Author Topic: The subject of reason + complementary postulates  (Read 27 times)

supreme

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
The subject of reason + complementary postulates
« on: November 14, 2017, 06:37:27 pm »
On p.22 of The TROM book, I see two sentences which confuse me: http://take.ms/elErA

The first one is: """All the subject of reason limit the possible and define the reasonable"""

This is not a well-formed English sentence. What do you suppose the author was trying to express here?

Next we read: """The most reasonable postulate is a complementary postulate"""

The reason this confuses me is that I wonder why a postulate needs to be complementary to anything: it stands on its own.

Social Buttons


Peter McLaughlin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +4/-0
  • TROM Editor
    • View Profile
    • TROM Help
Re: The subject of reason + complementary postulates
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2017, 05:24:09 pm »
Hi Supreme
It’s very important to define reason and reasonable to understand this statement.  Dennis gets into these definitions in the book “01 Insanity Point”

To give you the short answer to your question, reason is sanity and reasonable is what is in agreement with reality. So a person who thinks he is a bird and steps off the 3rd story ledge while flapping his arms will crash into the ground.  He has lost his sanity or lost his reason and is doing what is unreasonable or not in agreement with the law of gravity.

So reason is what is possible in this reality we share and that defines what is possible or what is reasonable behavior.

A reasonable postulate for me is one that agrees with my understanding of reality. Therefor it complements my understanding of reality.

Pete

supreme

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The subject of reason + complementary postulates
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2018, 08:46:37 am »
a person who thinks he is a bird and steps off the 3rd story ledge while flapping his arms will crash into the ground.  He has lost his sanity or lost his reason and is doing what is unreasonable or not in agreement with the law of gravity.

The man in your example operates in 3 states: waking, dreaming and deep sleep. In the waking state, he will crash into the ground. However in the dream state he can (as I have) fly all over the place with no problem. So I suppose the dream state is where actuality is the law while in the waking state reality is the law.

I'm enjoying this conversation. I'm not actively doing the exercises these days. I did them for a bit and boy the past will try to take your attention out of the present and you really could be a basket case if you dont timebreak those implants that come storming back. But I really appreciate the discussion we are having.


Peter McLaughlin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +4/-0
  • TROM Editor
    • View Profile
    • TROM Help
Re: The subject of reason + complementary postulates
« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2018, 11:02:04 am »
Where does this terminology “Waking state” Dream State” come from?

when operating in agreed upon reality the rules of gravity apply.  when you are imagining a scene you get to make any rules you want and flying around by flapping your arms is perfectly fine till you decide to apply the law of gravity.

increasing your ability to put your attention where you want it for as long as you want it there with no distractions because you have timebroken the distractions is what you want to achieve.  with practice you increase you ability do to this for longer periods of time.  when you can persist on a given task longer than others can you are an exceptional person.  you will never achieve machine like perfection at this because you are a self aware thinking being who likes the sensations generated in games play.  you will persist at a given task as long as necessary for survival then do something else for fun.