Return Home
It is currently Thu May 06, 2021 7:08 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 487 posts ]  Go to page Previous 127 28 29 30 3133 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:54 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6535
Location: Ocala, FL
Quote:
However, there is a genetic evolution of the fear and ego attributable to the avatar. Further, the emotionality is inextricable attached to this PMR.
Maybe you can explain more about what you mean by this. Genetic is defined, by dictionary.com, as Biology. pertaining or according to genetics,
of, relating to, or produced by genes; genic -of, relating to, or influenced by geneses or origins.

So how is fear and ego genetic in any way?

Yes, emotions are a part of the PMR.

Begining of video: 1:43
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xv7wHXnpgM&t=5162s
As far as emotions go, that's just a part of consciousness. Consciousness comes in with a few assumptions. And one of them, of course, is its defining assumption and that its awareness. And within that awareness is also an ability to assess what it's aware of, and come to some conclusions about what it's aware of - to think about what it's aware of. So the thinking and awareness all come together. And a part of that is feeling. The emotions, the thinking, and the feeling are a part of awareness. And they just come into my model as assumptions along with consciousness.

Now consciousness is a digital information system. Remember that is just a model in a way to describe consciousness. So if we apply that metaphor we'd say that in some way consciousness is information and processing. And part of that processing is feeling and emotion. It's part of the way consciousness processes and expresses its information. So feeling is just an attribute of consciousness. It's not part of the virtual reality simulation.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 11:11 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 1147
Quote:
Quote:
However, there is a genetic evolution of the fear and ego attributable to the avatar. Further, the emotionality is inextricable attached to this PMR.
Maybe you can explain more about what you mean by this. Genetic is defined, by dictionary.com, as Biology. pertaining or according to genetics,
of, relating to, or produced by genes; genic -of, relating to, or influenced by geneses or origins.

So how is fear and ego genetic in any way?

Yes, emotions are a part of the PMR.

Begining of video: 1:43
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xv7wHXnpgM&t=5162s
As far as emotions go, that's just a part of consciousness. Consciousness comes in with a few assumptions. And one of them, of course, is its defining assumption and that its awareness. And within that awareness is also an ability to assess what it's aware of, and come to some conclusions about what it's aware of - to think about what it's aware of. So the thinking and awareness all come together. And a part of that is feeling. The emotions, the thinking, and the feeling are a part of awareness. And they just come into my model as assumptions along with consciousness.

Now consciousness is a digital information system. Remember that is just a model in a way to describe consciousness. So if we apply that metaphor we'd say that in some way consciousness is information and processing. And part of that processing is feeling and emotion. It's part of the way consciousness processes and expresses its information. So feeling is just an attribute of consciousness. It's not part of the virtual reality simulation.
In theory, there is no separation of Consciousness. But, there is a distinction between attachment and detachment within the framework of Consciousness. Detachment means consciousness is no longer influenced by needs, wants, desires, expectations and beliefs.

In Brian Weiss' "Many, Masters Many Lives a patient describes it here: The patient states upon encountering another master who controls things, "the love felt warm, yet detached and universal. It felt blissful, yet not smothered or emotional or binding. It relayed a feeling of loving detachment or detached loving kindness and it felt distantly familiar."

So, where does the attachment originate if not from this VR PMR. Hypothetically speaking, Consciousness needs a VR PMR for its realization. There is a dual evolutionary process: Consciousness and the Avatar. The Avatar's fear and ego is encoded in its DNA, familial, social and cultural environment. The Avatar is immersed in this VR PMR. The OVERSOUL's fear and ego is likewise encoded to the extent of its experience packets. It is attached to this VR PMR.

Fear was first realized with the dawn of man and the initial incarnation (logging on) and the fight for survival. Humans/Avatars are predisposed to: thrive, confront, and to egotism, instincts and self preservation. The OVERSOUL logs on to play at the intersection of human and consciousness evolution.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 11:57 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6535
Location: Ocala, FL
Quote:
But, there is a distinction between attachment and detachment within the framework of Consciousness. Detachment means consciousness is no longer influenced by needs, wants, desires, expectations and beliefs.
I think Tom's distinction is rather that the IUOC has QoC which is exhibited in any VR through ego and fear, or Love. The FWAU also has a level of entropy before being sent the PMR data stream by the big computer. A high entropy FWAU will be inclined to make decisions out of fear and ego because that is the what low quality consciousnesses do. The FWAU changes his QoC through interactions with other beings. The QoC of the FWAU is uploaded to the IUOC as it happens because they are connected. But the FWAU's entropy do not entirely consist of what the IUOC is experiencing. The IUOC is also experiencing other VRs.
Quote:
Consciousness needs a VR PMR for its realization.
Consciousness needs a VR to make any decisions, but not necessarily a PMR. Otherwise it remains as potential.

I think your attachment/detachment analogy is a weird one, but if it is how you understand it...

Tom didn't find much in Brian Weiss' books to match MBT concepts.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 1:08 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:47 am
Posts: 410
Quote:
In the video you posted, Tom states that 99.9% of humans express this at the intellectual level which is consistent with your statement above.
Yes it is consistent with my statement but I was also addressing you seemingly conflating the intellectual level with fear/ego when it can be expressed from the being level and many times is.

Quote:
Does not the inherent quality of consciousness imply an accumulation of the experience packet?
No, consciousness has an inherent QoC, even before incarnating to a VR to accumulate experience. Consciousness is an information system and an information system that has evolved but is not perfect so it contains entropy.

Quote:
However, you can also express fear/ego through the being level with it's emotionaity, which is also Tom's words that I will link below.
Quote:
Yes, but since the OVERSOUL is free of PMR attachments, it is logically expressed that the emotion derives from the genetic link.
My comment that you quoted was talking about operating from the being level through the avatar in this PMR. I don't know why you're talking about genetics here. If you meant to refer to another comment that emotions can occur outside of the PMR, then as I remember Tom saying, our NPMR supersets also contain superset emotions of what we experience here. Consciousness can also simulate emotions as well since it is a computer and it would just be a computation, even without being incarnated in this particular PMR.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 2:07 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 1147
I have a litigation background. Accordingly, bear in mind, you have opened the door for a discussion of weird. No disrespect intended.
Quote:
But, there is a distinction between attachment and detachment within the framework of Consciousness. Detachment means consciousness is no longer influenced by needs, wants, desires, expectations and beliefs.

Quote:
I think Tom's distinction is rather that the IUOC has QoC which is exhibited in any VR through ego and fear, or Love.
Do you mean: Tom's distinction is rather that the IUOC [OVERSOUL] has a QoC which it exhibits [expresses], in any VR, through the Avatar in the form of ego, and fear or love.

"Detachment means consciousness is no longer influenced by needs, wants, desires, expectations and beliefs.~Tom Campbell. Tom is the source for my distinction.

As you can see this definition comes from Tom. No doubt you will want a cite. This is where it gets weird for me in that with (no disrespect intended) all your self-proclaimed knowledge, after 12 years of study and tutelage, you don't know this cold.
Quote:
The FWAU also has a level of entropy before being sent the PMR data stream by the big computer. A high entropy FWAU will be inclined to make decisions out of fear and ego because that is the what low quality consciousnesses do. The FWAU changes his QoC through interactions with other beings. The QoC of the FWAU is uploaded to the IUOC as it happens because they are connected. But the FWAU's entropy do not entirely consist of what the IUOC is experiencing. The IUOC is also experiencing other VRs.
Here is another weird factoid, Tom refers to metaphors as "training wheels". One would think after all these years, you would be less reliant on them.

The FWAU is a fragment of the IUOC [OVERSOUL]. There is generally no disagreement with your aforementioned statement.

Quote:
Consciousness needs a VR PMR for its realization.

Quote:
Consciousness needs a VR to make any decisions, but not necessarily a PMR. Otherwise it remains as potential.
Yes, I concede to a VR. However, the purpose for my previous post was to respond to your query on the genetic component which is specific to this PMR Avatar. Which, by the way, you completely ignore in your retort.
Quote:
I think your attachment/detachment analogy is a weird one, but if it is how you understand it.....
Tom defines them. I conceptualize them in a hypothetical. It is how I have experienced the different layers of consciousness.
Quote:
Tom didn't find much in Brian Weiss' books to match MBT concepts.
Tom defines detachment. Brian Weiss provides evidence of a subjective account of the encounter with a detached being.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 4:21 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:47 am
Posts: 410
Quote:
As you can see this definition comes from Tom. No doubt you will want a cite. This is where it gets weird for me in that with (no disrespect intended) all your self-proclaimed knowledge, after 12 years of study and tutelage, you don't know this cold.
Quote:
Brian Weiss provides evidence of a subjective account of the encounter with a detached being.
I am pretty sure the issue is not with the word detachment in MBT but in the confused context you are using it in.

That example from Brian Weiss is also misleading because, "detachment" is being used as a descriptor for the feeling he had when encountering, "another master" with no further details.

This does not imply the same thing as the quote about, "detachment" you linked from Tom.

You are also feigning your intent when you very well do mean to be disrespectful. There is no reason to even say something like that but you repeatedly bring it up.
Quote:
Here is another weird factoid, Tom refers to metaphors as "training wheels". One would think after all these years, you would be less reliant on them.
Just because people use MBT metaphors to describe functions of a process does not mean they do not know they are speaking in metaphors, and it also doesn't mean that the metaphors aren't necessary to describe an NPMR process. In fact, you may be missing the metaphor by not understanding that fear/ego is being referenced metaphorically about the QoC.
This is also an ironic statement because you are typically the one forcing arguments about semantic definitions of MBT.

Quote:
JDJR: Just pay attention. How about next time ask me for my link nicely.
Quote:
JDJR: I now make a habit of attaching a link somewhere along the line of each thread I quote Tom, not that it makes a difference with you or your "friends".
Before continuing, please take remedial criticsm and improve your communication. It is not a coincidence you leave people confused, despite you having grand notions of, "advancing Tom's theory" and being the, "messenger of Tom Campbell" - you have largely served to just muddy the waters in your confused jargon.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 5:59 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 1147
Quote:
As you can see this definition comes from Tom. No doubt you will want a cite. This is where it gets weird for me in that with (no disrespect intended) all your self-proclaimed knowledge, after 12 years of study and tutelage, you don't know this cold.
Quote:
Brian Weiss provides evidence of a subjective account of the encounter with a detached being.
Quote:
I am pretty sure the issue is not with the word detachment in MBT but in the confused context you are using it in.

That example from Brian Weiss is also misleading because, "detachment" is being used as a descriptor for the feeling he had when encountering, "another master" with no further details.

This does not imply the same thing as the quote about, "detachment" you linked from To
Human+, I don't want to go round and round here. Detachment as defined by Tom is the expression that emanated from the being that Dr. Weiss' patient reported on while under regressive hypnosis.

Quote:
You are also feigning your intent when you very well do mean to be disrespectful. There is no reason to even say something like that but you repeatedly bring it up.
No, I do not intend to be disrespectful. Some may view it as harsh and insensitive but you, Linda and others have equal responsibility and accountability in that regard. I qualified my intent. Linda opened the door to a discussion of weird understandings. It is a litigation tool that allows for further discussion that would not be available had the word weird not been used. It is an acceptable approach in the legal environment but not here.
Quote:
Here is another weird factoid, Tom refers to metaphors as "training wheels". One would think after all these years, you would be less reliant on them.
Quote:
Just because people use MBT metaphors to describe functions of a process does not mean they do not know they are speaking in metaphors, and it also doesn't mean that the metaphors aren't necessary to describe an NPMR process. In fact, you may be missing the metaphor by not understanding that fear/ego is being referenced metaphorically about the QoC.
This is also an ironic statement because you are typically the one forcing arguments about semantic definitions of MBT.
Tom makes clear that metaphors help for a better understanding of the theory. Tom also speaks to advanced discussion absent the use of metaphors. It is not disrespectful to point this out to Linda. Again, there is a shared burden of responsibility and accountability for harsh and insensitive behavior here.
Quote:
JDJR: Just pay attention. How about next time ask me for my link nicely.
Quote:
JDJR: I now make a habit of attaching a link somewhere along the line of each thread I quote Tom, not that it makes a difference with you or your "friends".
The above quotes are factually justified. She needs to pay attention and previous attachments and commentaries have not made a difference, as the end result is the same. Perhaps to some there is confusion, or they are locked in beliefs through the path of surrender or other reasons to include the complexity of the subject matter. Those of us that post frequently here share the burden.
Quote:
Before continuing, please take remedial criticsm and improve your communication. It is not a coincidence you leave people confused, despite you having grand notions of, "advancing Tom's theory" and being the, "messenger of Tom Campbell" - you have largely served to just muddy the waters in your confused jargon.
I'll take my share of the responsibility and "dial it back" and you and everyone else here needs to account for theirs as relates to the tone and confusion created here. Notwithstanding, no one here has mastery of this theory. A little mutual respect goes a long way. Besides, this is between Linda and I. You, the pot calling the kettle black. You made your point, I made mine now let it be, hugs.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 2:20 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6535
Location: Ocala, FL
Quote:
This is where it gets weird for me in that with (no disrespect intended) all your self-proclaimed knowledge, after 12 years of study and tutelage, you don't know this cold.
Don't couch rudeness with a subtext of 'no disrespect intended.' It won't fly. No, I haven't memorized an 800 page book, 200 + videos, and other material.
Quote:
Here is another weird factoid, Tom refers to metaphors as "training wheels". One would think after all these years, you would be less reliant on them.
Rude again.
Quote:
"Detachment means consciousness is no longer influenced by needs, wants, desires, expectations and beliefs.~Tom Campbell. Tom is the source for my distinction.
You don't want to cite the material because you don't want others to read what Tom is trying to convey in its entirety. That way you can misconstrue all you want without contradiction.

The online MBT book pages 374-377
When you are animated by love, you are not driven by fear, ego, desire, or need. There is no forcing function driving your choices. Love is directed outward. With love, you are at peace, solid, still, fearless, and centered. This is not a control issue; control does not create balance, but only the appearance of balance. A balanced individual is a conscious part of the unified larger reality, a productive citizen of the larger consciousness ecosystem, and is aware of being interconnected to everything. External balance (being in balance with everything external to the individual) is an immediate and automatic consequence of internal balance. Internal balance precedes and enables external balance – it does not work the other way around. Trying hard to appear as if you are balanced does little to produce real balance – truth does not flow from fantasy. The Big Picture can not be derived from the little picture.

When right being and right action are natural, easy and obvious, you are in balance. For large systems as well as individual entities, balance defines the minimum entropy state at any given time, under any given circumstance. Balance is not a digital on-off function; it represents a continuum from the highest entropy consciousness (wild, angry, insane, frantic, self-centered, random, confused, hurt, threatened, fearful, demanding, vengeful, jealous, self-important, and inadequate – all artifacts of fear and ego) to the lowest entropy consciousness (balanced, egoless, compassionate, humble, and expressive of unconditional love.)

Balance is sometimes described as the state of being detached. This is a valuable metaphor but we should be careful about what the word "detached" means within this context. Being detached does not imply that you are either intellectually or emotionally withdrawn or distant. Detachment does not mean not interactive, not involved, or does not care. Detachment does not imply being aloof, or above it all. The pursuit of consciousness quality (spiritual growth) never requires or encourages one to become detached from life, caring involvement with others, or from responsibility. Detachment simply means that one is no longer influenced by needs, wants, desires, expectations, and beliefs. Balance and a low entropy consciousness are enabled through detachment from one's ego.


Tom is just describing again ways to evolve the quality of your consciousness and the attributes of low and high entropy consciousness. I cannot understand why you are trying to make things so confusing. It seems as though you are bringing up terms to use in such a way to impress rather than clarify.
Quote:
Brian Weiss provides evidence of a subjective account of the encounter with a detached being.
You mean a highly evolved being? Another example of the above.
Quote:
Tom also speaks to advanced discussion absent the use of metaphors.
Where??? How can you possibly discuss MBT without the use of metaphors???

As for genetic fears, I have looked this up but I have no more time to transcribe today.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:25 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 1147
Quote:
This is where it gets weird for me in that with (no disrespect intended) all your self-proclaimed knowledge, after 12 years of study and tutelage, you don't know this cold.
Quote:
Don't couch rudeness with a subtext of 'no disrespect intended.' It won't fly.
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.
Quote:
No, I haven't memorized an 800 page book, 200 + videos, and other material.

You do not have to memorize it, you study it, not just read it 15 times. You own it.
Quote:
Here is another weird factoid, Tom refers to metaphors as "training wheels". One would think after all these years, you would be less reliant on them.
Quote:
Rude again.
I stand by the truth, in my opinion.
Quote:
"Detachment means consciousness is no longer influenced by needs, wants, desires, expectations and beliefs.~Tom Campbell. Tom is the source for my distinction.
Quote:
You don't want to cite the material because you don't want others to read what Tom is trying to convey in its entirety. That way you can misconstrue all you want without contradiction.
No, I stand by my earlier post wherein I stated: I cite material but it does not matter, the end result is the same. I just cited material, a second time at your request, because you did not bother to read my cite in a previous post. Further, when I offered to address any old posts where you thought I needed to provide a cite, you stated it was not necessary. This is just disingenuous of you.

You have been accusing me of misconstruing Tom's quotes since I joined, when I was new to MBT. You continue to construct a false narrative. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Quote:
The online MBT book pages 374-377
When you are animated by love, you are not driven by fear, ego, desire, or need. There is no forcing function driving your choices. Love is directed outward. With love, you are at peace, solid, still, fearless, and centered. This is not a control issue; control does not create balance, but only the appearance of balance. A balanced individual is a conscious part of the unified larger reality, a productive citizen of the larger consciousness ecosystem, and is aware of being interconnected to everything. External balance (being in balance with everything external to the individual) is an immediate and automatic consequence of internal balance. Internal balance precedes and enables external balance – it does not work the other way around. Trying hard to appear as if you are balanced does little to produce real balance – truth does not flow from fantasy. The Big Picture can not be derived from the little picture.

When right being and right action are natural, easy and obvious, you are in balance. For large systems as well as individual entities, balance defines the minimum entropy state at any given time, under any given circumstance. Balance is not a digital on-off function; it represents a continuum from the highest entropy consciousness (wild, angry, insane, frantic, self-centered, random, confused, hurt, threatened, fearful, demanding, vengeful, jealous, self-important, and inadequate – all artifacts of fear and ego) to the lowest entropy consciousness (balanced, egoless, compassionate, humble, and expressive of unconditional love.)

Balance is sometimes described as the state of being detached. This is a valuable metaphor but we should be careful about what the word "detached" means within this context. Being detached does not imply that you are either intellectually or emotionally withdrawn or distant. Detachment does not mean not interactive, not involved, or does not care. Detachment does not imply being aloof, or above it all. The pursuit of consciousness quality (spiritual growth) never requires or encourages one to become detached from life, caring involvement with others, or from responsibility. Detachment simply means that one is no longer influenced by needs, wants, desires, expectations, and beliefs. Balance and a low entropy consciousness are enabled through detachment from one's ego.


Tom is just describing again ways to evolve the quality of your consciousness and the attributes of low and high entropy consciousness. I cannot understand why you are trying to make things so confusing. It seems as though you are bringing up terms to use in such a way to impress rather than clarify.
Linda, you cannot be serious here. Who among us is impressed. I have been called names, accused of misconstruing, taking Tom out of context, cherrie picking his quotes, conflating metaphors, making things confusing, not clarifying and on and on. This is a new one, I am trying to impress.

I am not confused therefore I cannot understand how you can be confused. Look, I sat down at the key board, read a post and responses and began to type. When it was over, I shook my head, put my head in my hands wondering where the hell that came from.
Quote:
Brian Weiss provides evidence of a subjective account of the encounter with a detached being.
Quote:
You mean a highly evolved being? Another example of the above.
I named the type of being in my post. I state it is a Master. You mean to tell me you don't know a Master is a highly evolved being? Or did you just "cherrie pick" my quote. This is absurd.
Quote:
Where??? How can you possibly discuss MBT without the use of metaphors???
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 hope you study it.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 9:55 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6535
Location: Ocala, FL
Quote:
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 disclaim it with an enclosed renunciation.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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???
Quote:
You have been accusing me of misconstruing Tom's quotes since I joined
Yes, and this has been found to have been the case.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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?


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 12:05 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 1147
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
You do not have to memorize it, you study it, not just read it 15 times. You own it.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
I cite material but it does not matter, the end result is the same.

Quote:
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
Quote:
You have been accusing me of misconstruing Tom's quotes since I joined

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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

Linda posts:

"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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 12:55 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6535
Location: Ocala, FL
If it wasn't disrespectful you wouldn't have to disclaim it with an enclosed renunciation.
Quote:
Tom also speaks to advanced discussion absent the use of metaphors.
The reference, from what I posted doesn't say that at all. Tom is saying that pushing metaphors too far is not productive. He never has, and never will, say that an advanced discussion of MBT should be absent of metaphors. Just another example of you misunderstanding what was written.
Quote:
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.
"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? Is there 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.
No where is Bob saying people who OBE are acting at the being level. He is saying that out of 6 billion people he thinks, (because he has NO WAY OF KNOWING,) that 600 people can OBE regularly. And those people stay in the shadows because society isn't ready for the open discussion.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:04 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 1147
Quote:
If it wasn't disrespectful you wouldn't have to disclaim it with an enclosed renunciation.
I am not disclaiming it. I withdraw my statement. How 'bout this, I don't care if you are insulted.
Quote:
Quote:
Tom also speaks to advanced discussion absent the use of metaphors.
The reference, from what I posted doesn't say that at all. Tom is saying that pushing metaphors too far is not productive. He never has, and never will, say that an advanced discussion of MBT should be absent of metaphors. Just another example of you misunderstanding what was written.
"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" ~ Tom Campbell.

He said as the discussions advance past needing these [metaphors] arbitrary divisions, let them go. I understand it clearly.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
"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.[/quote]
Quote:
No where is Bob saying people who OBE are acting at the being level. He is saying that out of 6 billion people he thinks, (because he has NO WAY OF KNOWING,) that 600 people can OBE regularly. And those people stay in the shadows because society isn't ready for the open discussion.
Read my post, Linda. The being Bob communicated with, the ISTHERE, made the statement not Bob. Further, it goes with out saying that the referenced individuals are low entropy,high quality of consciousness beings devoid of fear and operating,by definition, exclusively at the being level.

Again, read the post. The being states they know they cannot change the system and don't want to. They prefer instead to enjoy the experience. Linda: And those people stay in the shadows because society isn't ready for the open discussion. You have taken the quote out of context and recharacterized it. "The pot calling the kettle black."


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:44 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:47 am
Posts: 410
Quote:
The being Bob communicated with, the ISTHERE, made the statement not Bob

Previously, you specifically attributed it to Bob when you said, "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."

Bob did not, "state" that and nor did that entity, "state" that either. Nor did he use the word, "being level". You are only extrapolating from what Bob describes and in the context of, "(M)" - there are details vastly different to how "being level" in MBT is defined.

You are also adding the variable of, "exclusively" operating from that state.

Actually, it is not even defined as a, "state", instead, it is being described as an, "ability" and that entity is speaking about, "those who apparently are well versed in (M) Field techniques"


This is very intellectually dishonest and demonstrates why it's relevant to ask for citations.


I am now curious, Jdjr, you claimed that TOM also reported on this figure. Do you have any reference at all for Tom's, "stats"?


You did not invoke both Tom and Bob's name on this, "stat" just to demonstrate what one particular entity said at one point which is liable to be mistranslated or incorrect. You specifically invoked both their names as well as, "others with this background" reporting on this "stat" to represent an authority on the matter, even if you acknowledge we can't know for sure because it added credence to your generalization.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:40 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 1147
Quote:
The being Bob communicated with, the ISTHERE, made the statement not Bob
Quote:
This is very intellectually dishonest and demonstrates why it's relevant to ask for citations.
Human+, what are you doing, can you behave? Ok, another unwarranted insult which, I don't take offense to, to add to the laundry list.
Quote:
I am now curious, Jdjr, you claimed that TOM also reported on this figure. Do you have any reference at all for Tom's, "stats"?
You better ask your girl Linda, she said Monroe never spoke to these issues, only Tom.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 487 posts ]  Go to page Previous 127 28 29 30 3133 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited