************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Steve, thank you for your feedback. I know what you mean in the second instance, and was aware of it, but I did not feel like explaining it, because I figured the reader would get the point, based on my first explanation. Writing it up was a laborious effort which I did not want to spend time doing. But did for the sake of posterity anyways.
I did not want others to suffer what I went through if all possible. And it was foremost in my mind, bugging me and I had to get it down in text. Or it would of disappeared. I got most of it down for the record anyways. Thanks again. David On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Steven Faber <[email protected]>wrote: > ************* > 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 > <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 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.]] 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
