************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Thanks for taking the time for this write up Robin. It did help again and I found out we messed each other's words multiple times in the first exchange XD. I think you cleared out all of these confusions this time. :)
Since the text are a bit long I just commented on the topics you addressed trying to show you that I understood your message. If something is wrong, please, feel free to correct me. 1) You warned about the importance of definitions, instead of copying others' methods of running the commands The language barrier is something which I keep in mind but which I may forget sometimes to double-check. My english comprehension is pretty good though. I may be mixing meanings here. Leoncio is also a portuguese speaker and actually wrote a translation of Trom. He seemed to have done pretty good in Level 4. This may be a good time to read it! Similar to english, portuguese has a bunch of synonyms for 'know' with slightly different shades of meaning. This is why I asked what exact synonimous one would keep in mind. At first, it seems to me there's no exact equivalent of know in portuguese but I think that to take the broadest range of meanings would be the right answer for this issue. 2) Regarding your reservation in giving the correct way of doing the Level 4 command I understand that. Many of LRH's processes I've studied sound odd and/or vague. The purpose of this reservation is to develop the person's confidence in figuring this stuff out on his own and experience the truths directly rather than being told, I assume. The rule would be that there is no right way to start the process, as long as you have the definitions correctly. The root of my problem may be that I've got a lot of extra information already, and that may have made me impatient or critical. For example, I know of people who got this process producing the intended results on the first attempts, and there are also some people who seemed to have slided through all the levels of Trom. But I also know that there are easy running (PC's) people and also people with lots of previous processing done besides Trom. I've actually been doing the smaller exercises in definitions and examples you've suggested, just not in paper. That seems like a good idea. Example: Many times I'd be wondering about an example which seemed to involve multiple overwhelms but Dennis himself alerted to that. 3) You highlighted the difference between Postulate vs Concept I'm not sure what exactly is meant by a postulate being dynamic and involving action (it just reads odd to me since I rarely think of action in other context except the physical one), but I could take an educated guess: As opposed to a concept which is a construction based on other previous existences a postulate would be itself an independent existence which could cause changes in other existences or exist itself regardless of those. 4) One last question. You mentioned the quote below which is from the Trom book in the level 4 section. It has a couple of phrasal verbs I haven't find a formal meaning for. "Punch into" and "punch out" are the same thing here, right? It means "to try and hold it into the mind" and perhaps "also intensify it or use it in the hardest degree", right? "Just punch the concept into your mind, and Timebreak any incident that shows up. Don’t try and force the pace; just take your time. Now punch out the ‘Forced to know’ idea again. Get anything that shows up Timebroken. Continue with this command until nothing further shows up, and you’ve run it dry. Now run RI." - p.49 of trom 2017-02-10 17:49 GMT-02:00 The Resolution of Mind list < [email protected]>: > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] > ************ > Hi Marcus, > > please find my comments interspersed in the text below. > > Thanks for your answer. >> > > You're welcome > > I added more questions in your response in case you could clarify it a bit >> more. Don't worry about answering each one of them. Perhaps one paragraph >> could answer them all. I just used a lot of questions to try to show you >> what is my current level of knowledge since I haven't been in the CoS and >> have done very few of other processing besides Trom. >> >> 2017-02-09 8:28 GMT-02:00 The Resolution of Mind list < >> [email protected] >> >>> : >>> >> >> ************* >>> The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] >>> ************ >>> Hi Marcus, >>> >>> Re. Part 1 of your inquiry: >>> >>> Let's take a look at the command first. >>> It's quite straight forward: >>> >>> "Get the idea of being (forced to know)" >>> >>> (E.g. for the 1st class of the eight classes of overwhelm) >>> >>> The general key-word in that command is the word "idea". >>> It specifies the flavor of process we're dealing with. >>> In order to understand that, please see definition below: >>> >>> [CONCEPT RUNNING, the preclear ?gets the idea? of knowing or not being >>> and >>> holds it, the while looking at his time track. The concept runs out, or >>> the >>> somatic it brings on runs out, and the concept itself is run. It is not >>> addressed at individual incidents but at hundreds. (Scn 8-80, p. 29)] >>> >>> Now, what is an idea? >>> This can be described in terms of what it isn't or in terms of >>> its opposite. E.g. >>> OBJECTIVE, dictionary definition "of or having to do with a material >>> object >>> as distinguished from *a mental concept, idea or belief*." >>> >>> So an idea can be best considered as "a mental concept" for our purposes. >>> >>> >> That definition of concept running is very clarifying to me. I even read >> the book of where it's from very recently but the book didn't contain any >> examples so I didn't connect it with level 4. >> >> Actually the definition - which is out of the book 8-80 (Chapter 8, page > 19f) - > is a process/command example by itself. I admit, this can easily be > overlooked. > You can have a concept of anything, e.g. a concept of confusion. The top > and bottom > points on the scales of the Chart of Attitudes (See Handbook for > Preclears) make > good concept material. Other good items to run by concept are e.g. > Beauty, Ugliness, Cause of ugliness, Cause of beauty, No-sympathy, > Sympathy, > Good, Evil. > The command line could be: "Get the idea (or concept) of <item>" "hold the > idea/concept of <item>" - PC originates whatever comes up - A. > acknowledges. > One can adapt that easily to solo-auditing requirements. After being > acquaint > with the process you will omit telling yourself the command and ack. and > just put up the idea or concept and hold it in your mind. > In TROM L4 you do the same. Your <item> is one of the "eight classes of > overwhelm" in the order as given in the TROM-materials. > >> >>> Your analysis of "know" into the two distinct meanings is quite right. >>> But in my view it is easier to think about it in terms of postulates at >>> L4. >>> Namely opposing postulates. (In this case your's would be MNK >>> while your opponent's is MBK. Which are opposing or conflicting >>> each other). >>> >>> The explanatory text in the L4 section of the TROM material talks >>> about "punch the concept into your mind" or "now punch out the "forced >>> to know" [note: this is equivalent to: "Must Be Known" (= MBK) postulate] >>> >>> >>> Now, I liked this part of your response because it went a little more >> into >> the specifics. But, I read from previous list contributors which also >> suggested the use of pure postulates in level 4 (mind that the idea of >> postulate processing is an idea that is still new and confusing to me in >> practical manners so I may be using it wrongly here). Some of them >> described the overwhelm level as being a situation where there are no more >> opposing postulates since the game has already ended. So I'm supposing >> there would be no more MNK in the example you gave. Is that correct >> This is the part where it starts getting confusing. >> > > Yes I see. My explanation was not clear enough here. At L4 you're not > required to put up the postulates itself. I've introduced postulates only > to explain what is going on at postulate-level in the case of overwhelm. > From what you write below I can see now that you have a good understanding > in that regard already. > In a moment we go into more detail. > > For our reference I place below some definitions that fit in here: > > [OVERWHELMING, 1. as a person begins to be unwilling to overwhelm, he, of > course, begins to be unwilling to win and so loses pan-determinism and > sinks > into self-determinism. Games are, for our auditing purposes, "contests in > overwhelmings." The primary overwhelming is to take space. (PAB 80) 2 . > overwhelming does not consist of space, energy et al. It is the idea that > an > overwhelming has occurred. The winner is convinced that he has > overwhelmed the opposing player. The loser is convinced that he has been > overwhelmed. (PAB 80) 3 . to push in too tight. (SH Spec 57, 6109C21)] > > [OTHER-DETERMINISM, 1. simply something else giving you orders or > directions. (8ACC-6, 5410CM08) 2 . something has so thoroughly overwhelmed > the pc that he is it. (HCOB 7 May 59)] > > So should I get the idea of an artificial complementary postulates >> situation MK + MBK with something else which would identify the overwhelm? >> >> Or should I mockup the game situation (MNK vs MBK) with an extiguishing of >> my MNK postulate? How would that be? Because it seems the example you gave >> me looks very similar to a Level 5 process. >> > > Thanks for giving me a better reality of your level of understanding here. > > To give you an explicit answer in the sense of "how you should execute the > command <....>" would be a breach of the auditor's code. Since I'm > not your auditor it would perhaps be excusable. But no, I can't give an > explicit interpretation of the command because a) it could be wrong; > or b) deprive you of some cognitions. Let's see if there is some > work-around possible. > > I assume the meaning of the command line in terms of each of its words and > finally in terms of what the whole sentence means is clear to you. > If not, here is word-clearing in a nutshell: > > Look up the definition of each word you feel not 100% confident about > in a good dictionary. Clear all unknown words inside the definitions. > Make sentences with the word until you feel confident. > Perhaps a translation into your native language can be useful. > > Invent examples for all kinds of overwhelms on any > level you care (physical, emotional, ...) > To add mass you may demonstrate the words and concepts they represent by > means of small objects, clay-mass or draw sketches. > > Now, what do you think is the common characteristic or the common idea > behind all those examples you have looked at? What is left as the common > essence, principle, concept or idea inherent in all those examples? > > It's what's left when you strip off all the pictures, masses, energies, ... > The things and situations are gone. What's left is the meanings only. > > A meaning of course goes hand in hand with a certain feeling or rather > a conviction or opinion (see definition of OVERWHELM above). > > It's precisely at the point of overwhelm where the conviction dawns > on the part of the overwhelmed that he has lost now - while the > opponent realizes the fact of his victory. You will probably agree that > those convictions differ somehow according to a specific class of > overwhelm. > > > A demonstration for an idea/concept: > You sure have at times looked at abstract paintings, haven't you? > You may not have recognized a distinct object in the picture. But you > may still have grasped it's inherent significance. You might have got > the idea the artist had in mind. The meaning often induces a specific > feeling: the feeling like recognition or cognition - in the observer. > The emotions that are evoked (or absent) in the observer are something > else. > > .... > > Do you have an idea/concept of each of the eight classes of overwhelm now? > Is so, that means you can hold the specific concept in your mind somehow. > > I say "somehow" because there is no need to worry if this > seems to be difficult at first. It will probably get easier with doing the > exercise. > The conceptual idea will become less and less alien to you. And do not > be surprised to have cognitions along that line in regard of concepts > itself in addition to what L4 offers in regard of the subject of > "overwhelm". > > As a general rule: A concept is not a picture, a mass or a mock-up like > you do in e.g. RI. In terms of wavelengths it is much shorter or "lighter". > In that respect it's closer to a postulate but it's not a postulate. > > [POSTULATE, n. 1. a self-created truth would be simply the consideration > generated by self. Well, we just borrow the word which is in seldom use in > the > English language, we call that postulate. And we mean by postulate, > selfcreated truth. > He posts something. He puts something up and that’s what a > postulate is. (HPC A6-4, 5608C--) 2. a postulate is, of course, that thing > which is a directed desire or order, or inhibition, or enforcement, on the > part of > the individual in the form of an idea. (2ACC 23A, 5312CM14) 3 . that > selfdetermined > thought which starts, stops or changes past, present or future efforts. > (APIA, p. 33) 4 . is actually a prediction. (5112CM30B)—v. 1 . in Scn the > word > postulate means to cause a thinkingness or consideration. It is a specially > applied word and is defined as causative thinkingness. (FOT, p. 71) 2 . t o > conclude, decide or resolve a problem or to set a pattern for the future > or to nullify > a pattern of the past. (HFP, p. 155) 3 . to generate or “think” a concept. > A > postulate infers conditions and actions rather than just plain thinks. It > has a > dynamic connotation. (SH Spec 84, 6612C13)] > > > And if it's supposed to be like a Level 5 similar process (I'm makig a big >> assumption now that level 5 is also concept running or very similar) >> > > Yes there is a similarity. But - as we have seen above - it is different > from running a concept. Postulates do represent rather the building blocks > of a concept. > > should >> I use a mock up or a real object at a distance to represent my opponent? >> > > The command line does not say so, right? > The safe assumption is that it's desirable to avoid any "crutches" to > fulfill the request or command. Keep it as simple as possible. > Never the less you may benefit to find into your final mode of > operation by using some "mental tricks" like a mock-up to start. > Similar to using water-wings when learning to swim. But one wants > to get rid of them as soon as possible. > > What would be the main differences of level 4 and level 5 running regarding >> each individual command? Like, how would it be different to run an >> overwhelm in level 5 compared to the running of it in level 4? (I'm asking >> this one because Dennis enters in much much more detail about level 5 >> compared to level 4) >> > > Yes, that's true. > > L5 goes through the whole PFC-chart which is composed of 16 lines. > L4 deals with the non-game situations only - or in other words - the > overwhelms only. > > Besides that, Level 5 takes apart the situations (including the concepts of > overwhelms) into its postulate components. > Please take a look at the last line of the POSTULATE definition again: > > [A postulate infers conditions and *actions* rather than just plain thinks. > It *has a dynamic connotation*. (SH Spec 84, 6612C13)] > > In terms of "action" and "dynamic connotation" we see a main difference > to the comparably static character of a thought, idea, concept. > > Dennis uses a lot of verbs on the L5 tape which make it clear that > there is a dynamic quality involved. > > Contrary to that, you "punch out your concept", hold it there, punch it > out again as necessary ... wait and see what comes up. > > That leads immediately to the answer of your 2nd part of the question: >>> >>> 2) Could you describe how was your mental process of doing level 4, >>>> meaning >>>> what words (commands, synonimous of know, etc) did you use and what >>>> visualizations or steps did you go through mentally until new material >>>> showed up. >>>> >>>> >>> The mental process, as far as I do it, does not contain any >>> visualizations, >>> thinkingness in terms of phrases or symbols. There are no pictures >>> involved >>> nor emotions or feelings. Its simply putting up the mental concept >>> of the overwhelm situation. It could be described as the generic idea, >>> essence or abstraction of a myriad of exemplary events. >>> >>> This mental activity will cause the show-up of feelings like guilt, >>> blame, >>> shame, regret or even whole scenes. Time break as necessary. >>> Then repair your demand for havingness by your favorite method. >>> >>> I hope this shed some light on the issue. >>> >>> Success >>> >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> Marcus >> > > Did that clarify at least some of your questions? > > Best > Robin > _______________________________________________ > TROM mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom >
_______________________________________________ TROM mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
