Return Home

My Big Toe Forum

Discussion and Explanation of the Writings of Tom Campbell: The Paradigm Changes Here

To register for the forum, click here

It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:03 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 178 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:20 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:05 pm
Posts: 330
I'm offended by Chrono. It seems that in a discussion such as this, that kind of response is childish and immature, and is merely setting us back further.

I've watched the Rupert Sheldrake Google talks, and it seems to me (from a scientific stand-point), that more research needs to be done. Objective, sound research. Even if you handed Rupert the MBT trilogy and told him to read it, he would probably say that more research needs to be done. That is the issue in science. The difference between Rupert and Tom is that Rupert is at least trying to give statistical evidence as well as research to find objective facts about this. A lot of "I think"s came from Rupert, by the way. He doesn't know, just as we do not know. More research needs to be done, more evidence is needed, and for it to be taken as "fact" in the academic, it needs to have some sort of theoretical model that can predict and have some sort of conscious technological progress to it. It's a start, no where close to the finish, and barely into its initial stages.

It's fine to be skeptic, and it's also fine to be open minded. Just not so open minded that your brains fall out, and not so skeptic that you don't move beyond classical or relativistic physics, like Einstein did when it came to quantum physics and non-locality.

_________________
Brandon


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:39 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 2203
I am not interested to convince anybody with these links. I don't think that any proof or evidence should be presented here, since we aren't recruiting anybody, and Tom is not professing anything. He is not a guru, or a teacher, and he is not looking for disciples. I am afraid, that more we try to defend MBT, more it will look like here is a new religion or a cult. Let anybody say or think what they believe is to be right. Life is all about personal experiences, everything else is only he says, she says.

CIA Remote Psychic Viewing
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x47yn_ ... g_creation

Russell Targ is a physicist and author who was a pioneer in the development of the laser, and cofounder of the Stanford Research Institute's investigation into psychic abilities in the 1970s and 1980s.
http://www.espresearch.com

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:55 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:34 pm
Posts: 281
Location: NYC
BrandonHedberg wrote:
I'm offended by Chrono. It seems that in a discussion such as this, that kind of response is childish and immature, and is merely setting us back further.

What is childish or immature about it? I'm merely mirroring what scientific extremists are throwing our way. Are you suggesting that these scientific extremists are childish and immature?

If that is the case then we are in agreement.

If not, then you guys want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to fit square pegs in round holes and when they don't fit, ridicule and call us names. You want to bring this into your arena so you can "win". You all have zero interest in civil discussion, only conversion or ridicule. When we call you out on this you dole out judgement from on high and call me childish. Damned if we do damned if we don't.

Lena is right, in the end it doesn't matter one jot. Live and enjoy your life.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:58 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 10409
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
The usefulness of the model to make things like mothers dying a reasonable occurrence, and a challenging childhood understandable to me is what I like about it. That, and the fact that I had most pieces in place before reading MBT. MBT filled in so many blanks though, and validated my own experiences. Plus, I think better now.

It is hard not to be excited, and want to share. It is useful, the model. It makes life better because it is understandable now, and I can see direct positive effects by trying to remember it all, and use it when interacting with others. Communication is going up in quality, and stuff.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:27 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:05 pm
Posts: 330
chronopolis wrote:
BrandonHedberg wrote:
I'm offended by Chrono. It seems that in a discussion such as this, that kind of response is childish and immature, and is merely setting us back further.

What is childish or immature about it? I'm merely mirroring what scientific extremists are throwing our way. Are you suggesting that these scientific extremists are childish and immature?

If that is the case then we are in agreement.

If not, then you guys want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to fit square pegs in round holes and when they don't fit, ridicule and call us names. You want to bring this into your arena so you can "win". You all have zero interest in civil discussion, only conversion or ridicule. When we call you out on this you dole out judgement from on high and call me childish. Damned if we do damned if we don't.

Lena is right, in the end it doesn't matter one jot. Live and enjoy your life.


Chrono, no, I actually get the scientist's view. They really do want this (this type of research into consciousness and such) to be part of science, at least some of them who are trying to make science grow and change, without bringing flying spaghetti monsters, or some miracle into it. The thing is that a real scientists will admit they are wrong, when the evidence is stacked against them. Science will give changing opinions, or even changing facts, based on the best evidence us humans have. A scientist may hold onto their personal beliefs, but they will at least agree to the evidence. A true scientist would anyway. Now, to respond "for someone", and then give a belittlement response to the actual person's beliefs (scientific or otherwise), is childish and immature. All I will say on it.

I agree with Lena as well. We're all open to our own truths, and sometimes our own truth is more true than any fact could ever provide. That's fine, but it certainly is not science.

_________________
Brandon


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:27 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:40 pm
Posts: 704
Location: Florida
BrandonHederg and all,
I agree with much of your comments about science.I just think we ,and our science, are bound by the laws and internal logic of the reality in which we find ourselves groping around in. The first cause and origin of these laws may never be known,so we will always be limited.As well,science and research seems to be largely funded, motivated and driven by large international corporations and nefarious government projects.(such as some of the stuff at DARPA)The big questions at hand here are not really financially profitable for science as far as I can tell. In fact,the more mass ignorance in the world ,the better it is for consumer capitalism.

However,there is nothing wrong with looking for a 'big picture' in spite of this because objective science does not explain everything,not by a long shot-to believe otherwise is extreme hubris IMO.

Consciousness, Philosophy and Metaphysics are also a part of reality, so they should also be included in a true TOE. This is the claim made right on the cover of MBT,so up front it is implied that science ( physics) is only a part of what constitutes his TOE.

As far as dismissing the existence of NDE,OBE,etc,out of hand- I just don't understand this attitude really.Where is the skepticism about the workings of the brain as a generator of experience I wonder since the appeal has been made here that it is 'all in the brain'? Of course it's TC's theory in question;but materialism seems to be accepted as fact when it is outdated by quantum theory and still fails to explain normal experience let alone the mystical.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:01 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2736
Location: Miami, FL
BrandonHedberg wrote:
Name something that is less limited than science, or even more limited than science, that has the predictive and technological prowess that science has. There really is no argument here though, and there's a lot of religious vibes coming out of this conversation. Regretting something because you don't have "faith" that it is real once you pass, now that is religious. The difference between science and this stuff is that science changes, this stuff never will.


Hi Brandon:

Science and "this stuff" are information related to information that is the same independent on science and religion. If you would understand "this stuff" you wouldn't have said what you said IMO. That Consciousness (or whatever allows our awareness, including awareness of our thoughts) ends with physical death is just an assumption of science or subset/s of science. Science (or classical science, or society science or manipulated science or materialistic science) is full of assumptions. Being more open minded does not necessarily mean being religious. One thing is to be stupid, ignorant and limited and another is to choose to be stupid, ignorant and limited. Experience conditions you, though you can notice the conditioning by being open minded and skeptic.

"This stuff" can change as you train and expand your domain of perception. If I would have just believed in "science" I couldn't have expanded "this stuff".

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:28 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:05 pm
Posts: 330
soprano wrote:
BrandonHedberg wrote:
Name something that is less limited than science, or even more limited than science, that has the predictive and technological prowess that science has. There really is no argument here though, and there's a lot of religious vibes coming out of this conversation. Regretting something because you don't have "faith" that it is real once you pass, now that is religious. The difference between science and this stuff is that science changes, this stuff never will.


Hi Brandon:

Science and "this stuff" are information related to information that is the same independent on science and religion. If you would understand "this stuff" you wouldn't have said what you said IMO. That Consciousness (or whatever allows our awareness, including awareness of our thoughts) ends with physical death is just an assumption of science or subset/s of science. Science (or classical science, or society science or manipulated science or materialistic science) is full of assumptions. Being more open minded does not necessarily mean being religious. One thing is to be stupid, ignorant and limited and another is to choose to be stupid, ignorant and limited. Experience conditions you, though you can notice the conditioning by being open minded and skeptic.

"This stuff" can change as you train and expand your domain of perception. If I would have just believed in "science" I couldn't have expanded "this stuff".

Claudio


Claudio,
Here is the bit that I don't quite understand. Do we really need MBT to say that life goes on after death? Doesn't science say this in some interpretations? Who is to say which interpretation is better than the other, when all we live in is a model-dependent reality? I call it "this stuff" just like you say "or whatever allows our awareness", because there are many different ways to interpret such reality we live in. We can not all be right. We don't all have a different scientific theory of gravity for instance, depending on whose physicist's book you read. We do though all have a different interpretation of "this stuff" such as consciousness, existence, what have you.

I didn't mean to offend by saying "this stuff", surely I am not demeaning beliefs here. I meant by "this stuff" is that there are too many to name, where I can only think of a few theories on gravity. How many self help books do you suppose there are compared to how many books go over the current theory of gravity?

The bible will always be the bible, MBT will always be MBT, science will change over time as we get a better understanding of "this stuff". Now, surely you must agree that we all have our personal beliefs, especially on something as mystifying as the consciousness, even these hardcore scientists such as myself and others, but none of us can suggest to the other that the other one is "more right" than the other, especially since there are many misunderstandings going on, and especially since we don't have a thorough understanding of consciousness, the afterlife, etc.

_________________
Brandon


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:58 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 10409
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
There is a lot of consensus with Near Death Experiences, OOBE, distant healing, Lucid Dreaming, and Remote Viewing that seems to be being treated as if it was nonphysical, and ignored apparently.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 1:43 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 9433
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
To All,

It is my opinion that you are missing the mark in your conceptions of what is at question and your attempts to say something meaningful or useful regarding it. You are going on as if Tom's perceptions and resulting conceptions expressed in My Big TOE are somehow to be proven or disproven on the basis of what is said about something like NDEs or OOBE activity or some other particular thing which has been written about. You are missing the context within which My Big TOE is in fact significant as representing a return to an older, even an ancient, paradigm of the nature of reality.

In ancient countries during the pre history period before there were readily produced and extensive records back when oral histories were begun, there was a paradigm of Mind as the basis of reality. There were many other ancient metaphysicians and mystics with the same conception at that time and I am no scholar of that period when the Buddha lived, meditated and arrived at his conclusions regarding the cause of suffering and the nature of our reality as Maya or Illusion. There are other threads to this developmental journey of thought such as Taoism. Essentially the core is that our experience of this, our reality, is subjective and appears within our minds. Over the centuries this concept spread through India and the general Orient and the great religion of Buddhism was developed and proliferated, based upon the life and teachings of the Buddha. These concepts were even carried into Europe and the "West" over time as it was said, including America. Even Christianity as it came to develop had elements of this thinking with the concept of God as the Logos and the time of the Essenes and then later mystics. Also there came to develop over these same, or at least the latter, centuries the "Western" religion of science and effectively a priesthood of scientists which came to the conclusions and operated upon the basis that our experienced reality is objective and material and could be explained and expressed by (relatively) simple "natural" laws, as opposed to "supernatural" laws.

Tom describes the same things as in the earlier expression of the paradigm such as the Void and the RWW, then known as Indra's Net. Clearly he explored within the same Reality as Mind or Consciousness as did the ancients. The difference is that as a trained scientist, a modern physicist with modern day technical knowledge of digital technology, he was able to express and merge this ancient paradigm with the paradigm of modern science. Science, ancient or modern, has not been able to explain the nature of consciousness within the limits of materialism which continues to this day. Tom's My Big TOE provides the paradigm, the conceptual framework, within which he has built a TOE that merges these two disparate paradigms. It does not prove that OOBE or NDE or whatever are real nor vice versa. It provides a conceptualization of the nature of Mind or Consciousness as a digital reality with an outline (the bootstrapping concept) of a pathway from the Void to and through Consciousness to an explanation of the development and nature of our existence as IUOCs and the nature and existence of our experience within PMR as the "objective" reality of science and the non physical VR of NPMR as the nature and existence experienced by so many as the place for the occurrence of NDEs and OOBEs, etc. This framework or model provides a structure within which to understand how PMR appears to science as it does, including the anomalies of QM, the nature of Einsteinian relativity and the speed of light as a constant and astrophysics as dark matter and energy. The fractal nature of VRs as they are generated based upon probability results in the nature of QM and a constant speed of light automatically 'falling out of' this conception of reality as Tom has described.

Just as Tom explains, the nature of Reality is something that you must experience for yourself as opposed to something that can be proven by some simple test that science ingeniously devises and implements. The nature of this, our reality, is subjective and not objective and so no objective test can actually exist. The tests and developments within science and mathematics are rather that they are being developed by so many working on the cutting edges of their fields who are moving towards and will eventually merge conceptually with My Big TOE. There will be an eventual merging of paradigms as the true nature of our Reality comes to be understood.

Ted


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:54 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:40 pm
Posts: 704
Location: Florida
bette wrote:
There is a lot of consensus with Near Death Experiences, OOBE, distant healing, Lucid Dreaming, and Remote Viewing that seems to be being treated as if it was nonphysical, and ignored apparently.
Love
Bette


I agree,there is no doubt a physical aspect to these things;but that does not explain the experiential aspect.Nor does it explain the information generated,whether it can be verified or not.

Every day at work I see people's awareness snuffed out in seconds by a few cc of propofol and other anesthetics. If a patient later emerges smoothly without their awareness being dominated by pain,it is fairly common to hear them recall dreams. This is not supposed to be possible often times under general anesthesia. I believe personally,but not scientifically,that this may happen much more frequently than we know,but is often forgotten.(As regular dreams are if one does not train oneself to remember.)I think it continges upon memory-and memory is another whole ball of wax in itself.... This stuff should be studied more IMO.


Also,it is an established fact that many people reporting NDEs were flat lined on their EEGs and ECGs at the times in question. Unless they create entire fantasies at the moments of their revivals,it points to something significant occurring. By all material reductionist standards this should not be possible.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:59 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2736
Location: Miami, FL
Hi Brandon:

Thanks for the feedback.

Brandon: Here is the bit that I don't quite understand. Do we really need MBT to say that life goes on after death?

Claudio: No, we don't need MBT, but MBT explains it very well. It makes sense and it is supported by subjective experiences, which covers all experiences.

Brandon: Doesn't science say this in some interpretations? Who is to say which interpretation is better than the other, when all we live in is a model-dependent reality?

Claudio: One interpretation can be said to be better than the other one if it better integrates with other models, it better explains nonphysical experiences, physical experiences. I chose MBT as a model because it makes more sense and it matches my own experiences better than other models.

Brandon: We don't all have a different scientific theory of gravity for instance, depending on whose physicist's book you read. We do though all have a different interpretation of "this stuff" such as consciousness, existence, what have you.

Claudio: Gravity is a simulated objective reality. Surely it is easier to find consensus on objective aspects of consciousness than in more subjective ones, but once you take into account how the subjective aspect works and compare it with information systems, all fits well.

Brandon: MBT will always be MBT, science will change over time as we get a better understanding of "this stuff".

Claudio: Physical science is a subset of MBT, so MBT will change over time as its subsets also change over time. Depending on the popularity, other names may become more popular in the future, for example "Virtual Reality", or "Digital Reality", or like the already "Digital Physics". Once some of this stuff gets accepted as textbooks in schools you'll see interest scaling up.

MBT is not on the same side as the Bible and opposite side of Science. MBT covers all as a TOE, and even though Tom didn't bring more details after 900 pages (big enough :), he did afterwards and let others expand. MBT is not something isolated. It integrates with science (including digital science, information systems/technology, QM, etc.).

Great post Ted, and I agree with Bette and Jeff that the consensus is huge. In this forum several members have nonphysical experiences and there is a big consensus and almost (if not) zero disagreement with the MBT model.

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <


Last edited by soprano on Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:02 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:06 am
Posts: 174
Ted Vollers wrote:
To All,

It is my opinion that you are missing the mark in your conceptions of what is at question and your attempts to say something meaningful or useful regarding it. You are going on as if Tom's perceptions and resulting conceptions expressed in My Big TOE are somehow to be proven or disproven on the basis of what is said about something like NDEs or OOBE activity or some other particular thing which has been written about. You are missing the context within which My Big TOE is in fact significant as representing a return to an older, even an ancient, paradigm of the nature of reality.

In ancient countries during the pre history period before there were readily produced and extensive records back when oral histories were begun, there was a paradigm of Mind as the basis of reality. There were many other ancient metaphysicians and mystics with the same conception at that time and I am no scholar of that period when the Buddha lived, meditated and arrived at his conclusions regarding the cause of suffering and the nature of our reality as Maya or Illusion. There are other threads to this developmental journey of thought such as Taoism. Essentially the core is that our experience of this, our reality, is subjective and appears within our minds. Over the centuries this concept spread through India and the general Orient and the great religion of Buddhism was developed and proliferated, based upon the life and teachings of the Buddha. These concepts were even carried into Europe and the "West" over time as it was said, including America. Even Christianity as it came to develop had elements of this thinking with the concept of God as the Logos and the time of the Essenes and then later mystics. Also there came to develop over these same, or at least the latter, centuries the "Western" religion of science and effectively a priesthood of scientists which came to the conclusions and operated upon the basis that our experienced reality is objective and material and could be explained and expressed by (relatively) simple "natural" laws, as opposed to "supernatural" laws.

Tom describes the same things as in the earlier expression of the paradigm such as the Void and the RWW, then known as Indra's Net. Clearly he explored within the same Reality as Mind or Consciousness as did the ancients. The difference is that as a trained scientist, a modern physicist with modern day technical knowledge of digital technology, he was able to express and merge this ancient paradigm with the paradigm of modern science. Science, ancient or modern, has not been able to explain the nature of consciousness within the limits of materialism which continues to this day. Tom's My Big TOE provides the paradigm, the conceptual framework, within which he has built a TOE that merges these two disparate paradigms. It does not prove that OOBE or NDE or whatever are real nor vice versa. It provides a conceptualization of the nature of Mind or Consciousness as a digital reality with an outline (the bootstrapping concept) of a pathway from the Void to and through Consciousness to an explanation of the development and nature of our existence as IUOCs and the nature and existence of our experience within PMR as the "objective" reality of science and the non physical VR of NPMR as the nature and existence experienced by so many as the place for the occurrence of NDEs and OOBEs, etc. This framework or model provides a structure within which to understand how PMR appears to science as it does, including the anomalies of QM, the nature of Einsteinian relativity and the speed of light as a constant and astrophysics as dark matter and energy. The fractal nature of VRs as they are generated based upon probability results in the nature of QM and a constant speed of light automatically 'falling out of' this conception of reality as Tom has described.

Just as Tom explains, the nature of Reality is something that you must experience for yourself as opposed to something that can be proven by some simple test that science ingeniously devises and implements. The nature of this, our reality, is subjective and not objective and so no objective test can actually exist. The tests and developments within science and mathematics are rather that they are being developed by so many working on the cutting edges of their fields who are moving towards and will eventually merge conceptually with My Big TOE. There will be an eventual merging of paradigms as the true nature of our Reality comes to be understood.

Ted


Nicely said, Ted. It's little wonder that Tom devotes such a large portion of all three books in the trilogy emphasising the importance of open minded skepticism. People who shut out the information too early or refuse to entertain the ideas even hypothetically before condemning them are missing out on something extraordinary from the point of view of their own experience. The rigid scientific mind needs to relax just a little to let in new ideas, not accepting these ideas as evidence (only experimentation over time can produce this), but ideas with which one can evolve new tools of thinking and observing the reality around us. One cannot begin to collect evidence of anything new without first hypothesising that there is something new to collect evidence about in the first place.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:12 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 5:32 pm
Posts: 12
Now we've got some decent discussions going.

One thing I'm finding out about this "theory", even though I have yet to experience it, is that the more I let it 'sit' on my mind, the more I'm able to develop and understand it. I understand all the main concepts of reality proposed in it, and I understand how they make logical 'sense'. I understand that (in my mind at least) quantum physics IS the first step in objectively proving this theory. I understand the idea of being trapped in a subset and I do believe (important word) that there should be a larger reality. I understand the notion that to fully 'get' it, you must experience it.

While it may seem like I hit my period of enlightenment, I still hold my skepticism for the following reasons:

1) Quantum physics is still theoretical.

2) I still assert that the slightest form of objective evidence should be able to be generated. There has to be at least one piece of subjective knowledge Tom has gained that he can both share and prove objectively. According to the people here, he does do that! If he went astral traveling with someone else in a different room, recorded the dreams, and compared them to prove they matched...that is objectively proving it. I'm not sure why every argument against me boils down to "You can't objectively prove the subjective, you must experience it". Tom both says and demonstrates that it can be objectively proven! Why isn't this done more? Why isn't this done in at least one semi-controlled setting?

3) As opposite from religion as Tom claims MBT to be, a million and one parallels can be drawn between MBT and religion. MBT is simply a much more in depth, logical, and all encompassing form of religion. There's nothing wrong with this, but it seems there is so much focus on saying MBT is not religion. What is religion? Objective belief in something subjective and personal.

4) Delusion among members here certainly contributes negatively when dealing with skeptics. For example :

bette wrote:
I kind of think this is what is going to happen in 2012, and that it will be a female type energy we start utilizing more.


2012? Really? Female type energy? ...What?! Did you believe the same thing was going to happen when Y2K happened? Right here you are predicting the future, you're predicting that :

a) Something significant happens in the year 2012 and is a result of it being the year 2012.
b) Somehow the precise time period will encourage a shift of our entire way of thinking.
c) Female type energy? Everyone is going to act "motherly" and kind and loving to everyone? In an ideal world, maybe. This world is far, far from it. Much further than 1 year from it.

I don't want to be harsh here, but these are the true words of a delusional hippie. I can assure you that nothing is going to happen in 2012 that is paranormal, and if anything we'd just continue to shift towards a more "male type energy"...power, greed, war, etc. This in all probability will cause us to self-destruct, and it's something we have objective proof of (ie. just look at the world). What you suggest is objective, so what happens in 2012 when nothing happens? Is your theory and 'feelings' about everything wrong? Do you just chalk it up as a "missed prediction" just like when you private messaged me predicting who I was (and was wrong)?

Now we have semi-delusional members spreading information (bette posts in virtually every single thread in this forum) that seem to lack any 'real' fundamental knowledge of the theory. All they do is recite information from the MBT book and lectures Tom has given, and provide no insight of true value. There is a direct comparison here (you could even just call it an analogy) to devout religious people. They found a text that seems to impact their life perfectly, and now they're behind it 110% with no skepticism, just trying to spread the good word by reciting the words they read in that text.

From an outside skeptics perspective, these people add only negative value to the argument by tarnishing it with simply delusional beliefs. I cannot take one single word 'bette' (and some of the other -most active- members on this form that are just regular people who found some higher meaning in their life) says and treat it with any form of logical respect because of absurd objective statements like "The world is going to undergo a massive shift in 2012 towards female type energy." That's what the Y2K people said (there were books written about it and everything)...



All in all, I still believe the best way for me to come to an objective conclusion is by working on meditation and connecting with my inner-self. Because the objective fact that can be proven is, when you die, it's just you and your consciousness...nothing else. That's why I think Buddhists/monks/etc kind of have the right idea, even if they are fundamentally wrong. Live your life for inner peace and happiness because that's all you should do. If you're right, welcome to the afterlife you're ready for it. If you're wrong, you simply fade back into the system and have no memory of what happened...no harm done.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:37 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 10409
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Everyone is a "regular" person, even those scientists. You, and myself included. I can think that it is time once again for a more gentle way of being, that female energy, because it has been done before. History repeats itself, and we have enough of it now to be able to actually look back at it to come up with what probably will happen again. It is none of my business what you think of me paradigm, have a party.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 178 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group