Trom (The Resolution of Mind)
TROM (the resolution of mind) => General Discussion => Topic started by: Khepri on January 02, 2018, 04:04:26 pm
-
Just re-reading TROM from the beginning again - to pick up any misunderstood words or other.
I wanted to confirm definitions for: Overt and Motivator
From the Standard Dictionary
Overt: done or shown openly; plainly apparent. - (from Old French, past participle of ovrir ‘to open’)
Motivator: something that provides a reason or stimulus to do something - (from late Latin motivus, from movere ‘to move’)
There are also the $cio definitions:
Overt Act, 1. an overt act is not just injuring someone or something; an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics. (HCO PL 1 Nov 70 III)
2 . an intentionally committed harmful act committed in an effort to resolve a problem. (SH Spec 44, 6410C27)
3 . that thing which you do which you aren't willing to have happen to you. (lSH ACC 10, 6009C14)
MOTIVATOR, 1. an aggressive or destructive act received by the person or one of the dynamics. It is called a motivator because it tends to prompt that one pays it back—it “motivates” a new overt. (HCOB 20 May 68)
2 . something which the person feels has been done to him, which he is not willing to have happen. (HCO Info Ltr 2 Sept 64)
3 . an act received by the person or individual causing injury, reduction or degradation of his beingness, person, associations or dynamics. (HCOB 1 Nov 68 II)
4 . an overt act against oneself by another. In other words, a motivator is a harmful action performed by somebody else against oneself. (8ACC-14, 5410CM20)
OVERT-MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE, 1. if a fellow does an overt, he will then believe he's got to have a motivator or that he has had a motivator. (AHMC 2, 6012C31)
2. the sequence wherein someone who has committed an overt has to claim the existence of motivators. The motivators are then likely to be used to justify committing further overt acts. (PXL Gloss)
OVERT OF OMISSION, a failure to act resulting in the injury, reduction or degradation of another or others in their beingness, persons, possessions or dynamics. (HCOB 1 Nov 68 II)
Interesting that Dennis appeared to utilise the $cio terminology, but not explicitly define it.
-
There is a saying that "a super precise mathematician is a bad mathematician"..
My own view is that in TROM we are talking about overwhelm. And the overwhelms on the person's time track are seen from his own viewpoint, they are subjective to some degree.
This is very often overlooked in $cio practise (and elsewhere), so one just have to use what one finds.
I can argue that what I did wasn't an overt, but if it caused some idiot to switch valence then it worked as an overt. We are not interested in the truth, we are interested in a workable truth.
The popular definition is that an overt is something you wouldn't like happening to yourself, a motivator is something the other guy wouldn't like happening to himself.
Yeah, sometimes true, sometimes not.
Lots of things in this field are subjective. Even the Tone Scale is subjective as hell, but nobody noticed.
-
Hi Gone Fabian - I agree, there's not much that could be considered 'non-subjective', I suppose the usage of definitions is an attempt to reduce this to a minimum. And, attempting to get to the n'th degree becomes futile at some point (as you say getting to a workable truth).
Postulate failure is known as an overwhelm. 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. The difference between win/lose and overt/motivator is a very fine one, and is determined solely by the considered value of the game. If the game is relatively trivial, then win/lose is applied; if the game is serious (important) then overt/motivator is applied.
That little bit I put in BOLD is what you are talking about I think - as this is very much the subjective aspect.
Overt/Motivator subjective perception example: Yesterday I took a lollipop from my young boy that he was about to eat, he was so pained by this and cried, just as well that I did as I'd spotted it had been resting on the bench in some bleach...
The popular definitions you provided are 'good enough' for me! I'd like to think that the TROM materials could exist outside the realms of $cio and therefore not have to utilise their terminology.
-
Hehe, an overt act for myself would be anything that would cause another to feel bad (or dead) and I get at least some momentary pleasure sensation from it - of course it had to be justified, either before or after. For example, in a justified war if one were a voluntary sniper in a tree top and loved the sensation of inflicting others - plus might even get a medal and a nice pension .... haven't we all been there? We did just have two back to back world wars ....
Good sensation can be had from non-life goals, even if for only a moment.
Then of course there are the good sensations we compulsively seek from our life-oriented goals that have gotten out of hand and are compulsively enforced or prevented from the viewpoint of the "others". For example, "You must eat my wonderful cooking...!" Do I smell a motivator coming? :D