Tom,

I realize that you can't take your camera with you so have you ever made any drawings or paintings of the landscapes and lifeforms you have encountered in your explorations? I would love to see them if such illustrations exist.

I'm a little more than a third of the way through the second book.

I really appreciate your interaction with your audience it says a lot about you.

rp,

To save Tom a little time, I will give an initial answer that Tom will supplement or reject as he sees necessary. Tom has never mentioned any such representations of non PMR beings or experiences. He has explained that he left verbal descriptions and such out of MBT as this would represent "entertainment value only". He has recently given some limited description of activities in NPMR on this forum. The link is: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2668 This is System Aspects under Spiritual & Personal Growth. You will probably have to read all the thread to find all the pertinent parts. He has also repeatedly discussed the subjective nature of appearances to PMR residents of their experience and contacts in NPMR and the greater reality in general. In other words, such pictures would tell you nothing about what you might experience or might apparently see if you were there in the same 'place' and 'time', place and time being PMR concepts not applicable outside of PMR. NPMR is not constrained by the same rule set that results in green grass, blue sky, houses, dogs, cats, etc. here in PMR. The constraints, the rule set, that does exist is much looser and such experience is hard to put into normal terms that you are used to. Descriptions here are really translations into terms of what we see here rather than understandable descriptions of what was really experienced there.

Ted Vollers

[quote="Ted Vollers"]rp,

He has explained that he left verbal descriptions and such out of MBT as this would represent "entertainment value only".

Ted Vollers[/quote]

Good morning Ted. Thanks for the reply. I don't know that such things would be for entertainment only. Lewis and Clarke's illustrations and commentary on what they discovered and experienced inspired and motivated countless people. It would be perfectly correct to say that no one who followed them experienced the same things they did either, however their descriptions and illustrations were helpful and communicated to some degree the nature and substance of their experience to others.

Take a look at: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2796

Jeez, first Christopher Columbus and now Lewis and Clark -- are you guys ganging up on me?

Same question -- same answer

Tom C

I have never been to any NPMR and the develpment of the quality of my consciousness is infinitesimal; therefore, I can only speak with my limited intelect and little else. However, I think I get the idea: defining an n-dimensional matrix, whose dimensions are not space related, in terms of a 3D space matrix is obviously impossible and of little value. That applies to any NPMRn and any simulations within that are not space related. However, Tom says that we are not the only space related simulation and there are other PMRs, whose physics vary between very similar to ours to very different. Starting from these premises (are they correct?) I deduce that, having visited other 3D-space PMRs, it should be possible to make a very understandable and accurate description thereof, given their similarity to ours. Thus, regardless of how impossible it is to try to define any NPMR in terms of our PMR, it should be certainly very possible to define any of the PMRs that are similar to ours.

Why hasn't Tom done so? I guess it would not accomplish much (if at all) in terms of helping us get an idea of who and what we are, how to evolve the quality of our consciousness, how to have an OOBE, how to develop our own Big TOE, etc. In any case, I must confess that I would also be delighted to have a short description of how some of those other PMRs' physics works, how their societies function, etc. However, I understand that making such descriptions must be a hassle and it consumes lots of time that can be put to better use. Nonetheless, I will never forget how great it was the first time I read "Journeys out of the body" and got to the chapter where Bob Monroe described Locale III, a place very similar to our world, but whose scientific development had to evolve without the discovery of electricity! Damn, that was exciting! :)

Quanta,

Good analysis. You have pretty much hit the nail on the head with the exception that you don't emphasize the fact that discussing those other PMRs has an upside that is primarily of entertainment value (cool stories) and a downside that is a loss of credibility among the less open-minded (i.e., the great majority). What is of entertainment value is what catches all the attention and drives image, press reports, reviews, peoples questions, the content of interviews, etc. Sensationalism and entertainment sells -- so that is what gets emphasized. More interest, more enthusiasm, more publicity, more money, and less significance -- and worse, less potential to be generally helpful to the largest number of people. Soon it is difficult to force the conversation toward anything else other than the descriptions of NPMR.

Result: That inconsequential facet of my experience crowds out what is important and pushes away those who might have connected with the deeper significance of MBT. For example, this discussion group would disappear (become impossible) as a serious forum for the nature of reality because it would be overwhelmed with meaningless questions about the funny little conical people that wobble to get around and who communicate telepathically with music. I stone-wall this area completely in my books and on these boards and still the interest in descriptions of NPMR are relentless. It is what people want to hear about. The down side to giving them what they want is that because of the way people and hubbub gravitate toward entertainment, the great majority of otherwise potential readers will eventually write you off as a goof ball with little to offer beyond unsubstantiated wild stories. Your ability to make a significant difference that is both deep and broad evaporates as the more objective community and the great majority in the center of Western culture (rapidly spreading world wide) write you off as not having anything serious to contribute because entertaining fluff has now obscures your message to all but those who are headed down that path anyway -- i.e., you are stuck in the New Age and pop-metaphysics margins and will remain there no matter what else you write or say.

True enough, being stuck may include a barrel full of money, because working the margin is very lucrative, but that is not the point. I am shooting for both deep and broad. It would be terrific if MBT's message/concepts/understanding could crawl out of the margins and boost our collective human understanding a notch or two -- our world is certainly in desperate need for that sort of understanding whether they know it or not. That outcome is still a possibility partly because I do stone-wall the clamor for NPMR descriptions. The logical approach and good science in MBT is pulling in smart readers from the center who previously were not within the metaphysical margins and who previously wrote off New Age as superfluous fluff. It is opening some eyes and minds and developing new credibility in this area of study as it slowly spreads by word of mouth. This is a good sign for MBT's potential to make a more substantial contribution than providing some gee-whiz entertainment for the margin dwellers.

You know, I am a margin dweller - they are my friends and supporters, my natural constituency, I love ‘em, but I am hoping to initiate something bigger -- to fill a critical need that spreads way beyond the margins.

To more directly answer your question: Why? Teeny weenie upside - great big downside. That's why.

Tom C

Tom,

So, tell us more about these funny little conical people that wobble to get around and who communicate telepathically with music? That sounds fascinating!
Kidding, of course. I still say that the fact that you have taken this approach shows what you are about (helping others bootstrap their consiousness quality) and what you are not about (money, money, MONNNEEY...and fame). You have my respect in so many ways. I know that there are plenty of others here that greatly appreciate what you have done.
At first, I was a little disappointed in the lack of NPMR descriptions. Then, as the meaning of MBT sank in further, I realized the importance of your message. You couldn't be who you are supposed to be this time if you took the route others have already followed. You are blazing trails. You took the road less traveled by...and that has made all the difference.

Thanks for being you,
Ramon

I agree with Ramon. Ditto with what he said. Thanks Tom!

_________________
always, John

I recommend everyone read "Communion". I'm pretty sure what Mr Strieber experienced was real to his experience, but his accounts of NPMR are so "out-there", it just seems like he's making one big joke...or he's completely insane.

Great book. But, after reading it, I completely understand where Tom is coming from.

I've read a few of Whitley's books and listened to him on coast to coast and he seems bright and lucid. It just shows how NPMR experience is interpreted in the context of personal experience. He presents his analysis to the best of his understanding, and appears to be wacko. I suspect most of us don't write out our personal experiences because we know/feel how limited our viewpoint is. I know that applies to my own, and they increase in value as my understanding expands.

_________________
always, John

"Take a look at: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2796

Jeez, first Christopher Columbus and now Lewis and Clark -- are you guys ganging up on me?

Same question -- same answer

Tom C"

Sorry Chief! My bad. I understand what you're getting at. Having not experienced those realms myself, and being a visually oriented person, I can not help but wonder what those visual experiences are like. Had I read your previous response more carefully I would have spared you the Lewis and Clark reference. :)

That said, I'm sure some of you are familiar with Alex Grey's' work. He produces some incredibly fantastic images that are 'inspired' by his mystical experiences. Some of them at least are 'attempts' at depicting what he experienced but I believe most are not and are conceptional works.