Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 50

Thread: Tom Campbell

  1. #1

    Tom Campbell

    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?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny Climes
    Posts
    13,526
    Blog Entries
    64

    Some thoughts and My opinion on this

    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.
    Last edited by CFTraveler; 5th June 2012 at 10:53 PM.
    https://linktr.ee/CoralieCFTraveler
    Rules:http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/faq.php
    "Stop acting as if life is a rehearsal" Dr. Wayne Dyer.

  3. #3

    Re: Some thoughts and My opinion on this

    Quote Originally Posted by CFTraveler View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny Climes
    Posts
    13,526
    Blog Entries
    64

    Re: Tom Campbell

    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.
    https://linktr.ee/CoralieCFTraveler
    Rules:http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/faq.php
    "Stop acting as if life is a rehearsal" Dr. Wayne Dyer.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,060
    Blog Entries
    46

    Re: Tom Campbell

    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,060
    Blog Entries
    46

    Re: Tom Campbell

    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.

  7. #7

    Re: Tom Campbell

    Quote Originally Posted by Korpo View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny Climes
    Posts
    13,526
    Blog Entries
    64

    Re: Tom Campbell

    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.
    https://linktr.ee/CoralieCFTraveler
    Rules:http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/faq.php
    "Stop acting as if life is a rehearsal" Dr. Wayne Dyer.

  9. #9

    Re: Tom Campbell

    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny Climes
    Posts
    13,526
    Blog Entries
    64

    Re: Tom Campbell

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by dreaming90 View Post
    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.
    Well go get it, and let me know how you like it. I liked it a lot.
    https://linktr.ee/CoralieCFTraveler
    Rules:http://www.astraldynamics.com.au/faq.php
    "Stop acting as if life is a rehearsal" Dr. Wayne Dyer.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Tom Campbell's view of the afterlife
    By CFTraveler in forum Psychic/Spiritual Experiences & Development
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th September 2013, 05:53 PM
  2. RB and Thomas Campbell
    By CFTraveler in forum Robert's Workshops and Media Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 3rd April 2011, 12:32 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
01 TITLE
01 block content This site is under development!
02 Links block
02 block content

ad_bluebearhealing_astraldynamics 

ad_neuralambience_astraldynamics