Difference between revisions of "Communication between PMR and NPMR"
(Discussion of the nature of communication between PMR and NPMR.)
Revision as of 14:29, 30 May 2011
The General Nature of Communication between the VRs of PMR and NPMR.
The concepts on this page were developed in discussions between Tom Campbell and myself, Ted Vollers, which were integrated and posted on the My Big TOE Forums within a new forum devoted to, as planned, and named for the development of understanding of this difficult and specialized communication process. This forum was named: Communication within Consciousness Space. Those original conversations have been merged and also merged with later posts in various places to create this article. Tom Campbell was in the midst of a time crunch at the time, as per usual, and perhaps he will add further information into this page as he finds time.
My original starting point when initiating these discussions were based upon Robert Monroe's concept that he explained in his books as a "Rote" as a comprehensive package of information that would be passed from an entity within NPMR and Bob for instance. I felt this to be related to my own communications from PMR to NPMR entities as either guides or unknown sources within the LCS. I had feelings that the concept of a gestalt would provide another way to approach understanding of this intra Virtual Reality communication process and the inter VR communication process normal within the VR of NPMR.
The Rote Concept of Robert Monroe
Robert Monroe referred to receiving some kind of 'thought package' from the entities that he met out of body. They would be complete packages to be opened and perused (not read) later as a related unit of information. Bob called them a "Rote"
It has not been making sense to me that we cannot make sensible and rational communications with NPMR from PMR. PMR is after all the origin of the glass through which we see darkly, not the other way around, yet we can have rational discussions in PMR with care. Our total being is not reduced that much in functionality as it forms our virtual NPMR self. Not that I have ever understood so except for knowledge of interaction relative to the whole, AUM, being suppressed. So why can't we communicate better PMR to NPMR and the reverse?
Tom: There are many reasons.
1. Communication is generally telepathic. Ideas and concepts (thoughts) are most often transferred in whole chunks of meaning, not in linear strings of words. One gets a paragraph or perhaps even a chapter in one gulp. It is the nature of thought to come in the form of ideas and their relationships to each other, not words. That is also the way we PMR individuals think - then we break the ideas down into words, sentences, and paragraphs which convey meaning in terms of well defined symbols and metaphors that are held in common between talker and listener. We are so practiced in that process, and it happens so quickly, that we may believe that we think in terms of language -- but the raw thought always precedes the sentence that struggles to expresses it. Language is an overlay, a constraint, on the thinking process necessary only for physical communication. Consciousness to consciousness communication most naturally trades ideas and thoughts in whole chunks without the use of language. In PMRs constrained physical interactions, language is required. PMR residents with their noisy minds are not practiced, and thus not good at, interpreting telepathic communication. Likewise most NPMR residents are not practiced, and thus not good at, breaking their thoughts down into tedious linear strings of symbols that must be held in common before communication can take place. The difference may be somewhat appreciated by comparing a natural conversation over a videophone (including facial expressions and gestures) to communicating only by Morse code. The second has a tiny bandwidth compared to the first, is one dimensional, requires an additional special shared knowledge on the part of both transmitter and receiver, and is both tedious and slow - a very limiting form of communication compared to face to face animated speech.
Telepathic communication can become almost conversational if the ideas are simple, factual, and short (one dimensional) as opposed to multidimensional (complex ideas, feelings, and relationships between ideas) in their content. A telepathic conversation between PMR and NPMR beings using only short direct limited questions that appropriately elicit Short direct limited responses (like "yes" or "no" or "thank you very much") are interpreted by the PMR being to be a lot like linear language. You are still getting a whole paragraph at once, but that paragraph contains only a thought so simple that it can be interpreted as a single word or short sentence. Thus, if you are willing (have the patience) to converse with another much like two three year old children would, you will end up communicating in simple linear sentences.
2. The interconnected ideas, thoughts, and feelings received from NPMR by a PMR being, whether simple or complex, must be interpreted by the receiver. This requires the receiver to cast the thoughts and feelings received (a gestalt of meaning) into familiar symbols and metaphors and then translate these into language if he wants to communicate the ideas to others or put the message into a more objective familiar form that he can manipulate. Insertion from Forums: Tom: Yes feelings exist in NPMR and they are interpreted in terms of feeling-metaphors (as opposed to language or picture metaphors) based on our personal experience data - the same answer applies to feelings as applied to the void. Feelings that are fundamental and basic, like love and fear are very likely to be interpreted accurately by almost everyone. Many feelings are fundamental and basic (are therefore cross-cultural or pan-cultural). Consequently, feelings received in NPMR tend to be interpreted accurately while feelings in PMR that must rely on words (instead of body language) are very easily misunderstood. The result is that feeling is a more solid mode of accurate communication in NPMR than it is in PMR. People who don't process feelings well are at a disadvantage. Origin: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2894&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15
3. Often the interconnected ideas, thoughts, and feelings received from NPMR by a PMR being represent content that is not readily digestible or explainable in terms of the symbols and metaphors familiar to the receiver. That is, the information runs counter to the receiver's beliefs, or lie outside of his experience. The receiver has no way to accurately or even roughly interpret such information - but usually the receiver guesses anyway - and makes up something that fits his current beliefs and expectations. Also, one's beliefs, experiences, and expectations are often predicated upon the guesses and interpretations of others.
4. The perspective of NPMR beings is often more firmly attached to the concerns of the big picture and thus interprets significance radically differently from what PMR beings think is significant. Much of PMR initiated communications directed toward NPMR beings is perceived by those NPMR beings as inconsequential ego drivel that neither deserves nor warrants an interaction on their part. Likewise, PMR beings often ask meaningless twisted questions that reflect their ignorance of the larger reality to an extent that they cannot be answered rationally because the PMR beings does not have the ability to understand an answer. Sometimes the answers given are only half true because that is all that can be communicated given the limitations of the telepathic process and the understanding and beliefs of the receiver.
5. Often when questions are muddy or imprecise due to a lack of understanding, the answers one gets are also muddy and unclear. It is very difficult to ask good questions that are both pertinent (non ego driven) and concisely meaningful if you have a less than low entropy consciousness and little understanding of how larger reality works. Thus the process of growing up and being able to communicate effectively are bootstrapped together - one being closely intertwined with the other.
Why do you say that emotion is so much a part of this communication or that metaphor is such an important part of it and that the metaphors are strange to PMR? If necessary, our guides should be accommodating us. And in fact, clearly they do. I have recently thought that there is more to this than we have been considering. I have had the meaning of a gestalt in my mind for some time. I have been thinking about this more and relating it to PMR/NPMR intercommunication. I think that the concept of a gestalt requires some further expansion, but believe that it likely has a lot to do with this communication and makes a good starting point. The part that probably needs expansion is that there is more provided as part of a communication package in the way of a glossary or dictionary of terms. I think a communication package is likely to be designed to be relatively complete with minimal loose ends floating around.
Recently on the forums, I have related learning the concepts of MBT to establishing a gestalt within our minds. I included a dictionary definition of gestalt.
"A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts. A unified whole."
I begin to think that the problem we have with communication outside of PMR/across VRs is that information is being interchanged there in the form of a gestalt as opposed to an essay or conversation. That it is an integrated, multi-media presentation as opposed to just text, i.e. speech. That there is more to be derived from a complete comprehension as a gestalt than as a simple perusal of the text and viewing of the pictures. We just aren't getting it all as we simply are not seeing it. We look for text and get multi-media, receiving only a part of the transmission, less emotional and metaphorical content.
Tom: That is right on - exactly.
I believe that I have received information many times (or one time as one source block from which I dig out more information over time) in a form like this which I then had to gradually unpack and work my way through as information was required and I understood more. When I needed the information for my writing, I thought of it as like automatic writing in that it was just there as needed. But it really wasn't a matter of maintaining a blank mind and receiving information unconsciously which I merely put on paper. It was just there in my consciousness when needed. I could still change words for what I thought was a better composition with better semantics, or correct typographical errors as needed. I had to make sure that the words I used stated the information as I understood it. There was frequently emotional content or reaction to the information I would not have expected from automatic writing. Like, Wow, where did that come from. I never thought of that before. The antecedents, the developmental thought process for the concepts was not there in my mind as if I had worked them out. Just the Ã¢â‚¬Ëœknowing' of them. I never felt I could claim 'I wrote this', 'I figured this out'. I just happened to know these things and they made complete and full sense to me. I saw their inter relationships. I understood implications. I could learn more details and internal relationships. I could logically operate on what I knew to extend my information. I could see that there was much more there in total than just what I might write down in a short statement of the concepts. I could not however tell you where it came from or how it came to be in my mind. That was simply out of the dark depths of sleep (Dark Sea of Awareness) with just a hint of leftover information or feeling to hint at something like a dream state just ending. From teachers, guides or perhaps even my own total self's knowledge store.
Could this be the explanation for so many inter dimensional communication problems? Might we not need to (knowingly) take away the full transmission (instead of limiting our self to receiving an instantaneous fragment) which we then decompose into PMR speak at leisure? Or perhaps we should be looking and asking for a complete communication package like this with the expectation of doing a lot of 'unwrapping' after we receive it.
I have no way to look into/have access to the experience of others and see if this is something that happens. I do have internal hints of my own thoughts occurring as blocks as you describe, Tom, and having to often work hard to put together the right set of words to convey them precisely. But why should it be hard to state my own thoughts in words if they were originally couched as textually stated thoughts? Tom, you may have such experience discussing this with others, having been a help to so many, and recognize whether there is any truth to this. Perhaps even in what you have heard from others. I may not yet be going in the right direction but it only makes sense to me that there must be an arrangement that can be used to avoid or minimize communication problems. It is too much of a real and serious problem for there not to be, as it appears to me. Part of bringing information into PMR from NPMR that has been suppressed, or at least not made readily available, should be to develop better ways of communication or clarifying and expanding those that exist.
I have now written, and am now cleaning up, my final Conclusions chapter for the book I have been writing. There is much more cleaning up of other chapters as well to be done. The surprising thing to me, in line with confirming the above discussion, is that there is a foreshadowing in the very earliest information I felt that I was given 40+ years ago and throughout of what I am now finding to state as conclusions. This implies to me that, coming as this does at the time I am looking into the patterns of communicated information, there has been a single large block source of information from which I have been peeling layers as if from an onion all this time. Thus my conclusions readily link back to earlier material, it all having come from the same origin. Alternatively, this could have been part of the plan all along, but I am inclined to believe that the 'plan' was that this foreshadowing would arise naturally as a sign of the nature of the source information rather than having to maintain a specific sequence of communication over 40+ years of uncertainties of PMR life just to manipulate my perceptions over time.
Tom's instructions: Please go ahead and do whatever you can manage to find time for. Trying to explain to others often produces an iterative creative process of exploration and discovery that gives back more than it takes. I wish I had more unhurried time for it.
So please let us have your thoughts on this concept. Do you see connections within your own thinking or experiences or attempts at NPMR communications? I have seen signs in several members comments that they might have experienced something like this. And I know that some are receiving and digesting substantial amounts of information that might tell us more about the form in which it is received, as a block of concepts or in words. We have the potential to expand and explain something for the benefit of all.