Embedded Files
There's a passage from Dennis Stephens' text, The Resolution of Mind a Games Manual I'll quote here, then I'm going to explain it.
“It is a law of all games that overwhelming failure causes the being to compulsively adopt the pan-determined postulate of his opponent.”
That’s quite a mouthful, isn’t it? So, let’s begin understanding this passage by reviewing what we already know.
Remember that a postulate is an intention. It can also be called a purpose or goal. When you postulate something, you intend it. We used the examples of intending to have a relationship with the opposite sex, having readers for a novel one just wrote, to forget something, and to hide something.
One’s intentions, or postulates, can be very specific, but they all boil down to the basic four postulates of to know, to not know, to be known and to not be known, which translate our four examples into intending to know that member of the opposite sex, for the novel to be known, for one not knowing an event, and for what one did not to be known.
The way I’ve expressed these postulates so far is by stating them as self-determined postulates. When I intend to know, for example, a subject of study, that’s my self-determined postulate.
When I introduce myself to someone else, that’s a self-determined postulate to be known to them.
I want to forget something, so I make a self-determined postulate to not know it.
I want to hide something, and make a self determined postulate for that something not to be known.
My intention to not know something from the past is my intention for that event to not be known, and my hiding something, making it not known, is also my intention for others to not know it. In each example, my self-determined postulate is followed by my pan-determined postulate.
The pan-determined postulate is the one you make on the "other". It's the postulate you want the other person to make as a result of your own, or the effect you want to create. Self-determined and pan-determined postulates complement*, or in other words, complete or agree with each other.
*Unfortunately for many who've studied his materials, the so-called "authority" on TROM, Pete McLaughlin, often mis-spelled this word in the TROM materials he published. Note well that we are using the word "complement" which means "to complete" and not "compliment", like he mis-spelled it, which means to express admiration or to praise. Though it sounds like I am nitpicking here, I'm not. I had to straighten out someone once on what complementary postulates (postulates in agreement) are because he had the idea that it had something to do with paying someone a compliment. Misunderstanding such a fundamental concept early on can really complicate one's understanding of the rest of the subject.
I introduce myself to you. You shake my hand and acknowledge me. Our postulates are now complementary. They agree with each other. I am known to you, and you know me.
I ask you a question. You answer. I want to know something about you, and you make it known to me. Once again, complementary postulates.
In each of those two cases, my introducing myself, and my asking a question, I made a pan-determined postulate about you. The first pan-determined postulate I made on you was that you know me. Then I made a pan-determined postulate for you to be known to me. Each time you agreed with my pan-determined postulate. You, in seeing my postulate to be known, agreed with it by making a self-determined postulate to know me. And then in seeing my postulate to know you, you made yourself known to me. You adopted my pan determined postulate, and you did this voluntarily.
The sequence is that I make a self-determined postulate, which is a pan-determined postulate on you, which you make your self-determined postulate.
My saying I want to be known to you and for you to know me is pretty much saying the same thing two different ways, right? So why bother playing around with words like this?
What I’ve gone at length to explain so far are postulates in agreement. If you thoroughly understand how agreeing with my pan-determined postulate then becoming your self-determined postulate works, then I can move forward with what happens when postulates are in conflict.
Imagine I introduce myself to you, and you look the other way. I just made a pan-determined postulate that's in conflict with your self-determined one.
I ask you a question, and you refuse to answer. Your self-determined postulate that the answer must not be known conflicts with my pan-determined postulate that the answer must be known.
In both cases, a game could play out. I could continue to try and get your attention while you ignore me. I could continue to ask you the question while you refuse to answer. Our self-determined postulates and our pan determined postulates do not line up with each other, thus there is conflict.
You refuse to let my pan determined postulate become your self-determined postulate. If we both continue to make our postulates, the game continues. I could chase you all over the room trying to get your attention. I could tie you up and torture you until you answer my questions.
In a civilized setting neither of these things are likely to happen. But for the sake of demonstration, let's say they do.
I chase you around the room, I corner you and force you to pay attention to me. That's an overwhelm. I am forcing you to know, and you are forced to know. My pan-determined postulate that you must know me becomes your postulate to know me.
But let’s say you escape me. You’ve now overwhelmed me. You’re preventing me from being known, and I’m prevented from being known.
As you study the manual, you’ll eventually reach a part where Dennis talks about how the word ‘must’ has two definitions. One is “have to” and the other is "can’t help but”. For example, when I must be known, I have to be known to you, and when I overwhelm you with that postulate, you can't help but know me.
Let’s continue with the example of how my postulate of ‘must know’ plays against your postulate of ‘must not be known’ when I ask a question.
I torture you into answering my question. I am forcing your answer to be known, and you are forced to be known.
But maybe someone comes in and rescues you from my interrogation. Maybe I just give up and let you go. Now you are preventing me from knowing, and I am prevented from knowing.
If you haven't noticed yet, in my examples I've mentioned each of the Eight Classes of Overwhelm. Go ahead and take a look at the overwhelms on the postulate failure cycle chart. They're in the right-most column.
Now you can take understanding the chart a step further!
At 1A, note how the "other" is aiming must be known at you, and you are in must know at receipt point. Your postulate is must know because your opponent's pan-determined postulate is must know. He has forced you to know.
At 1B, you are resisting the other's postulate with must not know.
At 2A, you aim the postulate of must not know at the other and the other is resisting with must be known.
At 2B you are now aiming must not know at the other. Remember, must not be known is your pan-determined postulate. He postulates it, and you are now preventing him from being known.
There are two basic games played in life, and that is must know versus must not be known and must be known versus must not know. And there are two situations where postulates are in agreement, and that is when the postulate to know connects up with to be known, and to not know connects up with to not be known.
People try to get attention from those who ignore them. Those who want to be left alone dismiss anyone they attract. You want to know what’s behind a door, and it’s locked. People lock doors because they want their privacy, and password protect their computers because they don’t want anyone knowing what’s stored in them. People try to forget past events. Others love to expose secrets.
These are all games, and they all boil down to must know versus must not be known and must not know versus must be known.
Let’s read that passage from the book again.
“It is a law of all games that overwhelming failure causes the being to compulsively adopt the pan-determined postulate of his opponent.”
Does that make more sense to you now?
It should. But then again, what does Dennis mean by compulsively adopting a postulate?
A woman wants a man’s attention. She must be known to him. He resists and ignores her. This keeps up for quite some time. One day she goes to an extreme to get his attention. She plants an unexpected, deep lip-lock on him. Or maybe she has a "wardrobe malfunction", deliberately and in his line of sight.
If this woman is at all desirable, either of those actions will force him into a must know postulate. She now dominates his thoughts. He could even take this as far as harassing or stalking her.
Similarly, let’s say a man was pursuing a woman. He must know her, but she’s playing hard to get, so she postulates she must not be known.
But she plays her game to the extreme where she never returns his calls, and doesn’t even look at him when he’s around.
Even though she's doing this just to get him to try harder, if she keeps this up, he’ll go into the must not know postulate, because that’s her pan-determined postulate.
Later on, she says hello to him as he passes her on the street, and he looks the other way.
He forgets about her. He forgets what she looks like. He forgets her name.
He was forced into not-know by her, and now he compulsively not-knows her as his own postulate.
An overwhelm is one person forcing the other to change their postulate. A game is a conflict in postulates. Compulsive games are settled by overwhelms. The one overwhelmed compulsively takes on the pan-determined postulate leveled against them.
Want to review what you've just studied while working out, driving, or falling asleep? We produced an audio presentation to accompany this webpage.
Thanks for reading this BETA version of "TROM 101: PAN-DETERMINED POSTULATES". Please write to me at TROMGuides@Gmail.com if you have any comments or questions. You can also contact Roger at Roger@BetterTROM.com .
-Madelyn
Page updated
Report abuse