Tom Campbell

[PauliEffect]

...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 etc.


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 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, 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]

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]

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). 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/vie...&start=0#p6956

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

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-...dp/1848503350/

[PauliEffect]

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 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]

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]

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]

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).

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/resou...xplorer-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]

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]

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]

I would like to know how the Software works. How it functions.

There are too many open questions.