After I got to the part in book 1 that gives a meditation instruction, I started the recommended (or non-recommended) 20 minutes, twice daily regiment. My question is, will there be other recommendations throughout the trilogy on what to do to experience things directly, without having to rely on theory?

I assume yes, since you mention the value of direct experience, but then I get confused due to how you actually gave the original meditation instructions.

I am not sure if I understand where you are coming from with your apprehension to give people something to "do" to lower the entropy of their consciousness. Are you saying that there is nothing that can be "done" in PMR to lower the entropy of your consciousness or are you saying that nothing can be "done" in both PMR and NPMR to lower the entropy? If it is the former, then I think I understand due to the meditation being an NPMR act, but if it is the latter then I am more confused.

JoshM,

Your confusion is between doing and being. There is nothing you can do (action that you can take) anywhere (in any reality frame) that guarantees lower entropy as a result. To change the entropy of your consciousness you must change who you are -- change your being. Evolution is not about action (doing stuff) it is about becoming, about personal growth, about changing your intent. A change in being is fundamental and takes place at the core, action is the expression of the present state of that being at the outer boundary where you interact and do within a virtual reality. One must change the core, not just alter the expression.

Tom C

Thanks for the reply. I am still a little fuzzy, but I will see if things get cleared up by the end of the trilogy.

Mr. Campbell,
quote..... action is the expression of the present state of that being

Like JoshM, I am in that" fuzzy state" as well. I am wondering if I would be wrong to take encouragement from your quote. Looking at it, I thought, if action and the core [ of being ]are so directly connected [ a relationship ] ,might not the action of JoshM, or , Savoir, in spite of their " fuzzy state ", have a positive effect upon their core, upon the assumption that the relationship between core of being and action might be a 2way relationship.

In spite of that possibility I realize that the principle, or, mechanism of Intent always holds. Intent is what changes the core of being.

Thank you, for your attention.
Savoir[b][/b]

_________________
There is always more.

I think I understand how to explain this fuzzy area between doing and being. After I finished reading the trilogy in November I too wondered how to proceed. As weeks went by I examined my burning questions that need more data to understand, and write down to ask the forum. A funny thing happened.
Exploring one idea for a week or so against the framework outlined by MBT was consistently giving me enough insight that it didn't need to be asked. As one after another clarified itself I realized that this was what Tom was telling us all along. Personal growth comes from personal experience, and finding our own understanding is how we grow.

Being aware and making our daily choices less and less from an ego bias is a good place to start. We don't necessarily have to judge our own progress by OBEs or paranormal experience. Better understanding of ourselves and our interactions with all our PMR relatives follows self analysis and seeking our own answers. Seeking understanding is in itself a positive step and helps improve the quality of our being.

Savoir:
if action and the core [ of being ]are so directly connected [ a relationship ] ,might not the action of JoshM, or , Savoir, in spite of their " fuzzy state ", have a positive effect upon their core, upon the assumption that the relationship between core of being and action might be a 2way relationship.


It is a two way relationship between (PMR) us and our (OS NPMR) oversoul. Positive actions we take in any state can lead to lower entropy if these positive actions have the right intent. We don't easily hear our oversouls because PMR sensory input (noise) overwhelms the message (signal) and what we do get we interpret from a PMR viewpoint. Reducing input from the ego improves the signal quite a bit.

It seems to me that anyone who consciously seeks knowledge in this forum, using the framework of MBT for building their own big TOE will profit from the experience. We must consciously Do and make it part of us in order to Be a better person. I hope this helps in some small way and I wasn't too unclear or off the mark. If I was I'd bet money Tom will clear it up.

_________________
always, John

Savior,

You answered your own question -- indeed, it is intent that leads to growth, not action. Why? Because any action can be taken for multiple reasons -- i.e., multiple motivations or multiple intents.

For example, one may do good works (be helpful to others) for reasons of ego -- guilt, self-righteousness, out of obligation, being afraid not to, want to look good in others eyes, because they think it is required or expected or they believe it is a way to earn a reward they wish to claim (heaven, lower entropy, money, gratitude, the appreciation and praise of others, etc.). These are all about the doer -- what the doer gets for doing good works, and thus are ego based. Such good works motivated by the intent of ego create no personal growth, however helpful they may be. Doing anything motivated by love, by caring for another (all about the other, not about the self) will reduce one's entropy no matter how small the act. Personal growth is not generated by action, but by intent. Personal growth may or may not follow good action but, when it does, it is not the action that pushes consciousness quality forward -- it is the intent behind the action.

As I said: "action is the expression of the present state of that being". Unfortunately, for many actions, that present state could be both one of love and caring or one of fear and ego — and the movie camera records identical actions. One may obey the law because one is afraid of being caught or because one's personal quality would require it whether there was a law or not. Same obedience, different motivations.

Stroker,
you hit the nail on the head. An excellent response and fine contribution to the discussion, thanks for jumping in.

Tom C

Would like some criticism on my view point of "being".

To be compassion:

Example 1.

You encounter a child crying, and looks hurt. The child is holding a lollipop, and no one else is around.

Do you...
1. See if you can help the child
2. Ignore the child. (not my child, not my problem)
3. Take the lollipop

Typically most would show compassion and try to help the child. Tho that lollipop is looking good (just kidding :)

Example 2.

You encounter a man in deep need, one who looks to be broken. The man is known to be utterly evil to most who know him. In your particular case, he as stolen, beaten, and committed other mean spirited acts against you. There is probably money in his wallet that belongs to you, and is wearing a watch that he stole from you. It has great personal value one way, or another. Perhaps to go so far as to say he murdered your loved one, but got away with it. Again no one is around.

Do you...
1. try to help him to the best of your ability
2. Walk by as if you didn't see him
3. Take advantage of the situation (beating, and/or kill him, take his wallet, reclaim your watch)

Venturing a guess, most would select option 3 believing it would be justified. However, one who has become compassion would automatically act accordingly to option 1. For the very simple reason that is "who they are".

It seems to me that the greater difficulty in the act correlates to the quality of your consciousness/spirit.

In the case of example 2. would acting out option 1, even tho you don't want to, but rather do option 3, give some experience that may develop your conscious? I ultimately want to become compassion, yet in the situation I don't want to be compassionate. However forcing myself to "act" accordingly to compassion, in the hopes of developing that ultimate desire of becoming. Would that work? (sorry if that don't make any sense). Not sure that would go under ego (acting right for all the wrong reasons as you pointed out), or intent of becoming.

My personal "fuzziness" comes from intent. It may be apparent to others, but escapes me. Understand the definition, but seems to be mythical magical. Something with a deeper meaning that's out of reach. Perhaps it's the difference in supposed (fake) vs. true intent that's giving me trouble.

Good point, Shinoki.

You are actually asking about how one might one pull one's self up by one's bootstraps -- whether doing could be part of the process. The answer is “yes“, doing is often part of the bootstrapping process (primarily by putting theory to the test, exercising one’s quality, and then getting feedback). Action is not always irrelevant to the process of growth; it is just not the direct source or cause of growth. If the person (who ultimately want to become compassion, yet in the situation is not yet fully compassionate) forces himself to "act" accordingly to compassion in the hopes of developing that ultimate desire of becoming compassion, then he may indeed evolve his consciousness a little through his effort. That growth, though, does not accrue from the action taken, but from the intent of fulfilling his ultimate desire to become the embodiment of genuine compassion. Intention is not a mystical, mythical, or magic concept. Do you not see the difference between motivation for an act and the act itself? Motivation at the most fundamental level is what we are calling intent. Action expresses that intent. Many quite different (even opposite) intents may lead to the same action. Thus action cannot be the source of growth or growth would have to be independent of intent.

Tom C

I should have added: the fuzziness you experience is most likely not conceptual [you probably understand the concept of intent (as opposed to action) being the initiator or inhibitor of growth quite well], but rather due to the vagueness with which most of us perceive our intent. Because of our egos constantly justifying (making us feel good about) whatever we do (purposely masking our awareness of the fear and belief traps residing at the core of our true inner selves) we are not very aware of how our fears, wants, needs, desires, beliefs, and expectations drive our behavior. Thus our true intent appears vague and difficult to get a handle on -- that is likely the source of your fuzzy understanding on this topic.

Clarity of true intent can only come as you peel away the layers of protecting ego. As you become better acquainted with your true unvarnished self, the nature of your intent will be more transparent. Transparency increases as fears, wants, needs, desires, beliefs, and expectations evaporate -- the more you grow up the easier it is to grow up more -- which defines the classical bootstrapping problem.

Which brings us back to what Stroker had to say.

Tom C

Hi Shinoki. Perhaps my point of view will be of value. Example 1 and the choice to help a child would be a clear and uncomplicated choice for most people. Example 2 is much less clear as to right intent. I will analyze what seems the right choice to me and maybe Tom will point out the flaws in my reasoning.


Shinoki:
You encounter a man in deep need, one who looks to be broken. The man is known to be utterly evil to most who know him. In your particular case, he as stolen, beaten, and committed other mean spirited acts against you. There is probably money in his wallet that belongs to you, and is wearing a watch that he stole from you. It has great personal value one way, or another. Perhaps to go so far as to say he murdered your loved one, but got away with it. Again no one is around.

Do you...
1. try to help him to the best of your ability
2. Walk by as if you didn't see him
3. Take advantage of the situation (beating, and/or kill him, take his wallet, reclaim your watch)



The man in 2 is very negative and has made all his life choices from ego motivation. He himself is all that is important to him and self gratification is only tempered by fear of retribution from other people.
He is a clear lesson in what not to be and has used his free will to go backward not forward. I think the right choice is to leave him be. His choices brought him to this absolute low point and there is a very small chance he might learn something from it. His negative influence causes others to confront their fears and get stronger by learning to deal with them. Even he, in all his negative life, is part of the patterns of change that we learn from.

Number 2 would be a hard choice for me to make indeed. I am not evolved enough for it to be a simple choice. The material items of mine he possessed I would try to regard as only material and let go. The violence against me and loved ones would be the hardest to forgive. I would be very tempted to quickly end his life and remove his negative impact on everyone. I know this is probably my ego. Seeing the patterns of suffering he causes, would it be wrong to end his life and change these patterns? I don't know. Acting for yourself only is ego. Is acting for a suffering community a wrong intent? I don't know if a person like that will grow or learn anything here in PMR. Perhaps that is not why they are here.

Negative people are a result of free will and the illusion of separation from the rest of PMR. He, or anyone who is like this feels “I am in here and outside is not me. The choices I make that harm others are OK because when they suffer (or die) I don't feel anything. The material gains I make are all that matters, and I have to be clever enough to avoid retribution for my actions.“ That is their path, freely chosen. Part of our learning experience is to deal with these things because conflict brings the most rapid growth. So negative (evil) people are necessary and force those of us choosing to grow to learn about ourselves.

Good one, Shinoki. It made me think. :)

_________________
always, John

Since action is not the arbiter of morality, then any of the three choices might be both moral as well as immoral -- depending on the circumstances and the intent of the actor. In other words, there is no one right choice of action for all circumstances and intents. However, given various specific circumstances that more completely describe the moral issues, and both individual perspectives, there is very likely at least one right intent that properly leads to the each of the three given choices. I am sure you can come up with good moral reasons (correct, personal growth inducing intents) for both doing and not doing each choice. Remember, intent, like consciousness, is personal.

Tom C

/afstroker: Hi Shinoki. Perhaps my point of view will be of value./

It has :) Makes me think of what Tom said about reducing our entropy. If the BIG PICTURE outlined in MBT is true, then the correct answer would be whatever reduced the greatest amount of entropy for the hole. If there was an action to be taken that would reduce his entropy more then any possible action to help my reduction, then I would think that was the correct action. Knowing that I need to reduce my own entropy, but can't help to see the benefit to the hole in "sacrificing/putting off" my own reduction if it profits the hole.

Priding myself wile in a comfort zone, believing that I would be compassionate is more than likely a falsity. The truth would be more at the opposite end of the spectrum.

However, can't help but sympathise with that man. When looking at him I know who he is... he's me. Never murdered anyone physically, but have in my heart. Think of any other "mistake" or "wrong action" and I bet I can tell you I've done it. When you get to that point that he's in, all you can do is live by forgiveness. So how can I take any action against him for my own sake... can only help him.

Going to be thinking about this all night lol.

Shin

Shin,

Your point about the greater good -- optimizing entropy reduction for the larger system is a key observation.

True, you may have made many mistakes, however to you they are mistakes, not moments to be proud of, or joyfully repeat as often as possible. You are trying to improve yourself and therefore could perhaps benefit by being helped. The same may or may not be true of the man you are sympathizing with. Perhaps, practically speaking, it is extremely unlikely that he could be helped to evolve positively during this lifetime, and that any help you give him is extremely likely to help him continue his evil abuse of others. Perhaps he is not at all like you -- what then?

Tom C

I have found that perceiving at the level of highest intelligence opens up an understanding of my own intentions, and sometimes the mental state of the other.

As illucidated already, in this thread, intent can be separate from action; and it probably should be argued that it is, always, even though the mode of each may align perfectly.

The Buddhists teach the perspective of dispassionate objectivity to life, and higher (full) awareness in the present moment. I think that this describes completely what has been discussed, so far.

<<Perhaps he is not at all like you -- what then? >>

Or perhaps he is like you, but would not benefit from help. If you don't know, you can only offer up your beliefs about his needs and his situation. Ego-based compassion won't help anyone in the long-run and attempting to derive your true intentions with the help of your ego is likely to result in precisely the same errors as the judgment about his situation. Is it the best we can do to be who we are and gladly take our lumps so we can do it a little better next time? How else could it be? Consideration of intent and analysis of possibilities seems like an activity for the dugout, but when it comes time to act, we have to BE who we are and do what we must do without concerning ourselves with the outcome because the only thing we have is our intent. The outcome is for reality to decide.

DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON PAGE 2