MBT assumes that 1)consciousness is. 2)the fundamental process.
Since consciousness has to be a large finite amount.

Can consciousness be created or destroyed?

Babak,

We need a context, a knowledge of your understanding of MBT and to what specifically, in what sense, do you refer to consciousness to answer your question. As an example, an IUOC can in fact be destroyed and Tom has explained and discussed this, although it is a rare occurrence. But is that what you are talking about? Then there is The One Consciousness, currently referred to by Tom as AUM and the LCS, depending upon which aspect is being referred to. Are you asking if this could be destroyed, as in deliberately from within? Or are you asking if there are some kinds of external threats from 'outside' that could cause the LCS to end? Or are you asking if, just as the Void started up its 'process' of interactions of data within the reality cells, could those cells and data simply stop interacting? Have you read Tom's books or Tom's model on the Wiki? I doubt if many of those questions could be answered as there is no way that anyone can know. And if it happened, 'no one' would know as we and everything else would simply cease to exist.

Ted

Thanks Ted,

Yes I have read MBT. I guess I am looking at the larger consciousness as I would look at the total energy in the universe. When IUOC increases in quality where does that increase come from? Is the total larger consciousness some fixed amount?

Babak,

You seem to be in part confusing quantity and quality. The concept is that by participating in PMRs, IUOCs improve their Quality of Consciousness by the effects of the intense interaction, with each other and with the environment as the rule set of PMR. Going on from there, the aggregate effect of this improvement on individual IUOCs in sum, since we are AUM as the sum of all IUOCs operating together, means that the QOC of AUM is likewise incrementally improved. AUM does reportedly continually create new IUOCs in order to somehow increase the 'quantity' of its consciousness as it is never known just what any given, new IUOC will contribute. Does this give you a better 'picture' to understand?

Ted

Thomas Campbell said that there is no such thing as infinity because reality, both physical and non-physical, is finite.

Robert Monroe's experiences showed him that levels of consciousness increase based on the number 7. His non-physical teacher, Miranon, explained that humans could tap into 49 levels of consciousness. However, higher levels of consciousness were beyond reach, given our collective lower vibration. According to Miranon, level 21 was the bridge to the non-physical realms from 22 to 49.

Thomas Campbell said that beings are either evolving or de-evolving. In channeled readings, Edgar Cayce described the soul’s separation from its source and descent into the realm of matter as involution. He said that any movement back toward the source was called evolution. According to Edgar Cayce's readings, when beings cease to evolve, they are cast for purification – like the reformatting of a drive that contains a virus. The soul gets wiped clean and starts again. Cayce says the planet Saturn carries out this function.

Lots to ponder. Regardless, there is a divine design.

Light, Love and Laughter,
Elizabeth, http://wwwdiamondlantern.com

Thanks Ted

Back to the subject matter. Consciousness is cumulative.
According to Tom the quality of each individual consciousness can be centuries old. MBT says the only way to increase my QOC is to BECOME LOVE, deflate my ego and ultimately get rid of my fears(I am paraphrasing). But isn't LOVE much different today than it was 500 years ago? Smaller population less interactions, variations in cultures and therefore fewer opportunities to increase the QOC-mine that is. 500 years ago I might have increased my QOC by inhibiting others from growing. But today my love comes in the form of "constant thought of others". Do the guidelines of increasing the QOC in this experiment stay the same for all beings? Does AUM play favorites?

Hello Babak,

regarding your first post, I understood something different when reading MBT. I didn't interpret that consciouness is the fundamental process. In fact, I think Tom hints that the fundamental process may be more "fundamental " and "external" to consciouness itself (AUO/AUM). My interpretation is that the fundamental process acts upon consciouness, but it is not consciouness, in fact, you can say that evolution as defined by Darwin is simply one of the "expressions" of the fundamental process. Just my opinion, possibly debatable.

Regarding your last post, are you not thinking of love in a "reductionist" or strict sense? If you talk about "unconditional love", then multiple religions or spiritual teachings point to the same qualities, wouldn't you agree? The Christian "Agape" is one of the possible terms to describe this unconditional love, but you will find this concept in other traditions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

Sorry about the commas, but English is not my mother language, so it is a barrier to communication here...

Best wishes

Merlin

Babak,

Merlin is pointing out here the same thing that I have pointed out numerous times on the board. The concept of love and 'becoming love' that Tom is describing is not romantic love, although it can be included, but indeed as agape and also those other concepts and types of love that are distinguished in other languages than English. It isn't so much as primary that one becomes love as a specific 'aim'. It is rather that as one develops ones Quality of Consciousness and understands one's place within Reality as an IUOC and thus as part of AUM at a very fundamental level, one therefore understands ones relationship to all other IUOCs and naturally develop just such an unconditional love as Merlin points out.

Merlin, I see no basis for you to apologize for your English skills which seem excellent. And personally I insert commas into writing to put in the inflections, representative in part of meaning, that goes with speech. That is, writing as if I were speaking with 'breaks' or pauses indicated by commas rather than just string all the words together, leaving the phrasing to the readers imagination. What is 'correct', I no longer remember, if I ever did.

Ted

Thank you Ted.

another way to look at this is that you get born, which is assignment of your IOUC which is constrained by the big ruleset to your sensor platform which is constrained by the local PMR ruleset. The shifting of datastream to the sensor platform begins before birth and is not complete until late toddlerhood, on average.

Then you have this period of entraining the physical body and emotions to the physical and FWAUian environment, interacting with stuff and other IUOC avatars. Hand on stove...don't do that twice. Hit another sensor platform, get hit back.

beyond toddlerhood, in childhood, most discover at the mental level the more subtle PMR rulesets such as short term pain for long term gain, logic and scientific method, and discipline which permits translating this ability to connect the dots into profitable action.

a few don't master this aspect of incarnation and require other sensor platforms to constrain their day, i.e. prison guards or parole officers.

The IOUC/FWUA/Sensor Platform configuration that masters the physical and mental rulesets is however still incomplete. What is described is the competent sociopath. I am sure we each know of and have interacted with such persons...devoid of autonomic/organic empathy.

So, physical entrainment begins in toddlerhood, mental entrainment largely initiates in childhood, but empathy entrainment and the higher ruleset stuff normally begins in teenagehood....very roughly speaking...its an over simplified model.

The core of the theory is that in some way, humans and all that live are subject to this higher ruleset of empathy. While there is an emotional aspect to this, this intuitive experience of feeling the pain and joy of other's experience, that empathy informs our intent and decisions regarding these other FWAUs running around.

From a PMR aspect we attach this label "love" to this paradigm...and it sort of overlaps with infatuitive, filial, maternal/paternal love in many ways, though the english confusion over this one word is not helpful.

So, as a toddler, we may be attracted to the idea of touching the stove out of curiosity, we do it, feel negative feedback, and create a rule for our personal Theory of Physicality (TOP I).

As a child, we learn to save our allowance to obtain objects that we want, and we learn the futility of blowing our allowance on candy or gambling it away playing marbles or something, and create rules for our Theory of Practicality (Top II).

In teenage years, we shoot a bird or we bully someone in school, we save a turtle on the road or stand up for someone being bullied, and we experience feedback, largely emotional and after the fact. Most of us experience positive feedback from empathetic intent->decisions->actions, and most of us normally configured experience negative feedback from non-empathetic egoic intent->decisions->actions.

The astute begin to connect the dots and think, well, that felt nice, or that felt bad...as a separate mysterious "erogenous zone" operating independently of physicality or practicality....i.e. sometimes an action might physically be uncomfortable or even hurt, and be dangerous or not practical...but we do it nevertheless and harvest this higher ruleset positive feedback, which also then according to Tom slightly rewires us on the fundamental level making us more efficient on the level that counts in the eternal paradigm.

So our being changes, our quality improves just a little bit, and this changes our decision tree over time. At the mental level we start to construct our Theory of Love (TOL), which put together with TOP I and TOP II = our Theory of Everything (TOE). It should probably be (toe) or something to distinguish it from the specifically physics context of a TOE.

So while there is an emotional, or para-emotional aspect to this process, it is in a way sociopathology in the big picture...or the way of the fully informed and effective sociopath...in that...if this connection between all that lives is true, if positive feedback is true...love=smart. It is not self sacrifice...it only appears to be self sacrifice to the uninformed, in the shorter term.

12 step largely focuses on correcting this confusion about the interactive ruleset, understanding that a lot of addiction is driven by the causal vector of negative feedback which is in turn caused by non-empathetic intent regarding others

The irony of love is that it is like the monkey with his hand stuck in the coconut monkey trap, he has to let go of the banana, to get the banana. The grasping of ego for things and to control others, ironically, is what holds us back from winning the marathon of profitable interactive relationships and getting approval from "the system" to move forward materially.

Loving other centered intent and action toward boss, colleague, client, is the tried and true path to material wealth, and the Nazarene talked about this.

Wealth is not a thing to be grasped, it is something to be created cooperatively by groups through honest interactive exchange and contracts, and this is why the higher ruleset is so closely aligned with prosperity, and why ego and fear is so closely aligned with isolation and scarcity.

so with physical, pragmatic and poetic competence, we become fully human according to our design, completing our purpose, and ready for the next level.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?