Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
General Discussion / Re: Postulate Failure Chart
« Last 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.

General Discussion / Re: Postulate Failure Chart
« Last 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. :)
General Discussion / Re: Postulate Failure Chart
« Last 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!
General Discussion / Re: Postulate Failure Chart
« Last 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:
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:

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!

General Discussion / Re: Postulate Failure Chart
« Last post by TromFan on June 14, 2019, 08:31:42 pm »
I've just run out of things to say, that's all.
General Discussion / Re: Postulate Failure Chart
« Last 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.

Games Strategies / Re: pan determined postulates
« Last post by TromFan on June 14, 2019, 02:20:52 pm »
You made a self-determined must not be known and a pan-determined must not know.  Clever.

I have sometimes instead of saying "I must find out" said "It will make itself known to me."

It's really in the wording.

I want to know you and you will make yourself known to me.

I want to forget you and you will go away.

I must be known and you will know me.

I must hide and you will never find me.

All those sentences have the sd and pd postulates in each of them.
Games Strategies / pan determined postulates
« Last post by Peter McLaughlin on June 14, 2019, 12:31:35 pm »
Are you using pan determined postulates?

Dennis make the point that when in playing games or interacting with others you and they are using self determined postulates to determine what you will do and you should create a pan-determined postulate and put it on your opponent to alter their self determined postulate.

For example, i recently was contacted by the state tax office to collect sales tax on an out of state purchase i had made and had shipped to my home address.
I realized that the sales tax code had just been changed so now the state was attempting to collect revenue from anyone who had made out of state purchases.
I responded to the agent that i did not recall what he was referring to so i would have to check my records and get back to him.  I then generated a pan determined postulate which i put out at his location that my purchase was so small that the tax was hardly worth his time and there were other, higher dollar amount purchases he could pursue.

He never called back.

So did my action cause him to give up? I don't know but i like to think it did.

Have any of you had similar experiences?

Pete McLaughlin
General Discussion / Re: Postulate Failure Chart
« Last 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.
General Discussion / Re: Postulate Failure Chart
« Last 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

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10