Author Topic: Postulate Failure Chart  (Read 77 times)

mjh

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Location: UK
    • View Profile
    • Self-Alignment
Postulate Failure Chart
« on: December 27, 2017, 09:15:55 am »
On the Postulate Failure Chart, I can see that the Conditions for the complementary legs references are Overt/Overwhelm or Motivator/Overwhelm and it is the Game condition for the opposing legs.

I appear to be misunderstanding this - but in the book where Dennis is talking about the personality characteristics he states:

Ref: Mustn't Be Known - "He got into this leg by being overwhelmed by a Mustn’t know while being in the Must be known leg"

So 'He' could have started in either 8A or 7B - which are both Game conditions and yet the result of this when Mustn't Know overwhelmed Must Be Known, I would have said was a Motivator/Overwhelm with Rejection in 'Prevented from being known'. (8A moving to 6B / 7B moving to 7A)

If Must Be Known had overwhelmed Mustn't Know - then this would be an Infliction of "Forcing to Know", and be the Overt/Overwhelm of Forced to be Known - however, there is no result point on the chart for this as there are no spaces where two Must Be Known beings exist - also, per the material to become "Must Be Known" one is overwhelmed by a "Must Be Known" - so this may not be there as at this point the being has taken on the valence of the overwhelmer...?

My query(s) then are around the nomenclature and structure of the chart (Game / Game) and (Over / Overwhelm) and (Motivator / Overwhelm) what am I missing?

On reading and on consideration complementary flows exist at 1A, 2B, 3A, 4B, 5A, 6B, 7A, 8B - all of which show this Overwhelm condition yet Dennis states: "Complementary postulates enhance life; conflicting postulates detract from it."

Also, as an aside - is there any information which looks at the twinned aspects: say two 'Must Be Knowns' where they are both flowing at each other and one would 'overflow' the other so they become Mustn't Know. I assume that this may would only be an issue with two outflowing states so the other would be two Mustn't Know's together.





Social Buttons


David Cooke

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: +5/-0
  • Location: Adelaide, Australia
    • View Profile
Re: Postulate Failure Chart
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2017, 05:02:16 am »
Greetings, mjh

It might be easier to understand the postulate failure chart if you keep in mind the differences between this and the games matrix.

First Dennis presents the games matrix with four legs. This describes the time track that an individual lives through as they pursue games with a given effect. It proceeds from Must Be Known to Must Not Be Known, to Must Know and finally to Must Not Know. An individual can only go in one direction through this sequence because they start in Leg 1 (Must Be Known) and each leg in turn becomes un-occupiable (by the person's own consideration, that is) as that postulate goes into failure. One ends in Leg 4 (Must Not Know), the low-toned end of the line for playing with that effect. The only way forward from there is to start a new cycle with a new effect.

Further on he introduces the postulate failure chart with its sixteen levels from 1A to 8B. These are instructions for therapy at Level 5 of TROM, and it goes in the opposite direction, from late to early on the time track. As he wrote, "The Time Track runs from 8 to 1. You work from 1 to 8, around and around." Someone running Level 5 starts at 1A which is the overwhelmed state at the very end of Leg 4. At 1A their 'Must Not Know'postulate has been defeated and they submit to knowing whatever effect their opponent was trying to make them know.

5A to 6B correspond to Leg 2, and 7A to 8B correspond to Leg 1. So in the case of a person getting into Leg 2 "by being overwhelmed by a Mustn’t know while being in the Must be known leg", he's overwhelmed by the opponent's 'Must Not Know' SD postulate at 7A and finds himself changing his own SD postulate to an enforced Must Not Be Known. Then when he moves into Leg 2 at level 6B he has adopted Must Not Be Known as his new SD postulate.

The complementary postulates at 1A, 2B, 3A, 4B, 5A, 6B, 7A, 8B are enforced complementaries. Check the origin and receipt columns to see who is enforcing what on whom. For example, at 1A Self apparently 'wants' to know the effect, but only because Others have rammed the effect down Self's throat. In running the postulate failure chart we're only seeking to run out games conditions and overwhelms, not the times when we happily had complementary postulates with others. Just as in scientology we were trying to run out aberrative incidents, not free track.

Anyway, I hope this is a bit helpful and hasn't created more problems. I didn't find the postulate failure chart easy to understand until I'd completed the earlier levels of TROM. When I finished Level 4, which removes charge from the whole subject of overts and motivators, the postulate failure chart started to make sense. Then on Level 5, understanding of what the levels mean in practical terms keeps changing as you run through them cycle after cycle.  These changes are the cognitions on each of the 1A, 1B etc levels within 5.  I've only recently started on Level 5, and expect to have many, many iterations of the chart before it's flat.

Your aside about twinned aspects is an interesting question too. It leads into the matter of competition, something that Dennis did not find it necessary to discuss. On the other hand, games theory in the biological sciences is all about competition: predators competing for a limited number of prey, birds competing for a limited number of nest sites etc. And games theorists in biology use the mathematics that John von Neumann developed in the 1940s to find optimum competitive strategies in business, poker and war. I've been trying to write a blog post explaining competition in terms of TROM, and if I ever get it finished I'll post a link here.  Briefly, competition (a.k.a rivalry) is an example of a junior game within a senior encompassing game, when there is relative scarcity on the other side. Dennis didn't need to address it directly because it collapses when the main game is resolved.

I'm inclined to agree with you that in the basic games package the only real conflicts would occur between paired outflows. An image comes to mind of two rival jazz trumpeters trying to out-play each other. In other game packages such as Eat there can be competing inflows, for example two plants in the same small pot competing to suck up a limited supply of nutrients.

mjh

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Location: UK
    • View Profile
    • Self-Alignment
Re: Postulate Failure Chart
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2017, 09:42:43 am »
Hi David - much appreciating your response, it has helped out a great deal! - This new knowledge however, has raised another level of problem!

I can now see that each of the even-numbered lines are all where Self is in a causative position and commits an overt per their current 'Leg'.

In part B of all of the odd-numbered lines is where Self is now at the effect of the overwhelm and will become overwhelmed, thus moving into the next 'Leg'.

All of this makes sense and if I remove the odd-numbered lines with A from the chart, all is good in my thinking!

So, there is still something missing that I am not fully comprehending. If this chart is a progression through the legs, then the A sections will be alternative ways of moving to the next leg when at effect of an overwhelm. It is plain for me to see that these are all of the nature: 'enforced complementaries' as you described them.

Here is a quick diagram so far of what I am understanding (the S / O represents Self / Other):
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Attempting to understand the 4 'mystery' states my issues are:
They appear to be in the wrong legs:-
    3A is Must Not Know which is Leg 4,
    1A is Must Know which is Leg 3,
    7A is Must Not Be Known which is Leg 2 and
    5A is Must Be Known which is Leg 1.

The resulting Leg in which Self moves to per the information I have, is shown on the image - 1A and 3A move to Must Be Known, 5A and 7A move to Must Know.

On the basis that there could be alternative ways of getting to the next leg, I am able to allocate 3A alongside with 1B and 7A alongside 5B - these then are two methods of moving from MNBK to MK and from MNK to MBK.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

1A and 5A could be allocated alongside 3B and 7B respectively, this does however mess up the flow to the next Leg as these complementaries do not fit the Leg pattern, they force a valence shift missing out a leg. Or does 1A when MBK overwhelms MK, cause MK to become MNK? and in 5A when MK overwhelms MBK, cause MBK to become MNBK? I know Dennis states in his descriptions that MBK and MK both cause a valence shift, is this only when the prior leg which fits their PD has failed and thus the being has to become the valence. In this position then I can see them fitting in - however I am stuck with them in different spaces to the original chart - 1A and 3A are switched as is 5A and 7A
  [ Guests cannot view attachments ]


I am sure there is something key which I am missing - hopefully, my description above offers some detail to helping me locate it!

Thank you.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2017, 09:58:41 am by mjh »

David Cooke

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: +5/-0
  • Location: Adelaide, Australia
    • View Profile
Re: Postulate Failure Chart
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2017, 06:59:24 pm »
Wow, this is subtle. A bit too subtle for me!

Yes, self is at cause (origin) in levels 2A, 2B, 4A, 4B etc.  On the time track, a person starts out at cause in each leg in turn, and ends up at effect.
1A (the bottom of leg 4) looks superficially like 4B (the top of leg 3) because they're both MK facing a MBK. The difference is that at 4B Self is winning, getting the knowledge they want, but by the time they've got down to 1A they're unwillingly knowing something they don't want.

To quote: "We now need to take up the sense, or meaning, of the word ‘must’ on the chart. With one exception the meaning is ‘got to’; it's a striving to make the postulate effective. The only exception is at the overwhelm levels. At the point of overwhelm ‘must’ means to the being overwhelmed ‘cannot help but’; it echoes the failure of his postulate in the game."

But it's not much use trying to figure all this out if you're not yet running on Level Five of TROM.  (A bit like wanting to know what cognitions you'll get on a process before staring to run it.) Please get each of the preceding Levels flattened, in sequence, before worrying about the details of Level Five.

mjh

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Location: UK
    • View Profile
    • Self-Alignment
Re: Postulate Failure Chart
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2017, 04:55:56 am »
Thanks David,
Figuring out the chart is a process in itself, so yes I understand that it should be presented later in the materials after the other areas are flat.

I'll leave it for now and run out the early levels first.

Many thanks for your input - have a great New Year all the best for 2018!

MJH