Return Home
It is currently Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:33 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Monroe's 'I-There'
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:33 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:12 am
Posts: 288
In Monroe's *Ultimate Journey* (3 of 3 in his book series) he describes his I-There, which, obviously, seems to be his higher-self, as it's more commonly termed. Do you, Tom, consider Monroe's I-There to be an accurate description, or model, of higher-self? I realise that there may be personal interpretations and PMR language-laden limitations in Monroe's descriptions.

And second, what did Monroe mean by "escape velocity" and "free" when referring to his I-There, and in relationship to his life-mission, as it was designed by I-There?

With respect to our purpose here, our design, our experiences, NPMR interactions, etc., most roads seem to originate, and return, to the higher-self. It seems like a most critical concept to understand, and it also seems to be the object of enormous confusion from PMR perspective. I get the impression that all (or most) NDEs are interactions with the higher-self. I won't go into the long list of psychic phenomena that may be interactions with higher-self, but it would appear that higher-self is significant to that group of experiences. Monroe even describes I-There as being responsible for his design, from personality, to talents, to interaction in PMR at the DNA level.

It also appears that the many descriptions of experiencing the "oneness", "infinite consciousness", "unbounded love", via meditation, NDEs, OBEs, etc., are actually descriptions of interaction with higher-self.

So far, I've not come across a more detailed and better description of higher-self outside of Monroe's. Meta-physical literature seems to be peppered with bits & pieces of higher-self described, with those descriptions typically mistaken for something else. There's much more to consider about higher-self, but I'll leave off here, for now.

Thank you for your reply.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Monroe's 'I-There'
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:52 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Roland,

Yes, there are personal interpretations and PMR language-laden limitations in Monroe's descriptions. That can't be helped -- that is true of all written words. Mine and yours included.

Higher-self is a metaphor. It is our relentless PMR habits of thinking that push us to individualize it and define it into a separate box -- a separate being-thing. We have the urge to name it and describe it like the transmission of a truck -- a subsystem of a larger machine within a highly constrained (i.e., physical) reality frame. However, keep in mind, the higher-self is not part of a highly constrained reality frame. Breaking things down into smaller conceptual units ceases to be a good idea when your piece-parts become smaller than the conceptual resolution of the original system.

Let "higher-self" be your personal interface to the larger consciousness system -- a broad metaphor circumscribing our operational relationship to the whole as well as our personal evolutionary process. This includes: the system's way of tracking, assessing, and looking out for you; your tether, or data link, or umbilical cord to the larger consciousness system; the embodiment of your progress and the source of your potential; your server, router, and hub on the RWW; the repository of all that you are and have been; the summation and synthesis of all of your and its cooperative attempts to evolve; the primary architect of your growth through experience packets; a source of your intuition and of other useful information; your teacher and mentor; ... the list can go on to cover all the operational (and many of the functional) relationships we must have with the larger system. Instead of trying to put this concept, this metaphor for our interface to the larger consciousness system, in an ever more well defined (limited) PMR-concept-friendly box, it is better, I think, to try to comprehend the wholeness of it and let it be the amorphous, undefined (in PMR terms), uncertain thing that it inherently is within the conceptual currency and language of PMR. Having said that, I think exploring the concept of higher-self, or over-soul, is a productive activity - a good thing to do. Just don't expect convergence to a well defined conceptual cubby hole - it's not that kind of thing.

I only vaguely remember Bob's use of the term "escape velocity" -- not enough to make a comment.

Tom C


Top
 Post subject: Re: Monroe's 'I-There'
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:06 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:12 am
Posts: 288
Interesting. Very nice job of navigating the conceptual obstacles with your description.

I've written several questions in responding to your description and deleted them all. I keep coming back to something you wrote here in response to another question I asked. You stated, if I recall accurately, that there is no space within the consciousness whole, the oness, or source. This makes descriptions like we've been trying to work with a little difficult. So it would seem that functional descriptions of oversoul might be more useful, as you've stated.

For me it's a little difficult to grasp how source, without dimension, without time, without differentiation, conceived of the VRs consisting of these qualities, let alone the many others that run by a different rule set. My feeling is that I am missing a huge sections of the puzzle. Little wonder the Easterners describe reality and the great Oneness as they did. I think it was exhaustion of resources for determining the ultimate design of the system.

Well, I'll leave it here. I am not fond of leaving too many errors in my wake. Better to make fewer and smaller mistakes as you go.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Monroe's 'I-There'
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:34 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Roland: For me it's a little difficult to grasp how source, without dimension, without time, without differentiation, conceived of the VRs consisting of these qualities, let alone the many others that run by a different rule set. My feeling is that I am missing a huge sections of the puzzle.

Tom: There is differentiation, and time as well as information, point, and purpose. There is no spatial separation. What is the space between thoughts -- only a reduction, a variation, in the data stream. There is differentiation by event (time), by data rate, by content, by purpose, by entropy, by intent. VRs are created out of logical pattern and relationship i.e., math. Constraints are expressed in terms of limits on interaction (data exchange). Rules like an upper speed limit on data transfer (speed of light) and the relationships between variables of experience that define the allowed data exchange [for example: the logical relationship (i.e., constraints in the form of equations) that we call Newton's Laws and Maxwell's laws], create the perception of space and of the environment we live in. PMR is defined by the rule-set -- the constraints that are placed on the interactive nature of our multiplayer learning lab or consciousness evolution sweatshop -- which ever you prefer. To an information system, it is only a matter of evolving constraining rule-sets that support the purpose (evolution) of the system.

It is just inherently very difficult to understand the superset in terms of the limited (constrained) concepts and language of the subset. So we use poetry and metaphor from the PMR tool kit to describe what we experience in our forays into the larger reality -- an experience that is essentially difficult to understand and indescribable to others. If we try too hard to force a clear description within the conceptual structure of PMR, we trap ourselves with conceptual limitations that don't have the breadth and depth to adequately cover the experience we are trying to communicate -- and are often left with just the skeleton of what we were trying to say - a skeleton that becomes yet another PMR belief system in the wake of our best efforts. The East has been struggling with this problem of greater knowledge within its mainstream culture much longer than the West. The many overlapping belief systems resident there is a testament to this effort to communicate the non-communicatable. Today, digital science delivers the conceptual tools needed to move this description to the next higher level of fidelity. Still we struggle to force definition into the terms of the subset - because only that allows us to communicate to our fellow brothers of the subset .

Tom C


Top
 Post subject: Re: Monroe's 'I-There'
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 6:07 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:12 am
Posts: 288
Tom: There is differentiation, and time as well as information, point, and purpose. There is no spatial separation. What is the space between thoughts -- only a reduction, a variation, in the data stream. There is differentiation by event (time), by data rate, by content, by purpose, by entropy, by intent. VRs are created out of logical pattern and relationship i.e., math. Constraints are expressed in terms of limits on interaction (data exchange). Rules like an upper speed limit on data transfer (speed of light) and the relationships between variables of experience that define the allowed data exchange [for example: the logical relationship (i.e., constraints in the form of equations) that we call Newton's Laws and Maxwell's laws], create the perception of space and of the environment we live in. PMR is defined by the rule-set -- the constraints that are placed on the interactive nature of our multiplayer learning lab or consciousness evolution sweatshop -- which ever you prefer. To an information system, it is only a matter of evolving constraining rule-sets that support the purpose (evolution) of the system.
----

"What is the space between thoughts...[?]" Well, what is space? Space is an illusion, in PMR or NPMR. But I still find it interesting that Ultimate Consciousness managed to conceive of a system that brings about such an illusion, such that we remain confused about the fabric of reality itself. It is for this reason, and others reaons, that I have often considered that we, the individuated units of consciousness are active participants in the illusion itself--either by the voluntary consent, or with active participation of the creation of illusion.

I have also observed, for a very long time, how human groups carry out what I like to 'consenus reality'. It has always baffled me--the degree to which humans live out their days under rule-by-consensus. But coming to understand that the greater reality is still a VR, I can see that the propensity for consensus realities is intrinsic by nature.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

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