Tom,

Would you describe the sources of knowledge you have utilised MBTOE? Yes, I'm sure there is no single source, so I'm asking whether you could delineate from the array of sources, in a broad fashion, as this question would likely have a very lengthy, complex answer.

Thanks, in advance.

Roland,

Most of your questions require me to write another book, but this one is relatively easy.

I really have but one source -- my research and experimentation and experiences in the larger consciousness reality. That's it.

Early on (30 to 35 years ago) I read Seth Speaks, and a few books on Eastern philosophy and two by CW Leadbetter (Theosophist) and a smattering of other stuff. The first three gave me a general conceptual grounding and some useful vocabulary -- but what I learned in particular from the "smattering of other stuff" was that no one had a straight-up logical explanation (Seth came closest) and most were flat out guessing (all conjecture) or totally clueless, or generally both. A scientist's perspective can be pretty demanding. Most were describing experience or phenomena as opposed to providing answers or reasons why. Much of it was relatively useless "gee whiz, this is what happened to me" -- or to others. Or like a term paper pulling together the work of other people to make the startling revelation that "something very strange but significant was really going on here" and then add some useless or wild conjecture of their own at the end. More recently (last 25 years), I have read a dozen or two and found them all very limiting, extremely narrow in scope and understanding (as the nature of reality goes) , and of little value to either my education or my growth.

All in all it is much more accurate to say the books I have read have provided corroboration rather than been a source. To keep up on what is out there, I buy interesting sounding titles to look over and get reviews/synopsis from others who are avid readers of this genre (philosophy and metaphysics). I have a lot of well read friends. In addition, Many people, it seems, want to know my take on this article, or what I think about that book -- so I still get a pretty good exposure to a general smattering of stuff.

I hope this tells you what you wanted to know.

Tom C

Yes, it tells me a little about PMR sources. I guess I should have differentiated, although, any part of the map is always appreciated. I guess I'm going to have to break down and read *Seth Speaks*, because I'd like to know to what you're referring. Since I share your assesment of most books on the subjects you mention, I do get a kick out of having drawn the same conclusions as you without having traveled NPMR as you have.

What I am most curious about, and I apologise for being too vague at the start of the thread, is your sources in NPMR. Besides observing, experiencing, and analysing NPMR, have you utilised specific sources of knowledge that have been key to your overall knowledge, as its represented in MBTOE?

Roland: I do get a kick out of having drawn the same conclusions as you without having traveled NPMR as you have.

Tom: There is nothing about traveling NPMR that is particularly important relative to your purpose or to the conclusions that you can draw from your experience.

Having traveled NPMR in a general way is useful for gaining a firsthand understanding how NPMR, and thus the larger reality, works. What else would one want to do there? Perhaps having access to another realm of interesting, unique, and challenging learning experiences, and competently executing the job/purpose you have there would be two answers, but what other purpose is there that is not primarily in the service of the ego?

Roland: Besides observing, experiencing, and analyzing NPMR, have you utilized specific sources of knowledge that have been key to your overall knowledge, as its represented in MBTOE?

Tom: No, not really. I have worked with various NPMR data bases (aka Akashic records) in order to determine what's in them, how they are accessed, there limitations, and how they work. I have utilized various databases to find information of many sorts, but not about the Big Picture nature of reality. That is a subject you cannot understand well enough to logically explain it to another until you have experienced it and figured it out for yourself. understandings on an Intuitive level or understandings that are based on something similar to, or connected to, PMR experience are more common and easier to bring back to PMR. That is why the Eastern view and other metaphysical views turn out to be largely poetic metaphor. To develop an explainable and credible logical picture, you have to purposely probe with your intellect and personally do the science (execute experiments and collect the data).

Remember, to capture what you experience in NPMR within your PMR awareness (to bring the data back to PMR), the information must be expressed in terms of your personal PMR experience/knowledge data -- that is the only language reference you have within your PMR awareness. The information you bring back to PMR must be codeable within the metaphoric and symbolic language context available to your PMR brain. That is a big limitation and care must be taken that the information does not get warped during that translation (as the general literature demonstrates, that's something that happens more often than not). Developing NPMR science is another bootstrapping process that takes diligence, good methodology, and perseverance. You can't just go read it out of a book in some NPMR library -- it doesn't work that way. You have to learn through experience. And what you learn must be relatable to your experience.

Tom C

Tom:
The information you bring back to PMR must be codeable within the metaphoric and symbolic language context available to your PMR brain. That is a big limitation and care must be taken that the information does not get warped during that translation (as the general literature demonstrates, that's something that happens more often than not).
----
Ergo, dream metaphors? Robert Bruce wrote about this difficulty too, in relation to OBEs. I've often wondered just how much of our dreams are from NPMR, because of the very thing you point out. It would seem that if dreams are related entirely to PMR issues, they'd be more literal, else, why work almost entirely in metaphors?

Tom:
Developing NPMR science is another bootstrapping process that takes diligence, good methodology, and perseverance. You can't just go read it out of a book in some NPMR library -- it doesn't work that way. You have to learn through experience. And what you learn must be relatable to your experience.
----
This also is very interesting, as it has appeared, to me at least, that NPMR is just like PMR in the sense that those participating within that context are no more aware of the greater reality than those residing in PMR context, but just one set removed from a more confining set of restraints.

It doesn't take a lot of reading in Eastern philosophy to realise that a lot of what's in MBTOE was figured out by those fellow travelers, as well. What perspective should inform us about the context for your work? Is this reflected, in some part, in what your visitors saw in 'This Kid is Weird Enough'? Did they get a data dump of your MBTOE and the greater reality, or its effects upon some future and consequential changes in Earth PMR?
----
After reading about Seth at Wikipedia, I am struck by the similarities to MBTOE. However, a building respect took a dive when I read about Seth's ideas on Jesus. It's a matter on which I've done a lot of research. The Gnostics conceived the Passion of Christ to have occured in a Heavenly realm (IOW, not on Earth). HOWEVER, all, and that means the entirety of the Passion, the entirety of the Christ story, the death, the cross, the resurection and everything therein, is derived from the solar mythologies, and its evolution over thousands of years. So, if Seth got so much else correct, then how did Seth botch the Jesus thing so badly, just like so many others do? And neither is there a shread of evidence for John the Baptist and the Apostles. Paul, himself, is nothing like the Romanised version, and is even purported to be a Gnostic writer, who's supposed evangelical travels are another rendition of Orpheus' teaching journeys.

Assuming that there is an actual Seth, it is utterly fascinating how the Christian mythology has such a lock on Earth PMR and even NPMR former Earth residents. All of the other suns of god must be enormously jealous of his fame.

Roland,

There is a Seth

There was a Jane.

Sometimes Jane had difficulty keeping them differentiated and separate. If you read literature generated within a Christian culture, do not be surprised if it reflects that culture. Everything that comes to PMR from NPMR must arrive by passing through a the filter of a human experience and belief-set.

Expecting pure and un-warped messages from NPMR is naive. Each message is, in part, a reflection of the individual receiving it. Some individuals do not realize this.

Tom C

I don't possess expectations of pure un-warped messages; neither did cast doubt on Jane's existence.

Thank you for confirming Seth's existence. The book must be grand, belief-system intrusions notwithstanding.

Roland: "Thank you for confirming Seth's existence. The book must be grand, belief-system intrusions notwithstanding."

LOL! I think belief system intrusions are the point! And none of us are immune from their effect! I mean, we all get those every time we learn anything.

_________________
Most people are mostly good most of the time. - the Deefburger assumption of marginal probable personal state.

Roland,

I don't know if I would call Seth Speaks "grand", but 35 years ago, it was the first more or less rational theory that I came across -- warts and all -- it was a place to start -- a mostly coherent perspective worth testing. Eventually, after you get the hang of Seth's style and conceptualization of reality, it becomes easy to notice where Jane's limitations intrude upon the process.

Deefburger, you are right -- belief system intrusions are pretty much unavoidable for all of us -- it's a fact of life because everything must be interpreted based on present understanding. We try to bootstrap that present understanding to a more complete (less warped by belief) viewpoint -- but it is a slow iterative process.

Tom C

With any information channel, there are several components that affect information accuracy or clarity. My disclaimer is I haven't read the book, but only a summary of its information. I just find that when the accuracy of information falls off so drastically as to communicate verified, incorrect information, a series of questions arise automatically, such as:

1. If we know that one or more parts of the information are untrue, how much of the unverified information has suffered from the same effects?
2. Is it the sender and/or receiver introducing the error?
3. Is there a mismatch between receiver and transmitter?
4. Is the receiver acquiring more than on transmitter?
5. Is noise introducing obscuring the information for the receiver?

And so forth...

Roland,

Of course, what you have is:

6. All of the above. (As I believe you were implying.)

Look up a definition of entropy in a text on information theory. It is all about, as I understand the bottom line, a way to calculate the effects of random uncertainties about the meaning of symbols in the transmission of information between a given source and recipient. While this is a PMR based definiton within a specific and limited set of concepts, a communication system, and we do not know the algorithm upon which entropy is evaluated outside of PMR, unless Tom does, this is still a basic and major factor.

Intent, the point of measurement of the entropy level of an individuated intelligence, also includes other aspects of this communication problem. To the extent that you truly know who and what you are and who and what other beings are with whom you choose to or are forced to communicate, your ability to communicate clearly and accurately is greater the lower your (and their) entropy is. To know in fact that ultimately you share the same nature and 'environment', the realities of your existence, you can have full empathy with and cherish all other beings as fellow individuated intelligences within The One Mind, AUM, the One Thing that exists. This knowledge permits your Intent towards these other beings to be in the nature of spiritual love and basically love for all of these other beings as aspects of yourself. Inherently, we rise and fall as one (The One Mind).

But if you are trapped in your PMR existence and beliefs, and more specifically, as whatever you believe yourself to be in PMR (beautiful, macho, rich, etc., too marvelous for words), you will have a great difficulty relating to and communicating with some PMR(other) being that happens to have gills and warts and believes itself to be the king of it's own reef in a tide pool in an ocean on a planet that happens to exist, virtually, in PMR(other).

This seems to be the base information toward which this discussion thread is heading. Not as confusion and disagreement, but as understanding of these concepts.

Ted Vollers

Ted: Not as confusion and disagreement, but as understanding of these concepts.
----
I confess that I don't very often state what I understand or don't understand about topics and questions I raise; rather, I bring them up to see what comes out of the discussion. Sometimes it yields new perspectives, new information, and sometimes it just re-assures my own thinking. The former is more interesting. Sometimes, though, it yields confusion, mostly about my intent. That's OK too.

Ted,

Very good point.

Only when all of us share a common zero entropy state, will be able to communicate with no individual interpretive error. Most likely a theoretical as well as practical impossibility.

Tom C

"a common zero entropy state"

I get a picture of a white room: white walls, white ceiling and floor, with no apparent seams.

I can't help wondering whether a theoretical zero is, instead, a nominal zero and an iterative step towards the next paradigm of a cyclical evolution. Perhaps this is occuring all the time, in various phases between different scattered systems.

Roland,

I like the way you think big. Right or wrong.

Our inability to comprehend does not in any way constrain the evolutionary opportunities of consciousness.

Tom C


THIS DISCUSSION CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE.