*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Hi Pete,
in your reply to David's you wrote:
Your text in the chart is correct.
I think that it is only half correct.
The text formating is somewhat confusing. But please look
again closely how David filled in the missing postulates.
Self /SDP PDP / Others /SDP PDP
1A (MBK) MK MBK (MK)
It should be:
SELF (loser):
before overwhelm: MNK (rightly owned SD postulate of SELF)
after overwhelm: MK (mis-owned PD postulate of OTHER which is now SELF's
new SD)
OTHER (victor):
SD = MBK
before overwhelm: PD = MNBK (is the PD postulate put up of SELF as a
defense at the side of OTHER.)
after overwhelm: since SELF's defense has been broken, there is nothing
left of that postulate.
(Would not make sense for SELF to put a PD at OTHER's side like MBK now.)
It is important to distinguish carefully between who does the postulating
and
where those postulates are placed (the PD postulates have to be placed of
course
in the space of the opponent. But that does not change their source
points, origins or
ownerships.
In the chart that can become a bit confusing. That's why I used indexes to
make it
clear for me in the chart that there is a difference between place of
effect of a
postulate and place of origin.
I use this acronyms:
SDs in 1st column SELF
PDo in 2nd column SELF
SDo in 1st column OTHER
PDs in 2nd column OTHER
Explanation example:
You put the thought (postulate) into an ashtray: "I move up"
And if you're good enough at that and somewhere around Tone 40
the ashtray will perhaps change from his naturally inherent
SD "I sit here" change to your PD. But anyway, you and the
ashtray are in different places. Sure it can be argued a lot
in how far you, or at least a part of your consciousness, occupy
this ashtray respectively its space, in order to make it levitate ;-)
Regards
Robin
------------
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:12:27 +0200, <[email protected]> wrote:
Send TROM mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of TROM digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Complementary postulates? (The Resolution of Mind list)
2. Complementary Postulates - (Re: TROM Digest, Vol 144, Issue
7) (The Resolution of Mind list)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:18:51 -0700
From: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TROM1] Complementary postulates?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Ok David
When playing football or any other game you are trying to carry the
ball into my end zone to score. I block you as best i can but fail and
you blow past me and into the end zone.
Technically i was overwhelmed but my feelings have not changed. In a
couple of minutes we will both be back in the game and pushing the same
postulates with the same energy.
However occasionally i get so crushed by the repeated failure to stop
you from getting into the end zone that i decide that it is hopeless. I
can never again play this game as i am a failure as a blocker and will
always lose.
This last situation is what Dennis means. It only occurs when i am
totally crushed into apathy at failure to block the opponents postulate
and feel that i can never succeed in that game again. I agree with his
pan-determined postulate that he will carry the ball into the end zone
every time he tries.
Your text in the chart is correct.
Sincerely
Pete McLaughlin
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 9, 2016, at 8:28 PM, The Resolution of Mind list
<[email protected]> wrote:
*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Pete,
I am trying to figure out what the "not included postulates" are
supposed to be, because Dennis is somewhat ambiguous and confusing for
me.
The meaning of this quote from the book is not exactly clear to me:
I If you?ve been following this closely you?ll have realized that
at the overwhelm level we have the semblance of a no game
situation, for there is no longer any conflict between the
postulates; they are, indeed, complementary.
Does the above quote mean the following:
(In other words, is the following correct in the way I have included
the postulates in lines 1A and 2B on my chart for my own understanding
(in small text and brackets) that Dennis did not include on the
original chart?:
Self /SDP PDP / Others /SDP PDP
1A (MBK) MK MBK (MK)
Motivator Overwhelmed You are forced to know. /Infliction/
You have been inflicted./You lost
2B MNK (MNBK) (MNK) MNBK
Overt Overwhelm Preventing from being known.
/Rejection/ You rejected the other guy. /You win
Again,..... I want to get certainty on this:
Does Dennis mean that the self and others postulates are also the same
in lines: 3A and 4B, 5A and 6B, 7A and 8B?
David
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.newciv.org/pipermail/trom/attachments/20161010/6e483f07/attachment-0001.html>
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
