Home
Search
Login
Register
Recent Posts71
Level five TROM / Re: Junior Goals Package - Want/Wanted
« Last post by TromFan on February 12, 2023, 09:19:20 am »I absolutely, positively would not run it.
The cycle of postulate is first desire, then postulate, then reasons why.
So running a package of 'to want' makes about as much sense as saying the 'reasons why' for your postulate came before you making that postulate. Now you are saying, "The desire came after (or as part of) the postulate" or is the postulate itself.
Desire comes before the postulate. You don't postulate having a desire for something. The desire exists first. The postulate is the expression of the desire, I hope I have made myself clear.
In the instance of the father wanting the child or not, it's a matter of 'to create' which would include 'to procreate'. I personally would run the 'to sex' goals package, seeing as not wanting a child could be some regret over having sex.
If something is wanted or not wanted, then it should be run as the subject matter of level 5c then that particular thing wanted or not wanted would be an enforcement if not wanted or a complementary postulate situation if it is.
You could express the postulate of 'to know' as it already exists as 'to want to know' and even express other junior goals like sex as 'to want to sex'.
What you are saying here is you want to run a package of 'to want to want' with one of its legs being 'want to not want', that latter being an expression, by definition, of insanity-- having a postulate that contradicts itself, being you are postulating two opposites at the same time.
A postulate of not wanting to be wanted opposes the positive legs of the 'to know' goals package and is itself non-survival.
The subject arose through a discussion with a friend who had been resolving a moment of conception, where when coming into being had the spiritual projection of his father imposed upon him of 'not wanted'.
The way to handle could be running babies at 5c as this is an occurrence of a desire on the father's part of 'preventing babies from being known' or could get really specific, like if my name was Billy, it could be a desire to 'Prevent Billy from being known". It could also just run out at 5A with the father postulating 'must not know' right at the person who is not wanted. If someone does not want you, then that's the not-know postulate.
Addendum: This is actually the second time today I have had more to add to answering this. Such a question really sparks in me a curiosity as to just how misunderstood some TROM basics really are.
The desire to be wanted would simply be the desire to be known. The desire to not be wanted would be insane. The desire to want could be interpreted as someone simply wanting to motivate themselves. The desire to not want could be interpreted as a bad habit one wants to break.
But one would not handle the above by running such a redundant, and dangerous goals package. OK, the desire to be wanted is simply covered by the desire to be known. It's in the basic package. We don't mock up insane postulates in the 'self' category like someone is opposing your conflicting postulates of wanting to be not wanted with a postulate to want you. I can only imagine how that could spin someone. But as far as motivating oneself, and motivating others, that could be run as 'to motivate' and that would be in the 'to control' goals package, and also stopping a bad habit could also be in the 'to control' goals package'.
You COULD run 'wanting' or 'desire' at level 5c with no harm. Someone trying to manipulate you into wanting them, like women do with men and vice versa could be 'forcing to know desire', for example. But in order for the goal of 'to want' to work, it would have to be done at level 5c. I am pretty sure at 5b it will spin you.
The only other thing I can think of (for now, LOL) is that trying to make others desire an effect or not desire an effect would be an element of games play, and wanting to want and wanting to not want and wanting others to not want you would be a goal that could only exist in games play. You don't run goals like that. Dennis uses 'to win' as an example of this. I am getting complex here--- to want to be wanted or to want to want implies a game already exists. How could one want to be wanted without a game already in play? He can't do this by himself, he has to be wanted by another player.
The goals that can exist outside of games play can be run. Those are the ones put forth at life goals in the writeup.
To say you want to want is immediately an admission to wanting something. It's also saying, "I don't want to want" if you have to make a postulate to want something.
You could look at desire as a concept, but once you do, then you understand why such a concept would have to be run at 5c. Like to not want would be a spiritual goal of ridding oneself of desire, like Lao Tzu advises in the Tao Te Ching.
I could go on and on with all the contradictions and pitfalls of postulating to want something, but I think after rambling on long enough, it all boils down to the fact that a postulate is already a want. That's the fundamental misunderstanding.
The cycle of postulate is first desire, then postulate, then reasons why.
So running a package of 'to want' makes about as much sense as saying the 'reasons why' for your postulate came before you making that postulate. Now you are saying, "The desire came after (or as part of) the postulate" or is the postulate itself.
Desire comes before the postulate. You don't postulate having a desire for something. The desire exists first. The postulate is the expression of the desire, I hope I have made myself clear.
In the instance of the father wanting the child or not, it's a matter of 'to create' which would include 'to procreate'. I personally would run the 'to sex' goals package, seeing as not wanting a child could be some regret over having sex.
If something is wanted or not wanted, then it should be run as the subject matter of level 5c then that particular thing wanted or not wanted would be an enforcement if not wanted or a complementary postulate situation if it is.
You could express the postulate of 'to know' as it already exists as 'to want to know' and even express other junior goals like sex as 'to want to sex'.
What you are saying here is you want to run a package of 'to want to want' with one of its legs being 'want to not want', that latter being an expression, by definition, of insanity-- having a postulate that contradicts itself, being you are postulating two opposites at the same time.
A postulate of not wanting to be wanted opposes the positive legs of the 'to know' goals package and is itself non-survival.
The subject arose through a discussion with a friend who had been resolving a moment of conception, where when coming into being had the spiritual projection of his father imposed upon him of 'not wanted'.
The way to handle could be running babies at 5c as this is an occurrence of a desire on the father's part of 'preventing babies from being known' or could get really specific, like if my name was Billy, it could be a desire to 'Prevent Billy from being known". It could also just run out at 5A with the father postulating 'must not know' right at the person who is not wanted. If someone does not want you, then that's the not-know postulate.
Addendum: This is actually the second time today I have had more to add to answering this. Such a question really sparks in me a curiosity as to just how misunderstood some TROM basics really are.
The desire to be wanted would simply be the desire to be known. The desire to not be wanted would be insane. The desire to want could be interpreted as someone simply wanting to motivate themselves. The desire to not want could be interpreted as a bad habit one wants to break.
But one would not handle the above by running such a redundant, and dangerous goals package. OK, the desire to be wanted is simply covered by the desire to be known. It's in the basic package. We don't mock up insane postulates in the 'self' category like someone is opposing your conflicting postulates of wanting to be not wanted with a postulate to want you. I can only imagine how that could spin someone. But as far as motivating oneself, and motivating others, that could be run as 'to motivate' and that would be in the 'to control' goals package, and also stopping a bad habit could also be in the 'to control' goals package'.
You COULD run 'wanting' or 'desire' at level 5c with no harm. Someone trying to manipulate you into wanting them, like women do with men and vice versa could be 'forcing to know desire', for example. But in order for the goal of 'to want' to work, it would have to be done at level 5c. I am pretty sure at 5b it will spin you.
The only other thing I can think of (for now, LOL) is that trying to make others desire an effect or not desire an effect would be an element of games play, and wanting to want and wanting to not want and wanting others to not want you would be a goal that could only exist in games play. You don't run goals like that. Dennis uses 'to win' as an example of this. I am getting complex here--- to want to be wanted or to want to want implies a game already exists. How could one want to be wanted without a game already in play? He can't do this by himself, he has to be wanted by another player.
The goals that can exist outside of games play can be run. Those are the ones put forth at life goals in the writeup.
To say you want to want is immediately an admission to wanting something. It's also saying, "I don't want to want" if you have to make a postulate to want something.
You could look at desire as a concept, but once you do, then you understand why such a concept would have to be run at 5c. Like to not want would be a spiritual goal of ridding oneself of desire, like Lao Tzu advises in the Tao Te Ching.
I could go on and on with all the contradictions and pitfalls of postulating to want something, but I think after rambling on long enough, it all boils down to the fact that a postulate is already a want. That's the fundamental misunderstanding.