Return Home
It is currently Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:22 pm

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 Previous 1 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:25 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

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

Free will results from that emergent property of reality that creates the structure of the IUOCs interconnected by the RWW. While within the IUOC, data is processed deterministically and along the RWW, the data propagates along deterministically, there is effectively a break in the determinism at the IUOC interface to the RWW. The IUOC does not have to accept all data 'passing by'. It has developed a mechanism which is very complex by which it determines just what data to accept and process. This is the basis of free will. For a simple analogy to something which is much more complex, think about a keying system for all the door locks in an office building. It is called a keying system because there is a hierarchy of levels as to just which doors a given key will lock. There are master keys which will open any lock in the building. There are submaster keys which will open any lock in a given department. Then there are individual keys which only open a particular lock. This is not the way IUOCs work, but it gives you the idea of how there can be different levels of keys matching locks.

For data being accessed by an IUOC, there is going to be a unique address to that IUOC. Messages sent to that address will normally be accepted there at that IUOC. But there are indications that there is also a recognition of the source for a message and a message properly addressed can be rejected on that basis, as I understand it. Then there is going to be data that will be accepted by a given IUOC because it is of a specific type which that IUOC in effect wants to know about. What other distinctions there might be is unknown, but these are pretty certain to be two types at least. There are probably very much more complex considerations as well.

Now the data type may include information as to how to process the data in some particular way in terms of what the data represents. Then I can readily see that there might be instructions as to what to do with the data after processing. But there is nothing as I understand it that would be able to force an IUOC to accept data if it was not willing to do so. I also understand that there is no basis upon which something outside that IUOC can force it or predetermine just exactly how that data gets processed within that IUOC. So these things constitute the absolute basis of free will.

Now when an IUOC functions as an FWAU in PMR, there start to be some limitations placed upon that free will, externally to the IUOC as I understand it. The IUOC becomes limited in that the data stream related to its 'native' VR is limited by the rule set of that particular VR. As a crude illustration, consider that the VR data stream places you on the 10th floor of a building on the fire escape or looking out of an open window. As an IUOC, you have the free will to make your 'avatar' in the VR jump down the 10 stories. But as an FWAU, there is a steep price to pay for this extreme exercise of free will. Ten stories worth! So as an FWAU your decision space is limited to climbing down the fire escape or stairs and not leaping direct to the street. Other situations can be extrapolated from this.

So this in simple terms is how I see free will to work and to be unavoidable as existing. We might perceive even further limitations on our available decision space resulting from our beliefs. We might believe that there are limits that are not 'real'.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:21 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

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

I do not see a substantial difference between Tom's path and every mystic path. I think anybody, regardless his education-level, may be a true mystic, and thus being able to discover what you so well call "base reality". Quite another matter with regard to his possibilities of conveying to others what he has found. Tom, as some others, starts from the same point all mystics start, namely focusing to the inside instead of to the outside. The reason by which he decided, time ago, to do so might well be due to his scientific spirit, and, since his circumstances are such that he is able to give a coherent scientific explanation to what he finds 'there', we have, in that sense, an instance wherein scientific inquiry is, so to say, the main motivation. But in order to progress in such an inquiry, he has been 'forced' to enter the mystic path, i.e., meditation, mind-concentration, searching for the Self, etc., etc., for, had he developed his pursuit by means of raw scientific knowledge solely, no matter its heights, it is doubtful that you and I were discussing this question now and here, as it seems hard for me to imagine that MBT were never seen the light. Thus, ours is the choice: we may refer to Tom either as a scientist developing his duty by all means he knows, including mysticism, or as a mystic having scientific knowledge enough as to explain his findings, both scientific and mystic, and thus fulfill such duty, by means of PMR-science's technical jargon.
I do not think that my words may appear as offensive to Mr. Campbell. The lotus's flower will remain the lotus's flower no matter we call it lotus's flower or arrive to describe it through its very mathematical formula (something rather unlikely, I would say). Only aesthetical considerations or inclinations, always relative, might decide what is its proper name (something that the flower in question most probably does not care at all).

Carlos


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:16 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

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

I don't think there is a good answer in any kind of absolute terms. When you start to even get into the question of 'what is mysticism', you get into an extremely complex question with as nearly as many answers as there have been mystics. There has come to be a relatively large and somewhat diverse academic view developed of mysticism and how it fits within philosophy. Not all of which, or much of which at all, would be recognizable by those who are actually mystics. And of course that ends up with a lot of typical academic splitting of hairs, and disagreements. There is theistic mysticism, and thus of course as many varieties as there are religions. Then there is non-theistic mysticism which can be even more diverse as being less bounded.

Now let me mention something which I believe is pertinent, but not clear and definitive. That is something that Tom either brought up or agreed with someone bringing it up on the board as to its sigificance, which is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), developed from ideas of Jung, as I understand. I test out as an INFJ which is variously characterized as a counselor or in other characterizations as a mystic. This matches the path of my life while I have worked as an engineer, at a lower technical level but not totally unlike Tom. Tom says that he is an INTP which is characterized variously as an engineer or architect or just as a thinker. Heavily into analysis. This seems to match well with Tom's professional career and with his explorations and creation of MBT. You might look at this link for thumbnail views of the characteristics attributed to these 16 different personality types which they distinguish. http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-pers ... -types.asp Of course, keep in mind that these are not exact pigeon holes and that there are many who do not fit one of these types.

Then there are questions about the meaning of our brains being split into a right and a left half with different types of functionality being attributed to the right side and the left side. Was this modeled after our minds as IUOCs which exist in a milieu which has neither right nor left attributes? Or did it simply arise as a PMR artifact where we are typically bilaterally symmetrical unless we are at a very low level of physiological development, at and below the level of worms?

Then there is a situation which I have brought up on the board before but which no one seems particularly interested in. There are two women who have written about the loss of their internal dialog. Bernadette Roberts took a spiritual route in dealing with and explaining this situation. Suzanne Segal who eventually took a spiritual teacher route. There are aspects of this also in which, for some, their visual field is not located in their virtual eyes and Suzanne Segal, when this experience suddenly hit her, initially was looking over her left shoulder from behind her back. I once knew someone who experienced something like this periodically, but did not 'freak out' like Suzanne Segal. Then I have myself experienced the total loss of internal dialog while continuing to function normally in terms of interacting with others. Somewhat strange to hear yourself speaking appropriate words or performing actions which you did not choose to speak and had no conscious thought to do so or to act so. But I was not freaked out as I had been thinking about this for some time based upon Carlos Castaneda's books. I seem to flow back and forth with this now as I can choose to think about something analytically as opposed to a previous tendency to 'over think' things. This is one of the things which has led me to describing our stream of conscious thoughts as originating of necessity with the data stream from the TBC/VRRE as our VR delta t is so much slower than the delta t at which our IUOC functions at as it exists within the LCS. Not that they are not our thoughts, but that they must be selected for us to limit them to what we can deal with. Many people are troubled with obsessive-compulsive type thinking and 'racing' thoughts.

So now that I have thoroughly muddied the waters, I can only say that I cannot absolutely say that Tom is not a typical mystic of some type as you say. But I would personally, from the point of view of someone who is a mystic, see him as something else. From my point of view, he was rather an analytical thinker/mental system builder who was nudged into the path of meditation and then meeting up with Robert Monroe after an early childhood in which he describes much OOBE and contact with guidance and interactions in NPMR. So he explored NPMR extensively and applied his abilities as an analytical thinker to modeling his experience in scientific terms. This matches his self description as an INTP. This matches his self description of not being a mystic and leaving mystical elements out of his model of reality, in terms of how he originated and developed the model. I sneaked in behind him and brought up the match of his model to Indra's Net and other aspects that do come from mystical exploration as opposed to the more analytical kind of exploration that Tom did. I can't imagine a path by which I as a mystic could have produced the total model that Tom produced, since I did not do any of the extensive exploration of NPMR that Tom did. I rather sought and then accepted information from the LCS which I see as typical of mysticism while Tom actively explored and created a model based upon scientific and mathematical approaches. So I don't link Tom to mysticism except through his results matching those of mysticism. But to me, that only points to a 'proof' by agreement of results and not to Tom being a mystic.

The reason that I went into all of those other things before saying the above is that I think that mysticism to be explained and clarified must be approached with a knowledge of the LCS and NPMR as in Tom's model. I suspect that it does amount to an ability to more readily deal with 'rote's' per Robert Monroe or the kind of multi-media gestalts that Tom seems to describe. I think that it also amounts to an openness and willingness to accept such information from the LCS or our NPMR guidance or where ever it happens to be coming at a given time. Perhaps we can tempt Tom to find the time to return here and comment on this subject.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:32 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

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

In the very interesting work of Alfred Bowyer Sharpe (1910), titled "Mysticism, its true nature and value", the author develops a criticism on a certain theory as follows:

On this theory, which has recently found some favour with an undiscerning public, it appears to be held that there is a transcendental sphere into which exceptionally gifted minds have been able to penetrate, but which is not —as, of course, in the pantheistic view it could not be— that immediate presence of a personal God which Christian mystics believed that they enjoyed. Their belief in the divine Trinity and the Incarnate Son was, it is thought, merely a part of the subjective medium through which their consciousness of the transcendental reality had to pass, and which gave its own form and colour to their mystical experience. The 'dry light’ of the Absolute is, in this view, stained by the preconceptions of the mind which contemplates it. We may, therefore, abstract all such preconceptions of whatever kind —whether founded on revelation, philosophic speculation or theosophic insight— and consider the residuum as the one essential and all-pervading element of mystical vision.
This residuum is held to be the inner reality of nature, the stable foundation on which the kaleidoscopic changes of the universe take place, and in which the changing elements themselves are substantially comprehended. The phenomenal experience of mankind in general is fragmentary; but the mystic contemplates all things in their totality; he envisages the greatest common measure of the universe as a single luminous point, from which the various elements of the cosmos, ideal or material, perpetually radiate, and in which they are all at the same time concentrated. Thus it is supposed that the mystic enters into a kind of impersonal union with the essence of things, or rather realises that union in a sphere higher than that of personality. It matters nothing, accordingly, what the subjective medium may be through which the transcendental vision passes —that is merely the soul-language in terms of which the true object is expressed; and the actual object of mystical contemplation is for Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist and Mohammedan precisely one and the same. So stated, it is not to be denied that the theory has a certain plausibility. But here are the difficulties.
First, we have, and…


From what follows the above ‘and…’, the author, an English Anglican priest, would be, from my personal standpoint, the living example of what the word ‘bias’ precisely indicates, and the very proof of why personal prejudice may ruin any serious effort to maintain mind’s clarity.

Indeed, I find myself quite well represented in that group he defines as “undiscerning people”, and thus feel integrated among the sustainers of that criticised theory.

Insofar as I agree fully with your view that “When you start to even get into the question of 'what is mysticism', you get into an extremely complex question”, something well proven through the never-ending diverse considerations appeared into scene since the great Greek epoch, I shall reduce what I understand by it to the above excerpt, no matter its author was a Catholic priest.

As to the psychological-types issue, if one has to follow the reasoning of Franklin Merrell-Wolff in this area (as in many others, as is my case), mystics have erred in universalising, with respect to much of the criticism of the mind they have developed, and which is no doubt valid concerning the kind of knowledge they are familiar with, what is no more than a peculiarity of some psychological types (from a footnote placed into Pathways Through to Space, Chapter 77). Thus it appears that I made an overstatement in saying that any person, regardless his education level, may be a true mystic. The possibilities are, it seems, not so wider.

At any rate, apart some evident features adorning or obscuring my self, and of which even my apparently undiscerning nature is well aware, many years passed through since I abandoned the idea of knowing whether there would be some sufficient complex box as to give room for so much inconsistency I manifest in both inner and outer life, to the extent that the sole thought of such an extraordinary box starts in me a loudly laugh, something rather impolite in this British-mental area surrounding me since some time. Yet, as Spanish as I am, I think that a certain lack of discreteness and embarrassment would be quite in accordance with my unavoidable and most cherished Mediterranean nature, and thus I may with no much difficulty get naked in saying that, if I had to choose, I would say I am apt to INTP basket.

Concerning Tom, the analysis you make I find it certainly accurate, as you develop it, albeit interchanging the terms God and Ultimate Nature of Reality, our differences seem to me clearly diminished. Inasmuch as my undiscerning quality allows me to discriminate, we ordinary humans have two available written instances of deep inner insights explained through an unquestionable, high-level scientific method, namely MBT and Franklin Merrell-Wolff’s works. Dr. Wolff defines himself as a mystic, but taking into account his astonishing scientific knowledge, as well as his biography, it is hard not to see that his main motivation is that of a scientific inquiry.
You say “The reason that I went into all of those other things before saying the above is that I think that mysticism to be explained and clarified must be approached with a knowledge of the LCS and NPMR as in Tom's model. I suspect that it does amount to an ability to more readily deal with 'rote's' per Robert Monroe or the kind of multi-media gestalts that Tom seems to describe.”, and I agree fully save in ‘as in Tom’s model’, provided I understand rightly and this means, implicitly, ‘exclusively in Tom’s way’, or ‘in a way like that of Tom’,something about which I am not sure. To me, Merrell-Wolff’s considerations, developed in a quite different way, are equally clear and, to say truth, more of my taste, even being, as I am, an devotee to physics.

Finally, and regarding your last statement, well… one can not fail to recognise in its author a glimmer of idealistic and dreamer character. I fear Mr. Campbell is, like Jesus, over and above any terrestrial temptation, and his mastering of time is perhaps not so great as to multiply it like breads and fishes. Unfortunately indeed.

Carlos


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:37 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

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

After having read the content of that link you provided ( http://wiki.my-big-toe.com/index.php/Th ... _Link_Page), I realised that most of my aforesaid 'objections' dissipated at once.
No words to declare how much impressive I have found it, and to what extent it has clarified my whole vision of MBT. To me and thanks to it, there is already a before and an after in my understanding of Tom's work.
I would suggest giving it as a gift, along with any volume of the book. As a gift, because it has no price.

Carlos


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:10 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:09 pm
Posts: 8
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
I had an experience like... 7 years ago and since I kept researching on the subject. To make it short, I was aware of the existence of what some people call the observer state (when you can take a step back, observe yourself and make changes in your patterns), but I thought... ''Well, maybe there is a super conscious state beyond that. Why not, right?''.

I didn't know by where to start, but I thought... let's try to stand still, keep my eyes open and just focus on increasing my awareness. Just that. Well, I did just that (simple, right?) and in a matter of minutes (I'm sure it was less than 5 minutes), my sight increased a little bit, then again, colors started to become brighter, especially the white and at some point my vision (what I can see with my eyes) became literally like a widesreen (exactly < - - like the shape of a computer screen, but a little bit wider).

However, there was something strange. I could see a black color around the screen, but then I realize that it wasn't a thing, I was able to see beyond the screen and at the same time, I started to move backward from the screen and as it kept getting smaller in my view, well I obviously realized that I was actually floating in space (in the so-called ''Void'') and all around me it was infinite and pure darkness. And then I looked at the screen and realized that I just am not ''what'' I thought I was, strictly a human being. That human being that I thought was me is just an avatar, just like when we play video games. But wait a minute, I can stil control my human body, how the... how is that possible? And wait, how can I move (then I looked down and realized that I couldn't see my body, I was formless, pure consciousness in a formless world interacting with the screen through just consciousness.

And while all this was taking place in my mind (I use the word mind to express my consciousness, not the intellect or the brain), I realized that not only that was the ''real'' world where I'm actually a formless being, but I also have access to all the information that I want about that universe and I had so many questions at the same time that I was literally flooded with data and had to improvise a resume. Basically, this isn't real, not unreal... it's virtual. What matters is that it allows me to acquire experiences and evolve, period.

And for some reason, I kep being pulled backward and at some point I could barely see the screen. I didn't know what to do. I didn't know if it was right, what was pulling me backward, where it would lead me, etc. And I didn't know if it was wrong, maybe I really had to live that life and it wasn't the time yet to return to my original formless state and if other formless beings are also connected in that virtual world, well maybe by coming here I'm letting them down and I'm not fulfilling my function, etc. So I had no idea what to do, and as I kept being pulled backward, well... fear took over me and for some reaosn that triggered something and I quickly moved back in the direction of the screen until I fully returned at my initial position (basically I could see through my human eyes normally and couldn't see beyond the screen anymore and my level of consciousness also dropped back to ''normal'').

So, before I try a second time, I decided to find answers and others like me. Well, I didn't find anyone else at all until just recently (Tom and his Big TOE), but I spent the last 7 years researching the subject and what I found out is really fascinating. Basically, I researched (the best I could) Tibetan Buddhism, Taoism, ancient mystery schools of Egypt, Yoga, etc. And during that time I also experienced two other phenomenons. One is simply like a flame that passes through my chest, coming from the heart area and the other experience is the something that we can trigger (voluntarily) through meditation. So, I'm talking about the state that we see all the time in various images on the web when we look for chakras, third eye, etc. Basically, when we breathe properly, experience a super high degree of unconditional love for all that is with a high level of excitement for life (wrongly called sexual energy too often) and then after (you can't do it successfully before without love) you have to focus an area in the center of the brain and seems to come out from the forehead, something very physical and biological gets triggered.

A feeling of contraction takes place and that area becomes like a ball (seed of light) and at some point it's like a branch of light comes out from its top and that becomes literally (you can really feel it physically) a vortex (the opening is way above the head) that goes down into the so-called Brahma cave, the original location of the ball that I just talked about. At the same time, it also produces a magnetic field, but the way it works is that while it keeps spinning infinitely, it's also like a flower that blossoms infinitely (it expands, gets weakers and from the center it regenerates, and repeat). And again at the same time, you can feel bursts of electricity running through nerves in the head and they are produced in the center, then move to the outside, a bit like an explosion. And there is also, very important to note, a ''bubbling feeling'' at the center and what I think that is... is actually the cerebrospinal fluid that becoems supercharged and then that's what moves through the brain and produce those burst of electricity as it fills the brain to protect it. And at the top of all that, you then experience also a very special meditative state. Hormones are obviously secreted, the ego just disappears completely, negative feelings just cannot exist in such state, you start to feel good and then it turns into bliss and oneness. In fact, the feeling so powerful, it's literally a brain orgasm (not joking, it's a couple of times stronger than a sexual orgasm) and what makes it very special is that the duration of it was like... 45 minutes. That's a very long time. And that vortex that I talked about, during the whole experience was attracting particles of energy into the center of the brain and you can actually feel that. You can feel all those particles above you, even if you cannot see them and when the vortex aborbs them, you receive a tremendous amount of energy that you would normally get from food, but this is a lot more effective and pure. So, if you hear of people that do not eat at all, that could be how they do it.

That said, the experience that I just described is precisely what Yoga, Taoism, ancient mystery schools of Egypt or Drunvalo Melchizedek with his Merkaba talk about. They all talk about the same things, but they all talk about the exact same things from a different perspective, the same way we could teach stuff with a book, a song, a video, a game, etc. (different mediums). However, Taoists wrote their texts in code, so it's almost impossible to understand what they meant. Few would understand and my guess is that whoever understood, actually practiced and experienced the thing and then used the text to confirm where they are at in their process.

Now, what does it all have to do with Tom and his Big TOE?

Well, I recently found out (finally) that in Yoga they identified 3 states of consciousness: wakeful (our ''normal'' state here), sleep and deep sleep. But there is a fourth state also, a super conscious state that transcends the 3 others and they call it Turiya and there are terms such as Turiyatita, Samadhi and Shunya (Void) involved. And one description that comes back a lot is ''You are pure consciousness in the void, the real world, and you are like in a theather room in which there is a white screen and you can watch your life.'' Exactly with those words.

I think Turiya is also expressed in Taoism by Wu Ji and Mugamushin in Japanese. Tom should verify those terms. Basically, what experienced Turiya himself and could obviously only come up with the logical conclusion that is now what he calls his Big TOE that is now our official modern scientific version of what is still taught in Yoga (sanskrit) today and is explained also differently in other traditions (ex: Taoism) or people (Drunval Melchizedek). And if you hear what Drunvalo has to say, he talks about this as well. (see: http://www.2012.com.au/fourth_dim.html). Drunvalo also talked about a blind woman who could see things with the help of her inner screens (plural) and she could go anywhere even in space. She was asked by the NASA (if I'm correct) to read the number on a satellite and she was correct. And Drunvalo said that some indigenous tribes knew about this and the method they use requires a person to stay in a completely dark room for 9 days and not eat. That would trigger the phenomenon, but I think there are faster ways like the method I used that took minutes and I didn't have to close my eyes at all.

Also, I've heard some people say that to enter in Turiya state you have to look inside of you and then you'll find a cave and its opening would be your eyes. Well, that's a completely wrong way of describing it, because when you play a videogame, you are not inside your main character or avatar. That's just a wrong logic. The real you is formless and you are, in reality, floating in the void and are looking at a screen and in fact you are so close to that screen that most of you cannot realize that there is a world around and behind it. And because we are pure consciousness, well it seems that it also requires consciousness to move away form that screen (so we have to move higher in degrees of awareness/ consciousness).

And well, I'm a game developer myself, so that whole idea that we live in a virtual reality while were are just pure consciousness makes a lot of sense to me.

All that said, we might live in reality in a higher world, the void realm, and we may be formless beings and pure consciousness, but still... there are other worlds here to discover (like changing disc to play another game, but here it's a case of switching frequencies) and we need to master our inner technology (Merkaba, etc.). Think this as... we are in an adventure game and we inner technology is our special move and we have to discover new worlds...

I'm done.
PEACE

_________________
Together as one...
Game Designer | Game Level Designer | 3D Artist


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

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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited