
Though this is not shown correctly on the To Enhance Postulate
Failure chart for To Enhance on page 77.
I propose that the PFC for these items be re-presented in the
form as per the legs based upon the Overts in order of:
Infliction, Deprivation, Revelation, Rejection
#Post#: 703--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Free vs To Be Freed
DIR By: Colleen
Date: July 11, 2021, 3:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Currently, my mind/brain complex is not analytically up to
checking out your lists. All I can say is that when I ran "To
Enhance" using Level Four command, I always ended session on an
equivalent of floating needle - high states - looking at the "To
Know" postulates as the real thing to be addressed :)
#Post#: 850--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Free vs To Be Freed
DIR By: mjh
Date: September 27, 2021, 7:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Update on the Active/Passive Legs Query:
So sometimes the comm lag is a few moments, sometimes minutes
and other times clearly several months...
Since I began to review Dennis' materials in a chronological
sequence, and review them all several times in that sequence I
have come to a new understanding of this. There were a few items
that caused this misunderstanding, the first is the Postulate
Failure Charts in the books, these are not consistent and are
also not part of what Dennis created. Pete has done a fantastic
job but these charts created a confusion for me and now I have
removed them and am only reviewing Dennis' materials, written
and spoken. Things are becoming much clearer. (Sorry Pete, I
hope you take no offence to this comment).
Maybe if I offer up my problem first, then the resolution to
this.
Problem
I was fixated on flows, what I was perceiving as flows out and
flows in; what was the 'result' of the action - thus 'to create'
clearly looks like a causative postulate, and it is. Here I was
stuck, as Leg 1 is shown as the form To Be Known, and here it
looked like To Create was in the Leg 3... I knew that something
was amiss, I just couldn't conceive of what it was.
So i posted on here looking for guidance, thank you Karalee -
your communication was valuable to me.
Solution
As I said, I've reviewed the materials over and over - the key
points that brought clarity are to be found in the beginning
pages of TROM itself and also The Cause and Effect Words section
on Level 5B : Goals Package Construction.
From TROM:
--- Quote ---
> These actions are accomplished by postulates. A postulate is a
causative consideration.
> That which is brought into existence, taken out of existence,
known or not-known is called an effect.
--- End Quote ---
Thus, all the four postulates are causative - and we are now
looking at the four legs as:
1. The purpose of bringing an effect into existence is to
make it known
2. The purpose of taking an effect out of existence is to
make it not-known
3. The purpose of knowing is to know
4. The purpose of not-knowing is to not know
And here it was possible I could still get caught up in the
Cause and Effect dilemma.
So I listened and read up more in the Goals Package Construction
Tape Section:
--- Quote ---
> The truth of the matter, of course, is that any purpose can be
causative or it can be effect. You know? Strictly speaking any
purpose in the language, any goal is a causative activity. All
of them are. Some of them you can regard as an effect but it's
merely a later consideration.
--- End Quote ---
I began to list all the packages and put them down in the form
above:
[table]
[tr][td]Leg 1 - [/td][td]To Be Known[/td][td]To Be
Created[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Leg 2 - [/td][td]To Not Be Known[/td][td]To Not Be
Created[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Leg 3 - [/td][td]To Know[/td][td]To Create[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Leg 4 - [/td][td]To Not Know[/td][td]To Not
Create[/td][/tr]
[/table]
These two packages are indicative of my quandary, I put the
purpose/effect of each the legs next to these:
Leg 1 – bring into existence
Leg 2 – take out of existence
Leg 3 – to know the existence of
Leg 4 – to not know the existence of
I was intrigued by 3 and 4, as in the sense of creating these
didn’t fit right – so I re-associated and gave them the
following descriptions:
Leg 1 – bring into existence
Leg 2 – take out of existence
Leg 3 – to have the experience of
Leg 4 – to not have the experience of
And then, it all became clear! Of course, the granting of
beingness – the bringing something into being so that another
can experience something.
So I postulate that I am To Be Created, so another may flourish
and enjoy the experience of creating. I want to be loved, so
that another may experience the joy of loving.
The higher sense of all the packages now becomes clear – there
is no error, there is no query – The packages are all of the
form:
1. To Be Blank
2. To Not Be Blank
3. To Blank
4. To Not Blank
It took a little while, but it was worth the effort – Thank you
Dennis, you’re a true star
Khepri
#Post#: 851--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Free vs To Be Freed
DIR By: Jur93n
Date: September 28, 2021, 9:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Khepri, very informative and very helpful to read and understand
this.
Thanks for sharing this!
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1