Author Topic: The subject of reason + complementary postulates  (Read 101 times)

supreme

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +1/-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: 24
  • Karma: +7/-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: 25
  • Karma: +1/-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: 24
  • Karma: +7/-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.

Karalee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Karma: +9/-0
  • Location: Connecticut, USA
    • View Profile
    • TROM Books available here:
Re: The subject of reason + complementary postulates
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2018, 03:35:31 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.

Good question. Does a postulate really stand on its own in an interactive game with "others"?  Yes perhaps in Flow 0 (self to self) that is true.  For example, if I wish to populate my secret planet with "only me's", exact duplicates...?

In the Old Testament the O.T. deity once said, "Come and let us reason together..." For example, if my partner is looking at his past and projecting [bad or manic] futures based on scenes from the past then I can look him in the eyes and attempt to bring him back to present time reasoning, based upon what is now here. I can even ask them to tell me what scene they are looking at, specifically ("Did that happen to you before?") . 

Not-reason tends to be very generalized, such as "I don't have a life!".  I tend to associate reason with logic.  Some questions that invoke reason  instead of unfettered and frustrated ambition are, "What is your next step?", and so we agree what is the next step and the universe and society will tell us what sub-steps we need to take to reach that next step.  For example, before purchasing tools for a new business or putting time into a new business (the next step) we must have all monthly bills current; we must be in good health, mentally and physically up to the challenge, or we will be zug-zwanged.  Setting too high goals doomed to failure only give our ego bragging rights for how much of a failure we are (inverse ego).

Dennis talks about being zug-zwanged (spelling?) by rules or by universe laws, which happens to all to a greater or less extent.  Most people are zug-zwanged by violating the biochemical and anatomical realities of the human body intelligence, thus bringing disability upon themselves, physically and emotionally, thus prematurely ending a promising upward statistic re their business or occupation.  For example, Steve Jobs.

To put it in a nutshell, reason is being complementary to unavoidable, unsurmountable rules and laws (by your considerations and group considerations, and universe physics).  However, Pete tells the story of how he beat the tax man with a pan-determined postulate.... and he achieved complementary postulates = no more gaming.






Cory

  • Administrator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 83
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The subject of reason + complementary postulates
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2018, 11:25:29 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.

Your right a postulate is a postulate in a state exterior to your body. A state where your uneffected by anything can be a strait postulate without consequence. Scientology calls it serenity of beingness. However people dont operate like this. If the average person makes a "postulate" it is formulated based on your life experience, which is a series of effects in your life. They thinj it through first. That thouhht bombards with all possible bad situations and is crafted based on them. Thus most "postulates" are in fact just counter postulates to something else. A reaction. Thus we have the four kinds of effect postulates. A cause postulate is pure and uninterrupted by past effects. Its done without reservation or inhibitions because its done in the present moment now, not from the mind or the past.