************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Why I am posting this? I am posting this revision of the postulate failure cycle because in my first 6 attempts with TROM (The first 3 being 1998, then another 3 in 2008- 9- 10) I would get bogged down. I became effect of TROM. So as an alternative I went on to do other types of processing. It was quite successful. I have returned to try and complete the handling of my case with TROM. My case is a lot lighter now and I see mistakes in TROM, which I could not see before. Therefore, I have made some revisions which in my opinion should also (hopefully) help others in doing TROM. If it is not helpful to you, please ignore it. Excerpt from page 7 of TROM: version:http://www.freezoneamerica.org/pub/trompdf.pdf How to use this information: The first part (original) is for your reference. The second part is my notes and editing and revision of this postulate failure cycle section. The following is the direct quote- "cut and paste" from the book, it is for your reference to compare to my revision which follows below: The being at (1) is in opposition to (4), whom he is endeavoring to convince that the effect should be known; (4) on the other hand, is doing a ‘Mustn’t Know’ on the effect, and his PD postulate is ‘Mustn’t be Known’. If (1) fails he will adopt the PD postulate of (4), and will move from leg (1) to leg (2) regarding the effect. He has now left the old game, and is confronted with a new opponent, (3), who is endeavoring to know the effect. Failure in this new game will result in (2) being forced to adopt the PD postulate of (3), which is ‘Must be Known’. However, he can no longer adopt this postulate regarding the effect, for it is already in failure from the earlier game, so he now leaves (2) and adopts the valence of (3) and maintains the postulate ‘Must Know’ regarding the effect. He is now in opposition to his own old identity, (2), and carries the SD postulate of ‘Must Know’, with the PD postulate of ‘Must be Known’. Further failure causes the being to adopt the PD postulate of (2), ‘Mustn’t Know’, and so sink into leg (4) with an SD postulate of ‘Must not Know’. In this new and final game with the effect he is opposed by (1), ‘Must be Known’, regarding the effect. Failure in this game will force him to adopt the postulate ‘Must Know’. However, he cannot adopt this postulate regarding the effect as it is already in failure. So he goes into the valence of (1) and henceforth operates with a substitute effect. This is forced, for an examination of the situation will now show that all four postulates, both as SD and PD, are now in failure, so no further game with the original effect is any longer playable. ************************************************************ This next part is my revision with most of my notes in italics. ( I would like any feedback positive or negative. If you think I am wrong, in any instance, please tell me and why. If you think it is a better version, please tell me. ) REVISION by David Pelly: The being starting at (1)SDP of "must be known" (his native postulate) is in a games condition with (4), “must not know”,whom he is endeavoring to convince that his effect should be known by 4; (If 1 was doing it right, he would be in a life goals game condition with 3. But he is not doing a life goals game, he is doing a non life goals game and does it with 4. By doing so, if he loses he will become aberrated. This the process of aberration and developing case.) (4) on the other hand, is doing (placing) a “Must not be known” effect on the effect of 1. (It is a contest of wills.) If (1) fails he will adopt the PDP of (4), and will drop down from leg (1) to leg (2). He defaults to leg 2 because leg 2 “must not be known” is the opposite polarity to his native SDP of “must be known”. If he can't be known, he then thinks he must not be known. The rule is: upon losing, the loser always adopts the PDP of his opponent. Because he became effect of his opponent. In scientology this effect would be called acquiring a type of GPM. Goals-problem-mass. He had a goal and ran into a problem and failed and developed mass (mental mass). He is becoming mentally occluded. He is not as sharp as he used to be. His power has become weakened. He can't think as clear as he used to. Probably his memory is poor too. His I.Q. is probably lower too. He is aberrated. He has now left his native game and now from leg 2 position is confronted with a new opponent, (3), whose SDP of “must know” is natively endeavoring (naturally wants) to know the effect of 1. 3 wants to know 1. But instead is being challenged or confronted by 2. Or 3 challenges 2, if 3 takes on a non life goal game. 2's failure in his contest with 3 will result in (2) being forced to adopt the PDP of (3), which is ‘Must be Known’. [[I omitted the following sentence from the original TROM above, because it does not make sense. It is an oxymoron. Quote: However, he can no longer adopt this postulate regarding the effect, for it is already in failure from the earlier game, so he now leaves (2) and adopts the valence of (3) and maintains the postulate ‘Must Know’ regarding the effect.]] The being is on his second loss and has become weaker still. (Upon every loss, every failure, he loses more power.) (He is in leg 3 now. His second valence is SDP “must know, and his PDP is “must be known”. ) From the position of leg 3, he is now in opposition to his former identity, (2), ( which is the leg he just came from). He carries as his valence the SDP of ‘Must Know’, with the PDP of ‘Must be Known’. (in other words 3's complementary postulate is “must be known”.) (He cannot deal with 1 because he has charge (a GPM) on 1 from his first failure. [(3's opposition postulate is “must not be known”, which is leg 2.)(this step is missing in original TROM.)] So the being in leg 3 position, is now in a games condition against (or with) 2. 2 whose SDP is “must not be known” is placing his PDP “must not know” on 3, and if he fails he takes on 2's PDP of “must not be known” as his valence, because the being now in leg 3 became effect of 2. In my opinion this step is missing in original TROM.) Now he is weaker still. He failed and lost more power. When he fails against 2, he adopts 2's PDP of “must not be known” and drops down into leg 4 and adopts 4's SDP of “must not know”. “Must not know is the direct opposite polarity of “must know”. If he cannot operate with the postulate of “must know” then he has to adopt (by default) the postulate of “must not know”. He is now in leg 4 or position 4.) He now has three losses under his belt. His power has been weakened still more. But however difficult, he struggles to get up and dusts himself off and goes at it again. In this new and final game in or from the position of leg 4 with the valence of 4 where his SDP is “”must not know” he is opposed by (1) whose PDP is “must know”. He is extremely weak and loses. Failure in this game (4 in opposition to or with 1 or vice versa) will force (4) to adopt 1's SDP “must be known” and PD) postulate ‘Must Know’ as his fourth valence (In other words; 1 whose SDP“must be known” will place his PDP: “must know” on 4.) Again for the last time, now very beaten and weak, with extreme effort he gets up again and stumbles over to position 1. Now in the valence of (1) (this is his native position ) and from now on operates with a very weakened native SDP of “must be known” and a PDP of “must know” for his effect. This is heavily forced, for an examination of the situation will now show that all four postulate pairs, both as SD and PD, are now in failure so basically no further game with the original effect is any longer playable. He is a totally caved in being. His best effort is a wimper. He is a mere shadow of his original self. (He is now stacked with 4 valences on top of his native or original identity postulate of “must be known”. For a total of 5 identities.) 5. SD “must be known” - PD “must know” (valence 4) 4. SD “must not know”- PD “must not be known” (valence3) 3. SD “must know”- PD “must be known” (valence 2) 2. SD “must not be known”- PD “must not know” (valence1) 1. SD “must be known”- PD “must know” (native identity) **************************************************************************************************************************** The following is the notes at the bottom of the "Postulate failure chart: Original quote: Note: The Time Track runs from 8 to 1. You work from 1 to 8, around and around.There is a valence shift on the Track between 1 and a new substitute effect entered at 8B.Also a valence shift occurs between 5A and 4B This is my revision: Note: The Time Track runs from 8 to 1. You work from 8 to 1, around and around until your case is cleared, totally unstacked. There is a valence shift on the Track between 1 and a new substitute effect entered at 8B. Also a valence shift occurs between 5A and 4B On the postulate failure chart “self” means the “self determined postulate” position or you can also call it “terminal”. The originating and transmitting terminal. “Other” means the “Pan determined postulate”. Or and the position of the opponent. The opposition terminal. The receiving terminal
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
