Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post Reply
Jdjr
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 1172
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by Jdjr »

jbaxter wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 1:22 pm I intuitively prefer Cayce's analysis to Campbell's because it somehow doesn't seem quite so rigid and impersonal.

"Cayce states: the conscious personality returns to the soul after death. It becomes a facet of soul."

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Just as our childhood personality is still available to memory and conscious awareness, we retain the essence of each personality that we have assumed during each of our past incarnations.

All the personalities we ever were eventually comprise one BIG personality that represents the culmination of the soul's growth. Hence the soul cannot forget, or lose contact with, anyone who has been a part of that journey; nor can they lose the love that was shared.
The following is the overall framework for MBT and other theoretical models as relates specifically to emotions, beliefs and attachments related to this PMR sense data stream:

There is a distinction between the perspective of the avatar (conscious personality/outer ego) operating within the rule set of this PMR and the perspective of the IUOC (spirit) in operation outside of the space time rule set. Campbell speaks from the perspective of the IUOC (spirit). He speaks to belief and attachment baked into the rule set and the avatar. My wife, a devout Christian, is anchored in belief. This is her chosen path to God (All that is-Consciousness).

Cayce states: a personality is shaped by three or four incarnations. a personality (piece of the IUOC) is only one facet (of the accumulated experience packets to include free will) of the soul (IUOC/OVERSOUL). The soul can incarnate as any facet. As the soul approaches the completion of its solar cycle consciousness (9 planets and the sun), a personality becomes more multiple-sided and expresses greater facets of the soul. Finally, the personality will become a complete expression of the soul and reincarnation is finished for the soul. Soul then merges with spirit and with God (All that is-Consciousness). Another facet of soul is then assumed free to move to other galaxies.

A solar cycle consciousness is attained by experiencing sense data streams on earth and the other planets and the sun. This is not part of the 20% revealed by Campbell and it may not be part of the other 80%. Further discussion of this subject can be found in Dr. King's "9 Freedoms" and Franz Bardon's "Evocation". This solar cycle is accomplished by detaching from emotions, persons and things in this VR. Campbell and Monroe touch on "graduation" and detachment from this PMR.

Fenwick and Ranz interviewed many patients going through the death transition. The patients reported (exceptions noted) a mandatory release of attachments to all things and persons here in this PMR. They reported on merging with God (All that is-Consciousness). The patients that refused to release the attachments suffered from "spiritual restlessness". An example of this can be found in one of Monroe's explorer tapes-Patrick.

My wife is committed to her belief and she is taught that all attachments here will not follow her upon death. She will therefore, in theory, not experience "spiritual restlessness".
User avatar
jbaxter
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Location: North West England
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by jbaxter »

"The soul can incarnate as any facet. As the soul approaches the completion of its solar cycle consciousness (9 planets and the sun), a personality becomes more multiple-sided and expresses greater facets of the soul."

Again, that's akin to my own perspective. I think this is basically a matter of semantics. Anyway, I tend to equate 'attachment' with emotional dependency (as related to religious/spiritual experience). That being so, I don't adhere to the notion of continued attachment. But I do adhere to the notion that what has grown in love continues to grow in love, regardless of physical death.

I know (from my own experience and intimations) that group souls exist and that we recognise the avatars/personalities as souls to which we are affiliated. Each personality is a fragment of the soul to which it belongs and is, therefore, the physical representation of that soul.

My own feeling is that those personalities (fragments) continue as facets of the soul and that they remain very much alive in soul memory, retaining the ability to interact with other soul memories from previous incarnations in which they have shared experience. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. But the bottom line is that I diverge from Tom's notion of soulless, robotic entries in the akashic records.

Much of what Tom says resonates with me, and he certainly has a lot of worldly wisdom under his belt. But the issue of soul partnerships ending with physical death is contrary to all that I sense to be true.
Jdjr
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 1172
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by Jdjr »

jbaxter wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:29 am I tend to equate 'attachment' with emotional dependency (as related to religious/spiritual experience). That being so, I don't adhere to the notion of continued attachment. But I do adhere to the notion that what has grown in love continues to grow in love, regardless of physical death.
Campbell defines attachment: being influenced by needs, wants, desires, expectations, and beliefs. So that if the love you refer to is fundamental to Campbell's definition, it is attached to this reality according to the MBT model.
jbaxter wrote:I know (from my own experience and intimations) that group souls exist and that we recognise the avatars/personalities as souls to which we are affiliated. Each personality is a fragment of the soul to which it belongs and is, therefore, the physical representation of that soul.

My own feeling is that those personalities (fragments) continue as facets of the soul and that they remain very much alive in soul memory, retaining the ability to interact with other soul memories from previous incarnations in which they have shared experience. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. But the bottom line is that I diverge from Tom's notion of soulless, robotic entries in the akashic records.

Much of what Tom says resonates with me, and he certainly has a lot of worldly wisdom under his belt. But the issue of soul partnerships ending with physical death is contrary to all that I sense to be true.
I provided contrasting subjective views with regard to personality, attachment, belief and emotion. Free will was referenced in Cayce. It is part of the experience packet in Campbell's model. You have provided your feeling on your own distinct subjective view.

Fenwick and Ranz interview patients going through the death transition before clinical death. The patients report, from their subjective view (exceptions noted), the personality is detached during the process. They report merging with Consciousness/ All that is/spirit absent the personality prior to death. This arguably supports Campbell's model.

I choose to remain open-minded and skeptical regarding all subjective testimonials and models preferring to accept rather than believing them. Kindly provide an independent subjective model in support of your testimonial.
User avatar
jbaxter
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Location: North West England
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by jbaxter »

Jdjr wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 1:25 pm
jbaxter wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:29 am I tend to equate 'attachment' with emotional dependency (as related to religious/spiritual experience). That being so, I don't adhere to the notion of continued attachment. But I do adhere to the notion that what has grown in love continues to grow in love, regardless of physical death.
Campbell defines attachment: being influenced by needs, wants, desires, expectations, and beliefs. So that if the love you refer to is fundamental to Campbell's definition, it is attached to this reality according to the MBT model.
jbaxter wrote:I know (from my own experience and intimations) that group souls exist and that we recognise the avatars/personalities as souls to which we are affiliated. Each personality is a fragment of the soul to which it belongs and is, therefore, the physical representation of that soul.

My own feeling is that those personalities (fragments) continue as facets of the soul and that they remain very much alive in soul memory, retaining the ability to interact with other soul memories from previous incarnations in which they have shared experience. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. But the bottom line is that I diverge from Tom's notion of soulless, robotic entries in the akashic records.

Much of what Tom says resonates with me, and he certainly has a lot of worldly wisdom under his belt. But the issue of soul partnerships ending with physical death is contrary to all that I sense to be true.
I provided contrasting subjective views with regard to personality, attachment, belief and emotion. Free will was referenced in Cayce. It is part of the experience packet in Campbell's model. You have provided your feeling on your own distinct subjective view.

Fenwick and Ranz interview patients going through the death transition before clinical death. The patients report, from their subjective view (exceptions noted), the personality is detached during the process. They report merging with Consciousness/ All that is/spirit absent the personality prior to death. This arguably supports Campbell's model.

I choose to remain open-minded and skeptical regarding all subjective testimonials and models preferring to accept rather than believing them. Kindly provide an independent subjective model in support of your testimonial.
I'm very familiar with the work of Peter Fenwick, indeed he's one of my FaceBook friends. That aside, I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat argument about concrete/scientific evidence. Thanks for the exchange, but I think we're on different wavelengths. I wish you well.
Jdjr
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 1172
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by Jdjr »

jdjr wrote:jdjr: I choose to remain open-minded and skeptical regarding all subjective testimonials and models preferring to accept rather than believing them. Kindly provide an independent subjective model in support of your testimonial.
jbaxter wrote:jbaxter: I'm very familiar with the work of Peter Fenwick, indeed he's one of my FaceBook friends. That aside, I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat argument about concrete/scientific evidence. Thanks for the exchange, but I think we're on different wavelengths. I wish you well.
Please send Dr. Fenwick my regards. I had no plans of "going to get into a tit-for-tat argument about concrete/scientific evidence". I can only imagine why you would think such a thing. I seek knowledge regarding differing views of the subjective. Hence my request for a model that supports your position. I regret that you are unwilling to enrich my knowledge in that regard. All the best.
User avatar
jbaxter
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Location: North West England
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by jbaxter »

Jdjr wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 2:53 pm
jdjr wrote:jdjr: I choose to remain open-minded and skeptical regarding all subjective testimonials and models preferring to accept rather than believing them. Kindly provide an independent subjective model in support of your testimonial.
jbaxter wrote:jbaxter: I'm very familiar with the work of Peter Fenwick, indeed he's one of my FaceBook friends. That aside, I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat argument about concrete/scientific evidence. Thanks for the exchange, but I think we're on different wavelengths. I wish you well.
Please send Dr. Fenwick my regards. I had no plans of "going to get into a tit-for-tat argument about concrete/scientific evidence". I can only imagine why you would think such a thing. I seek knowledge regarding differing views of the subjective. Hence my request for a model that supports your position. I regret that you are unwilling to enrich my knowledge in that regard. All the best.
Take a look at the work of Jurgen Ziewe. He and Tom are friends and respectful of each other's work while accepting that their perspectives differ. I like Jurgen's interpretation of reality and his findings that personalities do survive physical death . . . . . . . . indeed, he regularly speaks with his deceased mother.
VirtualBrain
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by VirtualBrain »

Take a look at the work of Jurgen Ziewe. He and Tom are friends and respectful of each other's work while accepting that their perspectives differ. I like Jurgen's interpretation of reality and his findings that personalities do survive physical death . . . . . . . . indeed, he regularly speaks with his deceased mother.
Thanks for that Julie. I was unfamiliar with Jurgen. Watching his videos, he seems very interesting. I like his interpretations too. ;)

I’ve always had the sense that there is confusion between individuality and unity. Unity doesn’t imply a loss of individuality or free will, there is/can be both at the same time. Jurgen’s experiences seem to confirm my understanding. I remember Tom saying the same thing somewhere(that it is both individual and unified). He just doesn’t stress this aspect much in his model, just as he doesn’t speak much about his own personal exploration.
User avatar
jbaxter
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Location: North West England
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by jbaxter »

VirtualBrain wrote: Sun Jun 21, 2020 6:29 am
Take a look at the work of Jurgen Ziewe. He and Tom are friends and respectful of each other's work while accepting that their perspectives differ. I like Jurgen's interpretation of reality and his findings that personalities do survive physical death . . . . . . . . indeed, he regularly speaks with his deceased mother.
Thanks for that Julie. I was unfamiliar with Jurgen. Watching his videos, he seems very interesting. I like his interpretations too. ;)

I’ve always had the sense that there is confusion between individuality and unity. Unity doesn’t imply a loss of individuality or free will, there is/can be both at the same time. Jurgen’s experiences seem to confirm my understanding. I remember Tom saying the same thing somewhere(that it is both individual and unified). He just doesn’t stress this aspect much in his model, just as he doesn’t speak much about his own personal exploration.
I think we're on the same page, old chap (well, I assume you're a chap). Jurgen, like Tom, is very flexible in his approach. He understands that the able pupil will fill in the blanks for themself. :)
Jdjr
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 1172
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by Jdjr »

jbaxter wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:55 am Take a look at the work of Jurgen Ziewe. I like Jurgen's interpretation of reality and his findings that personalities do survive physical death
I am familiar with Jurgen Ziewe's work. I am among the first to admit to an acceptance of the notion that the conscious personality survives death. Accordingly, I accept his work.
jbaxter wrote:indeed, he [Jurgen Ziewe] regularly speaks with his deceased mother.
Another independent subjective example of it can be found in Eric brought to us by forum member Pipeman. In fact, at one point along the path of development, I must confess I believed that the conscious personality survived death.
jbaxter wrote:He and Tom are friends and respectful of each other's work while accepting that their perspectives differ.
The key word here is acceptance. The evidence of the level of entropy is in the word respect.

Further, I also accept the notion that there is no separation in consciousness or in other words unity with source. I seek a more precise understanding as to the why of the differing perspectives. In my view, open minded skepticism equals acceptance equals the reasoning mind equals lower entropy.

The question then: is it enough to believe in Ziewe or Campbell because it feels good? There is subjective evidence that the conscious personality survives death likewise there is subjective evidence that the conscious personality does not survive death. There is also subjective evidence available that explains it.

Free will is a function of human's unique ability to reason. The higher the entropy/chaos the more likely one is to act on urges and impulses ie causes . Causal fear is fundamental to high entropy and produces impulses and urges. The elimination of fear melts away attachment and belief.
User avatar
jbaxter
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Location: North West England
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by jbaxter »

"The question then: is it enough to believe in Ziewe or Campbell because it feels good?"

Of course not! They have described their journey. Your journey is your own. But (as with all psychic experience throughout my life) I look to discover others whose experiences mirror mine - at least in part.

If someone, unprompted, describes something that you thought was peculiar to you, then that's personal evidence or, if you like, corroboration. But, even then, I'm still open-minded about my own experiences - however convincing they might seem to me.

That aside, isn't is a truly fascinating subject to discuss among truth-seekers who can happily agree to disagree. :)
VirtualBrain
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by VirtualBrain »

I think we're on the same page, old chap (well, I assume you're a chap). Jurgen, like Tom, is very flexible in his approach. He understands that the able pupil will fill in the blanks for themself. :)
We’re receiving the same data stream over the reality wide web. ;)

Beep...beep...boop...boop...BUFFERING...beep...boop...beep...WORKING...boop...beep...beep.......
User avatar
jbaxter
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Location: North West England
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by jbaxter »

I *like* it!!

Do they allow song requests, one wonders? :)
VirtualBrain
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by VirtualBrain »

jbaxter wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 4:12 am I *like* it!!

Do they allow song requests, one wonders? :)
UPDATING SYSTEM FILES...beep...bop...boop...PROCESSING..... :)
User avatar
jbaxter
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Location: North West England
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by jbaxter »

VirtualBrain wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:12 am
jbaxter wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 4:12 am I *like* it!!

Do they allow song requests, one wonders? :)
UPDATING SYSTEM FILES...beep...bop...boop...PROCESSING..... :)
Sounds like an old 'dial up' connection! :)

BTW, hope this is permitted: Here, below, is a link to the first of several YouTube videos by Jurgen. His perspective mirrors perfectly my intuitive understanding of afterlife/multidimensional reality. Most likely. Tom has watched these videos too. It would be interesting to have Tom address, directly, the issues Jurgen raises in terms of his MBT model and, in particular, Jurgen's conviction tht the 'avatar' continues as a free will entity following physical death:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czec00Xxxq4

Julie
User avatar
jbaxter
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Location: North West England
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by jbaxter »

VirtualBrain wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:12 am
jbaxter wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 4:12 am I *like* it!!

Do they allow song requests, one wonders? :)
UPDATING SYSTEM FILES...beep...bop...boop...PROCESSING..... :)
Sounds like an old 'dial up' connection! :)

BTW, hope this is permitted: Here, below, is a link to the first of several YouTube videos by Jurgen. His perspective mirrors perfectly my intuitive understanding of afterlife/multidimensional reality. Most likely. Tom has watched these videos too. It would be interesting to have Tom address, directly, the issues Jurgen raises in terms of his MBT model and, in particular, Jurgen's conviction tht the 'avatar' continues as a free will entity following physical death:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czec00Xxxq4

Julie
Post Reply

Return to “Rants - Negative Opinion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest