I said I meant no disrespect and I meant no disrespect. I do not mince words. I also stand by what I posted above. In my opinion, it is the truth.
I think physiologists call this passive aggressive - the disguised insult. When you say you don't mean something but you really do. If it wasn't disrespectful you wouldn't have to couch it with an enclosed comment.
It is harsh and insensitive but in my opinion it is the truth. I am not disguising it. You take it as an insult. I did not intend to insult you. You take it personally, therefore it must be true. I am not going to stifle expression of my opinion for fear of you taking it as an insult.
You do not have to memorize it, you study it, not just read it 15 times. You own it.
No, I don't. I've never said I was an expert on MBT. I've said numerous times that now that Ted is gone no one knows it like Tom.
Well, then quit climbing all over my chain on matters that you have no knowledge.
I cite material but it does not matter, the end result is the same.
No you don't. Where is the actual link where the word, one phrase, or sentence can be found???
Come again? No, I don't cite? What word, phrase or sentence. This?: I cite material but it does not matter, the end result is the same.~jdjr
You have been accusing me of misconstruing Tom's quotes since I joined
Yes, and this has been found to have been the case.
But it has not been proven to be the case. It is an allegation, absent the evidence. But you once again shift the point. This is not the point, you made a point of alleging that I am trying to impress. Who am I impressing, the jury is out. Your loyalist are not impressed; they are preparing the noose.
I have been called names, accused of misconstruing, taking Tom out of context, cherry picking his quotes, conflating metaphors, making things confusing, not clarifying and on and on.
Called names?? The rest is feedback from your fellow posters.
I am not insulted by it, rest assured, unlike you crying insult. Again, you shift the subject. Again,the reason I bring that up is to prove to you it makes no sense that I am attempting to impress anyone as you allege. You are also proving my point here.
I took it from your own cite. You don't know what you cite? It is in the thread where we were dealing with the OVERSOUL. You provided a cite with Tom's explanation it is in the footnotes. Go ask Tom.
I'm asking you, since you wrote it. Can't cite it?
You cited it and you want me to cite you ? Yes, you are quite the professional. Let me help you, Look below FWAU:
PHYLOSOPHY AND METAPHYSICS IUOC/FWAU
"Yep! You're right. This is just another example of Tom trying to explain thing in different ways. But I'm stumped as to why he differentiates the IOUC and oversoul when he has used them as the same so many times.
Here he talks about it more. I think this was more in the earlier days of his lectures. This post is from 2010, and I haven't heard him parcel things out like this recently.
1) Larger consciousness system LCS -- AUM
2) Individuated unit of consciousness IUOC -- That subset of the LSC that is particular to You as an individual subset of experience gathered across all reality frames. The superset of your individual existence. The IUOC contains the overhead and support structure that interfaces to the LCS (e.g., Indra's Net, RWW terminal) and that is required to plan, manage, direct, and integrate all experience from all frames into the lowest entropy configuration possible.
3) Higher self -- oversoul -- That subset of the IUOC's experience and learning gained by specifically incarnating into PMRs -- a collection of lifetimes comprising all one's incarnations in PMR and the wisdom gained therein. The hard-working fast-track evolution engine that executes the IUOCs plans by deploying FWAUs into PMR(s)
4) Free will awareness unit FWAU -- an identity incarnated into a PMR. It gathers experience for the higher self to process into lessons learned, which enable a lower entropy configuration of the higher self, the IUOC, and finally the LCS (since they are all one anyway).
-- Note: This functional breakout is arbitrary.
-- Its only purpose is to facilitate our communication by decomposing functionality into simpler conceptual units so our limited PMR habituated thinking can more easily grasp the nature of consciousness and individuated existence.
-- These separate groupings that we define here do not actually exist as separate things or beings.
-- Their boundaries are fuzzy and their definitions overlap into one another.
-- Do not look for precision in these definitions. Arguing about the details reminds me of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" and is a waste of time.
-- These are conceptual training wheels - as your discussions advance past needing these arbitrary divisions, let them go rather than trying to push them into ever greater specificity that just gets less and less useful
Yes, 2 and 3 could be reasonably combined but separating them allows for a catchall functionality that covers higher-level "interfaces" with the LCS that seem reasonable within our information system and computing system metaphor even though we may not be able to put into words or fully conceptualize these interfaces at this time (RWW, Indra's Net). IUOC has become a term of art in the MBT community with a larger more general and inclusive connotation than the much used terms of "higher self" and "oversoul" which generally, in the literature of the last 4 decades, refer to an individual separate entity that represents a collection of past lives within our PMR and the learning and wisdom gained there from. It is my thought that higher self and oversoul as generally used, provide a somewhat more limited concept than an IUOC. Rather than try to hijack the common definition of higher self and oversoul and trying to bend those words to our own needs for a bigger picture description, we invented the term Individuated unit of consciousness (IUOC) thus avoiding the baggage and limited conceptuality that is attached to those terms.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4677&hilit=IUOC+FWAU&start=60~Sainbury July 12, 2019 2:07pm
Monroe, at the time he wrote his books, states that out of 7 billion people on this planet 600 operate exclusively from the being level.
Here's another one. I don't every remember Monroe writing anything like this. This is Tom's language not Bob's. Can you cite this one?
I am not a bit surprised that you do not remember. Yep,
"Ultimate Journey-conclusions" ~ Robert Monroe "What of those well versed in (M) but very quiet about it. Of 6 billion about 6,000 [not 600] have this more powerful [ability] and no one will ever know them. Why? Isthere being states: they keep themselves quiet and hidden. They go OB keep quiet and exist and influence. They know they cannot change the system and do not want to. They are content to enjoy the earth experience and the only influence they exert is to manage their own experience"~ Robert Monroe.