Return Home
It is currently Sun Oct 25, 2020 2:39 am

All times are UTC-06:00


Forum rules


Please do not post here except for such confirmations and of course for discussion of such confirmations.



Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:49 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Taking a historical perspective on what Tom has discovered/described provides a confirmation of the completeness and reality of those discoveries in that it then can be seen that what mystics and metaphysicians since preliterate times up to the present have observed and reported matches exactly with Tom Campbell's descriptions. That is, to use their historical names with Tom Campbell's terminology as a translation, the Void, the Void as it becomes activated or quickened which Tom explains as the beginning of the interaction of the reality cells and contained data within them. This then develops into the Larger Consciousness System or LCS, and Indra's Net which Tom calls the Reality Wide Web and the IUOCs attached to/connected by it. Then there is the Buddha's description of life here as Illusion which is a simpler and metaphorical way to describe Tom's Virtual Reality concept. There you have the sum and total of what has been observable for millenia and exactly what Tom discovered independently through his own explorations and analysis. Then there are the so called, Akashic records, that Tom calls the past actualized data base and the probable future data base, along with the unactualized past data base. All known to Indian, Tibetan and Buddhist philosophy for millenia. While I have been aware of these correlations for years, I have just recently had the insight to put them into the following perspective of completeness.

All of the further details within Tom Campbell's model can be shown to arise from permutations of these components in terms of their interactions through messaging and resulting functions, producing all the required functions described within Tom's model. Thus Tom Campbell's model can be shown to encompass the experience of mystics and metaphysicians of all ages and persuasions, integrating this experience with a view that can be comprehended within the metaphors of modern science, mathematics and digital technology. This not to in any way denigrate these ancient insights nor Tom Campbell's description and model of Reality. It is rather a matter that they reinforce and explain each other. The Model of Tom Campbell describes a dynamically changing, constantly metamorphosing Reality based upon Consciousness within which these few components mentioned form all of the other, nominally separate, elements included within the Model, providing all of the required functions to implement that model and which defines those elements. These 'things' or functions include instances of The Big Computer(s) and The Even Bigger Computer. IUOCs are the building blocks of any and all functionality that comes to be required by AUM. The IUOCs are in their united interaction and communication, The One Consciousness and AUM in its totality. This, as the IUOCs, is also what AUM has available to use, along with the Reality Wide Web as the communication buss which unites these IUOCs by communication, the past actualized and unactualized data bases, the future probable data bases and by which data communication creates all of the permutations and interactions within the model which Tom has created.

Tom Campbell actually produced this model without making reference to those ancient observations or using them as a starting point, other that that the universally apprehended Void was taken as the beginning point for everything. Yet we find on examination that what the ancient mystics and metaphysicians could observe provides all of the necessary elements of Tom Campbell's model. His model simply makes those ancient observations understandable in the metaphors of modern science and technology and even available as an intellectual understanding without the years of study and meditation required for their apprehension by following the traditional paths of mystics and ancient metaphysicians.

Keeping in mind Tom Campbell's admonition regarding open minded skepticism and avoiding beliefs, no one here will ever be expected to believe Tom Campbell's model. However, based on the above and my own personal experiences of it, I do not believe but rather know Tom Campbell's model of reality to be a very good, complete and fruitful model of our Reality. Considering that we must actually have the active participation of the LCS in order to be able to perceive these things at all, that they have been so consistently and persistently perceived from ancient to modern times, I cannot view it other than as highly significant that the LCS provides these, and only these, perceptions and revelations of itself to those who put forth the effort required to perceive them. If there was more or something different instead, why stop consistently at these few viewpoints and not show more except that basically there is no more to see or to know. All the rest is continuing and deepening understanding of these very basic building blocks and how they interact, permute their interactions and the resulting functions. Everything else amounts to meta Realities, built upon these relationships between these few components. They are observable only within these relationships and processes and not as having any existence as structural or observable. There is simply nothing else available to be observed.

A version of this post is kept fully updated with any changes on Tom Campbell's Wiki within this page: http://wiki.my-big-toe.com/index.php/On ... More_NPMRs

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:34 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 3:55 pm
Posts: 173
Quote:
His model simply makes those ancient observations understandable in the metaphors of modern science and technology and even available as an intellectual understanding without the years of study and meditation required for their apprehension by following the traditional paths of mystics and ancient metaphysicians.
Hi Ted,

From the above it would appear that you equate a mere intellectual understanding to knowledge gained through mystic way, and even mystic knowledge to knowledge gained through mere metaphysical reasoning. May I ask whether this is your very standpoint?

Carlos


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:45 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Carlos,

No, I don't equate an intellectual understanding with the understanding that can be acquired through a lifetime on the mystical path. Note that I inserted 'mere' there. But considering just how few in the general populace, and especially within the field of science, follow that path, think how many more can be reached with this intellectual understanding. Certainly not any significant portion of those reading Tom's books or watching his videos are going to suddenly become mystics or even see that there is a deeper understanding possible. This says nothing negative about Tom. He is doing exactly what the plan calls for in terms of providing that approach that can in fact give that intellectual understanding. You take what you can get. If and when the general field of science and the general society are converted to an understanding of Consciousness as primal, we are not suddenly going to be a society of mystics. There will always be a range of understanding from complete rejection to intellectual understanding to a deep mystical understanding.

And keep in mind that Tom's path was not the path of the mystic. He was always the active explorer of the non physical reality with his research guided by the principles of science. It is simply that that path led to the same information, being in my opinion the base reality as explained here.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:20 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:19 pm
Posts: 476
Quote:
No, I don't equate an intellectual understanding with the understanding that can be acquired through a lifetime on the mystical path. Note that I inserted 'mere' there. But considering just how few in the general populace, and especially within the field of science, follow that path, think how many more can be reached with this intellectual understanding.
Thanks Ted, I think this is a very important and insightful point. I am one of those who has only been able to approach this model from the intellectual path. I have been trying to meditate and quiet the mind for over a decade now and have made little headway. This is partially due to deficiencies in discipline, and it is also due to my inability to shut off my rambling stream of thought, constantly blocking out my ability to hear insights from my intuition. Rightly or wrongly, I feel inferior to those on the board who talk so nonchalantly about their mystical insights, as that is not something I can identify with.

While the Big Truth insights are off limits to me due to my limitations, the model has been exceptionally helpful to me in a multitude of other dimensions, specifically as a framework for morality and ethics. It also brings many insights in seeing the fractal nature of reality, understanding the limitations of human beings, and as a way of approaching belief and science.

Although the intellect is easily misled, it is also deeply connected to the being level. Tom's words resonate at a level other than the intellectual, whether or not the intellect itself can catalyze changes at the being level.

_________________
Everything is simpler than we can imagine, at the same time more complex and intertwined than can be comprehended--Goethe, Maxims & Reflections


Top
PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:48 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 3:55 pm
Posts: 173
Thanks for your answer, Ted. I understand it (albeit I find no instance of ‘mere’ placed within). Yet re-examining your previous post, I think there is hovering here and there a certain overstatement with regard to the very level of ‘Reality’ able to be contained in MBT’s box.
I shall try to convey my view following some extracts of such previous post.

Thus Tom Campbell's model can be shown to encompass the experience of mystics and metaphysicians of all ages and persuasions, integrating this experience with a view that can be comprehended within the metaphors of modern science, mathematics and digital technology.

From the reports given by some well-known true mystics, the problem concerning wherefrom AUO actually came was no longer a problem, since their claims include the very ‘experience’ of the eternity itself. In this light, such so-called experience would not, cannot, be “integrated with a view that can be comprehended…etc.” It would follow, then, that

...The One Consciousness and AUM in its totality

would equate The One Consciousness to AUM. But if my above argumentation is sound, it follows that there is a certain subset of the former not included in the latter, so that in this sense AUM would be something defined by MBT as The One Consciousness, being this latter of a, say, an inferior degree than that reported by the mystics. Even Henri Bergson, who, at least ‘officially’, was not a mystic, shows in his work ‘Creative Evolution’ the very source of our intellectual necessity of one beginning for all things, and thus such in principle no more than intellectual knowledge would exceed the scope of MBT.

…Tom Campbell's model of reality to be a very good, complete and fruitful model of our Reality.

Here we might discuss the very meaning of the term ‘our Reality’. If it applies to the reality the average human being is able to attain, there is no objection, but such would not be the case if by it we must understand the Absolute Reality, or at least the greatest portion of it which the highest mystics claims to have been aware of.


If there was more or something different instead, why stop consistently at these few viewpoints and not show more except that basically there is no more to see or to know.

Here, and always assuming my argumentation as sound, I cannot help myself from concluding that, yes, there is more. Whether this ‘more’ could effect some visible (to us) difference of fact on ‘lesser realities’ as these described and fully embraced by MBT, others shall or could know about with due authority, while I remain, for the moment, inclined by inner belief towards a yes.


Everything else amounts to meta Realities, built upon these relationships between these few components. They are observable only within these relationships and processes and not as having any existence as structural or observable.There is simply nothing else available to be observed.


If mystic’s claims are to be recognised as true knowledge (which is in turn one of their claims), something I think as hard to refute, then such ‘meta Realities’ would have been ‘observable’ by them in themselves, and not “only within these relationships and processes”. The statement There is simply nothing else available to be observed. is certainly true provided, and only provided, that ‘observed’ is taken as, say, PMR-observed. As Spanish as I am, I am well aware of St. Teresa's claim that she ‘saw’, and ‘felt the presence’ of the Trinity itself (a higher meta-Reality indeed, more enough if, as she assures, the Trinity was addressed to her in its three distinct persons, each giving to her definite teachings), and she says she saw it, heard it, but without eyes or ears, a clear instance of 'observation' through non-physical means. In this sense, then, There is simply nothing else available to be observed might refer to human being’s ‘average’ abilities, but no more.

For those who do not know who I am, and how I am, I would like to note that far of my intention any dismiss of Tom’s work, and think that my continuous task of translating MBT would be, if needed, proof enough. What I try is to deal with our available linguistic terms and concepts so that they fit as properly as required in a work whose matter is so crucial as this is, and I share fully the above considerations offered by S. Lareck.

Carlos


Last edited by Carlos on Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:20 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Carlos,

My mistake, you used the word mere and I thought, without checking, that you were quoting what I had said. I consider that 'mere' to be very appropriate.

What I am pointing out is that historically there were records of the Void, the quickened Void and Indra's Net plus the concept of the Buddha of our reality of Illusion. This can be directly related to Tom's description of the Void, the start of the cycling of the LCS, the IUOCs on the RWW and the existence of VRs, simulating physical reality. St. Teresa and many Christian mystics get into church dogma in their mystical visions. This is not a universal and widely spread thing but limited to certain Christian mystics. Meister Eckhart for example does not describe such. I have read around in Christian mystics and have not seen any consistent images on an equivalency with the Void, etc. Furthermore, I have experienced the Void, quickened Void and Indra's Net and similar concepts of our reality being based upon a data stream.

What of a universal nature would you say exists throughout mysticism expanding beyond the things that I mentioned? Not St. Teresa and her visions which were very personal as I understood them. Union as being part of God, yes, but that is essentially there in Indra's Net. So what is there that can be considered as either universal or at least very wide spread? All of the other 'things' of Tom Campbell's model are transitory as determined and defined and created by the messaging over the RWW equal to the reflections in the Jewels of Consciousness of Indra's Net. Perceptible only as you participate within them. What is taken beyond Indra's Net in any system of mysticism that would approach universality?

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:06 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 3:55 pm
Posts: 173
Ted,
Surely St. Teresa and other Christian mystics ‘saw’ what they ‘saw’ through the unavoidable filter of their own culture. Thus with your assertion that St. Teresa’s visions are very personal, I agree fully. How could it be otherwise? But taking into account that the Sanskrit triad “SAT-CHIT-ANANDA”, reflected in the man as “Atman-Buddhi-Manas”, is posited as the Ultimate Reality or Brahman, and not precisely by Christian folks, I take for granted that, were Teresa born in India, she would have seen ‘without eyes’ such triad instead of the Christian one. With regard to the Void, no instance comes into my mind at this time, but I shall do some research, tough in any case we have the quite clear explanations made by Henri Bergson concerning the ‘Voidness which is Fullness’.
As to what of a universal nature would I say exists throughout mysticism expanding beyond the things you mentioned, I do know nothing through own experience. This said, I say also that some reports available to us, as those pertaining to the Northern Buddhist Canon (Tibetan), or those of Shankara, do reveal the existence of certain states of consciousness far above ‘mere’ Nirvana. Additionally, Franklin Merrell-Wolff’s work, wherein the author claims to have attained such higher realms, includes a thoroughly logical explanation about the nature of such states, in a sort of progressive synthesis of the preceeding or lower ones, and the acuity of his analysis is such that I find hard to argue against. In his case, as in that of Shankara, there is no question of “Union as being part of God” (as is possibly the case of Christian mystics) but, more enough, to become God Itself. Shankara’s statement leave no room for doubt: “I am indeed Brahman, without difference, without change, and of the nature of Reality, Knowledge, and Bliss” (Direct Realisation, Sloka 24, if I remember well). Merrell-Wolff goes further. In a given Recognition he found himself directly as being God, but of a subsequent and higher one he said “Again, neither I nor God were There; only BEING remained”, and , next, “I was no more and God was no more, but only the ETERNAL which sustains all Gods and all Selves”, when entered into a state he named “High Indifference” after having left, voluntarily, the Nirvanic state. Yet he himself declares that he suspects, but knows nothing, of other possible and even higher states, reason by which I find risky enough the quick assertion of things like “The One Consciousness” or “Absolute Reality” applied to realms 'surpassed' by some ones who in its turn suspect of the existence of even higher realms not even the most advanced yoguins have been able, at least in recorded or available documents, to enter in.
Finally, you talk about ‘system of mysticism’, but I am not sure to what extent “Illuminations” as the above-mentioned are dependent upon some definite system.

Carlos


Last edited by Carlos on Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:10 am, edited 5 times in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:20 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Carlos,

I would class all of those things as being different classifications of data being passed over the RWW or in the ancient metaphors, reflections of Jewel in Jewel. They are not something which can be viewed as a clearly different state or 'thing'. There is all sorts of discussion of levels of heavens and hells, of focus levels with types of content. But all of these are messaging of a different category over the RWW as the content of some particular VR, creating the experience of 'being there'. Tom's model includes the concepts of The Big Computer and its sub function of the Virtual Reality Rendering Engine. It includes the concept of the Even Bigger Computer. It discusses VRs of the PMR and NPMR types arranged into systems such as Our System, and making up the fractal nature of AUM. But all of these 'things' are just associations of the IUOCs that together create these things by the messaging between the IUOCs. The One Consciousness itself is just all IUOCs sending messages around the RWW with those particular messages constituting the Mind/Consciousness of AUM. Once you get to the IUOCs on the RWW, any other rabbit that you choose to pull out of the hat is simply some set of IUOCs functioning in some particular way by the messages that are sent over the RWW. And those messages are all mixed up together as being in transit over the RWW. What differentiates them is their content that provides the communication to coordinate that set of IUOCs together to do something, create a specific functionality.

Tom is fully aware of this way of looking at his model. He acknowledges that the information is there in his books, accessible if you understand the more superficial, 'beginners', levels adequately to be aware of the 'deeper' levels.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:18 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 3:55 pm
Posts: 173
Thank you, Ted. A brilliant explanation indeed. Perhaps a non-negligible amount of these difficulties one find here and there to understand MBT-concepts comes from simple semantic issues, and from the natural inclination we have to think in terms of ‘natural’ images rather than in these ‘colder and somewhat artificial’ hard science provides. A tendency rather normal, inasmuch as our language is dependent upon the physical reality we directly perceive, and whatever mental image we are able to develop comes ultimately from the same source. I think that only at a certain level of mathematical abstraction one can succeed, if at all, in thinking without any help of images.
Yet, at the end, what is of import to us is our state of feeling, whose representation is in the form of ‘a state’, in the traditional sense (such is at least my own case). From this view, all we learn intellectually from MBT we use ultimately to explain what we feel, i.e., our inner ‘states’. And when the study of MBT is such that its content becomes integrated in our depths, or opens the door so that we are able to receive more complete NPMR-data, we are able to recognise the very value, all the extent, of its, say, theoretical part.

Congratulations and thank you again for your first-class response.

Carlos


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:51 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Something else that I have thought to point out or suggest. Consider the possibility that mysticism is a matter of having some skill in encompassing some subject as a gestalt. Just for reference, from the Merriam-Webster on line dictionary:
Definition of GESTALT
: a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts

Now link/compare this to the following things. Robert Monroe talking about a 'Rote' as a block of information that would be passed to you within some NPMR context and which you wold have to unwrap and decipher in depth. Then there are Tom's comments as to the nature of communication within NPMR as being a complete block of information in a sort of multi-media format which would again have to be opened and deciphered in depth. I would tend to see mysticism as possibly a matter of establishing contact with NPMR and receiving this kind of communication in an NPMR format which is very difficult to receive and fully comprehend. I once created a forum to discuss these concepts and this kind of communication, but no one ever picked up on the concepts and discussed or explored them.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:39 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 3:55 pm
Posts: 173
Quote:
Something else that I have thought to point out or suggest. Consider the possibility that mysticism is a matter of having some skill in encompassing some subject as a gestalt. Just for reference, from the Merriam-Webster on line dictionary:
Definition of GESTALT
: a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts

Now link/compare this to the following things. Robert Monroe talking about a 'Rote' as a block of information that would be passed to you within some NPMR context and which you wold have to unwrap and decipher in depth. Then there are Tom's comments as to the nature of communication within NPMR as being a complete block of information in a sort of multi-media format which would again have to be opened and deciphered in depth. I would tend to see mysticism as possibly a matter of establishing contact with NPMR and receiving this kind of communication in an NPMR format which is very difficult to receive and fully comprehend. I once created a forum to discuss these concepts and this kind of communication, but no one ever picked up on the concepts and discussed or explored them.

Ted
Ted,

I am far from having experience enough as to express a, say, authoritative opinion. But in the few instances I have been able to obtain a clear (to me) OOBE and NPMR-contact, the information I did receive was ‘sent’ in various formats. In one instance, for example, such format was mainly visual: some different beings, apparently humans, were there. One of them, a rather mature Japanese woman (never in my life I have known any Japanese woman, neither young nor mature) offered to me a new pair of slippers, as I was barefooted (something of which I was fully aware but that bothered me in at all, not even after traveling, running, several kilometers of track). Such woman, before giving the gift, did pass a brush over the slippers, although it was quite evident that the pair was absolutely new. Then I continued my walk across a forest, on the top of which I encountered three tibetan lamas (never in my life I have known personally any tibetan folk), typically red/yellow-dressed, one of them unshaven, with a beard of some three or four days, and placed a little apart of the other two, clearly older than him. Obviously they were trying to make contact with me, who was placed in front of them, at one meter or so. The unshaven one looked at me with some special fixity. I tried also to make contact, but neither them nor I did succeed. Being so, I found the situation was becoming somewhat ridiculous, besides totally ununseful, so that I continued my walk, running anew some kilometers in pursuit of my Land Rover, of which I had forgotten the parking-place. The track finished and I found myself entering into a sort of big store which had one of its facades fully transparent, glass-made. At that point, I became suddenly aware that, in spite of having ran through so many kilometers, I was absolutely relaxed, so that, at once, a thought came into my mind: “Possibly this is a dream”. In order to verify such a possibility, I jumped in front to check whether it was possible for me to fly. And, voilà, I was flying! Next, all happened very quickly. I remembered a previous conversation with Kathryn, some days before (normally awaken in PMR), in which, talking about a previous OOBE in which I was able to touch a solid with my hand (investigating whether my hand would pass across the solid or would be stopped by it), we decided that, if some other OOBE should arrive, I should try to pass across the solid. All this thought did occur in a fraction of a second, and thus the awaited occasion was here. Being so, I directed my fly towards the glass-façade. But when arriving, some fear involved me: “Perhaps I will crash my head on the glass”. I stopped the fly, hovering like a hummingbird, and considered the situation. But, the more I considered, the more the fear was coming, and at a certain moment I realised quite clearly that my fear was effecting a withdrawal from the dream state so that the awakening was imminent if things continued that way. I made some mental effort to regain the necessary equilibrium of mental quiescence, but not very strongly, inasmuch as I was aware that some strong feeling might well ruin the state and, with it, the whole episode. In this interim, pushing my being forward while the fear was pulling it backward, I entered into a sort of “status quo” state, yet tending somewhat backward. At this point, suddenly I heard (without my ears, that is, “telepathically”) some voices, and see (without my eyes), at some short distance “in the air”, three beings, enveloped within a sort of cloud or nebula. They was talking among themselves, very accelerated, the discussion concerning some grave affair. I understood nothing of their words; in fact, I may not assure that they used words. Yet I was sure of their accelerated conversation and also quite sure (I do not know why) that the centre of their concern was no other than I. Finally, they acted in a very intelligent way. It was evident that they knew fully my mental situation, insofar as they came beside me, took my body and decidedly turned it so that my feet were placed in front of the glass wall. Then, they threw the whole against the wall, with a non-violent but firmly impulsion. My body ran through, without any material resistance, until the waistline, a moment in which the fear appeared anew. “If I awakened just now, would I find myself cut into two parts?” At that moment, I awakened, finding my body complete, and did decide to dedicate some time to the fear-issue.
In time, reflecting upon the episode, I became aware that practically all events happened in the dream (the aforesaid ones plus some others at its beginning), previous to the vision of the glass-wall, were pointing to one and the same thing, namely to made me aware that I was dreaming. The way: showing to me all sort of situations which, if properly analysed in due time within the dream, would have made me aware of that fact. The Japanese woman offered me a pair of slippers, not without taking care of gently brushing them before. Had I focused my attention on the slippers and realised at that moment how was possible I walked so great distances without shoes, and without being tired, I would be aware of the state before arriving to the store. All other things occurred at the beginning follow the same pattern: I did actions which never in my life I would done if awaken (not to pay attention to the parking-place, in an area wherein the security was rather doubtful, not to close the window of the Land Rover even being aware that there were papers and money inside it, a first running along a fence of some kilometers without feeling tired).

Thus, returning to the point (provided you have not fallen into sleep before), it is easy to see that all communications in the aforesaid case were done INDIRECTLY, either via images or symbols, so that it was my task to decipher them, or via ‘sounds-words’ whose definite form I was unable to grasp, but whose MEANING was crystal clear to me. (Apart this, perhaps also communication in the form of ‘physical’ contact, albeit I cannot assure to what extent the three beings who turned my body touched it in doing such action.) So all communications were done indirectly, as though they were CLUES.
In other two instances, however, I did receive DIRECT ‘verbal’ information. In one case, it was sent, or somewhat arrived, an English word I was totally unknown of (I am sure I had never heard it), together with its Spanish translation and quite definite instructions: “go out of the bed, take a dictionary, and verify the accuracy of the information”.
In another one, it did arrive, in Spanish language, what I interpreted as a definition of an IUOC. The point here was that the ‘message’ did include a substantive, namely “adormento”, which does not appertain to the Spanish vocabulary, not even the oldest one, and which never I had heard of. It exists in Spanish, as I saw later, the very rare verb “adormentar” [send to sleep/anesthetise], so that the first person of the indicative is “Yo adormento”, but there is not “adormento” as a substantive. Yet a skilled poet, and only a poet, might well ‘invent’ such a substantive, which may do a good job indeed if placed into some appropriate structure. In the case in question, the message, namely (translated) “You are an “adormento” of consciousness, sitting, sitting, sitting…” placed the invented substantive in such a way that the result, in Spanish language, is worthy of admiration.
Thus in these two cases the information arrived telepathically, clear and DIRECTLY, though in the latter, besides this, it included some features which, once analysed, led me to the conclusion that neither myself could be the author, nor it was a matter of, say, ‘a thought flowing in the air and luckily caught by me’, so it should be an instance wherein some intentional communication was possible alone.
In this light, with this experience, and with regard to the question of ‘blocks of information’ which one has to decipher, I cannot but think that the messages are sent in any case in such a format that the receiver is able to understand it. Of why the format is not always ‘clear and direct’, I know nothing, but suspect that one is subjected by higher beings to a sort of examination in order to know our real aptitude, after which either they await for some increase of it, and no further messages shall be sent, hoping we make our due task, or continue the communication trying to find the best appropriate ways, something which might require some time in order to make the necessary adjustments. Even so, and if some religious teachings say right, there is plenty of clues surrounding us at any time, so that it appears that when such clues are not seen, the fault is not in the clues but in the blindfold which prevents their view.
Concerning your consideration that mysticism is possibly a matter of establishing contact with NPMR so that one is able to receive communication in NPMR-format, I would delete the term ‘possibly’ and then agree fully. In fact, I may see no other functioning here. Insofar as Tom, as a well-rooted science-type, uses the term ‘mystical’ in a definite sense, explained in the First Book, Chapter 18, his teachings do not enter into the mystical issue in the sense we are talking here. Yet he did meditation successfully, and did work with it, so that he is a mystic in the proper sense of the word. Concerning the gestalt-issue, I would say that it follows from the aforesaid consideration, enlarging it, as it were, since it represents, as I see things, a higher integration at the being level. The sole fact of ‘establishing contact’ may well be quite exciting, but stopping at that point would be like see a beautiful and interesting lady, interchange some few words with her, and next keep this memory in the bedside table’s drawer.

I shall stop here, fearing that otherwise I surpass the authorised 60000 characters :-)

Carlos


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:00 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Carlos,

What you say above reminds me of Tom's descriptions of some kind of NPMR supervisory observers of his early efforts and testing in NPMR. At last someone who seems to make sense of 'crazy Ted's' far out postings. Thank you.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:02 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Carlos,

Looking back at the above interaction, I see that I probably did not respond adequately to one thing that you questioned. I said:
Quote:
The IUOCs are in their united interaction and communication, The One Consciousness and AUM in its totality.
What I am saying here, and apparently did not make it clear, I will expand as follows.

Tom's model starts with the LCS as a kind of Cellular Automaton that is just progressing by its nature starting with random data. This might be seen to automatically form into the configuration of what I have called proto-IUOCs (as they are not functioning as yet as true IUOCs) interconnected by the RWW, just by the nature of things which we here call pure mathematics and the metaphors of emergent complexity and self organization. These kinds of things are observed here in PMR within many very large and complex systems so we invent names for them. At this point, the LCS starts to move toward consciousness. Tom also calls this AUO as at this point we have all of the LCS united by this structuring into an Absolute and Unbounded Oneness. Here we already have what the ancients called Indra's Net. At some point in this development, which we cannot describe as to details, suddenly we have true Consciousness. Tom calls it The One Consciousness because it literally is the one and only consciousness existing. But it consists only and in total of all of the proto-IUOCs sending messages around and about to each other which creates The One Consciousness.

Then AUO creates VRs of the NPMR type and provides a means to provide consciousness turning the proto-IUOCs into IUOCs. But note that the IUOCs do not possess consciousness on their own. The content which they process as what they are conscious of is provided to them by the data streaming to them over the RWW. They are as general purpose digital decision makers and data manipulators, very computer like, the perceivers of the data stream, process it based upon their own internal 'mechanism' each in their own unique way and return the appropriate data in response back onto the RWW to be received and further processed by other IUOCs. There is the necessary interposition of some subset of AUO functioning as TBC which is an intermediary to AUO. The IUOCs are in a sense a misnomer as they do not individually possess consciousness. They are really (we are really) just 'digital' receivers and processors of messages. Some of those messages provide us with a stream of consciousness. Others are processed with no consciousness as we function together as part of AUO. But note well that all we have here is again IUOCs sending messages around and about to each other which creates The One Consciousness and AUO. AUO is just a metaphor that Tom applies to it as it continues to develop and at this stage in its development.

The next stage in that development is as AUO transitions into AUM as a new metaphor that Tom uses. AUM represents a Manifold created as an 'elaboration' of AUO. Here we eventually have many VRs of both PMR and NPMR types arranged into Systems of multiple VRs in what Tom describes as a fractal nature. AUM is a new metaphor for the continued development with added characteristics of AUO which is just a continued development of The One Consciousness. AUM subsumes AUO which subsumes The One Consciousness. Yet they all as aspects of the LCS continue to exist as their characteristics remain: they are just a continuing development. But note well that all we have here is again IUOCs sending messages around and about to each other which creates The One Consciousness and AUO and now AUM. There is still nothing there but the messaging from IUOC to IUOC (Indra's Net again) that creates all of these functional relationships.

Compare this to Tom Campbell's metaphor of the 'sheetness' of our reality. The LCS is just the LCS, but when an individual is required, a 'sock puppet' pops out of the sheet to be that individual. When a Big Computer is required, a bigger sock puppet pops out of the sheet to provide that functionality. If you could 'look at' the LCS as a CA, you would see nothing in the way of the IUOCs on the RWW to distinguish data aspects from processing aspects in any way. It is all done by the 'magic' of the messaging of all of us lowly IUOCs receiving, processing and then resending of a continuing series of messages which makes the whole sheet to do its magic.

And what is entropy reduction? It is just a matter of improving ourselves as IUOCs so that the processing that we do between the intaking of a message and the outputting of a message is more fruitful, producing a better quality, more appropriate output message. If we individually as IUOCs slowly and gradually improve in this way, then the Oneness that is all of us functioning together to create The One Consciousness gradually improves in the quality of that Consciousness.

All words are just metaphors for relationships. All ideas and concepts are just metaphors with metaphors built of and on top of metaphors. There is within none of this vast and complex thing of the LCS/AUM any such thing as something with an absolute meaning. It is all just us 'little ol' IUOCs' sending messages about which we collectively attempt over time to refine as to fit together in better ways.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:13 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 3:55 pm
Posts: 173
Quote:
Carlos,

What you say above reminds me of Tom's descriptions of some kind of NPMR supervisory observers of his early efforts and testing in NPMR. At last someone who seems to make sense of 'crazy Ted's' far out postings. Thank you.

Ted
Ted,
Someone, you say? There is plenty of people who not merely believe blindly in such genre of beings, following this or that established religion, but that are convinced through personal experience of their very existence together with their activity, either directly or indirectly, not only in the mental realm but even in our physical world. Naturally each one has to investigate within his own experience, since no objectivity is to be found here save perhaps in a very definite and rather rare cases. But if we pay due attention to certain events occurred in our private life and which we take ordinarily as luck, chance, coincidence, etc., or we take as “things that happen, I don’t know how”, after which they are easily forgotten, most probably it will appear, at least, what the magistrates call ‘a reasonable doubt’. I, always willing to discover where is the trick in this matter, pay since some years much attention to every “possible instance”, including a few I remember from those years of my first youth. A categorical assurance, in the sense of a, say, mathematical proof, I have none. What I have is a collection of evidences which, taken as a whole, make hard for me to do not accept this as a fact.
All this, with regard to my own experience. Now, there is also the teachings provided by some, to me, authoritative sources. Mr. Campbell apart, there is knowledge on this matter within Mahayana Buddhism, in Vedantic Sages as Shankara, in outstanding mystics as Merrell-Wolff, and most probably in many others I am not aware of.

It is just because all of this that “crazy sayings”, in whatever format, with regard to this issue, exist everywhere indeed, most particularly in the mouth of those who consider this question as a nonsensical one.

Carlos


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:09 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 3:55 pm
Posts: 173
Quote:
Carlos,

Looking back at the above interaction, I see that I probably did not respond adequately to one thing that you questioned. I said:
Quote:
The IUOCs are in their united interaction and communication, The One Consciousness and AUM in its totality.
What I am saying here, and apparently did not make it clear, I will expand as follows.

Tom's model starts with the LCS as a kind of Cellular Automaton that is just progressing by its nature starting with random data. This might be seen to automatically form into the configuration of what I have called proto-IUOCs (as they are not functioning as yet as true IUOCs) interconnected by the RWW, just by the nature of things which we here call pure mathematics and the metaphors of emergent complexity and self organization. These kinds of things are observed here in PMR within many very large and complex systems so we invent names for them. At this point, the LCS starts to move toward consciousness. Tom also calls this AUO as at this point we have all of the LCS united by this structuring into an Absolute and Unbounded Oneness. Here we already have what the ancients called Indra's Net. At some point in this development, which we cannot describe as to details, suddenly we have true Consciousness. Tom calls it The One Consciousness because it literally is the one and only consciousness existing. But it consists only and in total of all of the proto-IUOCs sending messages around and about to each other which creates The One Consciousness.

Then AUO creates VRs of the NPMR type and provides a means to provide consciousness turning the proto-IUOCs into IUOCs. But note that the IUOCs do not possess consciousness on their own. The content which they process as what they are conscious of is provided to them by the data streaming to them over the RWW. They are as general purpose digital decision makers and data manipulators, very computer like, the perceivers of the data stream, process it based upon their own internal 'mechanism' each in their own unique way and return the appropriate data in response back onto the RWW to be received and further processed by other IUOCs. There is the necessary interposition of some subset of AUO functioning as TBC which is an intermediary to AUO. The IUOCs are in a sense a misnomer as they do not individually possess consciousness. They are really (we are really) just 'digital' receivers and processors of messages. Some of those messages provide us with a stream of consciousness. Others are processed with no consciousness as we function together as part of AUO. But note well that all we have here is again IUOCs sending messages around and about to each other which creates The One Consciousness and AUO. AUO is just a metaphor that Tom applies to it as it continues to develop and at this stage in its development.

The next stage in that development is as AUO transitions into AUM as a new metaphor that Tom uses. AUM represents a Manifold created as an 'elaboration' of AUO. Here we eventually have many VRs of both PMR and NPMR types arranged into Systems of multiple VRs in what Tom describes as a fractal nature. AUM is a new metaphor for the continued development with added characteristics of AUO which is just a continued development of The One Consciousness. AUM subsumes AUO which subsumes The One Consciousness. Yet they all as aspects of the LCS continue to exist as their characteristics remain: they are just a continuing development. But note well that all we have here is again IUOCs sending messages around and about to each other which creates The One Consciousness and AUO and now AUM. There is still nothing there but the messaging from IUOC to IUOC (Indra's Net again) that creates all of these functional relationships.

Compare this to Tom Campbell's metaphor of the 'sheetness' of our reality. The LCS is just the LCS, but when an individual is required, a 'sock puppet' pops out of the sheet to be that individual. When a Big Computer is required, a bigger sock puppet pops out of the sheet to provide that functionality. If you could 'look at' the LCS as a CA, you would see nothing in the way of the IUOCs on the RWW to distinguish data aspects from processing aspects in any way. It is all done by the 'magic' of the messaging of all of us lowly IUOCs receiving, processing and then resending of a continuing series of messages which makes the whole sheet to do its magic.

And what is entropy reduction? It is just a matter of improving ourselves as IUOCs so that the processing that we do between the intaking of a message and the outputting of a message is more fruitful, producing a better quality, more appropriate output message. If we individually as IUOCs slowly and gradually improve in this way, then the Oneness that is all of us functioning together to create The One Consciousness gradually improves in the quality of that Consciousness.

All words are just metaphors for relationships. All ideas and concepts are just metaphors with metaphors built of and on top of metaphors. There is within none of this vast and complex thing of the LCS/AUM any such thing as something with an absolute meaning. It is all just us 'little ol' IUOCs' sending messages about which we collectively attempt over time to refine as to fit together in better ways.

Ted
Ted,

With regard to your quote, certainly what you say is right. Mine is the mistake, as I had such a lapse that I took IUOCs by FWAUs, so that all the objections I was having in mind concerning "if Ted is right, where we should place self-consciousness and free-will", dissipated, in principle, at once. But reading the part of your post I have marked in bold, I see that my problem remains the same. You say there that They are really (we are really) just 'digital' receivers and processors of messages., as if the difference between IUOCs and FWAUs were no more than one of 'greater complexity of the digital-working machine'. If it is so, then I do not see where self-consciousness, and most especially free-will, should be, say, integrated into the machine. It comes to my mind the possibility that they were born via emergence of self-organisation in complex systems, but this is perhaps no more than a fuzzy thought.


As to the suggestive idea of a natural progression from a posited random-structurally LCS to the One Consciousness, whose 'black point', namely the very beginning of all such stuff, is 'solved' by Mr. Campbell by means of a first-class and irrefutable logical demonstration (Book 1, Chapter 18) that at least one 'mystical' (unknown) principle is absolutely required by logic itself for its functioning, there is no question of starting a discussion in this post, but I encourage all interested readers to consider the possibility of thinking to what extent the necessity of having a beginning, or a terminus, for whatever thing is due to the very form of our reasoning, insofar as it comes ultimately from our physical perception as the sole source of what we see and therefore call reality, precisely constituted by 'things', 'geometrical things', to which, save further analysis, we arbitrarily attribute, first, the properties of some definite spatial extension, and, next, and owed to our natural tendency to consider time in terms of movements of 'things' within the space, another ones equally arbitrary as some definite beginning and some definite end. Perhaps a consideration of time in ‘vertical’ or ‘y-axis’ terms, instead of our insistently ‘horizontal’ or ‘x-axis’ view where time is the variable while our supposedly spatially-definite things come across the line of the t-dependent equation defining their movement, could provide the clue to understand the assumed necessity of both a beginning and a end of things. Such a consideration is anything but new. As far as I know, Indian philosophy, Tibetan doctrines, and Celtic culture (wherein a number of American people have their roots) incorporate it. For those of the visual-type, Brancusi's endless column is a beautiful representation of such an axis mundi.

Carlos


Last edited by Carlos on Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:28 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 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