DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Trom (The Resolution of Mind)
HTML https://theresolutionofmind.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 229--------------------------------------------------
The subject of reason + complementary postulates
DIR By: supreme
Date: November 14, 2017, 6:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
On p.22 of The TROM book, I see two sentences which confuse me:
HTML http://take.ms/elErA
The first one is: """All the subject of reason limit the
possible and define the reasonable"""
This is not a well-formed English sentence. What do you suppose
the author was trying to express here?
Next we read: """The most reasonable postulate is a
complementary postulate"""
The reason this confuses me is that I wonder why a postulate
needs to be complementary to anything: it stands on its own.
#Post#: 249--------------------------------------------------
Re: The subject of reason + complementary postulates
DIR By: Pete
Date: December 29, 2017, 5:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Supreme
It’s very important to define reason and reasonable to
understand this statement. Dennis gets into these definitions
in the book “01 Insanity Point”
To give you the short answer to your question, reason is sanity
and reasonable is what is in agreement with reality. So a person
who thinks he is a bird and steps off the 3rd story ledge while
flapping his arms will crash into the ground. He has lost his
sanity or lost his reason and is doing what is unreasonable or
not in agreement with the law of gravity.
So reason is what is possible in this reality we share and that
defines what is possible or what is reasonable behavior.
A reasonable postulate for me is one that agrees with my
understanding of reality. Therefor it complements my
understanding of reality.
Pete
#Post#: 265--------------------------------------------------
Re: The subject of reason + complementary postulates
DIR By: supreme
Date: January 3, 2018, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Peter McLaughlin link ---
>
> a person who thinks he is a bird and steps off the 3rd story
ledge while flapping his arms will crash into the ground. He
has lost his sanity or lost his reason and is doing what is
unreasonable or not in agreement with the law of gravity.
>
--- End Quote ---
The man in your example operates in 3 states: waking, dreaming
and deep sleep. In the waking state, he will crash into the
ground. However in the dream state he can (as I have) fly all
over the place with no problem. So I suppose the dream state is
where actuality is the law while in the waking state reality is
the law.
I'm enjoying this conversation. I'm not actively doing the
exercises these days. I did them for a bit and boy the past will
try to take your attention out of the present and you really
could be a basket case if you dont timebreak those implants that
come storming back. But I really appreciate the discussion we
are having.
#Post#: 267--------------------------------------------------
Re: The subject of reason + complementary postulates
DIR By: Pete
Date: January 6, 2018, 11:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Where does this terminology “Waking state” Dream State” come
from?
when operating in agreed upon reality the rules of gravity
apply. when you are imagining a scene you get to make any rules
you want and flying around by flapping your arms is perfectly
fine till you decide to apply the law of gravity.
increasing your ability to put your attention where you want it
for as long as you want it there with no distractions because
you have timebroken the distractions is what you want to
achieve. with practice you increase you ability do to this for
longer periods of time. when you can persist on a given task
longer than others can you are an exceptional person. you will
never achieve machine like perfection at this because you are a
self aware thinking being who likes the sensations generated in
games play. you will persist at a given task as long as
necessary for survival then do something else for fun.
#Post#: 367--------------------------------------------------
Re: The subject of reason + complementary postulates
DIR By: Colleen
Date: July 15, 2018, 3:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: supreme link ---
>
> On p.22 of The TROM book, I see two sentences which confuse
me:
HTML http://take.ms/elErA
>
> The first one is: """All the subject of reason limit the
possible and define the reasonable"""
>
> This is not a well-formed English sentence. What do you
suppose the author was trying to express here?
>
> Next we read: """The most reasonable postulate is a
complementary postulate"""
>
> The reason this confuses me is that I wonder why a postulate
needs to be complementary to anything: it stands on its own.
>
--- End Quote ---
Good question. Does a postulate really stand on its own in an
interactive game with "others"? Yes perhaps in Flow 0 (self to
self) that is true. For example, if I wish to populate my
secret planet with "only me's", exact duplicates...?
In the Old Testament the O.T. deity once said, "Come and let us
reason together..." For example, if my partner is looking at his
past and projecting [bad or manic] futures based on scenes from
the past then I can look him in the eyes and attempt to bring
him back to present time reasoning, based upon what is now here.
I can even ask them to tell me what scene they are looking at,
specifically ("Did that happen to you before?") .
Not-reason tends to be very generalized, such as "I don't have a
life!". I tend to associate reason with logic. Some questions
that invoke reason instead of unfettered and frustrated
ambition are, "What is your next step?", and so we agree what is
the next step and the universe and society will tell us what
sub-steps we need to take to reach that next step. For example,
before purchasing tools for a new business or putting time into
a new business (the next step) we must have all monthly bills
current; we must be in good health, mentally and physically up
to the challenge, or we will be zug-zwanged. Setting too high
goals doomed to failure only give our ego bragging rights for
how much of a failure we are (inverse ego).
Dennis talks about being zug-zwanged (spelling?) by rules or by
universe laws, which happens to all to a greater or less extent.
Most people are zug-zwanged by violating the biochemical and
anatomical realities of the human body intelligence, thus
bringing disability upon themselves, physically and emotionally,
thus prematurely ending a promising upward statistic re their
business or occupation. For example, Steve Jobs.
To put it in a nutshell, reason is being complementary to
unavoidable, unsurmountable rules and laws (by your
considerations and group considerations, and universe physics).
However, Pete tells the story of how he beat the tax man with a
pan-determined postulate.... and he achieved complementary
postulates = no more gaming.
#Post#: 379--------------------------------------------------
Re: The subject of reason + complementary postulates
DIR By: Spirit neutral
Date: July 16, 2018, 11:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: supreme link ---
>
> On p.22 of The TROM book, I see two sentences which confuse
me:
HTML http://take.ms/elErA
>
> The first one is: """All the subject of reason limit the
possible and define the reasonable"""
>
> This is not a well-formed English sentence. What do you
suppose the author was trying to express here?
>
> Next we read: """The most reasonable postulate is a
complementary postulate"""
>
> The reason this confuses me is that I wonder why a postulate
needs to be complementary to anything: it stands on its own.
>
--- End Quote ---
Your right a postulate is a postulate in a state exterior to
your body. A state where your uneffected by anything can be a
strait postulate without consequence. Scientology calls it
serenity of beingness. However people dont operate like this. If
the average person makes a "postulate" it is formulated based on
your life experience, which is a series of effects in your life.
They thinj it through first. That thouhht bombards with all
possible bad situations and is crafted based on them. Thus most
"postulates" are in fact just counter postulates to something
else. A reaction. Thus we have the four kinds of effect
postulates. A cause postulate is pure and uninterrupted by past
effects. Its done without reservation or inhibitions because its
done in the present moment now, not from the mind or the past.
#Post#: 954--------------------------------------------------
Re: The subject of reason + complementary postulates
DIR By: mjh
Date: May 5, 2022, 2:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
TROMers - this is an old post, but on reading it again I
realised that this quote is incorrect, the actual wording is:
"The more conflict there is the less reason there is, and so on.
A tremendous amount of data starts to make sense, once you
understand these basics it all drops out of this hamper, if all
postulates limit the possible and therefore define the
reasonable, and the reasonable is a complementary postulate."
There are several more parts of the transcripts that have been
'fixed' - the latest and currently closest versions to the audio
recordings are available from
HTML https://tromworld.wordpress.com
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1