*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
David,
I tend to agree with your logic. It makes sense that since 2 and 3 are in
conflict, that a failure by 3 would move to 4, and that 3 would fight 2 more
readily than 4.
I don't see any problem with D.S. statement you wanted to delete though, since
you make the same argument as to why a failure of 2 against 3 results in the
valence of 3 instead of 1.
Steve
On Saturday, January 4, 2014 4:46 PM, David Pelly <[email protected]> wrote:
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 is 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 thispostulate
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.]] End
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
*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
