Tom Campbell

[Sinera]

I went to my church this morning and there was TD's big TOE

... wow, what kind of interesting church are you going to ...

[CFTraveler]

It's a Unity 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]

...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, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.... 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.

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 (23 April 1858 – 4 October 1947) was one of the most important German physicists of the late 19th and early 20th century, winning the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918; he is considered to be the founder of quantum theory.)

[CFTraveler]

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-"