Trom (The Resolution of Mind)

Possible, but I don't think that's the reason.  Just look at his posting, and how he insults the moderator.
If finishing level five turns me into that kind of person who would post something like that, then I don't want it. But I think it has to do more with him going off into his own offbeat practices and eventually going mental.

Hi there Khepri

> as a WOG (I get the feeling that this is a derogatory term?)

Nah it's not
It's a fun term that I believed was coined by LRH.

The definition is as follows:
a common, ordinary, run-of-the-mill, garden-variety humanoid, by which we mean an individual that considers that he is a body and does not know that he is there as a spirit at all.

> On 4, I have no idea what you are referring to, what errors have been fixed and by who? Where is this stated and published?

I believe I've seen such intentions/discussions (or I've interpreted it like this) somewhere in the other thread of this forum.

I cannot berate Pete, without his work and his dedication we would be missing so much of what Dennis created - I have no doubt that his small error (ref: level 5c) in duplicating the original materials was an oversight not an intention. My work in double checking all the transcripts brought many issues out, this is to be expected that task was a huge task to take onboard so thank you Pete! And thank you to everyone here so that we may spot where things have gone awry and make amends, none of this is Squirrelling or Out-Tech, in fact it's quite the opposite, it is making sure that what Dennis presented in audio is clearly presented in the written form. One major outpoint for me was the use of the term "Cliff Stick", this really snarled me up as it never sat right with me. On repeated listening to the tapes it became apparent that this was not what Dennis was saying at all, he says "Cleft Stick" which has a real and concrete meaning.

I have studied hard and given a significant amount of time and energy to get to a deeper understanding of TROM. And for the record, I do know what 'lock-scanning' is. Though in TROM itself it is not mentioned, Dennis does bring this up in the Creation of TROM lecture.

With respect to the audio tapes - as I have stated above a knowledge of Scientology terminology is a full requirement. Which is one reason I really appreciated your glossary, I am total agreement with you, hence my slightly curt response - again there is no SHOULD.

I have taken a look over the history of this forum, what a wonderful capture of learning it is - and I am reminded of my time in 2018 where I was stuck trying to get a sense on the Overt/Motivator definitions. This was a tough time for me, and looking back now was totally unnecessary - the concept of a Motivator blurs in the understanding of the being Overwhelmed, it created a confusion for me. Yes, the concept of Overt fits, but not Motivator. One being overwhelmed is sufficient. The second part of that (motivator) may occur after a valence shift. This concept is an imposition for me, it is not extant in all overwhelm situations. You hit me, I walk away and hope you deal with it, I am not compulsively urged to hit you back. You rob my house, I do not go and rob the house next door. Every child that has suffered sexual abuse does not go out and commit sexual abuse acts on others - yes some do but not all. Some people hit back, some people do go and rob another. So for me the concept of Motivator is a 'sometimes happens' scenario.

In fact was it not the old man himself who said "What is true for you is what you have observed yourself. And when you lose that, you have lost everything."...?

I love these conversations!

I kind of laugh that Pete, of all people, would cite how Dennis said not to alter the material, considering in the book he published on Amazon he adds to it an unnecessary introduction that will fill the reader with misunderstoods immediately.  Then there is a huge mistake in duplicating some level five data which I have pointed out and posted in the level 5 section of this forum-- check it out-- it is entitled "IMPORTANT Re level 5c error in Amazon TROM manual". The glossary he put in was just a copy and paste from the tech dictionary of a few terms, incomplete, adding some terms that weren't even in the book, and the glossary is exactly the same in every single one of his published works on TROM.
Also on his old 'tromhelp.com' website he said using the Sedona Method was a way to help through level 2 of TROM. He also linked to and referred to books and materials that weren't even Scn materials like James Carse's Finite and Infinite Games-- a great book-- I read it years before finding out about TROM, but it does not belong on a site such as he put up.
I brought up to him that the book he put out on Amazon needed to be re-done and he told me he did not have the time.  It's been several years since then, and the errors are still there.
Umm, the tongue-in-cheek does not communicate at all in the original posting you made, Khepri. Sounds like you really mean what you are saying.
To understand TROM, you really need to know what context it fits in. Dennis made it with the intent for being used by the Church.  And I think there are more Scientology terms and subtle references to Scientology in the original book than you are aware of.
As a former course supervisor in the Church, I can tell you this on and off might have to do with you still having some misunderstoods on the book.  Because having misunderstood words will interfere with application. This is a vital Scientology datum and applies to everything, not just TROM or Scientology, I mean everything you study.  Any Scientologist worth his salt studying TROM will study it with a regular dictionary and a Scientology technical dictionary to hand.
Here's an example of a term you may have missed--  do you remember how Dennis said leve four is a type of lock-scanning to prepare you for level five?  Well, if you don't know what lock scanning means, best find out. Now you could just read a definition either from the tech dictionary or even one that I wrote in one of my postings, but if you, like me, had actually done lock scanning at one time, a subject extensively covered in Handbook for Preclears, you will have an even deeper understanding of what Dennis means.
When you listen to the audio lectures, the advanced materials of trom you run into a lot of Scientology terms and concepts. If you don't know those, you are going to miss out on a lot of comprehension.  If you never seen an e-meter or never had any training on an e-meter you are going to miss out on the full flavor of what Dennis means when he talks about needle reads. I thank God I have had auditor training so these things don't go over my head.
I intend to do more for TROM than just put an apple on the counter. When I am finished, I am not only going to have an apple on the counter, but I am going to explain exactly what apples are, that they grow on trees, and right next to that apple put a recipe book on all the delicious dishes you can prepare using apples, so at least the person being offerred the apple has context for it.
It is irresponsible to offer TROM to someone without context. Period.  I know someone who downloaded that Amazon version and got only a few pages in and gave up. They saw my videos and are reading again.  That's my sister. Another viewer wrote me to say much the same thing.
Even lightly saying that Scientology terms and references to Scientology should be removed from TROM is just showing the rest of us just how much you don't know that you don't know. I am not saying this to berate you, I am saying this because I think it's a clue as to why you are on and off with TROM.
I'll help you with any question you have, but honestly, I wish you were in a courseroom with me so I could sit down with you and clear all your words.

Putting aside the reasons why some one may want to make TROM known to others I am of the following opinions:

1. Don't downgrade the TROM material to the WOG (ordinary humanoid) level but instead let WOG (only if he's interested to) upgrade his understanding to understand TROM.

2. The way to achieve number one is already well known: give public interesting technology application examples, the curious facts discovered by the use of tech, draw the true picture of possibilities becoming available to the ones using the technology, and the true purpose and condition the tech is made for to achieve. Then let those who are interested study and apply the tech. Also let those who are not interested go and live their lives.

3. Stripping TROM from scientology is the direct and immediate way to lose the sourse since it's actually altering the tech. One can just imagine scaling up this scenario with everyone modyfing the original tech to his current needs and understandings And soon the original working source can't be found nowhere. TROM stands on the shoulders of Scientology by LRH - hiding this fact has to do with ethic states.

4. Whenever someone finds an "error" in TROM and publishes the "fixed" version of it he both hides the working source tech among its "fixed and promised to be working" versions and also creates another trap for the ones looking for the true working source tech. It's squirelling and has to do with ethic states.

5. Back to basics. If you want to make an apple known to others just do it, "put it on a counter" so to speak to make it visible to the others and call it the way it is "apple". That's simple. Don't paint it to make it look like a cherry, don't spray it with the taste of bacon. Don't do any alterations. Keep making known the original effect. Then let those who are interested in it learn/find out the original apple taste. And also let the others who are not interested go their ways, don't "catch" them by catching their attention.