DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Trom (The Resolution of Mind)
HTML https://theresolutionofmind.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 480--------------------------------------------------
Re: Postulate Failure Chart
DIR By: TromFan
Date: June 12, 2019, 1:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Does level one produce any reactions? If not, then you may need
CCH. Please message me and tell me exactly what's going on. I
may be able to de-bug you if you are floundering around.
Also, like many others have said, and I can't emphasize this
enough, level five will make more sense to you when you do it.
#Post#: 490--------------------------------------------------
Re: Postulate Failure Chart
DIR By: mjh
Date: June 12, 2019, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi - RI produces reactions - things feel flat on Lvl2,
boredom... maybe I overrun it?
Ok - so I just picked a moment way back in time to run on 2 and
it sparked right up again!
:)
#Post#: 497--------------------------------------------------
Re: Postulate Failure Chart
DIR By: mjh
Date: June 13, 2019, 7:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
TromFan, please see attached as discussed - this brings each
level into alignment with the 1-2-3-4 leg shift. the original
chart does not...
[attachimg=1]
This also fits with DHS statement:
--- Quote ---
> The SD postulate of the vanquished has now gone off the board;
with it, of course, goes the PD postulate of the vanquished.
Both the SD and PD postulates of the vanquished
> are thus off the board (out of play) at the point of
overwhelm.
> Where have they gone to? They are in failure: they are no
longer considered tenable in that game.
> [The vanquished may resurge and play another game of this type
later in time, but the current game with that particular effect
is lost in the opinion of the vanquished.-DHS]
--- End Quote ---
As after each stage that the self is vanquished they come back
again as Origin of Effect.
For myself, from my understanding of how one shifts through
these four 'states' -
5B (MNBK) has a valance shift and becomes MK
5B (leg 2) -> 1A (leg 3) -> 4B (leg 3)
1B (MNK) has a valance shift and becomes MBK
1B (leg 4) -> 5A (leg 1) -> 8B (leg 1)
This is not how it works on the original chart. The Original
Chart is here - note the leg shifts:
5B (leg 2) -> 5A (leg 1) -> 4B (leg 3)
1B (leg 4) -> 1A (leg 3) -> 8B (leg 1)
These do not align with the original patterning - someone please
explain how this is so. Also, DHS states at the beginning of the
book that a being can not go from MNBK to MBK, this is the
reason why there is a valence shift. And, they can not go from
MNK to MK, hence the second valence shift - why then does the
chart show this???
[attachimg=2]
#Post#: 498--------------------------------------------------
Re: Postulate Failure Chart
DIR By: TromFan
Date: June 13, 2019, 8:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, now that you put your chart up the way you see it, I can
tell you right off that in the revised version there is one
fundamental and glaring flaw--- you have both parties changing
their postulates going 1b to 1a and then again the same flaw in
the center of the chart. The way the original chart reads, you
don't have that sort of switchoff.
The way this is written, it's actually more complicated than it
needs to be.
I notice you have FOUR valence shifts. If you read the book,
there are only TWO valence shifts in the postulate failure
chart. 8b to 1a and 5a to 4b. That's it.
You need to understand the difference between a game, an
overwhelm and a valence shift.
It's harder to understand your confusion than it is to convey my
certainty, if that makes sense. But there seems to be a
fundamental misunderstanding of some key concepts and some added
inapplicable data.
#Post#: 499--------------------------------------------------
Re: Postulate Failure Chart
DIR By: mjh
Date: June 13, 2019, 9:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TromFan link ---
>
> OK, now that you put your chart up the way you see it, I can
tell you right off that in the revised version there is one
fundamental and glaring flaw--- you have both parties changing
their postulates going 1b to 1a and then again the same flaw in
the center of the chart. The way the original chart reads, you
don't have that sort of switchoff.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree that this flip causes a discrepancy - though consider
that as SELF changes valence from MNBK to MK, on the chart can
the OTHER remain as MK? No, as that would have both SELF and
OTHER as MK.
As well as this SELF cannot remain as MNBK as they have shifted
valence... yet neither of these scenarios, explain how one can
shift from MNBK to MBK, which Dennis clearly states is not
possible and is the fundamental reason a valence shift occurs.
#Post#: 500--------------------------------------------------
Re: Postulate Failure Chart
DIR By: TromFan
Date: June 13, 2019, 11:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
On your chart you have someone driving you into must know with
their must know postulate going from 5b to 5a, then having that
“other” changing their postulate to must be known for no
apparent reason at all.
At origin, if someone is aiming a must know postulate at you,
it’s not going to result in you wanting to must know them if
they overwhelm you.
1b to 1a someone is not going to drive you into must be known
with a must be known postulate.
In other words, you have the chart going into a situation where
someone is forcing their own self determined postulate. They
can only put you into their pan determined postulate.
I always read the chart going 8 to 1, because that is the flow
of life. The chart also makes sense going 1-8.
Now going from 1a to 1b on your chart, if someone aims a must
know at you, it’s not going to put you into must not know.
5a to 5b someone aiming must be known at you is not going to put
you into must not be known.
When I enforce a must know on you any of several things is going
to happen. You are going to go into must be known or resist
with a must not be known. You are NOT going to go into must
know (or even must not know) as a result.
My aim is to put you into must be known. You can resist it with
must not be known. But you are not going to resist with must
not know, and you are not going to complement with must know.
I think I might have nailed it. It’s the difference between an
opposition postulate and an opposite postulate.
Dennis talks about how he asked a Scientologist once, “What is
the opposition postulate to ‘to know’?” and the guy answered,
“to not-know”, which was a wrong answer.
The opposition to the know postulate is “to not be known”.
Not-know is what you are driven into if his opposition postulate
wins.
I sincerely hope this helps.
#Post#: 501--------------------------------------------------
Re: Postulate Failure Chart
DIR By: mjh
Date: June 14, 2019, 12:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is only a couple of questions here.
What is the required structure to initiate a shift in valence?
Why does this occur?
The answers to these two questions are key to my query and I
believe are also key to understanding TROM.
#Post#: 502--------------------------------------------------
Re: Postulate Failure Chart
DIR By: mjh
Date: June 14, 2019, 1:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TromFan link ---
>
> On your chart you have someone driving you into must know with
their must know postulate going from 5b to 5a, then having that
“other” changing their postulate to must be known for no
apparent reason at all.
>
--- End Quote ---
Is there a good reason why they shouldn't?
My only reference for this as stated, is that once self moves to
MK you cannot have both self and other in the same postulate.
--- Quote from: TromFan link ---
>
> At origin, if someone is aiming a must know postulate at you,
it’s not going to result in you wanting to must know them if
they overwhelm you.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes, this is exactly what happens. As MBK has already failed,
you cannot go to MK's PD. Therefore you have to switch valence
and become them at MK. This is clearly stated by Dennis in the
beginning of the book.
--- Quote from: TromFan link ---
>
> 1b to 1a someone is not going to drive you into must be known
with a must be known postulate.
> In other words, you have the chart going into a situation
where someone is forcing their own self determined postulate.
They can only put you into their pan determined postulate.
>
--- End Quote ---
Again, yes this is exactly what happens. They are not forcing
their SD postulate on you, they are forcing their PD postulate
on you that you cannot adopt as it failed you utterly and your
only choice is to become your opponent... :( It's called a
valence shift
#Post#: 503--------------------------------------------------
Re: Postulate Failure Chart
DIR By: TromFan
Date: June 14, 2019, 2:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please note, from 5a to 4b on Dennis' chart and also 8b to 1a
there is a swap of origin and receipt each also taking the
other's postulate. You don't have that on yours. And you have
marked four valence shifts which are not actual valence shifts.
On both yours and Dennis' (because of your mistake, not his)
they are mis-marked. What you are THINKING is a valence shift
is actually just someone switching the same postulate from
origin to receipt or vice versa.
When you must know me as cause and I must not be known in
reaction, then I switch to must not be known pushing the
postulate at you, that is NOT a valence shift. I am only keeping
the same postulate but instead of being at effect I am being at
cause.
It's only when there is an overwhelm, not a game, that I go from
my postulate to yours then you take mine and the valences shift.
Get rid of that last column on the standard chart. Then put a
large horizontal space between 1-4 and 5-8 then write "valence
shift" in big bold letters separating the two. Then take your
chart and make it a cylinder. Where 8b meets 1a write "valence
shift" all the way from the extreme left to the extreme right,
in between where the two rows meet. NOT in a column, mind you,
but in such a way as to separate it horizontally. The words
take up the whole row.
Also note that once you separate them, one is the reverse of the
other. It's symmetrical.
When you get to level five, please please please trust the chart
and make sure to do it the way it is laid out. To do it
different is going to really screw you up. Anyway, at the rate
you are going, you'll have plenty of time to sort out the
confusion, and once you get to level five and actually start
doing it the flow of the postulates will be so obvious you will
wonder why you thought it any other way.
I would recommend "forgetting" the data about how postulates are
off the board for a bit, take a look at it in a new unit of
time, and see how one postulate leads to another. If it still
does not make sense, then set the chart aside until you get to
level five-- for the sake of your own sanity.
That's the last I have to say about it.
#Post#: 506--------------------------------------------------
Re: Postulate Failure Chart
DIR By: mjh
Date: June 14, 2019, 7:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It's a shame you want to stop a meaningful discussion.
I am intrigued that you state you know what I am THINKING
though. This is clearly wrong as I did not state what you have
dubbed in.
My definition of a Valence Shift comes from the beginning of
Dennis' book, he very clearly explains how this occurs.
I am more concerned that you proposed a being may move from MNBK
to MBK, it is datums that deny this that I am utilising to keep
a level head and be willing to evaluate for myself how the chart
is built and how one moves through the legs.
If you can reference anywhere in the TROM materials that states
this occurs I would be very happy as it would aid in developing
my understanding.
I believe that you and I are both in a position of MK with
respect to TROM, or neither of us would be here communicating. I
get the sense that you have conceived that I am proposing the
revised PFC as an alternative, I am not, therefore I am not
taking any opposition to my discussion. I am only wanting to
make sense of something that does not appear to fit the datums
provided.
You have not offered any significant reference to prove
otherwise, you have given your subjective opinion, your inner
certainty and some false data in response and now knocking my
understanding then closing the door on this...
TromFan, my door is always open.
MJH
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page