PDA

View Full Version : Tom Campbell



dreaming90
5th June 2012, 04:57 PM
At CFTraveler's encouragement, I am starting a thread to discuss the worldview of nuclear physicist and consciousness researcher Tom Campbell. I personally disagree with many of Tom's conclusions and I was wondering what others have to say.

Tom was one of Robert Monroe's "explorers" in the 70s (he is "TC" in Far Journeys). After years of practice under Monroe, Tom had mastered the out-of-body state to the point where he could project at will. He also found he had the ability to parallel process-- being both "here" and "there" at the same time, like the master shamans of old who were "between worlds." At any rate, Tom used his training as a physicist to interpret what he saw in the larger reality.

Tom has several videos on youtube which are very interesting if you are a science-y type. He wrote a trilogy of books called My Big TOE (Theory of Everything) where his worldview is laid out in full. I will attempt to briefly summarize...

In the beginning was only the void. From that void, consciousness itself, through means not fully understood, evolved into the Absolute Unbounded Oneness (AUO). AUO was only dimly aware, and found that by breaking off pieces of itself and interacting with them, it evolved into reducing its entropy through trial and error. The pieces, also called individuated units of consciousness (IUOCs), grew in number over time. AUO evolved into Absolute Unbounded Manifold (AUM). AUM began using big, conscious "computers" to manage all the "experiments" that were now going on. (Doesn't this sound like something a scientist would find?)

AUM found that it could create dense virtual realities that Tom calls physical matter realities (PMRs), including this universe. Outside of PMRs is nonphysical matter reality (NPMR). IUOCs sent pieces of themselves-- that would be you and me-- into these virtual realities to gather experience and to reduce their own entropy, thereby reducing the entropy of the whole system.

Entropy is a science term meaning the measure of disorder. More entropy means more disorder, and less entropy means more order and harmony. In Tom's view, love is a measure of low entropy, and fear is a negative of high entropy. AUM's goal is to reduce its entropy to the lowest point possible through the interaction of IUOCs in different reality frames, including this physical universe.

So, we are here to train to become more loving beings, in order to make the One Consciousness more loving by extension.

Here is my list of things with which I disagree.

- Entropy. The concept of entropy is fine when dealing with PMR physics, but when it comes to NPMR, does entropy remain a valid concept? Perhaps what Tom perceives as disorder is just another way that the One Consciousness/Source experiences itself? That's not to say that love is not superior to negative emotions, but there's the concept of yin and yang that should be considered.

Furthermore, Tom states that an IUOC's entropy can increase and decrease over time. That is false. The overpowering pull of Source will continue to pull us towards It, even if we stagnate for a while. This is dealt with in another thread, "Dispelling the Loosh Myth."

And let's not forget a quote from Tom's mentor, Robert Monroe: "There is no entropy, only a changing of form." Interesting...

- Evolution. Tom assumes that evolution is occuring in consciousness. In a sense, this is true, at least from our limited perspective. Supposedly, evolution means becoming more loving, but just take a brief look at biological evolution here on Earth. Creatures are evolving to either become more efficient killers or more elusive prey. That's not love at all.

In my opinion, Source is *already* evolved to the point of perfect unconditional love. It is we, on a journey back to Source, that are becoming love as we move closer to Source. It would be more accurate to say that the process of *in*volution is taking place.

We don't need to force ourselves to be compassionate in order to "evolve," or whatever. Compassion and love automatically flow from opening ourselves to more spiritual states of consciousness-- meditation, OBEs, and so on. As a side note, Tom dislikes talking about his OBE experiences because he wants us to focus on being better people in PMR. That's okay, but in my experience, love automatically comes with OBEs.

- Nature of reality. We are not meant to remember our past lives and such in PMR because that would ruin the simulation. OBEs are a giant cosmic loophole that really shouldn't be there, but apparently "the system" doesn't care. Tom does speculate that as more people learn to OBE the "loophole" will be closed.

As mentioned just before, opening oneself to the larger consciousness naturally results in more love and compassion. Tom's whole concept of entropy and ways to reduce it seems to be warped.

- The management. All the "experiments" (PMRs) that are going on are overseen by an entity that Tom calls "the Big Cheese." The Big Cheese is apparently some kind of appointed mayor that makes sure all the IUOCs are behaving. The Big Cheese is not perfect; justice is not always served when one IUOC "kills" another. Yes, Tom says that is possible, more on that in a second.

Tom's whole view of reality as a bureacracy with experiments in entropy reduction seems, well, a little silly and ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that these analogies paint the universe as mechanical and uncaring, which in my experience is quite the opposite.

Yes, there are highly evolved spiritual beings. Yes, they do assist with helping us lower life forms "in"volve towards Source. But an appointed bureacracy of cosmic scientists? How ridiculous!

- IUOCs being "deleted." Tom states that a bad IUOC can kill other IUOCs, though this is against "the rules." Ideally, the big cheese will punish this bad IUOC by deleting it, though justice is not always served.

I disagree strongly with this. There are no dangers in the astral! Nothing can hurt you! Consciousness is indestructable.

- Negative entities. Tom states that there are negs out there, but apparently seems to think they can be quite powerful. Tom states in his book that he avoided some reality frames because they were full of negs who would, of course, "kill" him if given the chance.

In my opinion yes, there are mischievious beings out there. But they aren't evil, they are simply ignorant. They will, one day, be pulled back to Source and become love just like the rest of us.

It's sad to see the "powerful neg" myth still floating around.

- Tom's view of the afterlife. Tom states that the afterlife is a simulation designed to manipulate us into being comfortable. If you had a child that died, that child will be there... but it's only a simulation. All your loved ones are merely computer holograms. Your "real" loved ones have probably already reincarnated and are off doing other things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQHFD2VFJ1w

This is probably Tom's most disturbing teaching. We are infinite, multidimensional beings. Can your deceased child be in the afterlife and enjoying another incarnation at the same time? Yes! There is no time, there is no space. And reincarnation is, in my opinion, not exactly linear.

- Which brings me to the next issue-- Time. Tom believes that there is a fundamental unit of time. AUM's clock is much faster than ours, but AUM is still constrained by time nevertheless.

Time is, in my opinion, a grand illusion. A psychological construct. The space between neurological events. There is no time. Ancient peoples had an understanding of this-- Dreamtime, nirvana, and so on. Source does not experience time, Source just IS.

Have you ever meditated and time passed at a different rate? Or had a projection that seemed to last years, but really only lasted an hour? William Buhlman mentions some experiences where he lived an entire lifetime in the astral, but found that physical time had only moved by five minutes. I think that time does exist in some way in the astral, but the closer you get to Source, the more meaningless time becomes.

- Religion. Tom clearly hates religion. He consistently bashes it in his book, often with no provocation. And yet, if our goal is to reduce our entropy and become more loving... What about the former gang members that find Jesus and become better people? Carl Jung considered religion a valid way of becoming a better, more integrated person, though he personally didn't subscribe to any particular one (to my knowledge).

If religion is an efficient means of reducing entropy, why does Tom hate it so much?

CFTraveler
5th June 2012, 07:10 PM
On edit, here are some thoughts that I had. You may not agree with me, but that's why I wrote it-discussion of ideas. So here goes:


-
Entropy. The concept of entropy is fine when dealing with PMR physics, but when it comes to NPMR, does entropy remain a valid concept? Perhaps what Tom perceives as disorder is just another way that the One Consciousness/Source experiences itself? That's not to say that love is not superior to negative emotions, but there's the concept of yin and yang that should be considered.


- I agree that entropy does not apply to AUO, because it is already perfect, but AUM is manifest, and as such can be subject to physical rules. It doesn't mean it's 'subject' the way we apply the term, but rather creates the rules by being manifest; a dance of entropy vs. organization that we call evolution.




Tom states that an IUOC's entropy can increase and decrease over time. That is false. The overpowering pull of Source will continue to pull us towards It, even if we stagnate for a while.
This is dealt with in another thread, "Dispelling the Loosh Myth."


-- I think this is another case of apples vs. oranges; IUOC's entropy does either, because even though the ultimate "pull" eventuates in reunion, (or annihilation, they may be the same thing) in the course of the evolution of the IUOC, there can be variations in entropy. In regular terms, even though the greedy politician and you are going to eventually end up in the same place, the path is not identical- and this is what evolution is- a back and forth dance in a field that is moving towards the Source. Or so I think and hope. As to the soul, depends on what you think it is. If energy it by nature transmutes. If data, maybe not- depending on what the models considers the data to be.


--

Evolution. Tom assumes that evolution is occuring in consciousness. In a sense, this is true, at least from our limited perspective. -- And I think this is what he means too- not of a 'soul' or the closest an IUOC can get to AUM, but to the IUOC itself, while in the physical universe. The scientific mind defines consciousness as something that exists to perceive, so by definition it has to evolve- however, if consciousness is something that is not the perceiver or perception, then maybe not.



Supposedly, evolution means becoming more loving, but just take a brief look at biological evolution here on Earth. Creatures are evolving to either become more efficient killers or more elusive prey. That's not love at all.- Here I disagree- you are equating biological evolution as a mechanistic concept (which is only subject to perception-based criticism) with the force that love is- (love being the force that drives the behavior, but not the behavior itself)- but in this case love is the impulse to survive, unite and only exist in the perception of there 'not being'. Perhaps I'm being too esoteric but Love is just the impulse to reintegrate with Oneness, and the only state in which this is possible is the state when there is a perception of separation, which is this multiverse, the manifest universe. That which already is whole doesn't need to do anything. Wow, I know this isn't clear but I'm having trouble expressing this.


--



Source is *already* evolved to the point of perfect unconditional love. -- I disagree, because evolution means change. So whatever Source is, if it is AUO, there is no evolution or change, or anything, only the appearance of it from the ones that are standing in the manifest side of things.
So the AUM, by virtue of it's manifest (or manifold)-ness, creates the appearance of change (or space, or time, or being in a place and a time)- which exists from the point of view of that which exists in the manifest multiverse- (IUOCs in the AUM) but only from this vantage.



It is we, on a journey back to Source, that are becoming love as we move closer to Source. It would be more accurate to say that the process of *in*volution is taking place.
-- Agree- But it is my position that involution (or evolution) only happens in manifestation, by IUOCs and perhaps by AUM as a matter of perspective.





Nature of reality. We are not meant to remember our past lives and such in PMR because that would ruin the simulation. Maybe, but I suppose it makes sense from the 'being in the game' point of view- it's the same when you pick up a book- you don't want to know how it ends, it'd spoil the experience, but not always, which brings me to your next point:



OBEs are a giant cosmic loophole that really shouldn't be there, but apparently "the system" doesn't care. Tom does speculate that as more people learn to OBE the "loophole" will be closed.


-- I don't agree, I think the OBE is another form of manifestation, subject to the same rules of evolution which may not follow the progressive logic either. I think OBEs are only going to happen when we're incarnated in bodies, as part of the manifest universe. But only then, and I don't think that everyone having the experiences will make them stop, because they are not 'one' single experience for 'one' single purpose. I think they are merely one more way to perceive.



As mentioned just before, opening oneself to the larger consciousness naturally results in more love and compassion. - That is something I have not seen in regular experience. But I could just not be seeing things correctly.
--


-
Which brings me to the next issue-- Time. Tom believes that there is a fundamental unit of time. AUM's clock is much faster than ours, but AUM is still constrained by time nevertheless.
I had read about this and disagree also. I do not think there is a fundamental unit of time, only a fundamental concept of time- which is the rate of change in spacetime. Which, depending on what you think spacetime is, may be more than a function of perception, but no less than a creation of the AUM to perceive itself. Since time is dependent on speed, it is a characteristic of space itself, not just a perception-if follows a set pattern.
And as I said in another thread, this 'illusion' business is true only if you look at it from the point of view of the unmanifest, if such a thing is logically expressible.

dreaming90
7th June 2012, 11:49 AM
On edit, here are some thoughts that I had. You may not agree with me, but that's why I wrote it-discussion of ideas. So here goes:
That's okay, I enjoy discussion of ideas also.


- I agree that entropy does not apply to AUO, because it is already perfect, but AUM is manifest, and as such can be subject to physical rules. It doesn't mean it's 'subject' the way we apply the term, but rather creates the rules by being manifest; a dance of entropy vs. organization that we call evolution.

Hmm, it's interesting that you describe AUO as perfect (and therefore not subject to entropy). Tom seemed to think that AUO's dim awareness was a sign of high entropy, hence the need for evolution into AUM, and so on.

I personally don't think that AUO's dim awareness was necessarily a bad thing. I've thought this before when floating in the void. Makes you wonder if evolution of consciousness was really necessary.

And then I wonder-- what happens when AUM reaches the lowest point of entropy possible? Tom addresses this only vaguely.


- Here I disagree- you are equating biological evolution as a mechanistic concept (which is only subject to perception-based criticism) with the force that love is- (love being the force that drives the behavior, but not the behavior itself)- but in this case love is the impulse to survive, unite and only exist in the perception of there 'not being'. Perhaps I'm being too esoteric but Love is just the impulse to reintegrate with Oneness, and the only state in which this is possible is the state when there is a perception of separation, which is this multiverse, the manifest universe. That which already is whole doesn't need to do anything. Wow, I know this isn't clear but I'm having trouble expressing this.

I think I get what you are saying, and I agree with your definition of love.

I could be wrong, but Tom's concept of consciousness evolution struck me as highly mechanistic. If we can derive PMR biological evolution from NPMR evolution of IUOCs, PMR evolution would also be mechanistic.

Maybe I'm not being clear...?


-- I disagree, because evolution means change. So whatever Source is, if it is AUO, there is no evolution or change, or anything, only the appearance of it from the ones that are standing in the manifest side of things.
So the AUM, by virtue of it's manifest (or manifold)-ness, creates the appearance of change (or space, or time, or being in a place and a time)- which exists from the point of view of that which exists in the manifest multiverse- (IUOCs in the AUM) but only from this vantage.

So, wait... Would you say that perfect AUO is somehow underlying imperfect and constantly changing AUM? If that's the case then you and I seem to be in agreement with regards to Source being perfect. I just never thought of AUO continuing to exist "under" AUM; I was under the impression that AUM is Tom's Source, if you will.

But I also look at it from the standpoint of no-time, or at least I try to. From AUO's standpoint everything has happened already, or rather *is* happening in this, the eternal present moment. From that perspective there is no evolution to occur, because there is no linear time sequence in which it can occur. This is hard to wrap my head around, but I have it on good authority that my guide is a future "me," and that one can choose to incarnate along different timelines if he so desires.


- That is something I have not seen in regular experience. But I could just not be seeing things correctly.

I'm no expert, but from what I've seen, meditating at the very least makes one a more balanced person. OBEs and NDEs in particular seem to result in massive paradigm shifts. Many NDE experiencers "return" with a message of love for all humanity.

So if OBEs, etc are loopholes that would ruin the PMR experience, why do these loopholes result in more efficient evolution? There are at least a few folks on Tom's discussion board who think that the PMR experience ought to be devoid of all the psi loopholes. I however advocate integrating NPMR with PMR. I think Tom advocates this as well, but he also says that being unbalanced in the direction of PMR (eg, too immersed in physical reality to remember past lives) isn't necessarily a bad thing.

CFTraveler
7th June 2012, 02:52 PM
Tom's concept of consciousness evolution struck me as highly mechanistic. I think Tom's entire model is highly mechanistic, but he's a scientist, so it's how he sees things- in terms of information and energy. I think in the long run we may get to see more and more integration with spirituality and physics, so it's an interesting look at how the paradigm is shifting.

Korpo
23rd June 2012, 10:08 PM
Nature of reality. We are not meant to remember our past lives and such in PMR because that would ruin the simulation. OBEs are a giant cosmic loophole that really shouldn't be there, but apparently "the system" doesn't care. Tom does speculate that as more people learn to OBE the "loophole" will be closed.

OBEs aren't loopholes. They are part of the spiritual evolution of man. Neither does "the system" not care.


Tom's whole view of reality as a bureacracy with experiments in entropy reduction seems, well, a little silly and ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that these analogies paint the universe as mechanical and uncaring, which in my experience is quite the opposite.

I certainly agree a lot more with you than with Campbell on this one.

I couldn't bring myself to read these books.

Korpo
23rd June 2012, 10:19 PM
I disagree strongly with this. There are no dangers in the astral! Nothing can hurt you! Consciousness is indestructable.

Consciousness itself is indestructible, just as energy never goes away. This is not true for any forms this consciousness shapes itself into. Forns will ultimately end and are never identical to consciousness itself.

All lower energy bodies - etheric, astral and mental - are temporary. Their existence arises with human birth and as they are forms they will be released after performing their function. This is part of the dying process. They are just vehicles of consciousness, not consciousness itself.

While saying this there is no reason to be afraid either. But the astral is not in itself a benign place. It's better to err on the side of caution unless things are very clear. The astral vehicle can be influenced. It's everyone's responsibility to maintain one's vehicles - the energetic, emotional and mental aspects - in good shape to reduce that influence to a bare minimum. A well-kept self is a safe self.

dreaming90
24th June 2012, 01:10 AM
I certainly agree a lot more with you than with Campbell on this one.

I couldn't bring myself to read these books.
Campbell writes about his early experiences as one of Monroe's Explorers (he was TC Physicist in Far Journeys) in Book 1 of his trilogy, and it is by far the best part. Actually, I'd go so far as to recommend it. It's free on Google Books. But I think the other two books are really not worth the trouble. Well, maybe other scientists will enjoy it and open their minds to the larger reality, but not me.

I must have too much mystic in me to really connect with Campbell. :?

CFTraveler
24th June 2012, 03:10 AM
I actually love the science part of it- the thing is that I've read so many books talking about what he says that I feel that I've read him when I've only read a bit of him. Maybe when I'm done with Peake's book (which is very good if you like the science part of it) I'll get into it more.

dreaming90
24th June 2012, 01:06 PM
My big beef is that the science part seems to convey that the Universe is purely mechanical. I suppose that's not necessarily Campbell's fault but it still grinds my gears.

I remember viewing Peake on amazon.com and wondering if I should try ordering one of his books. Which book of his are you reading exactly?

Speaking of scientific views, my order tracker tells me that Fred's book is waiting for me at the post office. :P

CFTraveler
24th June 2012, 08:59 PM
Synchronicity strikes again: I went to my church this morning and there was TD's big TOE- I took it as a sign and got it. So my mission this Summer is to read the entire thing and give a more informed opinion.

My big beef is that the science part seems to convey that the Universe is purely mechanical. I suppose that's not necessarily Campbell's fault but it still grinds my gears. So you've uncovered something to work on. Isn't that amazing? I think being who he is, it's how he looks at it, but, if you look behind the manifest aspect of the 'machine', there is something 'more' there. But it's how I choose to look at it, of course.


I remember viewing Peake on amazon.com and wondering if I should try ordering one of his books. Which book of his are you reading exactly? ATM I'm reading his OBE book. You may not like it because it catalogues scientific theories (like a historian) but I am enjoying it very much, it's my cup of tea.


Speaking of scientific views, my order tracker tells me that Fred's book is waiting for me at the post office. :P Well go get it, and let me know how you like it. I liked it a lot.

Sinera
25th June 2012, 09:34 AM
I went to my church this morning and there was TD's big TOE
... wow, what kind of interesting church are you going to ... :confused:

CFTraveler
25th June 2012, 03:20 PM
It's a Unity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_Church) church.

BTW, the Wiki article is correct except in the #4 teaching.
It should say that affirmative prayer increases the awareness of our connection with God, not the connection itself.
It's basically a metaphysical christian church.

PauliEffect
30th June 2012, 11:40 PM
...Book 1 of his trilogy, and it is by far the best part. . . .
It's free on Google Books. But I think the other two books are really not worth the trouble.

I kind of agree with this in my review (http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/showthread.php?9471-My-Big-TOE&p=109923#post109923), unless you really want to follow up
on all open threads from Monroe. But I'll go as far as I would say that also
Campbell's first book is only average, it's too blurred and fuzzy, specially
considering his long nonphysical experience and level of education.

And it's boring to read.

Campbell's second book was particular poor. His third book had a few points
during its first half before it degenerated, too.




I must have too much mystic in me to really connect with Campbell. :?

I would actually say that Campbell is very much a mystic, he is so
mystic that he doesn't even state (if?) what his Big TOE is.

The problem I have with Campbell is his lack of experiences to back up
his claims. I also have some slight problem with the idea that the physical
world (PMR) does not existing other than as software inside AUM.

Somewhere _something_ has to exist. My problem with Campbell is that he
doesn't acknowledge existence of anything else than Consciousness, which is
both the computer (the nonphysical world) and the software (the physical world = PMR).

Sinera
1st July 2012, 11:07 AM
The problem I have with Campbell is his lack of experiences to back up his claims.
Unfortunately, you seem to apply here the same tactics that many pseudo-sceptics use when they try to "debunk" something they don't like: Report falsely or incompletely about the subject in the first place.

If you ever dealt with TC, not just his books, but also have seen some of his lectures and workshops on Youtube, and if you further know his history (also in the 1st book) and the fact that he did a lot of first-hand consciousness research such as AP, Remote Viewing etc. with the Monroe Institute and even contributed a lot to its technical development in the beginning years there, one can only say imho that you spread some disinformation here.

Yes, he does not give a lot of his own experiences in his books. But that's a difference from what you say above. Moreover, he states a good reason for this. Personally I would also liked to have found more of it in his books, but this is his choice. He wants his readers to develop the tools in order to make the experience of NPMR ("the astral") themselves. That's the reason. He does not want to influence them.

I agree with you that the book is too vast and there is too much gibberish and repetition in it. And yes, hence it can be boring, too.

He maybe should do a kind of "Cliffsnotes"-version of his work, comprised in one book. Then it would be great and had better readability, too. Anyway, this necessary criticism imho does not justify your giving a wrong account about him here. Anybody reading this might come to think that he his just a theoretician without any experience of his own. This is a plain false statement, Pauli.

Btw, on his forum, he gives some info about his experiences in NPMR, I once collected sth about it and can add it here at a later point in time. It's highly interesting statements he makes, not to be found in his books indeed. (Btw, it's all 'google-able' as online posts of 'twcjr' from his forum).

PauliEffect
1st July 2012, 01:27 PM
This is a plain false statement, Pauli.
Now when you point it out, my statements seems incomplete, so with
the risk of repeating stuff from my review of MBT I'll make that
sentence a little bit more complete:

The problem I have with Campbell is his lack of experiences to back up
his claims, lacking in his book MBT.
---

I hope that clarifies something. Sorry if that went the wrong way.

Further, Campbell most likely has a ton of experiences, but I've so far
found no youtube video clips of him telling the audience anything which
supports his claims, which in my opinion, also are very sketchy - the AUM,
The Big Computer, PMR being Software only, AUM being both Programmer,
Software and Hardware, etc. Surely he must have specific, solid experiences,
but I really think something is missing. After all, Campbell has a degree in
physics, and I would have expected much more specifics from him.

I would go as far to say that Campbell produces nothing of interests, unless it
is repetition of material in his MBT, or something already discovered by TMI
(or by Monroe), as Campbell repeats things, like healing or RV, which I've
noticed is TMI course material from the 1980ies (or possible from the early
1990ies).

You will have to correct me, but the more youtube clips I've listened to of Campbell
and compare him with Buhlman, DeMarco, Monroe, etc - the less specifics does
Campbell seem to produce.

Also, Campbell's youtube video's are very long, often several hours, and unless he
has picked TMI course material and uses that material in his talks, he really has
nothing to talk about (if it isn't yet another boring repetition of MBT stuff).

Isn't that a little strange?

Hours of talks and no specific information?

Or can you (or anyone else on this forum) please state what new info you have
discovered that Campbell has produced in any of his many youtube videos! Please.

I really dislike listening to yet-another-lengthy-Campbell-speech, just to find out that
he again had nothing to say, nothing to back up his claims and no new specific statements.

It's boring.

But I liked Campbell's healing Hawaii youtube clips, though it's still TMI course stuff, not
anything new, which remotely would back up his claims.
---

And further, I dislike him stating that he:

(A.) Will not tell anyone his TOE.
(B.) His TOE (Theory Of Everything) doesn't include anything outside AUM.
(C.) Everyone has to create their own TOE.


I would go as far as stating that I think (A.) above is slightly dishonest, even considering
his book to be free on Goggle Books, as it could be seen as a way of creating a cult
around his own person, because he keeps some information back and thus become
more "mystical".

Regarding (B.) I really would say that because Campbell excludes the AUM exterior,
even if he in MBT plays with the thought that there may be a sea of AUMosauruses
outside our AUM, I can't remotely view such a theory as a TOE, as it doesn't include
Everything. I regard (B.) to be a contradiction at least.

In terms of (C.) above, I would say that if _everyone_ has to create their own TOE,
any such TOE can't be considered to be a theory of Everything, as each theory will
be different. You may have a different opinion, but I firmly believe that if everyone
has different TOE's, they are not theories of Everything, because I view such a claim
as a big contradiction.


These points above, the many complaints I've stated in my MBT review and the lack
of specifics in Campbell's video makes me wonder if he is just making lengthy talks
and writings without any or with little value.

Please correct me.

Write it on my forehead.

Post links to specific youtube videos, stating what video section contains anything of
interest (with time intervall, for example; six minutes -> 56:30 - 1:02:30), by Campbell
which is not MBT repetition or old TMI material.

[Well, you could post specific links to repeated TMI course material, too. Perhaps I'll
like that anyway. :) ]
---

Or if you have posts by his site, with specifics, please post them too. I've tried to read
at Campbell's site, but he is very wordy and lengthy in anything he writes so I become
exhausted by reading and finding little of value each time.

He gives some good advice on meditation and OBE exit techniques though (but so far I've
been rather unsuccessful).

So, please post your findings.

CFTraveler
1st July 2012, 05:14 PM
I also have some slight problem with the idea that the physical
world (PMR) does not existing other than as software inside AUM. But if you look very closely at all mystical perspectives, you'll see that this is in essence what all mystics are saying, albeit in different ways.
For example:
One group says that 'it's all illusion' because we never separated from God, and are in heaven right now. This is the same thing as Campbell is saying, because the software is the 'information' that God is thinking.
Other groups say (as in some forms of Buddhism say) that 'it's all illusion' because the universe has time, and anything that has a beginning and an end has no eternal reality, and from the point of view of eternity (God's view) it is an illusion.
You can go through all mystical systems and get the same message in varying shades of mythology, but in essence they say the same thing- that the world is either thought, illusion, information projected, etc.
What these guys are saying is not that it's not 'real'- is that it's all real, including the nonphysical-because it comes from one source. God, the computer, the maker of the computer, the void, the unmanifest, etc.

Korpo
1st July 2012, 07:04 PM
I would be most interested in observations, too. That's what fascinates me most - primary source material that one can look at and start to draw conclusions. And if you ask me, not very much of quality is out there when it comes to the planes beyond the astral.

PauliEffect
1st July 2012, 08:18 PM
But if you look very closely at all mystical perspectives, you'll see that this is in essence what all mystics are saying, albeit in different ways.
For example:
One group says that 'it's all illusion' because we never separated from God, and are in heaven right now. This is the same thing as Campbell is saying, because the software is the 'information' that God is thinking.
Other groups say (as in some forms of Buddhism say) that 'it's all illusion' because the universe has time, . . .
I'm a little unsure of what "all mystical perspectives" are, but most Buddhistic traditions,
at least all the current ones believe that there exists some kind of physical world. I had
a book once where Dalai Lama mentioned that there was one strong "mind-only" type of
Buddhistic religion once upon a time (which is now extinct), and the Tibetan tradition today
does acknowledge a physical world of its own, rejecting the "mind-only" view point.

Maybe Campbell is right, but... As of now, I think he is wrong by reasons of my own
and by the reason that Campbell doesn't provide any experience of his own supporting
his theory, in MBT at least.

Sinera
1st July 2012, 09:00 PM
.... there exists some kind of physical world ....
Of course it does! Still, I think that you miss the decisive point here:

The physical world is real but the underlying reality is the mind (also real) which creates the physical. There would be nothing we call physical without the mind / consciousness observing and creating it (probably by observing). That's the mystical standpoint. That's also TC's standpoint. That's also a possible philosophical conclusion derived from quantum physics and also standpoint/conclusion of some more open"mind"ed scientists in different fields (parapsychology, physics, biology).

mind ... creates ... physical

See? Simple as that. :thumbsup::-)

Let me quote one of the greatest scientists (for me even greater than Einstein):

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
- Max Planck

also:

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
- Max Planck

(from wiki: Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck) (23 April (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/April_23) 1858 (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/1858) 4 October (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/October_4) 1947 (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/1947)) was one of the most important German physicists of the late 19th and early 20th century, winning the Nobel Prize in Physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Physics) in 1918; he is considered to be the founder of quantum theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics).)

CFTraveler
1st July 2012, 09:25 PM
Volgerle said it better than I did..... which brings me to the second part of what I said: "What these guys are saying is not that it's not 'real'- is that it's all real, including the nonphysical-"

PauliEffect
1st July 2012, 10:08 PM
I think that you miss the decisive point here:

The physical world is real but the underlying reality is the mind (also real) which creates the physical. There would be nothing we call physical without the mind / consciousness observing and creating it (probably by observing). That's the mystical standpoint. That's also TC's standpoint.

No.

That's not TC's standpoint, as I get it.

At least not in his book MBT. TC's standpoint seems to be that the physical is a pure simulation
of software, and that software is made out of consciousness only. It's not about observation.

The physical is a mere computer simulation. The only real thing is the nonphysical.

Unless I've read MBT by using my *sshole, I claim that I'm right and you're wrong.

Sinera
2nd July 2012, 12:07 PM
Do you take software literally? Software is more like a metaphor for the workings of conciousness. This is the way TC describes his model. He's a physicist, after all. A tekkie, so to speak.

So it is: Consciousness (mind) = Software => (creating) matter

Matter in 3D is a program written (created) by the 'software' (mind). That is why we are in a kind of multi-player software game. ;)

In order to see this you must give up the reductionist viewpoint and look at it from a holistic perspective. You will see that matter has/is consciousness too, as it is consciousness working within the whole system / software / matrix / holographic projection / the field / god's dream / indira's net, etc...

In this holistic view, the "matrix" (Planck) or the "field" (Einstein: "the field is the only reality") or the "computer (software)" (TC) is the same concept. The "concsious field" of which we are also a part of, generates matter, thus matter is the result, its particles interacting and vibrating within forces that reveal consciousness / conscious programming (=software).

I think that I understand your problem because it is in words chosen. TC and others (also Planck) often state "there is no matter". I agree with you that it is an unlucky statement. Because it first separates and then negates one part. There is no separation or negation though!

Of course there "is" matter because matter "is". What we perceive "is". Just what is behind it "mind" as the underlying cause and reality is sth different than we are 'taught in school'.

The clockwork-mechanistic Newtonian universe or (from a philosophical perscpective) the Descartian duality (matter separated from mind/spirit) is the misleading concept. You still think in duality. Try to make the connection and view it holistically.

So they should rather say "matter is not what we think (are taught by this worldview) what it is". In other words: the "illusion" is our concept of matter, not matter itself.

So the way TC and others put it is not a lucky wording. Still, I am certain that they do not mean that 'matter does not exist'. Of course it exists. We perceive and experience and observe it (in a holographic or digital or whatever way, but that does NOT make it UNREAL, it still is real.)

PauliEffect
2nd July 2012, 01:44 PM
Do you take software literally? Software is more like a metaphor for the workings of conciousness. This is the way TC describes his model.

No.

Software is not a metaphor, from my reading of MBT. Software is literally.

Matter is the result of a Software Simulation, where the Software is Consciousness only. There doesn't exist any matter by itself.

It's literal. No matter. Ever.

Once the experiment with any given physical universe is done, the Software = Consciousness will be used for other purposes. And, as the Software is broken up and put to other use, the "existence" of the physical universe will end, because (according to MBT) there is no physical universe, there is only Consciousness and some small part of it is used to simulated our physical universe, which thus doesn't exist at all in the sense we believe.

Campbell goes as far as making one thought experiment. Assume that your brain is put in a bowl of nutrition in a completely dark room and then you're fed with electrical impulses. You will not be able to know if the physical universe exists or if you're only reacting to signals. Then put your personal Consciousness only, in a nonphysical bowl and feed it signals, you will not be able to know if you're in a nonphysical simulation or if you're in a physical matter universe. That's Campbell's standpoint. We are Consciousness put into a piece of Software and we are only fed signals by that Software. The physical universe doesn't exists other than an illusion created by Software.


So it is: Consciousness (mind) = Software => (creating) matter

No. Nothing is created, as nothing exists. There is only Consciousness in the form of Software. No matter at all exists, according to MBT.



You will see that matter has/is consciousness too. . .

Matter has nothing and is nothing, as it doesn't exist. Matter is only the result of Software, tricking us to perceive something which doesn't exist other than a Software Simulation.


I think that I understand your problem because it is in words chosen. TC and others (also Planck) often state "there is no matter". I agree with you that it is an unlucky statement.

No.

It's not an unlucky statement.

It's a literal statement. It really means, according to Campbell, that matter doesn't exists, never has existed. There is no matter. Once the Software is broken up and used for other purposes, the only thing which may exist is Memory (as a result from the Simulation), which also is pure Consciousness. No Matter has ever existed or will ever exist. There only exists Consciousness in the form of Software to trick us into believing in the illusions of matter-existence.

Then there is the Hardware and the Programmer as well, and both, according to Campbell are also Consciousness. The _only_, really, the only thing ever having existed is Consciousness, nothing else is real, nothing else exists other than in the form of perception of Software Simulations.



So the way TC and others put it is not a lucky wording. Still, I am certain that they do not mean that 'matter does not exist'. Of course it exists.

No.

It does _not_, and I repeat, does _not_ exist. Only our perception of a piece of Software exists. We are put into a piece of program, which to 100 % Simulates the existence of matter. That's the basic for MBT.

There only exists Consciousness.

And yes, I really, really read that in MBT. And I read it over and over again, until it made me puke.

I also stated this in my review. So in order for you to claim the opposite, you really have to erase those many sentences out of MBT for it to become something else.

And...

Here what's bothers me.

Campbell provides no experiences of his own to back up any of his claims.

CFTraveler
2nd July 2012, 02:34 PM
I guess the question I would pose to you, considering your stance on the words chosen, is, do you think consciousness exists?

PauliEffect
2nd July 2012, 02:47 PM
I guess the question I would pose to you, considering your stance on the words chosen, is, do you think consciousness exists?

I guess the question is to me?

Well, besides that there doesn't exist any scientific definition on what Consciousness is,
I think it's plausible to think that something like that exists, or at least something,
which produces a result which can be interpreted as being Consciousness, exists.
---

But the questions is perhaps different?

The stuff we think exists, (our opinion on "the stuffs" existence) is based on what? What basis?

The basis is Observation.

We can't say if anything exists or not on itself or how any object is "in itself".
The impossible question to answer is: "What does really exist?"

What we can do is make observations. And to avoid becoming too philosophical
I think we have to go with what's practical. And anyway, I think the existence of
any "Stuff", has to be based on observations, experiences, be it physical matter
or nonphysical reality or any other kind of definition of what is observed.

Regardless if we observe "the thing itself" or just some exterior behaviour, we
can only notice/record what we observe.
---

Someone observes, makes measurement on an atom.

Does the atom exist or is there some kind of "thingie" which just produces
the behaviour which we interpret as being an atom?

We can't know, but we can record our observation, label it, perhaps use
it as a definition in some context, etc.

CFTraveler
2nd July 2012, 02:51 PM
It was- I thought I wrote " The question I would pose to you, Pauli, is....". I guess I need more coffee. Or some coffee, as I had a rough awakening this morning and haven't yet had my first cup, or breakfast, and am here writing. Lol.

But you answered it adequately enough for me to see what you mean- I think.
If matter's reality as a product of consciousness depends on the reality of consciousness itself, I see why you object to TC's assertions.

Sinera
2nd July 2012, 03:51 PM
Does the atom exist or is there some kind of "thingie" which just produces the behaviour which we interpret as being an atom?
both, because maybe there's no difference :cool:

PauliEffect
2nd July 2012, 04:55 PM
If matter's reality as a product of consciousness depends on the reality of consciousness itself,
I see why you object to TC's assertions.
Hmm... I'm a little unsure about what to respond. Perhaps you are observing
something I see or something I've missed? :)


I could give part of my view point. Perhaps I can put it this way:

If nothing else than Consciousness exists, some parts of the physical reality
and also some parts of the nonphysical reality should behave different, in
my opinion.

The only real way for Campbell to move around that obstacle is to claim
that most of the nonphysical reality is a Software Simulation, too.
Specially the parts around Focus 23 and the BSTs must in such a
case be pure AUM Software Simulations.

The real problem then becomes; are we Software Simulations, too?

When a person dies and his consciousness gets stuck in F 23, is that person
just a mere part of the Simulation?

And once the experiment is over, as Campbell claims has happened millions
of times, the Software is scrapped and put to use in other ways. For example
as a completely new and different Simulation as the old one was a dead end.
---

Question is, where does the Software Simulation end?

If someone dies and gets stuck in F 23, that person may stay there a long time,
or perhaps can get released through a retrieval as Monroe's Patrick Case.

But if physical matter reality (PMR) is a Software Simulation, then that simulation
should have ended once the person is dead and the person's consciousness goes
back to the nonphysical, right?

Why doesn't the Software take care of the retrieval in a more simple way? Stuck
persons may be in F 23 for hundreds of years in pain and that doesn't seem to
fill much purpose, does it?

Campbell also claims that the Software has been optimized at least millions of times,
so I would have expected the retrieval to commence much smoother in such cases?

The person stuck in F 23 or F 25 BST doesn't make any sense, unless those places also
are Software Simulations and not the real nonphysical Consciousness.

There is such a high ineffectiveness of the Software that Campbell really should have
a least a tiny explanation to it in MBT, but I couldn't find much of that sort.

CFTraveler
2nd July 2012, 10:12 PM
I'm going to bookmark this and come back to me when I've read the whole thing- but at face value I'd say the crux of the issue is that it all is a simulation (including the NPMR)- a simulation only in the sense that the sensory information is created by consciousness, and not independently existent.
So it makes it all equally real instead of some of it real and some other parts of it nonreal, provided that reality is assigned by the observer. But this here is my interpretation, and I don't know if it's reflective of TC's theories as proposed in MBT in total.

PauliEffect
2nd July 2012, 10:37 PM
One minor detail, I don't know if it matters or not right now, but Consciousness,
The Big Computer, the Hardware is digital and uses something similar
to ones and zeros.

Campbell mentions it briefly in a youtube at the original post by the Thread Starter,
around 1:32 - 1:35, and for completeness - the video clip is also here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQHFD2VFJ1w) (it's also mentioned in MBT).

Further, the Original Thread starter also noticed that Campbell thinks that
The Big Computer, the Hardware, moves forward at a specific clock speed,
controlled by a Minimum Time Increment. But physical reality ticks by
on a much slower Time Increment, and can also be halted in its execution
by The Big Computer or by The Even Bigger Computer (see MBT), without us noticing it (!).

Just for reference:
My old computer runs at 2.5 GHz (time increment is about half a nano second),
but AUM, Source, The Even Bigger Computer has a much higher clock speed.
---

One reviewer has mentioned that during the mid 1800ies scientists thought the universe
would work like a steam engine. Today, in our time, scientist may compare the universe
to a big computer. In the future something else will be used by scientist as a analogy
for our universe.

Perhaps any TOE will be a child of its time?

CFTraveler
2nd July 2012, 10:43 PM
Absolutely. But the zeroes and ones are fluctuations within a matrix, so there is something to fluctuate; hence, reality.

dreaming90
3rd July 2012, 01:34 AM
I was just about to stop by and post when I saw that apparently this thread has been busy without me... :-)

I wanted to say, that I started to watch the youtube videos covering the MBT forum get-together in March 2011, but never finished. Today, I felt... nudged to go back and finish the videos (there are 5), so I did. I received several direct answers to various questions I had about a number of things, much to my surprise.

I get the feeling that my guide is trying to show me that even if I don't agree with someone's viewpoint, it doesn't mean that I can't learn a lot from them.

And for the record Campbell seems like a very intelligent and knowledgeable individual, I think he and I just see reality differently. He's a physicist, I'm not.

CFTraveler
3rd July 2012, 02:49 AM
I think it's like the story of the elephant and the three blind men. (Or was it four?)

Korpo
3rd July 2012, 08:34 AM
Mice... you mean mice. An elephant nightmare!

PauliEffect
3rd July 2012, 01:37 PM
I wanted to say, that I started to watch the youtube videos covering the MBT forum get-together in March 2011, but never finished. . . . I received several direct answers to various questions I had about a number of things, much to my surprise.

Would it be possible for you to make a collection of those answers of yours?
I'm particular interested in stuff which is _not_ repetition of MBT content.

I wrote something like this previous in the thread:

"...stating what video section contains anything of interest (with time intervall, for
example; six minutes -> 56:30 - 1:02:30), by Campbell which is not MBT repetition or..."

Reason being that his videos are boring, very long and often without real content,
in my opinion, unless Campbell is repeating stuff from MBT or relaying some info
which is old TMI program/course/training material. And I don't like wasting my
time on yet-another-lengthy-video.

I hope this is fair for you?

CFTraveler
3rd July 2012, 03:42 PM
Mice... you mean mice. An elephant nightmare! No, the story I'm talking about (http://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25.htm) has nothing to do with mice.

dreaming90
3rd July 2012, 03:47 PM
I hope this is fair for you?
Sure, I'll just need to go back and re-watch the video to take notes.

Sinera
3rd July 2012, 04:36 PM
No, the story I'm talking about (http://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25.htm) has nothing to do with mice.
I'll convert to Jainism now. ;-)

Sinera
16th July 2012, 09:16 PM
Biologist Bruce Lipton and Tom Campbell met up in an interview. Two open-minded great scientific minds (each in one's own field and both in metaphysics) in one video, great!
Before I read MBT I already had read two books by B. Lipton, therefore I find it very worth watching. Two parts (just in the middle of part 1 myself as I write this).

http://www.whatifitreallyworks.com/2012/07/11/bruce-lipton-and-tom-campbell-the-summit/

:thumbsup:

PauliEffect
17th July 2012, 08:00 AM
Biologist Bruce Lipton and Tom Campbell met up in an interview. . . ...in one video, great!

It's almost two hours long. I've listened to more than 12 hours of Campbell and
besides his Hawaii lecture, most of his talk is usually repeating MBT stuff, boring
or repeating TMI program stuff.

Could you please help me stating what section of the two videos to listen to, as
I won't spend my time yet again. Because Campbell always is lengthy it doesn't
help anyone just saying "ohh... a great video". If you by now have seen it all
please be more specific about what you liked and what part of the videos.

PauliEffect
17th July 2012, 10:34 AM
...makes me wonder if he is just making lengthy talks
and writings without any or with little value.

Please correct me.

Write it on my forehead.

Post links to specific youtube videos, stating what video section contains anything of
interest (with time intervall, for example; six minutes -> 56:30 - 1:02:30), by Campbell
which is not MBT repetition or old TMI material.

I usually avoid responding to myself, but as no one so far has given a specific response,
perhaps I should give one myself. Hopefully others will take on instead of merely praising
Campbell for lengthy talks of little value (except for his MBT stuff repetition and his TMI
course program material repetitions).

I've found one section in one of Campbell's video talks where he says something about Seth,
the Jane Roberts spirit who she channelled in Seth Speaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Speaks) etc.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/JaneRoberts.jpg
Jane Roberts (1929 - 1984)

It's one of those lengthy Campbell talks, two hours long (and then it's only one part out of three).
Referenced here is running time 47:30 - 53:50, containing plenty of implicit MBT references.

Campbell starts to say the interesting part (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_iI5p5vPTI&list=PL68022C5ED167C84B&index=10&feature=plpp_video) around 47:30 - 49:00 about Seth, and when we arrive
at about 49:00 - 51:35 Campbell becomes specific, he says among others:

* Seth (or rather Jane R) was wrong stating that everything happens simultaneously.
* Consciousness evolved Time as fundamental technology.
* Learning requires Time to evolve.
* Change implies Time.
* Time gives Process and Causality.

At 51:35 - 53:50 Campbell claims that he knew what Seth wanted to say, as Jane Roberts
obviously didn't and she thus said something not quite right. Campbell now repeats stuff
from his MBT, but I think that is fair in the context as it refers to something (in this case
Seth Speaks) outside MBT. What Seth intended to say according to Campbell is:

* We have the probable Future Database.
* We have the Present Database
* We have the Historical Database, both with Actualized events and Unactualized events.

* Past, Present and (probable) Future are all there at the same time, in the sense that they
are all in the Database of this virtual Reality Frame.

* We have things outside this virtual Reality Frame's Database, such as Dream Reality,
OBE Reality, other Consciousness Systems, etc.

(It should be noted, in Campbell-speak, that the Database is completely digital and consists of
Consciousness _only_. Physical Reality doesn't exist as such, it's only virtual.)
---

Campbell gets a little glassy stare during his speeches sometimes, like he's spaced out. I wonder
if that's because he is somewhere else at the same time or if he just perceives that he has
problems with explaining what he means. Or maybe his lengthy talk takes its toll. :)

Nevertheless, if anyone wants to get into depth with this detail, its in the third Book of MBT. In fact,
as I mentioned at the end of the second part of my MBT review (http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/showthread.php?9471-My-Big-TOE&p=109924#post109924), I think it's almost the only
valuable thing in the third MBT Book, as most of the other stuff there is only repetition of
previous MBT material.

In short, when someone goes into the nonphysical and observes something, what that person sees
is not the future, it's only one probable future (out of many) as TBE runs several predictions/"static"
simulations in parallel, with the simulated (non-real) entities (humans, beings etc) locked into static
behaviour, with lots of probable variations.

The conscious beings in the (Present) Reality Frame are the parts which can't be fully simulated,
instead they will have to act to allow the Software find out what the Future actually will be. The
probable Futures which don't happen become the so called Unactualized Historical Events, and
goes into the Database as Unactualized Historical Data.

The video-clip-part referenced above still contains a lot of MBT repetition, but as it was used
for Seth comparison, I actually liked it, because Campbell for once became a little more specific
instead of just turning over the same old MBT stuff one more time.

So, if you have a good Campbell video, please just _don't_, and I repeat, _DON'T_ just
state in a blurred, drunk or fuzzy fashion that "oh... this video is soooo good...".

Be specific.

What part of the clip is worth listening to? (meaning, not containing MBT/TMI repetition only)

State the exact start and stop time in the clip in sense of minutes and seconds, for example
like 25:30 - 28:30.

Please.

Refrain from just tossing out 2 - 3 or 4, perhaps 6 hours lengthy Campbell video clips, without
any reference to spoken material of any value. I'm not going to sit listening to a 4 hour Campbell
worthless speech once more, just to find out that he again wasn't saying anything.

That only works for complete Campbell fans who are satisfied with the mere sound of his voice.

So, please, be specific.

What part of your Campbell's video talk contains something new of value?

dreaming90
17th July 2012, 12:44 PM
Campbell gets a little glassy stare during his speeches sometimes, like he's spaced out. I wonder
if that's because he is somewhere else at the same time or if he just perceives that he has
problems with explaining what he means. Or maybe his lengthy talk takes its toll. :)
If I recall correctly, Campbell states in the MBT forum videos that he enters a meditative state prior to giving presentations and so on, partly so that he can "channel" the larger consciousness system in order to give accurate answers to audience questions.

As for Seth, I remember Tom stating that Seth was a "teacher" as Seth states in his first book, so as you can imagine it was confusing for me to see that Tom and Seth disagreed on some fundamental things. I appreciate you finding the relevant clip where Tom talks about Seth, it's something that has always made me wonder.

I haven't gotten back to posting relevant clips/questions from the MBT videos yet, but perhaps one day...

Sinera
17th July 2012, 12:56 PM
It's almost two hours long. I've listened to more than 12 hours of Campbell and
besides his Hawaii lecture, most of his talk is usually repeating MBT stuff, boring
or repeating TMI program stuff.

Could you please help me stating what section of the two videos to listen to, as
I won't spend my time yet again. Because Campbell always is lengthy it doesn't
help anyone just saying "ohh... a great video". If you by now have seen it all
please be more specific about what you liked and what part of the videos.

Pauli, sorry for the misunderstanding, but please remember this is a general TC thread that was begun also by another thread starter (see above). To put it more directly: My post was _NOT_ directed at you specifically.

I just recommended it (to the broader community) because Bruce Lipton has also interesting things to say from his biological standpoint and it is interesting how they both almost complement each other with their theories. (Consider e.g. Lipton's "self-receptors" of an environmental "Higher-Self"-signal in the crystaline membrane of each cell - which he therefore calls as a pun memBRAIN in his books. This explains neatly why we as conscious beings are 'not (in) our bodies' in the first place.)

So it's interesting stuff, that's all. It's just what we do here on this forum from time to time, posting relevant video (or other) links that others (not all) might find of interest. Moreover, next to some people interested in TC many are also interested in BL, so that' why I found it of interest for many here (I thought about making a BL-thread of my own here, but then remembered this thread and thought otherwise and put it here).

If you don't like it, don't watch it. Simple as that. As said in my post I cannot judge even myself as at this time I had only seen 1/4 of it altogether, still I knew it is of value and liked it 'so far'. So again, it was not directed at you.

Btw, I wish you were only half as critical of Mr Moen's stuff than you are of Campbell's, but that's just an aside now. I'm not a Moen fan like you, but I've read two Moen books longer ago, I even tried out his retrieval style (that you also do, iirc), so I know at least a little what I am talking about. I had two 'retrievals' this way (a second, following one with this technique was not even written down anymore in this diary (http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/showthread.php?11282-Retrievals-Diary)). However, I dropped it because it did somehow all not feel authentic enough to me. Hence I focussed later on doing retrievals with AP (with only modest success so far, though).

Anyway, regarding your post below about Seth I can add to this a little detail from his MBT-forum. TC named Seth as one of humanity's teachers comunicating via channelling. Maybe you find this quote form TC interesting (despite your obvious but unexplainable personal aversion to TC) after all. So it's not (as requested) a video but just a short link to the post as reference to what I say. It's also about Walsh' "Conversations With God" (which I did not read so far, but I read one Seth book):

"There are a group of beings called "The Teachers" that flow information to chosen individuals for wider distribution. For example Seth channeling through Jane Roberts was one of these. The same entity that voiced Seth has voiced several of the popular channeled materials under different names over the last 30 years. Messages under each "pen name" were presented in tone and content to appeal to a given audience. It is likely that Walsh was connected to one of this group -- perhaps even "Seth" himself. That Walsh called it "Conversations With God" was either clever marketing or part of the sources way of connecting with the targeted audience."
- Tom Campbell (on MBT-forum)
Source: http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=3067&start=0#p6956

Hope it's interesting. If not, well, anyway, nevermind. :cool:

Ps: I also recommend to you (and anyone here) B. Lipton's book, maybe you even like it: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Biology-Belief-Unleashing-Consciousness/dp/1848503350/

PauliEffect
17th July 2012, 01:58 PM
Btw, I wish you were only half as critical of Mr Moen's stuff than you are of Campbell's...

You seem to miss the point then. I'm not critical to Campbell's stuff. I'm critical to _the lack_
of stuff. Almost no experiences in MBT, to back up his claims, of Campbell's own. And so far I've
not found any backing up of his claims, by Campbell himself, any other place either, be it video
talks or similar. He just repeats claims about TBC, AUM, digital Consciousness, virtual Reality Frames etc,
but no backing up.

In contrast, Moen (old and having poor health nowadays) has a ton of details of his own experiences,
explaining why he thinks nonphysical things are in one way or another. It should be mentioned that Moen
is keeping a lower ambition, mostly centered around retrievals and F 23 - F 27, sometimes F 34/35.
Specially when reading Moen's fourth book, it's a veritable volcano of details and experiences.

I don't request proofs, I only want to hear what experiences the person is basing his claims upon.
So far I haven't read anyone else having any experiences (except for Monroe) which remotely
could back up any of Campbell's Software/Consciousness-only claims.

So, it's the lack of experiences for backing up his MBT claims, which I view as a problem. Also, writing
a book called My Big TOE and then not stating much about what his own TOE is, that's kind of poor
writing, in my opinion.

I'm just not prepared to become a mere believer. I want something which at least seems plausible.


For example Seth channeling through Jane Roberts was one of these. The same entity that voiced Seth has voiced several of the popular channeled materials under different names over the last 30 years. Messages under each "pen name" were presented in tone and content to appeal to a given audience.

I'm a little unsure what you mean. If I would say anything, I am of the opinion that Seth was not one
individual, but several. And at some times not the same individuals, because some writings of Seth
are completely retarded. A short example by Michel Prescott (http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2007/10/my-problem-with.html) on Roberts' book The Seth Material:


"...I have to say that I have trouble taking Seth altogether seriously. ... . . .
Reading ... the Seth Material...

Chemicals are released through the skin and pore systems, in an
invisible but definite pseudophysical formation. The intensity of a
thought or image largely determines the immediacy of its physical
materialization. There is no object about you that you have not
created. There is nothing about your own physical image that
you have not made."

PauliEffect
17th July 2012, 02:17 PM
I appreciate you finding the relevant clip where Tom talks about Seth, it's something that has always made me wonder.

I haven't gotten back to posting relevant clips/questions from the MBT videos yet, but perhaps one day...

Jeez...

You write down your findings and post them.

Please.

It takes me about 2.5 hours to listen to a 1 hour video talk by Campbell. I don't kid you.

I have to go back and forth in the video re-listening to the same statements over and over
again as Campbell not just have lengthy talks in themselves, but also every subject becomes
lengthy and sometimes go off track just to come back on track 2-3 minutes later. Campbell's
way of talking makes it difficult to follow what he is saying. And I also pause and take notes
on my computer to later figure out if he says anything of value. So a 1 hour Campbell talk
takes me about 2.5 hours to listen through.

And then I need at least 1 hour to rest my brain, because Campbell is such a bore to listen
to.

The worst thing is to look through my notes later and realizing that it is all, yet again, MBT material
only, repeated one more time...


Campbell's voice doesn't change too much over time. It really is difficult to figure out when he
is talking about something which is important and when it's just an aside. Maybe it's because,
as Volgerle mentioned, Campbell is in a slight trance, so he becomes just a tad expressionless
in his speech?

But I really think it's too much work and time to spend on his talks if the gems are few or deeply
burried.

So now...

You go and write down your findings on new material (non-MBT repetition). Post it so we get to know, too.

Please.

Korpo
17th July 2012, 03:32 PM
Not to fan the flames, but here I go:

There's a difference between science and sounding "scientific." You can sound scientific when you speculate. However, in order to make it actually be even remotely close to science you need some way to substantiate it.

Given the nature of the matter I personally would consider experiences of the respective author the best we can do for now. I'm tempted to add that one author could review experiences of others, but understanding another's experiences far enough through writing is in my opinion insufficient. It is not an energetic experience, and hence incomplete. So I would limit substantiating to one's own experience.

If one speculates about the nature of the Universe, and does not add experiences that substantiate that speculation, it's in my eyes like writing a thesis without disclosing data or source material. All you can say about such material is "It sounds convincing." or "It doesn't sound convincing." But that's the same as saying that one is buying the author's stated or implicit assumptions without any need for substantiation.

For me that would be insufficient for an explorer of consciousness. Speculation is tricky business when it comes to the nature of consciousness and the Universe because all too often one is caught up in what "stands to reason" or seems "logical." Any error in the basic assumptions would be completely lost because logic cannot prove whether the underlying assumptions are true. The axioms of our belief systems are left in the dark or not questioned enough.

So, in my book the very least to do if making claims about what the Universe is like or not like would be to disclose those experiences that contribute to these assumptions. If you have them - great. Every reader can gauge what made you come to that conclusion and figure out for themselves if they would draw the same conclusion as well.

Even better if we have experiences where we interact with beings and entities that give us their views about the nature of all that is. While this information need not be accurate or complete at least it can help limit the amount of speculation if handled with appropriate critical thinking. I'm not advocating just taking any entity's word for anything, but IMO the inner senses can be trained and used to spot the phonies, and again if such exchanges are disclosed another person at least can try to gauge for themselves how trustworthy that material is.

The advantage of consciousness explorers who put their experiences out there is that we can review their material. Not only basic or early experiences but material that substantiates most claims made. If you however just put some personal conclusion out there without experiences that validate them, how can we estimate if it is just speculation or even invalid extrapolation? Can we even estimate for ourselves if one is knowledgeable enough in the matter or just writing science fiction?

I like Moen a lot because he actually limits his speculation about what is out there and gives us all experiences that he was willing to share. It's excellent source material and I use it to compare notes with stuff I got from Kurt and so on. To me the clarity of his material makes him sometimes a better source than Robert Monroe himself.

Another problem that I saw popping up is the idea if two statements essentially sound the same (to us) or seem to say the same that we sometimes assume that they mean the same, and that they are equally valid no matter who utters them. I severely doubt this. From my experiences both those in the know and those who basically aren't can say similar general statements about the Universe without meaning the same at all. Those that don't know from energetic experience speculate, while others "in the energetic know" will directly translate their underlying experience into words.

From my point of view many channelers seem to say similar things, but the knowledge level behind all of that varies so widely that to me they are not saying the same, I just sometimes fall into the trap that because they express similar concepts (on a purely mental level) in language they point to the same energetic realities. That's not necessarily the case. Saying similar stuff as others say or expressing seemingly identical concepts does not necessarily validate both speakers to the same level. In fact, there may be individuals (in general, not referring channelers as a group now) who say "the right things" but energetically have no clue. If both the person expounding on the subject and the listener have no (sufficient) connection to their energetic senses, neither could spot the invalidity of what is said.

Saying "the right things" can therefore also be no standard, no matter who seems to say similar things. I tend to disagree with many interpretations of Buddhist scripture that others come up with, even though they often quote the words literally (as far as the translation allows). I still tend to disagree about the conclusions drawn from them as to me they have a different energetic reality that I explored when I tried to make these statements my own. When I read such a statement I have a different relation to the truth and a different energetic experience (which to me to an extent is the same thing), but the words are the same.

So, what I'm precisely trying to say is this: It would be hard for anyone to say if a given hypothesis or idea about the truth is coming close or not, as this requires precisely tuned inner senses, and having those, one need not rely just on what is given by somebody else, but can find out for oneself as well. The pitfall for most of us is that we don't have this access, so we have to rely on other means. The next best thing (to me) would be substantiating as much as possible with actual experiences of one's own to limit the amount of speculation and validate as much of what is put forward as possible.

That would be my standard and my expectations. Given what I've read here PauliEffect might have some similar expectations of such material. Given what I've read here that's probably not only a predilection for certain authors, but what the discussion is actually about are the different processes of how we evaluate information or how we would like to be convinced by somebody providing a conclusion. I don't have the feeling this is meant to diss any author in specific, and that PauliEffect is genuinely interested in finding any such experiences of Campbell's he doesn't know yet.

Sinera
17th July 2012, 09:26 PM
That would be my standard and my expectations. Given what I've read here PauliEffect might have some similar expectations of such material. Given what I've read here that's probably not only a predilection for certain authors, but what the discussion is actually about are the different processes of how we evaluate information or how we would like to be convinced by somebody providing a conclusion. I don't have the feeling this is meant to diss any author in specific, and that PauliEffect is genuinely interested in finding any such experiences of Campbell's he doesn't know yet.
I absolutely share yours and Pauli's sentiment. Yes, I would love to read a book of him sharing his experiences, just like you do. No doubt.

But still: do conclusions become more or less true or right only by writing the underlying experiences down or not writing them down? Does he lose credibility? I don't think so. For a simple reason: He is not 'just anybody', any con artist who has read some material on astral projection and then invents things. (There might be some (http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_out_of_body_experiences/steve_g_jones_a_con_artist-t37783.0.html)).

We all know that he is a pioneer in this field of consciousness research who worked together with Monroe in his early days. That alone should bestow him with some credibilty. At least in my eyes.

Yes, it's a given that he doesn't want to report much on his detailed experiences in NPMR, or nothing at all even. And he states a clear reason for it. It's the same reason why he calls it 'my' big toe as everybody has to find out for themselves, learn the techniques, etc. He gives a general outline of the nature or reality and also of the structure, although it remains general. He doesn't want to influence your perceptions when you do your own research. It's an arguable point, yes, also imv, but he has a firm stance on it.

Yes, I also share the criticism that his books and talks are (way too) lengthy and yes ... repetitive, boring even. Pauli is certainly right about that one.

Still, we also should take into account a little that he writes his books and gives his lectures from a more broader viewpoint as a scientist / physicist / consciousness researcher. Unlike Monroe, Moen, Besant, Buhlman et al., he is not an OBE/AP-guru in the first place. I am grateful to the likes of Moen, Ziewe, Leland, Muldoon, Bruce and co. for what they did and do. I am happy that they are or came here in this world and put their material out. But Campbell's role is a bit different from that.

In his forums he sometimes wrote about some experiences, but very seldom and still superficially. He always says you should not believe him and his conclusions but find out if you come to the same conclusions. That's his way of reasoning. He once also said: "I have absolutely no inclination to share and a huge inclination to not share." (see longer quote below). This was more about nudging outcomes in PMR rather than relating experiences in NPMR, but it seems to sum up his general attitude on his NPMR experiences too.

Here's some posts that seems to indicate some tiny give-aways, but only rare ones. To lazy to seek for the exact links , but you can google it and then view it on the MBT-forum.

The "Big Cheese" who surveys the system (as he calls him) is a higher being that holds a kind of office. He claims to personally know him (believing it or not is your choice, of course):

"The Big Cheese comes across as definitely "male-like" in terms of my PMR experience -- so that is the way I describe/interpret him. Likewise the Big Cheese is as he is because of the way he defines himself or he wouldn't come across that way. There is no male and female in NPMR in PMR terms (body parts defining gender) --just mannerisms, attitudes and personal styles and approaches that seem more feminine or masculine to PMR veterans. Yes, the Big Cheese has much experience in PMR."

On "Thor" who is one of his guides, but also a friend:

"I had one once that would call himself "Thor" and then roll thunder and flash lightning - all in good humor. You may never get it, it may just be an attention grabber -- an element that when added across multiple experiences makes you realize that the experiences are not just random or independent but rather planned and orchestrated for your benefit. This particular entity just has a good sense of humor. After we ran the Thor joke (resonant larger than life booming voice "I am Thor" followed by lightning and thunder - followed by silence followed by uproarious laughter) into the ground, a more serious name was prodded out of him: HanYoi Young (he either picked that from one of his favorite PMR incarnations (what he said) or just made it up) - I have only to casually think of that name and a gong will ring like a mighty exclamation point at the end of "Young". Though I am to this being as my Briard is to me (in many ways a lot less, in very few ways a little more) we are good friends and interact regularly. (No, he does not throw sticks for me to fetch.) I always instantly hear the gong's deep resonance if I use that name to make the connection - most often I do not since names are irrelevant - a PMR habit unnecessary in NPMR. It was he who found me and introduced himself as Thor (booming commanding voice, really loud thunder, ferocious lightning, and eventually hearty laughter). Had I not instantly come right back at him with a "you have gotta be kidding! Thor!? Where did they drag you in from?" I may never have heard the laughter and perhaps would have been shifted to plan B - a different role altogether. He no doubt had other options. I didn't know at the time of our connection, but I was a part of his plan - the earlier contact and training that I had been given in NPMR was at his request and I remain today in his service and he in mine. So we go back a long way - many lifetimes"

Ted Vollers, the forum chief of MBT, wrote this when I asked him about Tom's experiences (yes I did!):

"He has described on the board that he has been a sort of agent in the past from NPMR, changing as in nudging things here in PMR. He has described that he knows the entities known as the Teachers that includes the entity known as Seth. He has described the entity that he called Thor before on the board but not explained what he did. He has also mentioned that he is aware of his NPMR experience on an at will basis, sharing both streams of consciousness. As such, he is aware of knowing his past history long prior to this present life. Somewhere in there he was tutored or mentored by the entity that is the present Big Cheese before he took over his present duties. The Big Cheese is not a lifetime office and can wish to drop the responsibility. I know nothing about history or 'office politics' if there is such and how often such changes occur. Tom may regret having mentioned this in passing since I have inadvertently mentioned it. It is not a really big deal as it is likely that the present Big Cheese had a number of such relationships as I understand that it was something of a characteristic of his to have a network of reliable 'doers' that he could call upon at need. A lot of capability that caused him to be tapped for the CEO job when it became open. You can search for The Big Cheese with twcjr as author and will find 13 references that might tell you a little more but not much."

I know this is still not very detailed. But at least a little something.

And don't forget, there's also the Explorer tapes of TC from the TMC site, e.g. here:

http://www.monroeinstitute.org/resources/downloads/cat/explorer-series

Of course, it's early experiences at Monroe's lab and not necessarily to back up his theory in his books. But anyway, it's an account of his NPMR experiences still.

Here's another one on his 'mission' in PMR, added bolds are mine:

"Yes, of course, I do know of many such things -- that cannot be helped, I am not stupid or blind -- occasionally I am assigned by the Big Cheese to be entangled with such activities -- to nudge outcomes -- from NPMR. No, I have absolutely no inclination to share and a huge inclination to not share. In PMR, I am about helping others grow their personal consciousness quality, and discussing such things as you suggest is much more counterproductive than productive to accomplishing that end -- and that is a fact, not an opinion. My interaction here is circumscribed by a responsibility to be useful without explicitly interfering with the natural flow. That sort of information and insight that you allude to is mine alone and I will take it with me when I leave -- that's the deal - accept it -- there is no alternative.
The facts are not as useful as you think -- at a practical operational level, in PMR, appearance is almost always more important than truth."

Of course, I admit, as this all sounds even almost a bit 'megalomaniac' you can always choose to disbelieve it. But we can do the same with the accounts and claims of Monroe, Moen, Buhlman, Bruce, Leland etc. Right?
:?

Korpo
17th July 2012, 10:09 PM
Of course, I admit, as this all sounds even almost a bit 'megalomaniac' you can always choose to disbelieve it. But we can do the same with the accounts and claims of Monroe, Moen, Buhlman, Bruce, Leland etc. Right?

Well, different teachers, different styles. In my case I could verify some of Kurt's stuff in my own experiences, and make sense out of them. I couldn't have if I had no access to them, so for me personally that style works much better. But that's just me.

On the other hand, what you quote from Ted Vollers doesn't seem to make sense to me. But that is okay since it is already second-hand information. The fact that you provided it gave me a chance to make my own mind up about that snippet, which I do appreciate. :)

dreaming90
18th July 2012, 12:29 AM
I agree with the need for experiences being recorded and available for "peer review." It's what made Journeys Out of the Body so fascinating to me when I first read it-- "Here's what happened to me, here's a possible explanation." No rambling about consciousness being digital and reality frames and so on like Tom tends to do.

That said, Tom states in MBT that he doesn't want to give experiences because he doesn't want to color or taint the experiences of others, and he wants others to go out on their own and explore for themselves. That's perfectly understandable of course, and honorable in a way, but the credibility of Tom's explorations take a hit as a result.

We have some of Tom's explorations, as Volgerle pointed out, but it's sparse compared to the likes of Monroe and Moen.

PauliEffect
18th July 2012, 10:54 AM
I would like to know how the Software works. How it functions.

There are too many open questions.