Trom (The Resolution of Mind)

TROM (the resolution of mind) => General Discussion => Topic started by: mjh on December 27, 2017, 09:15:55 am


Title: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: mjh 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.





Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: David Cooke 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.
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: mjh 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):
[attachimg=1]

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.
[attachimg=2]

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
 [attachimg=3]


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.
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: David Cooke 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.
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: mjh 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
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: guest53 on February 26, 2019, 03:37:17 pm
 use the game of chess moves as a way to get some mass on the subject.

prevented preventing forcing forced  etc etc all 16 levels of L5
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: guest53 on April 02, 2019, 10:17:20 pm
level 5 is the universe acting on self . Its a sequence that we are at the effect of . Its a sequence that  and we experience is ways that go undetected .

Forcing to be known can be as simple as farting in an elevator
Preventing can be as simple as pressing the close door button as someone gets closer to boarding the elevator . Then pretending like you are pressing the button frantically trying to keep the door open and thinking come on door close close close before he gets to it .

And you love the way it feels too. Ah hahahahah

we are constantly going round and round the PFFC in real life in real time .

We are doing L5 , or at least I am , as a single spiritual being . NOT a seperated soul or spirit.

When I do l5 Im both at the origin and receipt

Its just a matter of changing our POV from self to others or both self and others and self AS others

I never see what im time breaking either , other than solid mental mass that is very tangible

It makes my head shake left right a few times depending on how many sequences im vanishing on L5

Its good stuff > most of the time , in day to day life Im time breaking as a normal daily function . Eating sleeping or using the bathroom 

Found a real juicy set a few weeks ago . Put a big smile on my face becasue I instantly knew I was about to start raiating energy out from my body 360 degrees spherical
 
OH what a feeling  !!!!!! eh  ?
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: TromFan on June 12, 2019, 12:15:05 am
I did NOT understand the postulate failure chart until I started running level five on myself.  Not completely, that is.  Toward the end of "TROM for Non-Scientologists" (found in the Read TROM here section of this forum) there is specifics on how this works.
I see that this is a pretty old posting, so I am going to assume you made it to level five by now.  If so, how is it going?
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: Karalee on June 12, 2019, 07:53:03 am
level 5 is the universe acting on self . Its a sequence that we are at the effect of . Its a sequence that  and we experience is ways that go undetected .

Forcing to be known can be as simple as farting in an elevator
Preventing can be as simple as pressing the close door button as someone gets closer to boarding the elevator . Then pretending like you are pressing the button frantically trying to keep the door open and thinking come on door close close close before he gets to it .

And you love the way it feels too. Ah hahahahah

we are constantly going round and round the PFFC in real life in real time .

We are doing L5 , or at least I am , as a single spiritual being . NOT a seperated soul or spirit.

When I do l5 Im both at the origin and receipt

Its just a matter of changing our POV from self to others or both self and others and self AS others

I never see what im time breaking either , other than solid mental mass that is very tangible

It makes my head shake left right a few times depending on how many sequences im vanishing on L5

Its good stuff > most of the time , in day to day life Im time breaking as a normal daily function . Eating sleeping or using the bathroom 

Found a real juicy set a few weeks ago . Put a big smile on my face becasue I instantly knew I was about to start raiating energy out from my body 360 degrees spherical
 
OH what a feeling  !!!!!! eh  ?

Haha, the elevator scene - your knowledge of human behavior as exposed by TROM would make you a great comedian.  Some people need help to come up to awareness of the sensation aspect of a goal, especially those habitual secret non-life goals .... and, yes, I have wanted to be alone in the elevator  :-)
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: mjh on June 12, 2019, 01:28:41 pm
TromFan - I haven't got to five yet, TBH I am still floundering around at the bottom looking for case change.

Maybe your query is the impetus to reapply myself here.

:)

All the best
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: TromFan on June 12, 2019, 01:47:46 pm
Does level one produce any reactions?  If not, then you may need CCH.  Please message me and tell me exactly what's going on.  I may be able to de-bug you if you are floundering around.

Also, like many others have said, and I can't emphasize this enough, level five will make more sense to you when you do it.

Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: mjh on June 12, 2019, 03:08:35 pm
Hi - RI produces reactions - things feel flat on Lvl2, boredom... maybe I overrun it?

Ok - so I just picked a moment way back in time to run on 2 and it sparked right up again!

:)
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: mjh on June 13, 2019, 07:05:28 pm
TromFan, please see attached as discussed - this brings each level into alignment with the 1-2-3-4 leg shift. the original chart does not...
[attachimg=1]

This also fits with DHS statement:

Quote
The SD postulate of the vanquished has now gone off the board; with it, of course, goes the PD postulate of the vanquished. Both the SD and PD postulates of the vanquished
are thus off the board (out of play) at the point of overwhelm.
Where have they gone to? They are in failure: they are no longer considered tenable in that game.
[The vanquished may resurge and play another game of this type later in time, but the current game with that particular effect is lost in the opinion of the vanquished.-DHS]

As after each stage that the self is vanquished they come back again as Origin of Effect.

For myself, from my understanding of how one shifts through these four 'states' -

5B (MNBK) has a valance shift and becomes MK
5B (leg 2) -> 1A (leg 3) -> 4B (leg 3)

1B (MNK) has a valance shift and becomes MBK
1B (leg 4) -> 5A (leg 1) -> 8B (leg 1)

This is not how it works on the original chart. The Original Chart is here - note the leg shifts:

5B (leg 2) -> 5A (leg 1) -> 4B (leg 3)
1B (leg 4) -> 1A (leg 3) -> 8B (leg 1)

These do not align with the original patterning - someone please explain how this is so. Also, DHS states at the beginning of the book that a being can not go from MNBK to MBK, this is the reason why there is a valence shift. And, they can not go from MNK to MK, hence the second valence shift - why then does the chart show this???

[attachimg=2]

Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: TromFan on June 13, 2019, 08:01:59 pm
OK, now that you put your chart up the way you see it, I can tell you right off that in the revised version there is one fundamental and glaring flaw--- you have both parties changing their postulates going 1b to 1a and then again the same flaw in the center of the chart.  The way the original chart reads, you don't have that sort of switchoff.

The way this is written, it's actually more complicated than it needs to be.

I notice you have FOUR valence shifts.  If you read the book, there are only TWO valence shifts in the postulate failure chart.  8b to 1a and 5a to 4b.  That's it.

You need to understand the difference between a game, an overwhelm and a valence shift. 

It's harder to understand your confusion than it is to convey my certainty, if that makes sense.  But there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of some key concepts and some added inapplicable data.

Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: mjh on June 13, 2019, 09:19:58 pm
OK, now that you put your chart up the way you see it, I can tell you right off that in the revised version there is one fundamental and glaring flaw--- you have both parties changing their postulates going 1b to 1a and then again the same flaw in the center of the chart.  The way the original chart reads, you don't have that sort of switchoff.

I agree that this flip causes a discrepancy - though consider that as SELF changes valence from MNBK to MK, on the chart can the OTHER remain as MK? No, as that would have both SELF and OTHER as MK.

As well as this SELF cannot remain as MNBK as they have shifted valence...  yet neither of these scenarios, explain how one can shift from MNBK to MBK, which Dennis clearly states is not possible and is the fundamental reason a valence shift occurs.
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: TromFan on June 13, 2019, 11:43:17 pm
On your chart you have someone driving you into must know with their must know postulate going from 5b to 5a, then having that “other” changing their postulate to must be known for no apparent reason at all.
At origin, if someone is aiming a must know postulate at you, it’s not going to result in you wanting to must know them if they overwhelm you.

1b to 1a someone is not going to drive you into must be known with a must be known postulate.
In other words, you have the chart going into a situation where someone is forcing their own self determined postulate.  They can only put you into their pan determined postulate.
I always read the chart going 8 to 1, because that is the flow of life.  The chart also makes sense going 1-8.
Now going from 1a to 1b on your chart, if someone aims a must know at you, it’s not going to put you into must not know.
5a to 5b someone aiming must be known at you is not going to put you into must not be known.
When I enforce a must know on you any of several things is going to happen.  You are going to go into must be known or resist with a must not be known.  You are NOT going to go into must know (or even must not know) as a result.
My aim is to put you into must be known.  You can resist it with must not be known.  But you are not going to resist with must not know, and you are not going to complement with must know.
I think I might have nailed it.  It’s the difference between an opposition postulate and an opposite postulate.
Dennis talks about how he asked a Scientologist once, “What is the opposition postulate to ‘to know’?” and the guy answered, “to not-know”, which was a wrong answer.
The opposition to the know postulate is “to not be known”.  Not-know is what you are driven into if his opposition postulate wins.
I sincerely hope this helps.
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: mjh on June 14, 2019, 12:27:17 am
There is only a couple of questions here.

What is the required structure to initiate a shift in valence?

Why does this occur?

The answers to these two questions are key to my query and I believe are also key to understanding TROM.

Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: mjh on June 14, 2019, 01:35:07 am
On your chart you have someone driving you into must know with their must know postulate going from 5b to 5a, then having that “other” changing their postulate to must be known for no apparent reason at all.

Is there a good reason why they shouldn't?

My only reference for this as stated, is that once self moves to MK you cannot have both self and other in the same postulate.

At origin, if someone is aiming a must know postulate at you, it’s not going to result in you wanting to must know them if they overwhelm you.

Yes, this is exactly what happens. As MBK has already failed, you cannot go to MK's PD. Therefore you have to switch valence and become them at MK. This is clearly stated by Dennis in the beginning of the book.

1b to 1a someone is not going to drive you into must be known with a must be known postulate.
In other words, you have the chart going into a situation where someone is forcing their own self determined postulate.  They can only put you into their pan determined postulate.

Again, yes this is exactly what happens. They are not forcing their SD postulate on you, they are forcing their PD postulate on you that you cannot adopt as it failed you utterly and your only choice is to become your opponent... :( It's called a valence shift

Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: TromFan on June 14, 2019, 02:08:36 am
Please note, from 5a to 4b on Dennis' chart and also 8b to 1a there is a swap of origin and receipt each also taking the other's postulate.  You don't have that on yours.  And you have marked four valence shifts which are not actual valence shifts. On both yours and Dennis' (because of your mistake, not his) they are mis-marked.  What you are THINKING is a valence shift is actually just someone switching the same postulate from origin to receipt or vice versa.

When you must know me as cause and I must not be known in reaction, then I switch to must not be known pushing the postulate at you, that is NOT a valence shift. I am only keeping the same postulate but instead of being at effect I am being at cause.

It's only when there is an overwhelm, not a game, that I go from my postulate to yours then you take mine and the valences shift.

Get rid of that last column on the standard chart.  Then put a large horizontal space between 1-4 and 5-8 then write "valence shift" in big bold letters separating the two.  Then take your chart and make it a cylinder.  Where 8b meets 1a write "valence shift" all the way from the extreme left to the extreme right, in between where the two rows meet.  NOT in a column, mind you, but in such a way as to separate it horizontally.  The words take up the whole row.

Also note that once you separate them, one is the reverse of the other.  It's symmetrical.

When you get to level five, please please please trust the chart and make sure to do it the way it is laid out.  To do it different is going to really screw you up.  Anyway, at the rate you are going, you'll have plenty of time to sort out the confusion, and once you get to level five and actually start doing it the flow of the postulates will be so obvious you will wonder why you thought it any other way.

I would recommend "forgetting" the data about how postulates are off the board for a bit, take a look at it in a new unit of time, and see how one postulate leads to another.  If it still does not make sense, then set the chart aside until you get to level five-- for the sake of your own sanity.

That's the last I have to say about it.
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: mjh on June 14, 2019, 07:42:35 pm
It's a shame you want to stop a meaningful discussion.

I am intrigued that you state you know what I am THINKING though. This is clearly wrong as I did not state what you have dubbed in.

My definition of a Valence Shift comes from the beginning of Dennis' book, he very clearly explains how this occurs.

I am more concerned that you proposed a being may move from MNBK to MBK, it is datums that deny this that I am utilising to keep a level head and be willing to evaluate for myself how the chart is built and how one moves through the legs.

If you can reference anywhere in the TROM materials that states this occurs I would be very happy as it would aid in developing my understanding.

I believe that you and I are both in a position of MK with respect to TROM, or neither of us would be here communicating. I get the sense that you have conceived that I am proposing the revised PFC as an alternative, I am not, therefore I am not taking any opposition to my discussion. I am only wanting to make sense of something that does not appear to fit the datums provided.

You have not offered any significant reference to prove otherwise, you have given your subjective opinion, your inner certainty and some false data in response and now knocking my understanding then closing the door on this...

TromFan, my door is always open.

MJH
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: TromFan on June 14, 2019, 08:31:42 pm
I've just run out of things to say, that's all.
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: mjh on June 15, 2019, 12:37:25 pm
Ok - I believe I now have this understood, it's not an easy cognition to get...

I had to go back to a basic evaluation question - "what needs to be true for this to be true?"

I found that answer in the Level 5 process:
Quote
The being, in life, enters games with an effect at 8b; after many vicissitudes he quits playing games with this effect at 1a. 

This reconfirmed that 1A is where it should be, we leave where we came in but the mirrored impression. (as a side note, I've never said the chart was wrong, I've been saying I don't understand how it is formulated in the way it is)

So this post is a form of exercising my cognitive flow - kind of writing up a win, but also a way to consolidate my thinking - I hope it may be useful to another.

On reviewing the PFCC - there were some items that I had not fully explored. This was the 'Recurring Pattern' and 'Break in Pattern' references, again I was looking at 'what had to be true for this to be true?'

I could see that SELF moved from 8B -> 1A and the recurring pattern fit to each set of four, with three of the same postulate then a change on the fourth. The pattern of the OTHER initially eluded me until I saw that their pattern runs from 1A -> 8B on the chart, the exact counter-flow to ours.

Double checking definitions for Overt and Motivator:

Quote
Overwhelming the postulate of an opponent in a game is known as an overt act.

Having one’s own postulates overwhelmed is called a motivator.

Everything became clear, the chart does not exactly reflect the Postulate Failure Cycle (Thank you David for your comment on this last year, it didn't fully land until last night - comm cycles can take awhile sometimes!). The meta-view of the chart does this i.e. each sector of four shows the legs, though within them we see the full expression of the Postulate itself.

In the OVERT we see ourselves causing failure on another through vanquishment - FORCING or PREVENTING
In the MOTIVATOR (the exact counter opposite flow) we see ourselves being vanquished by another - FORCED or PREVENTED

and we have the two game conditions - one where we start the game and one where they start the game.

The end result of these two game conditions is not provided, and this is where I have dubbed in a result from the Postulate Failure Cycle, based on who started the game, finished the game. This was never a requirement, at least I currently don't think so, and potentially is where the contention between myself and TromFan got entangled.

Simply each sector of four offers all the possible options a being may experience within that scope of postulate.

Therefore, a being holding the MBK postulate will start by INFLICTING on another and at a later point will be REJECTED, ultimately moving them to MNBK where they will DEPRIVE until they are REVEALED - At this point, the 'shift' occurs and they become the other at MK where they go into REVELATION until they are DEPRIVED from knowing, moving them to MNK where they will REJECT until they experience that INFLICTION they started the whole cycle off with when they came in.

Many thanks people - that was quite a ride! :)

Perspective and viewpoints are wonderful things - especially when they move and are adopted!

Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: TromFan on June 15, 2019, 02:17:33 pm
I had a feeling that if I stopped arguing with you that you would get it.  So glad for you!
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: mjh on June 15, 2019, 03:40:22 pm
I had a feeling that if I stopped arguing with you that you would get it.  So glad for you!

Thank you for that! I found it interesting that Dennis never mentions what the recurring patterns are on the PFCC and in which direction they run. It's kind of obvious after you've seen it, and the see how the flows run. :)
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: TromFan on June 16, 2019, 12:32:31 pm
He does mention there is a symmetry to the chart.  Also, if you read Insanity Point and really get it, it becomes terribly obvious too.  But for me, I had to read that book twice and then actually perform level five with the Insanity Point data to get that sort of clarity.

Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: L5_grad on October 04, 2019, 08:27:00 pm
The PFCC is too complicated on its own to be understood until you start using it to vanish mental mass.

Removing levels here and there and trying to make it fix your understanding isn't gonna work . hahaha You're better off trying to understand it for what it is .

Smelling farts is pretty disgusting but there's nothing you can do to unsmell someone else's fart except exhale and hold it until you can get as far away as possible while thinking the thought , you son of a **** .

By the time you smell it, its too late , You cant re-peal a banana once its been-unpeeled and you cant un-smell a fart once its been smelled.

https://youtu.be/wbAF1EExpek
Title: Re: Postulate Failure Chart
Post by: L5_grad on October 04, 2019, 08:50:23 pm
 granting too much importance to anything ipso facto grants too much importance to its absence.

L5 should not be considered too important nor its absence.

Control is everything in games play , and vanishing mental mass .

https://youtu.be/tFUi8Wa03hc