Trom (The Resolution of Mind)

I wondering if there's a reasonable mapping of job roles and a structure / pattern of the games to match them

For instance, a police investigate appears to work on a MK > MK pattern

Whereas a Researcher / Journalist looks to be more MK > MBK

Military Army : MK > MNK

Military secret forces : MK > MNK .. with an overriding MNBK

Anyone want to add some more, maybe a little more detail is required to explain the flow? This patterning is engaging for me at the moment, as in the importance of it has grown during my recent iterations.

Hope all is well with you TROMers

Khepri

Here's a link to a slightly revised circular visual version of the PFCC with Origin and Receipt taking a bolder presence, after consideration on a previous post:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yFi0zg1DJ24sSIcn0cT6KfTt4yV7FRnz/view?usp=sharing

One day, I'll work more on this to be more visually appealing and lean towards 'The Wheel' that Dennis mentions

What did he whisper in the lions ear?

https://youtu.be/Wr1oIavLWI8

This is a new thread to discuss the idea brought up in the Published TROM thread.

Jur93n mentioned a method to recall and draw out PFCC.

From my own perspective this is a valuable datum, having a personal connection to the data so that this chart may be presented at will. The basic TROM data should be sufficient to generate this.

I begin with the 4 Legs and each of their Game Conditions, Self is on the Left and Not-Self is on the Right.

Leg 1 - MBK - MNK
Leg 2 - MNBK - MK
Leg 3 - MK - MNBK
Leg 4 - MNK - MBK

Each of these have two conditions - one where Self initiates and the other where Not-Self initiates the game. In both of these the SD and PD postulates of both parties are extant.

At this point then eight of the rows can be populated - in my revised chart the Origin/Receipt of the Game is shown by an arrow.

Thus :

Leg 1
MBK -> MNK
MBK <- MNK

Leg 2
MNBK -> MK
MNBK <- MK

Leg 3
MK -> MNBK
MK <- MNBK

Leg 4
MNK -> MBK
MNK <- MBK

From either one of these scenarios there are another two states - one where Self is overwhelmed (Motivator) or the other where Not-Self is overwhemed (Overt). When Self commits the Overt we remain where we are so that is positioned at the 'stronger' end of the Leg, where Self is overwhelmed that is positioned closer to the next Leg as that is where we will come back in. The arrow in these circumstances determines the flow of the Overt, opposed to the initiator of the Game in the previous rows.

Thus:

Leg 1
MBK -> MK (Overt)
MBK -> MNK
MBK <- MNK
MNBK <- MNK (Motivator)

Leg 2
MNBK -> MNK (Overt)
MNBK -> MK
MNBK <- MK
MBK <- MK (Motivator)

Leg 3
MK -> MBK (Overt)
MK -> MNBK
MK <- MNBK
MNK <- MNBK (Motivator)

Leg 4
MNK -> MNBK (Overt)
MNK -> MBK
MNK <- MBK
MK <- MBK (Motivator)

In the Overwhelm states there is no PD postuate for the Receiving party - they have succumbed and 'Cannot Help But' (MUST) the imposed Postulate.

Listening again to Dennis: materials specifically game strategy #1 the text mentioned something called a Cliff Stick game this is nonsense.

The correct definition is Cleft Stick:
a difficult situation
If you say that a person or organization is in a cleft stick, you mean that they are in a difficult situation which will bring them problems and harm whatever they decide to do. [British]


The next version of the transcripts and book will show this correctly, I'll update here as required

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/in-a-cleft-stick.html

May I request that if you have any capability to copy, upload and make available publically these materials please do so

Post the links here : direct links to sites are great but they die eventually, hopefully archiving websites pick them up this is not guaranteed though. So we have a duty to do this. If not us, who else?

This is the only room in this corner of this galaxy that is talking about TROM... Run away if you're not up to it, but otherwise if you're here please to do something to keep this here and available for the future.

Rant over!

The use of Scientology terms and references is not required to understand or use TROM - the sections where these are used could be re-written to a more natural and modern model.

Any knowledge or dogma of Scientology is not required to understand or use TROM.

Removing all references to the subject of Scientology from TROM could open the door to a more public acceptance of TROM and people using it.

The above goes against the Addendum by DHS in that he states do not change the material. I concur with his message, yet if the material is modernised and a copy of the original is given as reference material then maybe this work could be further disseminated.

When moving up the levels of TROM the distinctions between the basic 4 actions becomes finer and finer, resulting in the 16 levels at TROM 5.

It has become apparent to myself that Origin and Receipt referencing is a requirement when looking at the game levels as these are postulated by whom is starting the game. However the Overwhem levels are end-game scenarios, where one of the players finishes the game by having the other give up their own postulate and adopt the PD postulate of the other. In this situation the Origin / Receipt status is a moot point really - and if it is focused upon then all it really does is feed the Overt/Motivator justification pattern.

So, if O/R is considered in Leg 1 overwhelms (7A and 8B), then one would need to know which level 7B or 8A was the start-game, as we are now at an end game. Thus, for every Overt/Motivator there would be 2 possible starting conditions: 7B->7A, 8B->7A or 7B->8B, 8A->8B respectively.

If O/R is not a requirement, (and I suspect this is the case), then the idea of O/R is a moot point as stated and thus can be removed from the chart or referenced in another manner.

For myself the FLOW arrow on the revised chart simply allows one to see the flow of the postulate overwhelm, which is a totally different structure to the starting postulate of the Game states, which is who started this game.