************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Thanks for this lovely post Robin.
About having goals beyond this lifetime I think Geoffrey Filbert mentions in Excalibur Revisited that many people struggle with taking responsibility for this lifetime never mind future lifetimes. But in your case it may be a lifetime far beyond this planet. I wish you well in your progression! Llewellin Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: The Beauty of TROM PFCC & various issues -(TROM Digest, > Vol 136, Issue 23) (The Resolution of Mind list) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 11:58:07 +0100 > From: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [TROM1] The Beauty of TROM PFCC & various issues -(TROM > Digest, Vol 136, Issue 23) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; > delsp=yes > > A beautiful day to all beings on this list, > > If we care to endeavor to dig into the secrets of our existence > we find various attempts to create "working models" which explain > the universe and our relationship to it. Those are always just > representations for the real thing. Anybody who tries to convey > the intangible essence of an idea to a reception point by means of > language will experience the use of symbols (which the words are) > as a limiting factor. Those who have mastered their system of > abstraction (e.g. language, mathematics, logic, ...) have a chance > to use it in order to bring something to resonate within other sentient > and conscious beings around. The literal message itself is only the > catalyst which can make a latent truth ring in the receiving terminal. > > As an other limiting factor we sooner or later have to recognize that > our minds are optimized (= limited) to handle problems of a 3(4)D > environment (the universe we usually perceive is a four dimensional > construct if you subscribe to the idea of three spacial dimensions > plus time as the fourth dimension - in other words: space-time). > > Regarding the "working model" we operate with a wide range of concepts > like "holographic projection", fractals, a.s.o. And more esoteric > ones like e.g. "frequency ranges of vibrations", multidimensionality, > densities, a.s.o. Regarding the inner truth content of them they are > interchangeable to a high degree. To which one a being feels drawn > to, seems to be a matter of individual preference, or "taste" so to speak. > > As I see it, the amount of truth residing in a certain concept, > philosophy or believe system correlates directly with what we use to > call "beauty" or "aesthetic". > > The dear reader now may already have started wondering how the above is > related to TROM. Well, as a matter of fact everything in this co-crated > universe is in some way or other connected and thus related to each other > (Ref.: Charles Fort "The Book of the Damned"). > No, that is not how I intend to conclude the issue. The circle will > close itself in a minute where I'll attempt a possibility of a reply > to two of Colleens recent statements. > > The first one is the issue of "beauty" in Dennis Stevens > "Postulate-Failure-Cycle-Chart" (PFCC). I found TROM as a whole > appealing just because of Dennis logical approach in order to > resolve the mind. Logic as a part of mathematics is beautiful in > itself because .... it is so clean, logic, pure, sublime, sane, ... ? > > I know many will disagree. The beauty does not reveal itself easily. > Those who hate logic will certainly be repelled by TROM. > > I certainly do not see TROM as the "holy grail" of mental or spiritual > development. There are other good things out there so that finally > anyone can find his way out of the trap. Perhaps TROM is ahead of its > time and will someday get the proper recognition. > > Regarding the PFCC it was actually the aesthetic of this chart that > hooked me to TROM in the first place. It took me quite some time to > develop a deeper understanding of the chart. But already before that > it made something resonate inside me that felt "true" or "right". > > Despite being human, having a mind, being entrapped due to the raw power > of self-conviction in MEST and other hardships we still have preserved > the ability to recognize truth whenever we encounter it. Isn't that a > wonderful trait!? It is indeed! > > So I started figuring out what it is all about with the PFCC. > Dennis gave some subtle clues. He mentioned how it took him quite some > time to get it right, how difficult it was to remember the chart. He > suggested to print it out on cardboard in order to carry it with you > so you can ponder it any time. Further he omitted (and I think he > did that on purpose in order to let the reader do the exercise himself > and thus claim the win) to fill in the pan-determinate postulates (PD). > I struggled along the line of drawing PFCCs in Excel in many versions. > Some in colors (e.g. green for "self", red for "other". Other colors > for the both postulate types). They were really beautiful to look at > with the colorful regular patterns developing before my eyes - it almost > reminded me on those artful carpets they used to weave in oriental > countries. > > But it was not until it occurred to me to fill in the PDs into the empty > fields that I got the hang of it. I think the key-out I experienced had > lasted a couple of days afterwards. Completing the chart with the PDs > immediately crashed any previous confusion I have had with the damned > thing. > It clearly showed how the PD in case of overwhelm literally annihilates > the opponents postulate, pushes it off the games-board while taking its > position in an effort to replacing it. > > For those who have not yet managed to figure it out with paper and pencil > I suggest to try demonstrate with small objects on a large piece of paper > where you sketch the PFCC structure on. It brings some mass and activity > into > that otherwise significance-loaded subject. If necessary do it in clay > as they do in Scientology. > > (The reason why the PFCC is seemingly hard to grasp is that the reactive > mind fears nothing more than the truth contained in the PFCC and does > everything in its might to prevent being as-ised. That is why a case close > to the "point of no return" will not make it without initial help from an > auditor.) > > Well, think a moment about the C.o.S. "Grade Chart" or what is commonly > known as "The Bridge". Now compare that to the PFCC. How is it similar? How > is it different? (Ok, you may say that I'm comparing apples with pears > here. > I agree with you; let you have your point ... but continue along that line > anyway ;-) > > Now, in all honesty, which kind of representation - "The Grade Chart" or > the > "PFCC" conveys more truth, less complexity, is more logic in its structure, > is closer to the point ... in other words appears more aesthetic to you? > > Did not Dennis claim in one of his tape lectures ("The Philosophy of TROM" > I think that was) something I would paraphrase as follows: TROM embraces > Scientology. > > When I heard that at first I thought "What an arrogant person he (Dennis) > is. When I just look at the amount of words LRH had published and compare > that > to the TROM material the claim sounds ridiculously out of proportion." > > On second thought however I reminded myself of a proverb in German > language: > "Papier ist geduldig" which means "you can say what you like on paper, > you can write what you like." > > And another proverb says: "Small is beautiful". > > I hope that sheds some light on the question what Dennis could have > had in mind when he talked about the "beauty of the PFCC". > > That brings me to the second and last point of this post. > The issue of RI and its "complexity" (it may be valid for other > kind of processing as well). > > I quote from Colleens recent post: > > "For example, my TROM clearing partner simply puts things all around him > holographically, end of story. Nice and simple." > > I could not agree more. > > Most everything I've said above regarding beauty and simplicity is > applicable > here. Her clearing partner has got it right. No add-ons no complications, > no > ornaments, no Q&A. Just what the book tells. Simply nice and beautiful. > > If one intends to take on the hat of a researcher in the field of personal, > mental, spiritual development, well then it might be a good idea to be > creative > and fancy. Or if one is very interested in the structure of all that is, > like > our scientists, then it is of course a different story. > > However for us as beings who just struggle to get free and create the > universe > around us to our own liking it is not efficient to get lost in complexity. > It may be a fascinating thing to figure out where the mind is located and > things like that. But is that really on purpose? I don't think so. > > It is good enough for me to understand that the mind is just held in > suspension > in space-time due to a bunch of lies it contains. So what, I could not > care less > whether it is around me or inside me or dispensed all over the universe ... > Once it is resolved it is gone anyway (until I decide consciously to mock > it up once again) and thus as a consequence it's location - wherever that > may be - is gone as well. > > Regarding the efficiency of all activities aiming for spiritual development > be it study or precessing or else I am very concerned. I had and sill have > a long > term agenda which goes far beyond this lifetime. I have created and > organized > this lifetime in a fashion that allows me to dedicate the remaining current > body-runtime mainly to the task of personal development in a wider sense. > That means statistically I have about four to five decades left for that > task. > There is even enough time left to play some fun games - e.g. writing this > :-) > If I think about this for a moment, I see that this is both: fun and part > of the development. Actually it's quite some work. > > The good thing about writing is that it forces one to reflect more > conscious > and more responsible about a certain subject as in comparison to just > thinking > about it for oneself. > > How did I achieve that? Well, I've been working hard and with sufficient > success > (success in terms of MEST-world standards ;-)in what Scios call the > wog-world > for the first half of this lifetime. So I could afford to buy my own real > estate > in a beautiful rural area in the middle of nowhere (actually it's in the > middle of > Europe), being mostly self sufficient, undisturbed and with plenty of time. > > There had been times when I was extremely upset about all the corruption > going on > in politics, economics, the finance industry, the senseless bloodshed in > the name > of stupid believe systems and ideologies ... > > I realized how this started dragging me down the tone scale. Somehow I > managed > to get beyond that. I keep myself informed what's going on on this > otherwise > beautiful planet by occasional checking on alternative media. But > otherwise I > keep the negative things strictly out of my life. > > It is _not_ part of my universe any more. And that feels extremely good. > > What helped me a lot was the idea in TROM to put up complementary > postulates. > I thought at first that this is impossible; if one does that he would > always > end up as the big idiot, the perfect loser. It may take some time until the > beauty of this approach toward life unfolds for a being. But it definitely > will. Just do not force it, apply it by gradients in order to avoid falling > on your face. > > Eventually I found reading James P. Carses's book "Finite and > Infinite Games" (A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility) a perfect > supplement > to Dennis Stevens complementary postulate approach. > (On top of that Carse's prose - IMHO - is just wonderful.) > > That putting up complementary-postulates is definitely a working strategy > to successfully avoid conflicts, overcome obstacles of various kinds and > finally get what you aim for can be proven by anyone who really wants. > It is even well documented in our history as, very rare but the more > impressive, > track records of personalities like Mahatma Gandhy and others. > > ARC > > Robin > > P.S.: Thanks Colleen for pointing out Walter Russel to me. Have not heard > of him > before. Checked his bio out on the web. Interesting character. > Still have some 5GB of data in my PC waiting to be digested and searched > through > for gems. So W.R. has to wait in line. > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ TROM mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
