Hi Tom.
Thanks for all your sharing. I loved your trilogy, but was a little alarmed by a couple of things I heard you say on video clips, so please understand if I have taken anything out of context, as I may not have heard all your comments.
The comment that caught my attention was you saying the problem with a welfare state is that it takes the motivation away from people, and you mentioned the saying about giving a man a fish, or teaching him how to fish.
I regard our economic system as economic slavery, one in which people are taught how to fish, and then forced to hand over at least half of their fish just for the privilege of sleeping somewhere. I don't consider enslaving people as motivations to be a sharing being. I think a healthy person likes to share with others, as it is part of being a loving, conscious person.
I don't consider free access to land and water as a welfare state. I consider our current system a corporate-welfare state, in which individuals(via corporations) are given land and resources which they profit from at the expense of the rest of us. I consider the land and resources things to be shared by all humans, not owned by a few and sold to others for their labor.
Martin Luther King jr, along with many others, have the idea that guaranteed income is the best way to end poverty, but You mention that in countries with little wealth, the people may have better loving connections than we in the west, and so it seems you suggest that we are helping them evolve by neglecting them. I agree with you that we are here to evolve and become more loving, but I don't see letting others starve, or enslaving others, as loving acts. It has been said that we could end poverty with less than 4 percent of the world military budget, but maybe you don't like to get into this as you have said that some of your income has come from military budgets.(aren't military and NASA a form of corporate welfare)
You seem to be saying that if we changed our economic system so that people aren't enslaved just to have land to sleep on and water to drink, that people would have no motivation to grow, and would just lay around and do nothing. That makes no sense to me, as I see healthy humans as wanting to grow and share.
You talk about doing energy healings on people, while also saying there is no free lunch in regards to humanity "waking up" due to a shift in frequencies around 2012, and I wonder, isn't a distance healing on someone a form of a free lunch for the one receiving the healing.
I really love most of the things you share, so I would really appreciate some feedback, although I'm amazed you have time to respond to any questions.
Thank you Uncle Tom,
Sincerely,
Treok Walker

Troek,

Perhaps Tom will find a moment to give you an answer as he has dropped by on the board recently in the midst of his traveling, speaking and his grandson's problems. Mostly it seems to me that you are crossing more than one concept up and thereby confusing them. I think the basis of Tom's thinking here, not knowing specifically to what you are referring as to his statements, is that the purpose of the VRs of the PMR type is to be simply and baldly put, difficult. They require effort as no food is available unless you work for it, by at least hunting for it. The environment is difficult and typically requires effort to produce shelter. This is all in comparison to NPMR where you have none of these needs nor any of these problems.

The no free lunch commonly is Tom commenting on there not being a sudden rise in the QoC of everyone in 2012 based upon some kind of gift from heaven. The purpose of this VR is for us to interact with the environment and each other upon a good, quality basis despite the difficulties and to pay attention to the feedback, thereby enjoying a more rapid entropy reduction because of the intensity of effort required. That is what the system was specifically designed for and it won't change its nature because of a New Age fantasy. No free lunch.

Ted

Treok,

I generally agree with your sentiments... they obviously come from a caring place... you have read more into my words than was intended.

Some thoughts on utopian systems:
The problem with utopian systems -- Communism, capitalism, socialism, as well as most other socioeconomic-government systems are all utopian systems -- is that there is always a large gap between theory and practice. Any socioeconomic-government system will eventually evolve to represent the quality of consciousness in the population. Both leadership and the masses are drawn from the population. Our system reflects us; it is mostly about fear, ego, control, power and force -- just as we are mostly about fear, ego, control, power and force. It is said that "power corrupts absolutely", but that is untrue. Power does not corrupt, it simply provides an opportunity for the corrupt to express themselves in a way that is harder to ignore. The word “absolutely” implies that corruption is ubiquitous if not universal.

This does not imply that there is no hope, or that we should not work to improve the system – obviously improvements are desperately needed. Generating a constant pressure to move the system toward a more caring and loving system is required so change can be more quickly actualized as the population increases the quality of its consciousness (a very slow process). The best, most effective way to improve any socioeconomic-government system is to raise the quality of consciousness of individuals within its population to the point that stable long term positive change can be supported within the system.

Tom

Wait a minute, that implies that we are inherently born corrupt! That is absurd! Don't forget that we are born in this world clueless and we learn things from our environment. I do agree that our society reflects our state back to us but that also is true in imprinting those qualities into certain individuals who are exposed to those... values upon birth.

Tom, your comment basically says that people are inherently bad, that they carry the seeds of corruption within their souls from before being born. Am i reading your statement correctly? Or do you mean that because some souls are higher entropy than others they are more susceptible to vibrations of corruption?

HE,

You are probably reading what Tom said correctly but interpreting it incorrectly. Do you understand all of the discussion about how the whole purpose of this VR and our being here is to reduce our entropy? Do you understand that entropy in terms of our consciousness refers to disorder of our digital minds, both in the sense of reality cells within our minds that simply contain garbage, non functional information, code that does not work, as well as having functional code that does work but has its interactions skewed as in failing to understand who it is and what its limitations are as it functions as the mind of a human, i.e. it has a very bad viewpoint?

Another way to state this is that the thinking of such persons is corrupted. Did you never encounter a child that from the earliest age was aggressive, hitting other children and always angry, remaining a bully as it grew up until it could become worse? Have you never encountered an older person who while able to control their aggressions still had them and kept them secret until they could act with impunity as in secret? Have you never encountered a criminal who came out of such a developmental sequence? Does this not explain Tom's words although probably more of an extreme case than Tom meant in the general sense. This kind of negative behavior comes in a whole spectrum of degree and that is what you get to straighten out in a kindergarten PMR.

Ted

Ted i have met people such as you describe but can you understand what the ramifications of such thinking are if attributed to a certain group of people? For example to preach that people are inherently corrupt sounds very similar to Hitler's thinking, like spiritual eugenics. If one believed that one nation's people for example were inherently bad then he/she would feel justified to act upon this thinking. There is enough social profiling as it is, enough racism. Let's not inflame the situation by stating that some people are born criminals(Yes i do stretch it to the extreme).

I believe that generally it is a bad idea to inform people that they (may) carry certain characteristics inherently within their minds. I believe that such labeling can produce hatred and racism. I can see that there is good reason why We(In general) should not see the whole picture. Information can hurt us here PRECISELY because we are not perfect, precisely because we tend to distort things. There sure is such a thing as not being ready to receive certain information. Informing someone that they are bad sometimes may bind to another belief within them and altogether create a new monster.

Let's assume that we have a person who's prone to aggression but he does not realize it the way other people outside him do. Maybe he thinks he is justified for being angry for his own egotistical reasons. Now if an influential person talks to him about it and tells him that he is inherently prone to aggression because he is bad then this generates a theory into this persons mind(It is always a theory because this is the first stage a foreign idea has to pass before it reaches our core, our inner self). Now here's the interesting part. If this angry person also has the belief of determinism then one plus one equals two. That person might construct a theory deep down that he is inherently a bad person when combining those two beliefs together and later acting upon it. Beliefs are dangerous. Sometimes we make dangerous associations in our heads because we do not have proper perspective to distinguish that sometimes the things that seem to combine do not necessarily have to do so.

In light of this there is a chance that every thought we project onto the outside world might carry seeds that will create ill thoughts, even if those seeds are spawned of good intentions. There are people who will take a general good thought, twist it and create something truly monstrous within their microcosms.

You might think that knowledge to avoid that sort of thing is ubiquitous those modern days but that sure is wrong. There is the POTENTIAL of gaining knowledge but most people don't ever bother taking up this quest. Most people consult their own minds and those that they can trust, without ever questioning why they do trust those that they trust. It just "feels" right to them.


This is why we ought to be careful with what we project out there. We never know how much we influence others, into what way and extend we do.


Tom in the beginning of his book encourages the reader to cut down harmful beliefs. That is a process, a difficult one not just in terms of inner strength to eradicate known ones but also due to inability to detect the rest which are hidden and ingrained within the most basic premises of our understanding of reality.

HE,

You are making clear that there are many things that you are simply not understanding about what Tom has to say in My Big TOE. He provides a model of our reality, not just here but including the non physical base reality of Consciousness Space that contains it. I find this model to be very complete, technically believable and supportable by present day science, and also consistent with what metaphysicians of all ages have had to say. He does not say that those from some countries or ethnic groups or any other social groups are inherently negative in some characteristic and lacking in development or in some way deficient. That is a gross misinterpretation on your part.

What Tom says is that the real you, the real us, are Individuated Units of Consciousness which are 'native' to that underlying base reality of Consciousness Space where we are digital based minds. He further explains that those minds are of all levels of development and capacity, from the lowest level of consciousness equivalent to single celled organisms through the highest level that we can comprehend here and beyond. There are constantly being created new such IUOCs and the new ones have higher levels of disorder within their beings, higher entropy, than those 'older' IUOCs that have had this disorder gradually converted into useful capacity as the IUOCs are passed through PMR cycles and also to some extent as they exist over time within NPMRs. What he never said, because it is absolutely not true, is that these IUOCs possess gender, although they may be seen to have masculine or feminine characteristics. Nor did he ever say that they have any kind of ethnicity (race) nor that they have any kind of nationality or other way to be grouped such as we consider here in PMR. It simply is not that way and that is the real understanding that can tell you of the artificiality and insignificance of those things which are so troublesome here. They do vary widely in their entropy levels and resulting Quality of Consciousness as explained.

Then you are missing the fact that new IUOCs are assigned/associated with newborn humans (and new entities of all levels and species here in PMR) entirely without regard to their newness and higher entropy. The poor do not get the new and high entropy any more than do the rich. The countries of earth do not get the new and high entropy more here and less there but spread uniformly. The 'races', the various ethnicities, do not get the new and high entropy more in one than in another. Tom never said any of these things which you imply by your interpretations. However, this PMR does get a higher share of new IUOCs compared to some other PMRs. This is not a punishment. It is simply historical and long existing fact that this was designated as a kindergarten PMR to receive more than its share, compared to complete uniformity, and the practice has continued because the result has been a PMR that is very effective in evolving the QoC of IUOCs and reducing their entropy faster than in less intense PMRs with less newcomers. They, those who run this local subsection of CS and the VRs included within it, have chosen to 'not mess with success'.

So there is no chance that any of those things which you suggest from your interpretations and subjective reactions have anything to do with what Tom says or thinks. He knows better. Please try to review and re read as necessary so that you understand this as well.

Ted

I always speak from my subjective perspective. That is clear to everybody. To overemphasize it is to state the obvious. Why do you fear that my approach will color Tom words? I am not trying to put words into Tom's mouth, i just explained how i read the comment and then my take on it. No harm there.

Now in my interpretation i saw some extreme views implied and i commented on them.






This is obvious in the way that it works. I never did imply that newer souls choose classes or ethnicities, what i said is that one who seeks excuses to do harm will use whatever excuses they can hang on to justify their ends. Being Inherently evil is a great excuse to do harm. It has been used before in many forms as a justification of extreme actions. I was being general, not specific in the way this might apply to a situation. The context always is applied by the aggressor. I am not the aggressor.

For me it all started with this statement:


Perhaps i was quick to draw conclusions, so i will ask for interpretation. "It simply provides an opportunity for the corrupt to express themselves in a way that is harder to ignore". That means that you have a corrupted person before that person acquires power, that he somehow became corrupt before the acquisition of power.

Does that imply that this person was born corrupt? Not directly, no. Is it possible though? Yes if you follow the MBT logic. Some souls as you said are more disorganized, hence easier to sway, to influence. Disorganized doesn't mean evil(but it doesn't exclude that possibility either). Disorganized sounds like a euphemism for "efed up". An entity who's in disharmony with itself and others. One who uses their energies to personally profit from a situation and who will not hesitate to step onto others in order to realize it's egotistical ends and rise above the other people. A position of fear, insecurity about one's place in the world.

I must apologize. I began writing this message in a weird state of mind. Disorganized might best describe it. As i went on writing, the answers flowed from my mind to my fingertips and i feel stupid for starting this whole thing when i lacked understanding and reflection. I shall silence myself and reflect more.

One of the biggest and most harmful lies in religion is that we are born corrupt. I cannot imagine how anyone could interpret Tom's words to mean that.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Well Betty i did, and truth be told i am still not sure if Tom didn't mean to say that. Of course if he means to say that he wouldn't say it in the sense religion does(Original sin, refers to EVERY Soul), but rather individually for those souls that are newly created and have a general high measure of entropy.

If that offends you then you have my permission to hold a grudge against me or sue me. :-)

Would you please humor me and cut and past or quote here for me Tom's exact words you interpret into him saying we are born corrupt? Thank you in advance. :)

Every soul means all of us, All That Is, Consciousness. All sentient entities.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

There is None. Do you feel happy now? Maybe You can start a job as a police officer here in the forum. Bette, you are one of the reasons why i don't like to admit my errors(People like you in general). I see that this place is as much predatory as is everywhere else. So now that you have effectively cut any and all communication with me and cannot communicate anymore let's see how you are going to lower your entropy.

MBT isn't a book that you read and instantly become a saint. If you are acting like you do guess who didn't understand Uncle Tom's message lady?

HE,

Please calm down and realize that it is first, my job to point out mistakes that I consider to be significant and that might lead to trouble and future further misunderstanding. Nothing was said negatively about you as a person that I was or am aware of. It is also the privilege of other members to do the same, when and where they are able, and if this is done, I am happy to let their corrections stand in place of mine and keep my mouth shut. I have no compulsion to 'run' the board and 'control' the board members and their understanding. It is my responsibility to make corrections when I see the need.

Bette seems not to be attacking you as to be correcting in much the same way as I did. This is a relatively open and free board but it has its purposes and presenting Tom Campbell's information clearly and without error is the main one. I doubt if Bette, from long contact on the board, considers herself in any way your enemy. I don't believe from what I see in this interchange that you should so consider her. Not admitting errors seems to come mainly from the maintenance of ones opinion of oneself and in relationship with the rest of all that is. That can be translated as ego. Please try to take in any learning associated with this interchange and omit any sense of attack.

Ted

All I'm after is clear communication and ability to use dialectic is one method.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Ted, whether one means well or not is indicated by the way they do things. Bette could have chosen to do it in another non-provocative way but instead she chose to act in a condemning way. I felt that the only thing she did not include was a: "How stupid are you?" I do not like that, nor would you if you received it, trust me. Regardless, the way she acted effectively cuts communication. When that sort of thing happens we might still continue to exchange words but the will to understand each other is lost and instead each party only tries to promote their point of view as they would their racing horse. That is not productive.

Righteous Fury as a result of hearing mistaken views is a symptom of judgement, and judgement is a symptom of ego and fear. I did not provoke Betty and i would be more receiving had she adjusted her manner accordingly. You were civil and i was able to learn from our interaction and tone my ego down in the end when i saw that i was mistaken. Respect is a child of patience, so excuse me if i felt attacked by Bette but that's exactly how it looked from where i stand.

I do not claim authority on anything. I just offer my view and discuss. Even if i am convinced that i am right i still offer the benefit of a doubt to the other party because i am aware that i could be in error. Frankly had i known that this would get where it did i would have kept my mouth shut originally. I wrote it because i feel that if i am to change perspective on a new model of reality then there must not be inconsistencies within that model and that includes everything, from the things that doesn't seem logical to me to the views that the person offering that model has(Theory of Everything means EVERYTHING)

Unfortunately some people are sensitive when one questions their mentor and they attack but not everyone has the same idea on how a mentor should be utilized.

So, do i believe that people are born inherently bad? No i do not. In fact i believe that they pick that up along the way. When Tom said that power makes people who are ALREADY corrupt harder to ignore i thought that he meant that people were inherently corrupt. As i said in my original message here, i thought it was IMPLIED. That's all. All i needed was a "No, Tom does NOT imply this" and i would have been a happy man.

Man too much drama for nothing.