Where is George Kavassilas' criticism of New Age approaches to reality? He certainly sounds like New Age to me. Dimensions, ascension, etc. with his overview amounting to generalities and vagueness as best I can see it. He seems tied to a time table linked to the Mayan calendar which has recently been found to say nothing in particular about anything special happening in December of this year. To repeat a link I provided to one report on this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/ ... -doomsday/
By the way, thank you for sticking to the purpose of this bulletin board rather than just proselytizing for what is obviously your present choice of starting concepts as it is obviously now your starting point and the source of your 'avatar' name. Persons are welcome on that basis as opposed to just seeking readers for their own web sites. There are several board members, including myself, with their own web sites based upon an origin with the concepts of MBT
. My web site does not start from Tom's work but is very much subordinate at the end to Tom's work and I maintain it as only a matter of describing other approaches to Tom's work from more general mysticism.
Tom does not state the links to past perceptions of reality that match his model, but I do. I am preparing pages on the Wiki that do so. They will be made public after Tom has reviewed them. I have described this before on the board. Tom mentions only the Void as the beginning of everything out of ancient mysticism and metaphysics. Then he goes into a more science based description of the development of consciousness and our reality as we experience it. You might look at the model as written up on the Wiki. http://wiki.my-big-toe.com/index.php/Th ... _Link_Page
It might provide you with a clear understanding of what gets stated in the books by Tom. It is not written as beginners level however with all the discussion. There is a very succinct way to state what Tom says in his books, linking to pure mathematics as well as ancient mysticism.
I suspect that George Kavassilias' references to other systems amounts to the multiple systems that make AUO into AUM. Tom does a certain amount of speculation as to the possible existence of other systems with other consciousnesses such as AUM but basically they would not be available to us under the present model. Whether we could communicate if they were encountered would depend upon whether there is only one version of those aspects of pure mathematics involved in the base level development of AUM and the LCS and which we do not have direct access to. That is, when viewed as a cellular automaton, would other AUMs have developed from the same version and rule set for a cellular automaton which resulted in the development of this particular instance of an AUM. Would they have followed the same path of development and resulted in comparable systems? We do not know the rule set for this Cellular Automaton or whether it is a unique basis for the development of a consciousness system such as the one we inhabit or if there are other aspects of pure mathematics, other rule sets for CA, that are equally capable of developing consciousness and resulting in the creation of an AUM level 'being' or system. If the rule sets were different, communication might not be possible. Compare this to trying to connect railway systems where the width between rails were different as an analogy and so the wheel spacing on one system would not match the wheel spacing on another system and trains not be able to switch from one system to the other. In any case, that would be a problem for AUM to solve at the system level as it is far above our 'pay grade'. It is presumed that such a situation has not arisen so far as the provision for consciousness to us all as IUOCs by AUO in becoming AUM as providing 'someone to talk to' and something to occupy all of the time available is part of our understanding of the reasons that things have developed as they have.