Hello All,

I am new to the Board after becoming "hooked" to Tom's concept after watching his 2009 Toronto presentation. I am a quarter way through MBT and like everyone one else I am very excited about the whole thing in a kinda "skeptical but open-minded sort of way" ; ) [My personal mantra]. I have tons of questions but will hold my fire until I finish MBT as some of the answers will probably unfold along the way.

However, in going through my library I came across the book "The Holgraphic Universe" by Michael Talbot and am struck by the many similarities with MBT. In his Intro, Talbot cites London physicist/Einstein protege David Bohm and Stamford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram as being the "main architects" of his book's underlying "theory" that the universe is "a kind of giant holgram". Both men apparently arrived at this shared view independently after years of dissatisfaction with standard science's inability to explain many of the same phenomena noted by Tom in MBT. Talbot also has numerous references to the work of Bob Monroe.

My question is whether and to what extent Talbot, Bohm, Pribram, et al, may have influenced Tom's development of MBT? Does MBT build on Talbot's (and others) theories or does MBT depart from these earlier theories in any significant way?

Steven,

My Big TOE is not really derivative from anything. Tom says nothing about this reality as being like or being in fact a hologram. A hologram would be 'out there' as a non physical but objective reality. Tom however describes a non physical subjective reality in which the VR that you experience is provided individually to each IUOC participating within it who must then, and subjectively, perceive and interpret the digital data stream provided. It is not that there is a hologram 'out there' that we wander through.

Tom describes one link to ancient knowledge in the Void of ancient mysticism and metaphysics as being the source and origin of everything. He does not describe other links to other concepts, wisdom or sources, ancient or modern or from NPMR, but rather to his own explorations and discoveries and analysis. I have after the fact pointed out that Indra's Net with the jewels of consciousness was an ancient description of what Tom calls the Reality Wide Web with 'attached' IUOCs. But Tom has put this into scientific and mathematical terms, including digital technology, that were not available concepts for the ancients. At the end, he adds references to some who have had ideas pointing in this direction, and digital physics, but who have not carried their thinking or models out into explaining how consciousness arose and is the basis for the existence of the VRs. They are still locked into thinking in terms of PMR and that PMR is central while Tom explains that our PMR is a flyspeck in the totality of the LCS and AUM as reality.

You will in fact find a lot more information as you work your way through Tom's books.

Ted

Hi Steven.

A similar thread has been posted some time ago.

Here it is -> viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2592&p=54556&hilit

Ted,

I was a little disturbed by your reply and didn't really know why so I decided to think about it for a couple of days. I think I now know why.

First, you defensively noted that Tom's work was not "derivative" of anything. Please read back and see that it was you who used that word and not I. I merely asked if Tom was in any way influenced by Talbot's earlier work which, regardless of the use of the word "holographic" in its title, contains a number of the same themes Tom presents in MBT.

It should also be noted that Talbot himself notes that the word should be viewed metaphorically. He didn't suggest that the universe is an actual hologram any more than Tom believes NPMR to be his actual "big toe". Correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't that the reason why Tom came up with such an apparently nonsensical title? To avoid falling into a semantic trap over word meanings or being "pigeon-holed" much like you've done with respect to Talbot?

Upon reflection, perhaps what really bothered me about your response was its seemingly "knee-jerk" and, frankly, improbable belief that only Tom Campbell alone could have "cornered the market" on a idea of reality so enlightening, all-encompassing and important for the human race.

Put it this way. Tom maintains that he "has been encouraged" to share his understanding and experiences with as many as possible. Now, I haven't yet heard him say who exactly it was that "encouraged" him but I'll go out on a limb and say that it was his "guides" or "entities". Okay, if so, are we to believe, or accept rather, that one lone physicist from Huntsville, Alabama, was chosen to be the sole conduit of this "message" to the rest of humanity? Well, if so, this is all a bit too "messianic" for my taste or my thinking.

Instead, I believe, if asked, Tom would agree that it is more probable than not that other "free thinkers" may have also been "encouraged" to share their similar experiences and understanding of a "superset" or whatever nomenclature they chose to describe the indescribable, e.g. "holographic universe." For those who love movies as I do, picture hundreds of people all over the world making mashed-potato sculptures of "A Big Toe."

So, although my question remains about Talbot, I ask more broadly, is Tom aware of any other individuals who may have developed theories "of any other name" that closely ressemble "My Big Toe"? Logic dictates that such others exist. Has Tom found any of these individuals?

And thanks Ingerul9. I did find that thread.

Steven,

I think that you would have been less 'disturbed' by my statement if you had already completed your reading of MBT and were more familiar with what has transpired over time here on the Bulletin Board. I don't consider it to be defensive but rather 'factual' to note that Tom's work is not derivative of anything. I have numerous times noted that it is 'in line' and has parallels and points of contact with conceptualizations and experiences of many, which Tom did not himself so clearly state in my understanding, from shamanic practitioners of all ages and societies through the Buddha and Indian metaphysicians of antiquity and mystics of all persuasions and times. I made reference to this in terms of some specifics and I have some familiarity from my past experience with all of these various conceptual sources. Tom in the last portions of Book three, which you have not yet read, includes references to scientists of note (Talbot not among them) who have had ideas with some congruity, typically not carried through and extended, with concepts in his books. You might also note that while Talbot's book that you reference was dated as copyrighted in 1991, Tom's trilogy was dated as copyrighted in its original edition in 2003. Hardly a time span, if Tom had been even aware of his book before publication of his own, to have made any use of concepts from it to develop and write his own, especially considering that as self published, Tom's books were not afforded the fast track given to books published through regular publishing houses such as HarperCollins which published Talbot's book. Once you complete your reading, you will perhaps note that Tom was eager to include significant insights of others pointing in the same direction and appears to have referenced what he knew of.

I have on numerous occasions made comments to the point that it becomes clear with time that while Tom was given what he has done as an 'assignment' from NPMR and prepared and tested for it both before and during his lifetime, there are likely many others, including practicing scientists, who achieved their understandings of something in congruence with Tom's general understanding of the importance of Consciousness in the nature of reality. That these have been potentially 'nudged' in this direction by the LCS or may have simply been led to their conclusions by the general and developing advance of this concept among working scienists. I have specifically pointed out that it is characteristic within the Larger Consciousness System to be given information on a 'need to know' basis as opposed to being told everything and that Tom has clearly developed his understanding and abilities as time has gone on since I first 'met up' with him and this Board has been going on. Tom has specifically noted that his model of reality, as stated in MBT, is not available within NPMR in some kind of universal reference or available in some kind of educational process. I have even had the opportunity, and with Tom's blessings, to extend the thinking and statement regarding some details of Tom's model that he has found useful as specifically the concept of the Virtual Reality Rendering Engine. Tom has commented to the effect that he expects his understanding and model to be extended further in the future by those who work on it diligently. He specifically abjures 'gurudom'.

Whatever your 'taste' may be, the situation is what it is. Tom describes having been for some extended time a protege of the present chief administrator of what Tom refers to as Our System as a substantial group (out of many such systems) of NPMRs and PMRs that are associated into one organized entity. That is, before what he refers to as The Big Cheese took office. He does not claim this as a special relationship unique to himself as he describes TBC as having characteristically worked with and mentored a network of such other NPMR entities as himself. Lest you take offense at his 'familiarity' with TBC by giving him that facetious name, note that he does it to make clear that TBC is not God but rather an entity of great capabilities who has come up 'through the ranks' and can be petitioned, as at least one board member has successfully done, for redress of grievances and a request for assistance. He also makes clear that there is not some fixed hierarchy of rulership unending within the LCS but that it is a bureaucracy subject to growth and change and is also not a democracy. Unless you or some other achieves the ability to consciously explore to the extent that Tom does and finds some basis for disputing what Tom states, we take his statements with the open minded skepticism that Tom himself advocates.

Of course 'holographic universe' is a metaphor. All words are metaphors. Nothing exists except in relationship to other concepts which exist in an information based reality such as the LCS. However, there are problems as I point out with this metaphor in describing PMR and how it is generated and experienced. I did not choose this metaphor to describe what Talbot has written about, Talbot did. Perhaps he is right. Tom does not however describe it in that way within his books nor do I see it that way but rather see considerable problems with the metaphor. I am not aware of having read the book nor am I likely to do so. I have neither the money nor the time to do such book buying and reading as I have done in the past.

I can not see why Steve got so disturbed, although i myself have here, and many other places too. I just never personally let anybody know, i just recognize my ego generated by fear and deal with it. We are here to grow up and deal with our negative emotions, this has been my view decades before i came across Toms work. Entropy reduction is what Tom calls it. I have been studding QM and consciousness for many years, and i have read at least a hundred books or so before i came across MBT. This highly scientific description of how realty works is truly ground breaking, there has been nothing like this before that i know about, only very abstract descriptions of the workings of reality. There are many similarities of things that relate to this model, there are none that even come close to it in my view, to the overall description of how reality works in a logical scientific way. Quantum mechanics and why light is a constant fall out of this model as clear as light. The paranormal and many other mysteries can now be answered logically and scientifically. It is hard to say where all of the influences came from that nudged Tom on this path, i would guess the main nudge would be a so called traumatic event in his experience here, that lead him to this point. Sabby

Sabby -

Tom Campbell tells us, at least the beginners, over and over to remain "skeptical but open-minded" in our work in trying to understand his concepts, correct? When one is skeptical, one raises questions and hopefully get answers in an iterative process in an effort to address his or her skepticism(s), right? So, if one gets a nonresponsive reply to a question or worse, a knee-jerk defensive and condenscending response, you could see how the original skepticism, which Tom Campbell say he expects and embraces, not only remains but actually increases. Especially, when the response is from a forum administrator who is supposed to set an example for the rest of the board members. In this situation, the originator of the question has every right to be "a little disturbed". Not an "ego" or "fear" thing at all.

Initial defensiveness by MBT proponents to a reasonably skeptical question is, however, solely motivated by "fear", "anger" and "ego". This is something that you might want to think hard about, Sabby.

It would be very convenient for every board MBT proponent to answer any question raised by the "great unwashed" by suggesting that the question was raised out of "fear", "anger" or any other "ego" motivation. Yes very convenient but very scientifically and philosophically lazy, hurtful to beginners and so detrimental to the main purpose of this board and Tom's "assignment".

Of any other board on the Internet, THIS board should be the BEST at treating honest skepticism in a more mature, unemotional and scientific manner.

I don't feel there is a feeling of others being unclean for not knowing about or being ready to understand the MBT concepts. Some people will never understand it at any level, but they are not the "unwashed" nor is any sort of judgement spent on that. I agree that this board should be one of the best, and I think it is. People are people though and knowing this is a VR doesn't make someone better than someone without this understanding. It doesn't automatically create sainthood.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Lighten up Steve we all get our ego bruised a little sometimes. It happens to me probably a few time a month, i am getting better with dealing with that fear that creates that annoying ego. Me and Ted do not see things eye to eye very often, and i was not defending him. He needs no help there, the point i was trying to make was, i could see nothing that was not answered appropriately. And also i thought i would add my views as to maybe help you out, no harm meant. There is a lot to be learned here as to help us grow up. Good luck on your interactions on the forum. Sabby

The core issue here may be your presumption that a very good model translates into very good behavior. My view is that Ted is highly optimized for his task, which is mostly to execute the left hemispheric arts of TOE model discussion and Board management...and in this he is a savant.

His interactions can fall short of warm and fuzzy, however, in the above interaction, you are getting Ted at his best in this regard. The vast magority of newcomers have your reaction, have hurt feelings, are perplexed, and move on.

I will share with you some alternate interpretations

While Ted is optimized for this task, which requires an unhuman thick skin, Tom is more balanced and reflects the overall perfection of skill and love that you require, when you see him in action in real life, so do not dismiss this school of thinking based on your perception of Teds behavior.

The TOEist school has a Monroian provenance, reinforced by Tom and Ted of what I would call macho mysticism, and the style can be disturbing for those acclimated to feminine new age touchy feely interactive style. The thing is, love, is intent, not soft words, pacifism or gratutious ego stroking.

Consider the style of the zen master, which is very in your face and constantly challenges the ego of the novice, and the whack of the instructors stick.

Dr. Ted has been doing this for a long time, and is a disturbingly clever fellow who is interpreting the intent behind your words and thinking three moves ahead...he has been provided by AUM to you as a free service, and once you learn to trust him and use him with competence, you will move forward rapidly. In truth, one cannot move forward effectively without completing the Trilogy.

If Ted has made an incorrect deduction regarding the intent of your words, the correct response from a low entropy newcomer is to politely correct the situation, and out of politeness, say, "sorry, I was not clear in my posting". The higher entropy individual invests their resources in blaming other for their frustration.

While some persons of limited capacity may be humoured and receive hand holding, you are obviously a person of advanced capacity and Ted is respecting that potential by talking to you as an equal who does not require special handling.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?