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?
Bookmarks