************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************ Hi Alessandro I see your point. If you want to play games with compulsive games players where they will respect you you have to match their violence and block their postulates.
If that is what you want to do then you can do it. But that is a game I have played many times and am working out the details of how to not play compulsive games any more. So how could I handle aggressive guys in the military with a complementary postulate. Nothing comes immediately to mind but that just means I need to work out a number of responses to that type of situation such as creating the impression that a high ranking officer is walking by while snapping to attention and saluting. When they automatically do the same say "Yes Sir" and walk away. They will think someone game me an order and do nothing to interfere. You could also really put these guys off by saying "Please Please push me around." They will wonder where the hidden camera is and go away. Sun Tzu in "The Art of War" suggests that the way to stop an opposing army is to put something unexpected in their path. This pleading to be pushed around fits that bill. While Dennis mentioned the complementary postulate if you peruse the level 5 chart you will find that in any game you have opposing players, complementary players and an audience but then there are millions of people who are doing nothing at all in a particular game. For instance you could start a football game and have fellow players, opponent players an audience and millions of people who are paying no attention to your game because they are playing other games. So this means you can put up a complementary postulate to someone else's game or no postulate at all as you just wander away uninterested in what they are doing. So these toughs come up to you and you tap the button on your cell phone so it rings and put it to your ear and say "Yes, Sir." And just walk away completely ignoring the guys. I'm sure you could come up with other responses to this situation. Now let's move up the gradient. The tax man contacts you and says you owe sales tax on a shipment you got delivered by truck. You respond by saying "I don't recall receiving that item. Can you be more specific on what was in the shipment, who was the carrier, what was the parcel number etc.". "I can check my records and see if I can figure out what it was. Will you call me back tomorrow?" When the tax man hangs up you go over your feelings about this guy and what he wants. You release any resistance to paying the bill if you must but you put out the pan determined postulate that it is such a small tax bill and so much bother that the tax man would rather just let this one go while he takes up a tax bill that will get him more money. The chances are good that this effort on your part will end up with no call back from the tax man at all. ( this actually worked for me by the way.) So Alessandro you see that complementary postulates is only the first step in handling other game players. And what I put above is just a few examples. You can work out other ways. Another one comes to mind. People think that if there is a "Law" about something that it is always uniformly applied. This is definitely not the case. For instance if it is the law that you cannot spit on the sidewalk and it is a capital offense to do so can you think of ways to do it without being caught or where being caught will so embarrass the police that they will not enforce the rule? Have fun with developing your skill at not playing others games. Sincerely Peter McLaughlin Sent from my iPad > On Mar 14, 2016, at 10:02 PM, The Resolution of Mind list > <[email protected]> wrote: > > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] > ************ > Il 13/03/16 13:00, [email protected] ha scritto: >> Hi Alessandro >> What you are proposing with "to out create" being to force another to >> experience what the other is creating is a games condition. Is that what >> you want to do? >> >> To me Dennis's idea of creating a complementary postulate to the suppressive >> persons game and not playing any games with them is the better solution. >> >> Just because another gives offense does not mean you have to take offense. >> >> Sincerely >> Pete McLaughlin > Hi Pete, > first of all I had this intuition or you you could call it a realization.Then > I thought about it , and see if it could be used in life. > Or how to apply it and if it is worth using it.And think about this : a > complementary postulate to somebody that is shouting at you saying "you > stupid man!" wouldn't be shouting back to him "you stupid man , I am not > going playing you stupid game,shut up!". > > To bring into existence an opposition postulate to and aggression (be it > verbal or phisical) would be to receive the offence, stay quiet and go > away.Isn't it ? I know it sounds odd, but think about the fact that people > like us , that like to live an ethic life , and trying to never arm someone > else,and that refuse violence , have also put to 0 a class of postulates, > that suppressive people have put to 1 and use it daily.Lie Dennis says, when > he was making an example about how to program a mind,that what you do with > this technic is up to you and you are the only one responsible for any > outcome.I think we should learn and accept to use "violence" , by being wery > much aware about the outcomes. > Obviously and don't go aroung shouting to any people that offends me. There > is a gradient scale.You have to use with some common sense to the situation > you are facing.You can go from standing firmly on you word,not accepting any > provocation remaining calm , to shout like hell,if needed. > If we assign to win the value 1 and to lose the value 0 , then all the > possible classes of outcomes you can experience,are" > > Myself the other guy > > class 1) 1 and 0 = I win the other lose , > means I use violence to him , but this not the case so I put this postulates > class to 0 in my daily life > > class 2) 0 and 1 = I lose the other wins , > means I receive the aggression , keep silent , and accept to be a victim.you > put this class of postulates > to 1 if you don't > react . > > class 3) 0 and 0 = we both lose , means we > both kill each other ? > > class 4) 1 and 1 = we both win , means we > both demostrate to the other our strength , and we both decide to not go on , > and we respect each > other.(this class > of postulates I experienced . For example once in my life . when I was doing > the military service,I was sent to > a new > barrack.There I was a new person to all the other person there.The second day > I was there , while I was dressing myself, > two other guys > came to me and says "let's see how strong you are" , and they assaulted me.I > didn't try to escape or to avoid > the fight, > instead I react and attacked them.The results ? they stopped fighting and > from that moment I gained their respect. > > What do you think ? > happy RI-ing > alessandro. > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > TROM mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom _______________________________________________ TROM mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
