July 24, 2025 • 68 mins
Tracking Wisdom
Episode 32
Exploring Tom Campbell's Theory of Everything
Recorded - 07/07/25
DESCRIPTION
Today, we delve into Tom Campbell's Theory of Everything, which posits that consciousness is the fundamental basis of reality, opposing the traditional materialist perspective. Campbell, a physicist with extensive experience in both physics and consciousness exploration, articulates that our physical universe serves as a learning laboratory for consciousness, where the ultimate aim is to evolve towards love and reduce entropy. In our discussion, we explore how Campbell's insights resonate with perennial wisdom and contemporary scientific inquiries into consciousness, particularly through the lens of quantum mechanics. We also reflect on the implications of these ideas regarding the interconnectedness of all conscious agents, emphasizing that our perceived separateness is an illusion. Through this episode, we aim to illuminate the profound intersections between science, spirituality, and the human experience, inviting listeners to contemplate their own understanding of consciousness and reality.
Takeaways:
- The fundamental premise of Tom Campbell's theory posits that consciousness is the primary reality, fundamentally rejecting materialism in favor of idealism.
- Campbell's theory suggests that our physical universe operates as a learning laboratory for consciousness, emphasizing the importance of growth and development through experiences.
- The concept of 'decision space' illustrates the limitations of free will, indicating that our choices are constrained by the circumstances and knowledge we possess.
- Campbell's assertion that consciousness computes reality implies that our existence is akin to a simulation, where we interact as conscious agents within a structured rule set.
- The relationship between love and lower entropy is pivotal, suggesting that moving towards love reduces chaos, which is a central theme throughout Campbell's teachings.
- The intersection of science and spirituality in Campbell's work reveals a growing awareness of interconnectedness, echoing ancient wisdom traditions that emphasize unity and collective experience.
Episode Resources
- The Egg
- The Telepathy Tapes | Explore Beyond Words
- Ky Dickens: Director & Filmmaker
- Talk Tracks Ep 11: Tom Campbell's Theory of Everything Explains Telepathy - The Telepathy Tapes | Podcast on Spotify - Ky Dickens AWARD WINNING DIRECTOR | FILMMAKER | DGA
- My Big TOE - Tom Campbell´s My Big TOE (Theory of Everything) is a revolutionary scientific model explaining why the physical universe emerges from consciousness – and how this gives purpose and meaning to our existence.
If this content has been meaningful or entertaining for you,
consider showing your support to help make this content possible.
Review us on Podchaser
We are grateful for your gifts.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:03):
You're listening to theTracking Wisdom podcast, exploring
the universal truths that wesee woven through culture, consciousness
and the human experience.
Welcome back to theConversation, everybody. We invite
you to join as well as weshare our discoveries and experiences
(00:23):
along the way. I'm Ryan.
I'm Peter.
And today we're discussing TomCampbell's Theory of Everything,
which was inspired by TalkTapes, which is a new series of the
Telepathy Tapes, a podcast byKai Dickens. And she interviewed
Tom Campbell. So we're goingto be commenting on his theory of
(00:45):
Everything that we learnedthrough that. And that episode is
in the description. So we willlearn more about Tom Campbell.
Yeah, so Tom Campbell is aphysicist who got 50 years of experience
working in both physics andconsciousness because he started
(01:05):
apparently thinking aboutconsciousness when he was a physics
graduate student and wasintroduced to meditation. And then
he started on this paralleltrack. But he's, he's a very hard
science kind of guy who alsohas this other interest. He was a
NASA physicist for a couple ofyears. He's worked in, I think, defense
(01:28):
and intelligence and like allthis kind of areas where you wouldn't
think of as being paranormalkind of stuff. So I, I first heard
about him, as Ryan said ininterview with Kai Dickinson, telepathy
tapes. But it really caught myeye because his toe toe theory of
(01:51):
everything brought me back toDonald Hoffman. And I'll draw some
parallels back there, butessentially the key elements of his
theory are that consciousnessis fundamental. In other words, he
rejects the materialistapproach for an idealist approach,
(02:15):
and that quantum mechanicsshows us that reality is information
based. And so his theory isthat we are in a simulation that
space time. And I'm going tojust lean on a lot of terminology
that Hoffman uses. You. Eventhough Hoffman published the Case
(02:38):
Against Reality in 2019,Campbell published his big book My
Big Toe in 2003. So My Big toeactually came first. But it seems
that Hoffman never came acrossit. But nonetheless, because I'm
more familiar with Hoffman,I'm going to kind of frame it that
(02:59):
way. And listeners who'veheard us talk about Hoffman are also
going to be more familiar. Soconsciousness is fundamental, not
materialism, meaning not spacetime. That in fact the material reality
is a kind of simulation inwhich our body is an avatar into
(03:23):
which we incarnate and ourplayer, actual player, is just our
consciousness, not our body.Which of course directly parallels.
Well, it's not just Hoffman'sinterface theory of perception, but
also this bigger idea ofreality as a simulation. Now what
(03:44):
I like about what I likedabout Tom right away is that he said
consciousness is the computerbecause consciousness does, in fact,
compute. And what I likedabout that is that he immediately
kind of removed this idea of,oh, yeah, we're just in a simulation,
(04:05):
and we're in a game simulationthat's being run on a big computer,
and that computer is just asimulation that's being run on another
computer. And this. Thisstrained metaphor that I think really
kind of kills the simulationapproach because a lot of people
are very literal about, oh,because we're in a simulation, that
(04:27):
means that there is acomputer, which means that there
is a programmer, which meansthat. And it's like, no, it's just
an analogy. It's not literallytrue. And so that was the first thing
that I noticed about Campbellis he says consciousness computes
(04:49):
our reality and generates thissimulation. So the big overarching
idea that he has is that ourphysical universe is a learning lab
for our consciousness, andthat the purpose of this lab is for
(05:12):
our consciousness to grow anddevelop. And that development is,
as he puts it, to minimizeentropy, which means really to move
towards love. And so we canget into a little bit more detail
as we go. So the first premiseis that consciousness is the source
(05:34):
of everything, which, again,remains. Reflects what Hoffman wrote,
that material existence arisesout of consciousness, not the other
way around. Now, we haven'tgotten to detail with Campbell. I
think Hoffman, as I've readhim more explicitly, states like,
this is mathematicallyconsistent. You can mathematically
(05:58):
model how spacetime couldpossibly arise out of. Out of consciousness.
Not that I think he said, atleast not in the case against reality.
Not that he said that he haddone it, but he said it's possible
to do it. So another thingthat Campbell says is that consciousness
(06:23):
is a combination of awareness,of choice. And I thought that was
an interesting echo ofHoffman's conscious agents. So Hoffman
kind of postulates these kindof quanta of consciousness, like
the minimum amount ofconsciousness is a conscious agent,
(06:45):
and at minimum, it has theability to perceive and decide. Actually,
he. And then he adds, take,take action. And Campbell's idea
directly aligns with this. Theaction is implicit. And I think we.
We've talked about this a lotof times, that when we see an idea
presented by a differentthinker in a different way, but that
(07:08):
it has the same content. Yeah,that we go, okay, there's something
here. And so this reallypulled me in. Campbell describes
reality as a simulation, butas he puts it, it's a rule set, which
I think. So the difference isCampbell is a physicist by training
(07:30):
and profession and Hoffman isa perceptual psychologist by training.
So their language is going tobe slightly different. And I think
Campbell's language may be alot more familiar to a lot of people
because I think he works morewith the idea of programs as a physicist.
(07:57):
And so he, you know, he'sexpressing it as a rule set rather
than just vaguely as asimulation. He also raises the love
fear dichotomy, which is anongoing theme for us, and that entropy
or chaos is lowered by movingtowards love. You know that when
(08:21):
you experience fear, the morefear there is, the more chaos there
is. It's very intuitivelyobvious. Like, I feel like if I say
that someone will immediatelyunderstand in their heart, kind of
like, oh, yeah, of course,fear. Fear does create chaos. So,
(08:43):
yeah, I'm just like reallystruck by his way of expressing these
things. He talks a bit aboutfree will and constraints on free
will, which he describes asdecision space. And we came across
this as in Hoffman, whereHoffman talks about consciousness
(09:07):
having an action menu, meaninga limited array of choices that can
be made by the conscious agentthat can perceive and decide. In
order to decide, it has tochoose off of a menu. And Campbell
says the same thing. You know,there's a limited decision space
(09:28):
that you operate in, eventhough reality is created by your
consciousness. That doesn'timply that you therefore can do whatever
you want and you haveunlimited choice and potential in
every moment. He's like, no,you're actually, because you're incarnated,
(09:48):
you're operating within thisdecision space which has these, these
constraints. Now, we're not asconstrained as we think we are because
we're not constrained byspace, time necessarily, but we are
constrained by our decisionspace, the decisions that are available
to us, given our history,circumstance, etc.
(10:12):
He was talking about you wereconstrained within the choices that
you know of. That was him.
That was. Yeah, that was asignificant limitation. You have
many more choices than youthink you do, but. But you can only
see so many choices. But evenif you could see all of your choices,
you're still limited. It'sjust you may have 20 choices instead
(10:35):
of five. At least that's.That's what I took away from it.
This brought me back veryspecifically to a conversation we
had had previously. It was awhile ago, not 100% sure it's actually
published, but theconversation did occur, which was.
I had brought to you the. Thisidea of infinite potentiality when
(11:00):
we were talking about time andeverything existing at once, right.
And Everything exists in thisinfinite potential space. All, all
events, all potential outcomesand pathways. And we move through
(11:22):
that space, through ourdecisions, through our choices, as
the. The experience of timecomes by making a choice and following
a conditional path away fromthat. But it doesn't mean that the
other things are impossible orinaccessible, but you are brought
(11:45):
further from maybe a certainreality, the more choices take you
in a different direction. Ithink this leads to his probability.
He was talking aboutprobability and that part of the
function of this decisionspace is probabilities of outcome
based on your historicalchoices, like the things that have
(12:09):
happened have cause and effectrelation within this rule set. So
you will be constrained tosome degree on what outcomes you
can choose or manage becauseyou've taken this branching logical
(12:30):
pathway through time and spaceto get where you are. Kai asked about
the idea of intention, settingintention. People talk about and
have experienced the seemingsynchronicities that come along with
setting a focus and anintention and having an outcome that
arrives consistent with thatintention. And he was saying that
(12:53):
intention can rebalance orreweigh some of the probabilities
of the. The probability roleof the outcome.
Right. Which. Exactly. Soyou're, you're still. It's still
a stochastic process. In otherwords, you still don't know what
the outcome is, but yourintention influences the probability.
(13:14):
Right.
And so what you're pointing tois, you know what. What's popularized
as manifestation, which is aterm that we don't really like, but
was popularized by, I guess,Oprah Winfrey and the book, like
the Secret, I think.
I don't really know where.
I think that's. I mean, that'sinteresting. Definitely part of recent
(13:36):
popular culture. So. So, yeah,I mean, you touched on a number of
things that I guess, I guessI'll follow at least a little bit
here. You know, this I. Thisidea of infinite potential and then
the gradual limiting of thepotential by choice. I like to point
out that the literal rootmeaning of decision is decision has
(14:03):
the same root as incision and excision.
Right.
It's a cutting, and it's acutting of a choice cutting off D.
And so, yes, as you makechoice, you're limiting. You're kind
of pruning your probabilitytree. Right, right. And now I'm thinking
of the. The TV series Loki andthe multiverse and everything like
(14:26):
that. Lots of crazy popularculture touching on these things.
But I think even that briefaside, you know, kind of tells me
that there's. There's anincreasing consciousness. What's
it called? Not A publicconsciousness. But. But literally,
(14:48):
because we're talking aboutpop culture, there's an increasing
public consciousness of someof these concepts now because it's
part of the new mythology. Thereferences are vague and misleading,
but nonetheless, it's there.It's there in the form of these modern
myths or popular media, whichjust is interesting to me. So the
(15:12):
other. The other thing that Ithink you're pointing to with this
kind of infinite potentialspace is the idea of the cat, the
Akashic records, which I'm notvery familiar with, but I'm kind
of coming into contact with,which is something that he references
(15:34):
as well. But I'm gonna. I'mgonna put that off for a minute because
I think some of these ideasare gonna come up. The. But the idea
of the nature of choice versusthe infinite potential and this kind
of simultaneous reality that.That you're referencing, which is
(15:58):
what happens when you don'thave space time. Right. Space time
is what helps. Space time iswhat prevents everything from happening
at once. Without space time,you have the point reality before
the Big Bang. And so all theseideas really tie together, and they're
not crazy ideas.
Right.
Because generally we acceptthe Big Bang. If generally you accept
(16:21):
the Big Bang, then generallyyou accept a point reality, because
that's what the Big Bang waswas the transition from a point reality
to this bigger universe. Andwe just tend not to think about the
implications. People don'tlike to think about what was big
before the Big Bang?
Right.
Well, what was the Big Bang?Big Bang was the creation of time,
space time. So what was beforespace time? Well, everything, everywhere,
(16:46):
all at once. So one of thepoints that we have is. Is the way
that this theory ofeverything, this big toe, overlaps
with. With ancient traditionsand perennial wisdom. The emphasis
of working towards love orunity with God through love, identity
(17:08):
of love with universalexistence and deity being.
In alignment with the flow of nature.
That nature being sort of thefundamentals of the rule set which
he related to physics being that.
Exactly, yeah. Oh, so youwrote the question, is Campbell just
(17:30):
modernizing on perennialwisdom with a physics framework?
I think this is what we'realways trying to do. Right. In general,
we're trying to understandtraditions and various different
teachings in kind of a moderncontext that we can talk about.
(17:52):
Right.
Well, he even. I think itreally drives back to his comment
that there is one, oneultimate truth which is consistent
with the perennial wisdom,consistent with what we've discussed
in what we perceive andbelieve and has been discussed in
people like Rupert Spira andothers, you know, more spiritual
(18:16):
or philosophical backgrounds,that truth is truth. Like there is
just a. There is a fundamentalessence to the ultimate reality.
And it's expressed throughthousands of different metaphors
and religious teachings. Andso this is another metaphor, another
way of describing theperennial wisdom, the fundamental
(18:39):
essence.
And in terms of his positionas scientist, we've seen this before.
So currently, the cutting edgeof all of science is quantum physics.
As investigators get moreinvolved in that, they tend to relate
(19:03):
to ancient wisdoms. We've seenthis in Hoffman, we've seen this
in Ravelli, and now we seethis in Campbell. In Campbell. Just
a caveat is, of course, we'vegot selection bias in looking at.
Yes.
This. This kind of thing. I'mnot saying that all quantum physics
physicists feel this way, butI'm pretty sure that there's a trend
(19:31):
of that. I mean, certainlyI've looked at other pieces of media
regarding quantum physics andinterviews with people in. In the
field, and this stuff comes up repeatedly.
It's not just Campbell. It'snot just revelli. It's. Yeah. I mean,
(19:54):
it's not necessarily fringe. Imean. Well, here's the thing. Quantum
physics is fringe. Right.Itself. I mean, we have this huge
body of knowledge ofconventional physics. That's the
part that's not fringe. All ofquantum physics is fringe because
it all opposes Newtonian physics.
(20:16):
Is that what makes it fringe, though?
Well, I'm just saying it's amuch smaller body of knowledge relative
to the hundreds of years.
Sure.
Of investigation that it'sworking against, and it really is
working against that which I.So it brings me. Now, this is something
that I got from his book. So Idid start to. To listen to Campbell's
(20:42):
audiobook, My Big Toe, and oneof the things that he points out
is that quantum physics, as heputs it, ends materialism. Like,
once we start doing quantumphysics, it's like, yeah, materialism's
out the window. It's just thatwe haven't accepted it yet. And because
the establishment'sinstruction is essentially, shut
(21:05):
up and calculate. Like, don'tthink about the implications of what
you're doing. Just makeanother cell phone. Just make another
invention that exploits theweirdness and impossibleness of quantum
physics in the framework ofclassical physics. It undoes all
(21:26):
the science. It doesn't undoit. I know, I know.
It's just not fundamental.
It undoes materialism.
Yes, right.
Yes.
You can use material existencejust like you can use a computer
game. It will operate. Itmakes sense. It makes sense. It has
(21:47):
a rule set. Exactly. Butquantum physics points beyond that
rule set. It points that, oh,we're just operating in a spacetime
interface and there's all thisstuff that doesn't operate in the
space time rules.
Right.
And so, you know, theestablishment says, yeah, don't look
(22:07):
into the matrix. God, so muchpopular culture. Right. Don't look
beyond that. Just do your joband create another physical manifestation
of the utility of thisinformation without getting in, into
the spiritual implications.
Right.
You know, or the ontologicalimplications of, of what we're, of
(22:31):
what you're actually workingwith. So anyway, I mean, obviously
very big ideas. It's Theory ofEverything by definition. So you
did this great outline of keyexperiments and evidence. And so
I'm going to invite you tojump in on this.
(22:54):
He went through and explainedthrough the interview with, with
Kai a number of experimentsand different things that he has
participated in that helped toI guess solidify his own position
in the space, but also to helpvalidate or give evidence to what
(23:17):
he's talking about. And so thefirst thing he was talking about
was this group of people thatwas involved in outof body experiments
and he was going throughexplaining this remote viewing or
out of body experienceexperiment where the participants
were isolated in soundproofrooms, even with a soundproof room
(23:41):
in between them to ensure thatthere was no way for them to hear
each other. And they got intothis theta state and they talked
a little bit about binauralbeats being a facilitator to bringing
about that theta state. Healso spoke about Hemisync, which
(24:01):
I guess is a brandedproprietary. Yes, version, basically
binaural beats. But thathelped them to get into the space
where they could thenexperience this out of body. And,
and the idea being that theywould meet up essentially. So, so
having multiple participantsget into that out of body state and
(24:25):
then meet up and basicallydescribe their experiences as they're
together in this out of bodystate. And the rooms were recorded
so, so they're speaking butthey can't hear each other outside
of, you know, this out of bodystate. And as they recorded what
(24:49):
they were saying and like, ohyeah, there's this thing over there
that I see when the experimentconcluded, they took those recordings
and basically overlaid thetracks and they lined up perfectly.
They made a coherentadventure, coherent mutual experience
between all the, all theparticipants where one could say
(25:13):
something like, oh, do you seethat yellow thing over there? Yeah,
you mean the, the pointy Thingwith the round top. And, and, and
they would say, yeah. Andthese were not conversations that
they had audibly together inreal time. But in one room one person
was saying this. And in acompletely sound, isolated and physically
(25:36):
separated other room, theother person was replying. So what
I learned from the beginningof the book was that Campbell's start
with kind of exceptionalexperience came long before this.
He was first introduced tomeditation as a graduate student.
(25:59):
Just kind of randomly saw anad for TM and Transcendental Meditation
and it offered, you know, youcan do more with less sleep, you
can get more mental clarity.And as a physics graduate student,
he was like, well, this isgreat. So he went and did it and
basically he found immediatelythat meditation gave him greater
(26:22):
mental clarity. And he startedto apply meditation to actually solving
physics problems to the pointwhere he no longer worked separately
from meditation, that he just,he was working on a problem. And
sometimes there would bepeople around and he would just enter
this, what you might call atheta state or you know, this state
(26:47):
that he's describing theseother experiments, a deep meditative
state. And then he would solvethe problem in that state. And he
said people would sometimestry to interact with him while he
was doing this. And they saidit was like interacting with just
a body. Like he was completelynon responsive until he came out.
(27:10):
And they were just like, yeah,this, he's really weird. He has this
very deep concentration thathe does. So he had colleagues who
were interested in the factthat he did this and kind of his
effectiveness. And heencouraged them to try meditation.
And he said none of them everdid. But the point is that he talks
(27:32):
about this as a practicalexperience, not as like, oh, it was
a weird thing. It's like, no,I became a more effective physicist.
That's why it's interesting.And he said, you know, this is where
non physical reality isaffecting physical results. Like,
this is my physical product,but how am I getting to this physical
(27:54):
product? I'm getting to thisby entering this altered state. And
that's when kind of this wholeapproach started. But it's strictly
pragmatic. And he, he remainedlike. I mean, he expresses it as
a physicist developing amodel, like, well, how could this
(28:18):
affect this outcome? Andthat's kind of where he started thinking
about this stuff. So yeah, in,in the interview he talks about a
lot of paranormal stuff and,and tells the interviewer, yeah,
anybody can do this stuff.They're not special abilities. It's
just a matter of disciplineand effort, which I find intriguing.
(28:41):
And I find a Little maybemisleading, because, I mean, you
can also say, oh, well,anybody can meditate and experience
this extreme state of claritywhere you could solve problems. Well,
theoretically, yes. But thatexperience that he had, I read that,
I was like, wow, this is nowonder this guy's the way he is,
(29:03):
because this was his firstexperience of meditation. It's not
typical, you know.
Right.
It's possible. Which isdifferent from saying it's typical
and kind of goes to, again,the recurring theme of the bell curve.
Sure.
Like, this guy is not in themiddle curve.
(29:24):
No. But I think his point, atleast what I gathered from the interview
part of it, was the termparanormal is a misnomer. He was
trying to reframe it, thatthese are. This is normal reality.
This is what things are. Andit is possible, although not always
(29:45):
likely.
And I will say he does focuson reproducibility.
Yeah.
And so the methods that he'stalking about are not inaccessible.
It's just. What I'm saying isthe amount of effort that it might
take you to accomplish theoutcomes that he's describing, your
mileage may vary.
Right.
You know, that's. That's thepoint I'm making. I mean, I totally
(30:07):
agree with him. I totally buyinto his assertion that it's possible
for anyone. That's. That's notwhy I'm disagreeing with. What I'm
disagreeing with is theimplication that someone could take
a TM course and have theirwork problems all solved. It's like,
(30:29):
that's very unlikely. Yeah.
At least in the first go. But,I mean, he did say with effort and
practice.
Yeah. Yeah. So Kai's interest,because the. The way telepathy tape
started was the discovery ofparanormal abilities in autistic
individuals. And that's howKai developed her whole podcast,
(30:52):
or now, I guess, a growingindustry or something. Like, it's
a big enterprise other thanjust her. Her podcast. That's why
Tom is saying it's not justfor special people who are. Are isolated
by special circumstances. Andso the. The story of the rest of
(31:13):
Kai's investigations is verymuch like, oh, you know, these are
very special people becausethey're. They're disadvantaged in
a lot of physical ways thatforces them into this special focus
which gives them specialabilities. And. And Tom's message
is like, yeah, no, it's justpart of focus. Like, as long as you
(31:34):
can focus and put the effortin, it's not. It's not a magical,
special thing. It's a normalthing. It's a normal function of
consciousness. But again,Recurring theme. Our. Our culture
devalues it.
Right.
Our values. Our culture tellsus it's all false, not much less
that you should spend anyeffort on it, but it's just wrong
(31:57):
and even evil and all thesekinds of things. So. Yeah, so one
of the things that hespecifically says which caught my
eye, is that in the state ofpoint consciousness, which he very,
very easily got to in hisfirst month of meditation, you can,
(32:18):
for instance, establishtelepathic connection with your teenagers
so that you can talk. Becausehe says you can't talk to teenagers,
but you can telepathicallyconnect to them. And I'm like, oh,
really? Tell me more.Obviously, I'm like my jaws dropping
and I'm lapping it up. I'mvery intrigued by that. And I would
say I'm intrigued to the pointof I'm actually interested in trying
(32:43):
it, and I'm not exactly surehow to proceed, but it's something
that I'm very interested in.In trying to empirically investigate.
Yeah.
And then, as you. As youalready mentioned, he talks about
intention and changing the.The probabilities of the decision
(33:03):
space, which is likemanifestation, synchronicity, all
the things we've talked aboutas recurring themes. Oh, okay. Yes.
He does point out that Westernculture ignores the intuitive. And
everything is nettedconsciousness is a phrase that he
(33:26):
uses, meaning that allconscious agents are interconnected
in broader terms. Well, I wishI knew what explicitly what he said,
because this thing ofeverything is netted consciousness
directly parallels Hoffman.
Yes.
(33:46):
Because Hoffman says thateverything, every particle, every
object, every particle is consciousness.
Right.
And we only see them asphysical objects because we are perceiving
other conscious agents in thisphysical interface.
Right.
Hoffman. I mean, Campbellpretty much says the same thing,
(34:10):
as far as we can tell from theinterview, and that it's all interconnected,
which is something. Well,obviously from a lot of wisdom traditions,
this idea of inter. Beinginterconnectedness, it's something
(34:30):
that I've come across a lot.Indirect experience in group meditation,
experiences of interconnectedness.
He was describing it morespecifically, at least in the interview.
He was describing the metaphorbeing kind of like the Internet,
(34:54):
where each individualperceptive Loki is connected like
a network. That's where thenetted consciousness comes. And we
can choose to be more or lessin tune or like I think he said,
(35:14):
turn it on or turn it off, butit's not that it's ever disconnected.
The Internet's always live.The. The interconscious network is
always live. But you canchoose through intention and practice
to open A browser, and tapinto that worldwide consciousness.
(35:35):
That's in part, I think, whathe was talking about with his practice,
where he solves problems,right? There's access to that infinite
potentiality, that ultimatedatabase of information through this
netted system. But, and I'mputting my own words in it, but this
(35:57):
is kind of what I wasgathering from it. Most people aren't
connected. They're connected,but they're not using it. They're
not tapping into that network.
So again, this is a majorrecurring theme is the idea of connection
and separation. And, you know,the, the idea of. Of human experience
(36:20):
as being the problem ofperceived separation.
Right.
So it's not that we need tolog into the connection, it's that
we have to stop beingdeceived, that we're not connected.
Right.
And that deception is at thesame time. So it's not inherently
(36:41):
a malicious deception.However, I think it is a maliciously
exploited deception,persistently and consistently and
repeatedly. And so I thinkgoes back to what you introduced
before as the infinitepotential and the simultaneous nature
(37:04):
of everything possibleexisting. And kind of what I touched
upon as the point reality ofpre Big Bang. It's something that's
pointed to by Buddhism in oneinstance of Buddha supposedly knowing,
(37:25):
having infinite knowledge.Because I mean, how. How would that
be? Because he's not deceivedby his separateness of self. And
again, as we practice a lot,it's a recurring theme with a lot
of people that I interact withof practice, resulting in an increasing
(37:51):
sense of connectivity and adissolution of the illusion of separateness.
What else I wanted to point atwith this, this idea of the Akashic
record, this idea of yourinfinite simultaneous existing potential
(38:12):
of everything. And I want topull in some thoughts that I've had.
I might have expressed thembefore, having to do with past lives
and some of these otherparanormal things and how they would
work. And also a short storyby Andy Weir, who wrote the Martian
(38:35):
that everybody knows as thatMatt Damon movie, but he wrote a
short story called the Eggwhich really cracks it open. I think
this is really potentially anexample where art is hitting on this
(38:56):
ultimate reality. This storyspoke to me like, is so intuitively
true to me. And this issomething that's attributed to art,
right? Art points to the truthor literature, right? It describes
the truth. It's not reality,but what's true. And to me what that
(39:16):
means is not reality. Meansnot in space time, not in our physical
reality, but really, how canit be true but not in our physical
reality? Because it's True inthe ultimate reality. And what Andy
describes in this story issomeone who has died and basically
(39:38):
meets his creator and haseverything explained to him that
all of existence is just todevelop that individual's soul. Except
that that individual isn't oneindividual out of billions of individuals.
That individual is the onlyother individual that exists. That
(39:59):
there's a creator and there'sa separate consciousness that has
to be developed. And so he,he, you know, he asked questions
about his world and all thepeople that he knew and everything
like that. And the answer is,yeah, they're all you. There is no
one else. They're all you.You're just, they're all incarnations
of you. Which to me, this ideaof space time not being essential,
(40:27):
but consciousness beingessential explains this really weird
phenomenon of past lives,which is very illogical because people
connect to past lives andthey're like, oh, I was so and so.
And many people are the sameperson. You know, I was Julius Caesar.
What? Oh, yeah, I was Julius.You know, it's, it's a, it's a thing
(40:48):
like prominent figures arerecurring or. Yeah. Recur in various
accounts of past lives, whichdoesn't make any sense at all, of
course, and kind of thelogistics of souls and reincarnation.
So you think about it a littlebit and it's like, well, wait a second,
how are there more soul? Like,you know, if, if there was a creation
(41:12):
and there were so many soulsnow how are there more souls? And
then anyway, there's just thiswhole logistic numerical problem.
But if you see it as everyonebeing the potential of everyone else.
And again, this is like therebut for the grace of God go I. It's
(41:32):
really there. But for theexistence of space time separating
me, we are all not the same,but we are all actually the identical
entity. And you and I areactually just different, as Hoffman
calls instantiations of thesame thing. We're just separated
(41:57):
in space time. But space timeis an illusion. If we take away space
time, we go back to thesource, then we're one point reality.
But we're separated in orderto have our individual experiences
so that our unity can learnfrom our separate experiences. And
this is the story that you'vegone over before about now, this
(42:19):
is from conversations withGod, right? That, that the purpose
of incarnation or creation,same thing, right. Is to enable the
divine to have an experience.
Yes.
And so the way I see this, howthis all connects to reincarnation
(42:40):
and past lives and whatnot, isthat when we turn away from the illusion
of separateness and we accessthis database, all of us have access
to all past lives. And notonly past lives, but current lives
and future lives. Becauseessentially, I think what it's like
(43:02):
is just reaching back tobefore the Big Bang. And you're not
really reaching back. I mean,only in terms of space time are you
reaching back in time. But interms of ultimate reality, you're
just accessing, you're notreaching back.
Right, right.
Because it's everything,everywhere, all at once. There's
(43:22):
no space. So everywhere isjust here. And every. All at once
is just now. And so theproblem that we have in interpreting
these experiences is thatbecause we're incarnated, we are
constrained by the way we'reable to experience it and interpret
(43:43):
it. And so people interpretthese things as. As past lives. Like,
oh, I was this person. No,you're contacting this infinite data,
but in order to report it andprocess it and report it and describe
it, you're expressing it as, Iwas Julius Caesar, as opposed to
I accessed the data that wasspecific to what we call the individual
(44:09):
Julius Caesar. And that it'smerely. It's merely the constraint
of space time that makes itillogical. And it's merely the constraint
of our individual incarnationwhile we're accessing this information
that constrains us to say, Iwas this person as a past life, as
(44:30):
opposed to, I was everybody.
Right?
And I am everybody. So that'smy interpretation of past life experiences.
But it also connects to theexperience of mystics who. And others
who recognize that they're everybody.
(44:50):
So the time thing isinteresting too, with the. The database,
the infinite, infinitepotentiality, the akashic records,
however you want to describeit. He specifically said, like, so
you have access. You canaccess this database, find out things
about the past and even thepresent. You can see things that
(45:15):
could be the future. Butbecause the future hasn't happened,
because the decision treestill is yet to fulfill itself into
material form, those onlybecome probabilities or are only
probabilities. And I supposethat that goes to prophecy and some
of the cultural, artisticphenomena that discuss changing the
(45:42):
future.
Right.
This is what it looks like ifyou continue down this path. So it
exists as a potential ofreality, but it has not manifested
into the array of choices andexperiences throughout human history,
which I think also I haddiscussed during that old discussion,
(46:05):
is it's not just ourindividual. The array of our own
individual choices, but thefulfillment of the entirety of human
material decision making thathas created this reality that we
perceive, this material formthat we Perceive in the present.
(46:30):
State, there is a specificcorollary that or interpretation
that Campbell mentions that Iwant to point out, which is the role
of existence as a learninglaboratory and kind of the relationship
(46:51):
of the creator or the divineand the creation or reality. Right.
And that the creator createdin order to learn, which means that
there's learning to happen.And Campbell points at Old Testament,
basically the evolution of theJudeo Christian deity, or I should
(47:16):
say the Abrahamic deity,changing from a angry, vindictive
parental type to a lovingparental type. And I feel like we
already mentioned this. We didmention this. Is it because of Campbell?
You brought it up in referencewhen we were talking about the Ten
(47:39):
Commandments.
Right. But I don't know if I'dalready heard about Campbell at that
point.
Yeah, I think you.
Okay. Because Campbellexplicitly says that.
I think you cited Campbell.
Yeah. Okay. All right. Wellworth pointing back to because it
is. It was a very interestingkind of very explicit theological
observation to what he'ssaying, which is. Yeah, the. The
(48:04):
idea of God being perfectalways is part of the story of God
as a part of. As opposed tothe nature of God, which is love.
And in the ultimate is allthere is. But in the context of our
existence and of creation,there's a learning path and there
(48:30):
is a growth of the Creator,which is a weird.
I think that growth is abetter term for it, personally. And
this is my own. Sure, I saythis because there's a number of
people who assert, you know,there is no learning, but I think
(48:51):
there is experience andevolution. Basically, there's no
learning because we alreadyknow everything. We just need to
remember kind of thing. And inpart, actually conversations with
God touched on somethingsimilar. But the idea of growth and
evolution, and this is howCampbell phrased it as well, like
(49:14):
he. He did call it obviouslythe learning lab. But the purpose
is for the growth andevolution of the consciousness through
experience that moves. So theexperience of both high entropy and
low entropy and finding ourway through those experiences, evolving
(49:39):
to the lowest lower entropychoices, I guess. But it's more than
that, right? It's being. It'sthe. It's discovery in a way, but
it's discovery throughexperience. And this is the nuance
that I gather from likeconversations with God and things.
(50:01):
It's not a knowing. Learningto me elicits this knowing.
Yes, yes, yes.
Thing versus experiencingversus experiencing it. You understand
it through the experience andthrough the embodiment of it, which
can't happen in the ultimatestate because there is no relational
aspect. The Only way toexperience is to have that separateness,
(50:24):
to have a relation throughspace and time of any unique concept.
And you learn, you learn how,you learn about who we are. And the
Source learns about itself,about the nature of itself through
(50:48):
the experience. And it wasinteresting and you mentioned this
last time during the TenCommandments as well. But he. I think
it's worth rephrasing or re.Speaking about it again is the Source
is also learning or growing,evolving through our experience.
(51:11):
It's not us specificallyindividually that is evolving, but
through these experiences theSource, the oneness evolves. And
that is the importance, Ithink, because we are all that one
thing. What I think getsmuddied both with Hoffman and with
(51:34):
Campbell and with others. Ireally enjoy these models. Hoffman
and I love that they're bothbringing a scientific lens to it
because so often it getsdismissed from an esoteric lens because
our culture values andprioritizes this materialistic, physical,
(51:57):
scientific form. So I lovethat these are being brought in that
space. I don't think theyactually don't address this, but
I feel like it is a bit of amuddy spot where it's the conscious
agents we're talking about theincarnation of the avatar and nettedness.
(52:20):
But even nettedness alludes toseparateness. Like, you know what
I mean? And I don't think thatultimately I think they would all,
all agree in the ultimatestate there is only oneness. And
yet there continues to be thisessence of me versus you.
(52:41):
Well, I think it's a way ofpointing because we are communicating
to entities that perceivethemselves as separate.
Right.
And perceive themselves asabsolutely separate. And so you need
to point to nettedness.
Right.
First because I, I mean, yes,obviously in the literal sense, there's
(53:10):
not nettedness, there's unity.
Right.
There's like there is noseparation, there is no inter this
and this. There are no nodes,there are no interstices. There's
just total unity. It's theproblem of the whole adventure of
trying to investigate realityand express spiritual experience.
(53:30):
Right?
Yeah.
I mean, I think you just, youjust said it. We are delighted and
intrigued and drawn to thesemodels of scientists grappling with
ultimate reality and kind ofthe alternative to materialism. And
(53:53):
I like that. I don't know ifhe coined it, but it's the first
time I've heard idealismopposing materialism and that I would
say these models in generalsupporting a love centered, cooperative
worldview that is very muchcounteracting the fear, selfish,
(54:20):
scarcity, mindsets ofmanipulation, exploitation, everything
you know, all that moredestructive, conventional worldview.
And of course this, thisbridge between science and mysticism
(54:41):
or science and religion as, asHoffman pointed to also at the end,
you know, that his hope isthat a science of religion will be
able to develop. AndCampbell's clearly working the same
direction.
(55:02):
There's an obstacle there, andI know we touched on it earlier in
the episode and we talkedabout a little off mic, but there's,
there is a concerted orintentional effort to silence the
science of religion. Mycomment was this is 20 years old.
(55:24):
Quantum physics is not newanymore. It may not be as mainstream
as it probably should be,because I think we're actually starting
to move even beyond quantumphysics and yet even still in mainstream
culture, mainstream education,Newtonian physics is the model of
(55:44):
choice. And we like to ignorethe inconsistencies in quantum entanglement
and different kinds of thingslike that that are oddities from
the lens of Newtonian physicsand the materialism paradigm. But
(56:04):
it is an observable phenomenawithin the reality that we experience.
So it isn't not materialismbecause quantum is part of the material
form.
Right, right.
It's just a new or deeper,perhaps more detailed view of what's
(56:27):
happening under the hood. Andit doesn't discount the utility of
Newtonian physics tomanipulate the macro world. But we
still have obstacles andfriction in moving culturally, conceptually,
beyond materialism beingfundamental. And it's strange to
(56:53):
me that we're in that kind ofspace and you know, maybe it is institutional
and you know, we have thatongoing call back to this, this trap
of institution suppressing growth.
I, yeah, I, and, and I'mgonna, I'm gonna point to something
(57:17):
which is a little utre for me,I think, in that there's a recurring
theme, a thing that as youinvestigate these spaces, keeps on
coming up, is that there areissues of power.
Yes.
That are highly conflictedbecause I think the, the, oh, what
(57:43):
are they called? The earthlypowers. I gotta say, I gotta say
the earthly powers are veryinterested in the potential of this
kind of reality and at thesame time are threatened by it.
Yeah.
And so they're encouragingresearch. Like they want to pursue
(58:03):
research, but they want thatresearch to be secret.
Right.
And then we get all theseleaks of like. Yeah, they're, they're
investigating this stuff. So Imean, I, I feel weird getting into
this kind of conspiracy space.But it's recurring and I don't think
it's, it's not all kind of tinhat talk. But going directly to your
(58:23):
point of this weirdsuppression. And yet on the other
hand, there's also anencouragement of it and a leveraging
of it.
To your point, with, you know,using it for quantum computing and
for cell phones and thingslike that. We are using this knowledge.
We just don't want theimplications of that to be widely
(58:45):
disseminated and contemplated,apparently. And I mean it's certainly
easy enough to say that, yeah,it's a control thing or you know,
a power thing.
And I mean, but I mean that's,that's been. Again, that is probably
one of the central themes ofour conversation is the role of power
(59:10):
and self interest and controlin how we're trying to talk about
this stuff. Like how are theseideas developed? Spread, suppressed,
manipulated, perverted.
I guess they're missing the,the main theme, which is the love
and the low entropy and all of that.
Right.
They want, they want toleverage the benefit. Which was interesting
(59:34):
too because Campbell mentioned.
Yes.
That it's very difficult to effectively.
Yes.
Use these things.
If you want to. If you want touse remote viewing to look into the
girls locker room, you won'tbe able to develop the ability to
use remote viewing. And thenhe says it's possible. Yeah, it's
(59:58):
possible, but it's extremelyrare and difficult. And, and we're
saying how rare and difficultin general. In general it is. But
if you really want to pose,which goes back to what we were saying
about the commandments and theprecepts, Right. If you are oriented
towards fear, it's not thatyou're condemned by sin, it's that
(01:00:20):
you're creating a hugeobstacle to moving in the direction
that you're trying to move.But you're trying to move with a
particular focus or motivationor constraint. You're putting a constraint
on yourself by saying, I wantto use this, I want to exploit this
to gain more personal power,then okay, well, you can pursue that
(01:00:45):
now. You've just hugelyincreased the amount of time and
effort that you will need toinvest in and getting. Developing
this thing that you're pursuing.
I mean, in a way it's liketrying to pursue love through fear.
Just like counter.
Right.
(01:01:06):
It's counterintuitive. It'snot, it's oxymoronic really.
Well, I wonder if it'spossible to be deceived into thinking
that that's working. Becausein terms of relationships. Yeah,
right. Where you can easily. Imean, it's. I think it's in popular
fiction or it's even in truecrime and real relationships. Right.
(01:01:29):
That people do that. Yeah,right. It's like I have a relationship
based on fear and I made herlove me. It's a delusion.
Yeah.
It can be a mutuallysubscribed delusion though, right?
Yeah, yeah. So. So I wonder ifthere are other phenomenon that are
not like romantic love, butother things that are pursued using
(01:01:55):
fear. And then you getsomething that you think is.
I think that's. Yeah, I thinkthat was a very distinct thread that
was investigated during ourTen Commandments discussion, which
is you made the point thatthere's a value proposition, a valid
(01:02:19):
value proposition thatconducting behavior counter to these
guidelines, waypoints of thepath can bring material resource.
So there's in that sense somelevel of winning or gaining, but
(01:02:41):
it's at the expense of innerpeace and growth and pursuit towards
the divine.
Yeah. But I'm thinking morealmost literally in terms of say,
remote viewing. Like is itpossible black magic, basically.
(01:03:01):
Right. To use negatively, touse fear based methods to develop
an ability that looks likeremote viewing but in some way isn't
true remote viewing. Just likethis toxic relationship isn't true
(01:03:24):
love.
Right.
But it looks like, like theparticipants agree.
Right.
That it's love.
They think they're remoteviewing, but they're not actually.
But there's some kind of weirdfalsity to it.
Yeah.
You know, that maybe it hassome utility. And so, I mean, this
is kind of a definition, thatis an operational definition of real
(01:03:47):
that Campbell uses. If itinfluences physical events, then
it's real. Right. That's. Imean, that was something that's in
the beginning of his book.Something when he's talking about
his own experience. And so,you know, is a CIA working with something
that is influencing. Let's sayyou have a remote viewer and it's
(01:04:09):
like, okay, you're gettinginformation that in some ways very
verifiable, in some sense isverifiable and is effective in affecting
reality. Like I can apply thisinformation and get results and yet
somehow it's tainted. Likethere's some. I know, I'm kind of
(01:04:33):
intuiting. It pulls me intocultural tropes of demonic activity
and deception and you know,kind of like what the monkey's paw?
Like you get the wish, but youget the pri. You get the cost. Right.
Whereas if it's a true benignlove based thing, then there's no
(01:04:59):
cost.
Right.
So referencing back to thetelepathy tapes, which apparently
is an extremely popularpodcast, like just explode. Like
went viral.
Yeah.
I guess I'd also like tovisit. As for us, for us to investigate
that, because this idea of thecentral database is something that
(01:05:23):
actually comes up. It's veryinteresting because I remain skeptical
about this whole thing. Right.But taken within its own context,
there's a consistent story,I'm curious at really investigating
this, as to what thecriticisms and challenges are, because
it's controversial. But thatis a central thing of, yes, we are
(01:05:48):
able to. So first of all, yes,we, we meet telepathically and yes,
we do have access to infiniteknowledge. And it's consistent with
the idea of what, whatCampbell's talking about, what, you
know, what I've heard aboutthe Akashic records with all this
stuff. It's. Everybody'stalking about the same thing. It's
(01:06:09):
like, oh, I'm recognizing it.I'm just not recognizing from direct
experience.
Right.
And that is why I aminterested in pursuing these things.
So in terms of whateverability I might gain access to, it's
so that the ability to connectwith others by recognizing something
(01:06:31):
from a direct experience thatI know is very, very important to
me, both kind ofaesthetically, like, it's just very,
very pleasant. But also interms of my growth, because I know
that I develop that. I havebeen developing that way. And so
(01:06:54):
if I can increase the numberof experiences by which I can interact
with people and saying, yes, Iknow that experience, that's what's
interesting to me. Because thepeople that I've contacted about
these various things aregenerally uncomfortable with. Generally
(01:07:17):
there's a. There's a qualityof loneliness to having this experience.
And then my fulfillment is inremoving that.
Sure.
Loneliness by saying, yeah, I,I know that. And at the same time,
it removes my loneliness in away that I don't think playing golf
(01:07:39):
is gonna.
So next episode we're gonnatouch on lucid dreaming, which is
akin to this out of body experience.
I would, I would subscribe towhat Campbell says, which is that,
(01:07:59):
yeah, they're all the samething. Because in my, my interpretation,
all this stuff is merelyremoving yourself from the constraints
of spacetime.
Thank you for listening. Ihope you guys enjoyed this conversation.
If you have your ownexperiences you'd like to share,
we invite you to comment oremail. You can comment on Spotify,
(01:08:23):
you can comment on YouTube,you can email us@inforackingwisdom.com
and we would love to hear fromyou guys. Until next time.
See you then. Thanks a lot.Thank you for listening to the Tracking
Wisdom Podcast. Join us nexttime as we continue the discussion.
Don't forget to follow us onFacebook, Instagram and YouTube and
(01:08:46):
visit www.eth-studio.com formore information and.
You're listening to theTracking Wisdom podcast, exploring
the universal truths that wesee woven through culture, consciousness
and the human experience.
Welcome back to theConversation, everybody. We invite
you to join as well as weshare our discoveries and experiences
(00:23):
along the way. I'm Ryan.
I'm Peter.
And today we're discussing TomCampbell's Theory of Everything,
which was inspired by TalkTapes, which is a new series of the
Telepathy Tapes, a podcast byKai Dickens. And she interviewed
Tom Campbell. So we're goingto be commenting on his theory of
(00:45):
Everything that we learnedthrough that. And that episode is
in the description. So we willlearn more about Tom Campbell.
Yeah, so Tom Campbell is aphysicist who got 50 years of experience
working in both physics andconsciousness because he started
(01:05):
apparently thinking aboutconsciousness when he was a physics
graduate student and wasintroduced to meditation. And then
he started on this paralleltrack. But he's, he's a very hard
science kind of guy who alsohas this other interest. He was a
NASA physicist for a couple ofyears. He's worked in, I think, defense
(01:28):
and intelligence and like allthis kind of areas where you wouldn't
think of as being paranormalkind of stuff. So I, I first heard
about him, as Ryan said ininterview with Kai Dickinson, telepathy
tapes. But it really caught myeye because his toe toe theory of
(01:51):
everything brought me back toDonald Hoffman. And I'll draw some
parallels back there, butessentially the key elements of his
theory are that consciousnessis fundamental. In other words, he
rejects the materialistapproach for an idealist approach,
(02:15):
and that quantum mechanicsshows us that reality is information
based. And so his theory isthat we are in a simulation that
space time. And I'm going tojust lean on a lot of terminology
that Hoffman uses. You. Eventhough Hoffman published the Case
(02:38):
Against Reality in 2019,Campbell published his big book My
Big Toe in 2003. So My Big toeactually came first. But it seems
that Hoffman never came acrossit. But nonetheless, because I'm
more familiar with Hoffman,I'm going to kind of frame it that
(02:59):
way. And listeners who'veheard us talk about Hoffman are also
going to be more familiar. Soconsciousness is fundamental, not
materialism, meaning not spacetime. That in fact the material reality
is a kind of simulation inwhich our body is an avatar into
(03:23):
which we incarnate and ourplayer, actual player, is just our
consciousness, not our body.Which of course directly parallels.
Well, it's not just Hoffman'sinterface theory of perception, but
also this bigger idea ofreality as a simulation. Now what
(03:44):
I like about what I likedabout Tom right away is that he said
consciousness is the computerbecause consciousness does, in fact,
compute. And what I likedabout that is that he immediately
kind of removed this idea of,oh, yeah, we're just in a simulation,
(04:05):
and we're in a game simulationthat's being run on a big computer,
and that computer is just asimulation that's being run on another
computer. And this. Thisstrained metaphor that I think really
kind of kills the simulationapproach because a lot of people
are very literal about, oh,because we're in a simulation, that
(04:27):
means that there is acomputer, which means that there
is a programmer, which meansthat. And it's like, no, it's just
an analogy. It's not literallytrue. And so that was the first thing
that I noticed about Campbellis he says consciousness computes
(04:49):
our reality and generates thissimulation. So the big overarching
idea that he has is that ourphysical universe is a learning lab
for our consciousness, andthat the purpose of this lab is for
(05:12):
our consciousness to grow anddevelop. And that development is,
as he puts it, to minimizeentropy, which means really to move
towards love. And so we canget into a little bit more detail
as we go. So the first premiseis that consciousness is the source
(05:34):
of everything, which, again,remains. Reflects what Hoffman wrote,
that material existence arisesout of consciousness, not the other
way around. Now, we haven'tgotten to detail with Campbell. I
think Hoffman, as I've readhim more explicitly, states like,
this is mathematicallyconsistent. You can mathematically
(05:58):
model how spacetime couldpossibly arise out of. Out of consciousness.
Not that I think he said, atleast not in the case against reality.
Not that he said that he haddone it, but he said it's possible
to do it. So another thingthat Campbell says is that consciousness
(06:23):
is a combination of awareness,of choice. And I thought that was
an interesting echo ofHoffman's conscious agents. So Hoffman
kind of postulates these kindof quanta of consciousness, like
the minimum amount ofconsciousness is a conscious agent,
(06:45):
and at minimum, it has theability to perceive and decide. Actually,
he. And then he adds, take,take action. And Campbell's idea
directly aligns with this. Theaction is implicit. And I think we.
We've talked about this a lotof times, that when we see an idea
presented by a differentthinker in a different way, but that
(07:08):
it has the same content. Yeah,that we go, okay, there's something
here. And so this reallypulled me in. Campbell describes
reality as a simulation, butas he puts it, it's a rule set, which
I think. So the difference isCampbell is a physicist by training
(07:30):
and profession and Hoffman isa perceptual psychologist by training.
So their language is going tobe slightly different. And I think
Campbell's language may be alot more familiar to a lot of people
because I think he works morewith the idea of programs as a physicist.
(07:57):
And so he, you know, he'sexpressing it as a rule set rather
than just vaguely as asimulation. He also raises the love
fear dichotomy, which is anongoing theme for us, and that entropy
or chaos is lowered by movingtowards love. You know that when
(08:21):
you experience fear, the morefear there is, the more chaos there
is. It's very intuitivelyobvious. Like, I feel like if I say
that someone will immediatelyunderstand in their heart, kind of
like, oh, yeah, of course,fear. Fear does create chaos. So,
(08:43):
yeah, I'm just like reallystruck by his way of expressing these
things. He talks a bit aboutfree will and constraints on free
will, which he describes asdecision space. And we came across
this as in Hoffman, whereHoffman talks about consciousness
(09:07):
having an action menu, meaninga limited array of choices that can
be made by the conscious agentthat can perceive and decide. In
order to decide, it has tochoose off of a menu. And Campbell
says the same thing. You know,there's a limited decision space
(09:28):
that you operate in, eventhough reality is created by your
consciousness. That doesn'timply that you therefore can do whatever
you want and you haveunlimited choice and potential in
every moment. He's like, no,you're actually, because you're incarnated,
(09:48):
you're operating within thisdecision space which has these, these
constraints. Now, we're not asconstrained as we think we are because
we're not constrained byspace, time necessarily, but we are
constrained by our decisionspace, the decisions that are available
to us, given our history,circumstance, etc.
(10:12):
He was talking about you wereconstrained within the choices that
you know of. That was him.
That was. Yeah, that was asignificant limitation. You have
many more choices than youthink you do, but. But you can only
see so many choices. But evenif you could see all of your choices,
you're still limited. It'sjust you may have 20 choices instead
(10:35):
of five. At least that's.That's what I took away from it.
This brought me back veryspecifically to a conversation we
had had previously. It was awhile ago, not 100% sure it's actually
published, but theconversation did occur, which was.
I had brought to you the. Thisidea of infinite potentiality when
(11:00):
we were talking about time andeverything existing at once, right.
And Everything exists in thisinfinite potential space. All, all
events, all potential outcomesand pathways. And we move through
(11:22):
that space, through ourdecisions, through our choices, as
the. The experience of timecomes by making a choice and following
a conditional path away fromthat. But it doesn't mean that the
other things are impossible orinaccessible, but you are brought
(11:45):
further from maybe a certainreality, the more choices take you
in a different direction. Ithink this leads to his probability.
He was talking aboutprobability and that part of the
function of this decisionspace is probabilities of outcome
based on your historicalchoices, like the things that have
(12:09):
happened have cause and effectrelation within this rule set. So
you will be constrained tosome degree on what outcomes you
can choose or manage becauseyou've taken this branching logical
(12:30):
pathway through time and spaceto get where you are. Kai asked about
the idea of intention, settingintention. People talk about and
have experienced the seemingsynchronicities that come along with
setting a focus and anintention and having an outcome that
arrives consistent with thatintention. And he was saying that
(12:53):
intention can rebalance orreweigh some of the probabilities
of the. The probability roleof the outcome.
Right. Which. Exactly. Soyou're, you're still. It's still
a stochastic process. In otherwords, you still don't know what
the outcome is, but yourintention influences the probability.
(13:14):
Right.
And so what you're pointing tois, you know what. What's popularized
as manifestation, which is aterm that we don't really like, but
was popularized by, I guess,Oprah Winfrey and the book, like
the Secret, I think.
I don't really know where.
I think that's. I mean, that'sinteresting. Definitely part of recent
(13:36):
popular culture. So. So, yeah,I mean, you touched on a number of
things that I guess, I guessI'll follow at least a little bit
here. You know, this I. Thisidea of infinite potential and then
the gradual limiting of thepotential by choice. I like to point
out that the literal rootmeaning of decision is decision has
(14:03):
the same root as incision and excision.
Right.
It's a cutting, and it's acutting of a choice cutting off D.
And so, yes, as you makechoice, you're limiting. You're kind
of pruning your probabilitytree. Right, right. And now I'm thinking
of the. The TV series Loki andthe multiverse and everything like
(14:26):
that. Lots of crazy popularculture touching on these things.
But I think even that briefaside, you know, kind of tells me
that there's. There's anincreasing consciousness. What's
it called? Not A publicconsciousness. But. But literally,
(14:48):
because we're talking aboutpop culture, there's an increasing
public consciousness of someof these concepts now because it's
part of the new mythology. Thereferences are vague and misleading,
but nonetheless, it's there.It's there in the form of these modern
myths or popular media, whichjust is interesting to me. So the
(15:12):
other. The other thing that Ithink you're pointing to with this
kind of infinite potentialspace is the idea of the cat, the
Akashic records, which I'm notvery familiar with, but I'm kind
of coming into contact with,which is something that he references
(15:34):
as well. But I'm gonna. I'mgonna put that off for a minute because
I think some of these ideasare gonna come up. The. But the idea
of the nature of choice versusthe infinite potential and this kind
of simultaneous reality that.That you're referencing, which is
(15:58):
what happens when you don'thave space time. Right. Space time
is what helps. Space time iswhat prevents everything from happening
at once. Without space time,you have the point reality before
the Big Bang. And so all theseideas really tie together, and they're
not crazy ideas.
Right.
Because generally we acceptthe Big Bang. If generally you accept
(16:21):
the Big Bang, then generallyyou accept a point reality, because
that's what the Big Bang waswas the transition from a point reality
to this bigger universe. Andwe just tend not to think about the
implications. People don'tlike to think about what was big
before the Big Bang?
Right.
Well, what was the Big Bang?Big Bang was the creation of time,
space time. So what was beforespace time? Well, everything, everywhere,
(16:46):
all at once. So one of thepoints that we have is. Is the way
that this theory ofeverything, this big toe, overlaps
with. With ancient traditionsand perennial wisdom. The emphasis
of working towards love orunity with God through love, identity
(17:08):
of love with universalexistence and deity being.
In alignment with the flow of nature.
That nature being sort of thefundamentals of the rule set which
he related to physics being that.
Exactly, yeah. Oh, so youwrote the question, is Campbell just
(17:30):
modernizing on perennialwisdom with a physics framework?
I think this is what we'realways trying to do. Right. In general,
we're trying to understandtraditions and various different
teachings in kind of a moderncontext that we can talk about.
(17:52):
Right.
Well, he even. I think itreally drives back to his comment
that there is one, oneultimate truth which is consistent
with the perennial wisdom,consistent with what we've discussed
in what we perceive andbelieve and has been discussed in
people like Rupert Spira andothers, you know, more spiritual
(18:16):
or philosophical backgrounds,that truth is truth. Like there is
just a. There is a fundamentalessence to the ultimate reality.
And it's expressed throughthousands of different metaphors
and religious teachings. Andso this is another metaphor, another
way of describing theperennial wisdom, the fundamental
(18:39):
essence.
And in terms of his positionas scientist, we've seen this before.
So currently, the cutting edgeof all of science is quantum physics.
As investigators get moreinvolved in that, they tend to relate
(19:03):
to ancient wisdoms. We've seenthis in Hoffman, we've seen this
in Ravelli, and now we seethis in Campbell. In Campbell. Just
a caveat is, of course, we'vegot selection bias in looking at.
Yes.
This. This kind of thing. I'mnot saying that all quantum physics
physicists feel this way, butI'm pretty sure that there's a trend
(19:31):
of that. I mean, certainlyI've looked at other pieces of media
regarding quantum physics andinterviews with people in. In the
field, and this stuff comes up repeatedly.
It's not just Campbell. It'snot just revelli. It's. Yeah. I mean,
(19:54):
it's not necessarily fringe. Imean. Well, here's the thing. Quantum
physics is fringe. Right.Itself. I mean, we have this huge
body of knowledge ofconventional physics. That's the
part that's not fringe. All ofquantum physics is fringe because
it all opposes Newtonian physics.
(20:16):
Is that what makes it fringe, though?
Well, I'm just saying it's amuch smaller body of knowledge relative
to the hundreds of years.
Sure.
Of investigation that it'sworking against, and it really is
working against that which I.So it brings me. Now, this is something
that I got from his book. So Idid start to. To listen to Campbell's
(20:42):
audiobook, My Big Toe, and oneof the things that he points out
is that quantum physics, as heputs it, ends materialism. Like,
once we start doing quantumphysics, it's like, yeah, materialism's
out the window. It's just thatwe haven't accepted it yet. And because
the establishment'sinstruction is essentially, shut
(21:05):
up and calculate. Like, don'tthink about the implications of what
you're doing. Just makeanother cell phone. Just make another
invention that exploits theweirdness and impossibleness of quantum
physics in the framework ofclassical physics. It undoes all
(21:26):
the science. It doesn't undoit. I know, I know.
It's just not fundamental.
It undoes materialism.
Yes, right.
Yes.
You can use material existencejust like you can use a computer
game. It will operate. Itmakes sense. It makes sense. It has
(21:47):
a rule set. Exactly. Butquantum physics points beyond that
rule set. It points that, oh,we're just operating in a spacetime
interface and there's all thisstuff that doesn't operate in the
space time rules.
Right.
And so, you know, theestablishment says, yeah, don't look
(22:07):
into the matrix. God, so muchpopular culture. Right. Don't look
beyond that. Just do your joband create another physical manifestation
of the utility of thisinformation without getting in, into
the spiritual implications.
Right.
You know, or the ontologicalimplications of, of what we're, of
(22:31):
what you're actually workingwith. So anyway, I mean, obviously
very big ideas. It's Theory ofEverything by definition. So you
did this great outline of keyexperiments and evidence. And so
I'm going to invite you tojump in on this.
(22:54):
He went through and explainedthrough the interview with, with
Kai a number of experimentsand different things that he has
participated in that helped toI guess solidify his own position
in the space, but also to helpvalidate or give evidence to what
(23:17):
he's talking about. And so thefirst thing he was talking about
was this group of people thatwas involved in outof body experiments
and he was going throughexplaining this remote viewing or
out of body experienceexperiment where the participants
were isolated in soundproofrooms, even with a soundproof room
(23:41):
in between them to ensure thatthere was no way for them to hear
each other. And they got intothis theta state and they talked
a little bit about binauralbeats being a facilitator to bringing
about that theta state. Healso spoke about Hemisync, which
(24:01):
I guess is a brandedproprietary. Yes, version, basically
binaural beats. But thathelped them to get into the space
where they could thenexperience this out of body. And,
and the idea being that theywould meet up essentially. So, so
having multiple participantsget into that out of body state and
(24:25):
then meet up and basicallydescribe their experiences as they're
together in this out of bodystate. And the rooms were recorded
so, so they're speaking butthey can't hear each other outside
of, you know, this out of bodystate. And as they recorded what
(24:49):
they were saying and like, ohyeah, there's this thing over there
that I see when the experimentconcluded, they took those recordings
and basically overlaid thetracks and they lined up perfectly.
They made a coherentadventure, coherent mutual experience
between all the, all theparticipants where one could say
(25:13):
something like, oh, do you seethat yellow thing over there? Yeah,
you mean the, the pointy Thingwith the round top. And, and, and
they would say, yeah. Andthese were not conversations that
they had audibly together inreal time. But in one room one person
was saying this. And in acompletely sound, isolated and physically
(25:36):
separated other room, theother person was replying. So what
I learned from the beginningof the book was that Campbell's start
with kind of exceptionalexperience came long before this.
He was first introduced tomeditation as a graduate student.
(25:59):
Just kind of randomly saw anad for TM and Transcendental Meditation
and it offered, you know, youcan do more with less sleep, you
can get more mental clarity.And as a physics graduate student,
he was like, well, this isgreat. So he went and did it and
basically he found immediatelythat meditation gave him greater
(26:22):
mental clarity. And he startedto apply meditation to actually solving
physics problems to the pointwhere he no longer worked separately
from meditation, that he just,he was working on a problem. And
sometimes there would bepeople around and he would just enter
this, what you might call atheta state or you know, this state
(26:47):
that he's describing theseother experiments, a deep meditative
state. And then he would solvethe problem in that state. And he
said people would sometimestry to interact with him while he
was doing this. And they saidit was like interacting with just
a body. Like he was completelynon responsive until he came out.
(27:10):
And they were just like, yeah,this, he's really weird. He has this
very deep concentration thathe does. So he had colleagues who
were interested in the factthat he did this and kind of his
effectiveness. And heencouraged them to try meditation.
And he said none of them everdid. But the point is that he talks
(27:32):
about this as a practicalexperience, not as like, oh, it was
a weird thing. It's like, no,I became a more effective physicist.
That's why it's interesting.And he said, you know, this is where
non physical reality isaffecting physical results. Like,
this is my physical product,but how am I getting to this physical
(27:54):
product? I'm getting to thisby entering this altered state. And
that's when kind of this wholeapproach started. But it's strictly
pragmatic. And he, he remainedlike. I mean, he expresses it as
a physicist developing amodel, like, well, how could this
(28:18):
affect this outcome? Andthat's kind of where he started thinking
about this stuff. So yeah, in,in the interview he talks about a
lot of paranormal stuff and,and tells the interviewer, yeah,
anybody can do this stuff.They're not special abilities. It's
just a matter of disciplineand effort, which I find intriguing.
(28:41):
And I find a Little maybemisleading, because, I mean, you
can also say, oh, well,anybody can meditate and experience
this extreme state of claritywhere you could solve problems. Well,
theoretically, yes. But thatexperience that he had, I read that,
I was like, wow, this is nowonder this guy's the way he is,
(29:03):
because this was his firstexperience of meditation. It's not
typical, you know.
Right.
It's possible. Which isdifferent from saying it's typical
and kind of goes to, again,the recurring theme of the bell curve.
Sure.
Like, this guy is not in themiddle curve.
(29:24):
No. But I think his point, atleast what I gathered from the interview
part of it, was the termparanormal is a misnomer. He was
trying to reframe it, thatthese are. This is normal reality.
This is what things are. Andit is possible, although not always
(29:45):
likely.
And I will say he does focuson reproducibility.
Yeah.
And so the methods that he'stalking about are not inaccessible.
It's just. What I'm saying isthe amount of effort that it might
take you to accomplish theoutcomes that he's describing, your
mileage may vary.
Right.
You know, that's. That's thepoint I'm making. I mean, I totally
(30:07):
agree with him. I totally buyinto his assertion that it's possible
for anyone. That's. That's notwhy I'm disagreeing with. What I'm
disagreeing with is theimplication that someone could take
a TM course and have theirwork problems all solved. It's like,
(30:29):
that's very unlikely. Yeah.
At least in the first go. But,I mean, he did say with effort and
practice.
Yeah. Yeah. So Kai's interest,because the. The way telepathy tape
started was the discovery ofparanormal abilities in autistic
individuals. And that's howKai developed her whole podcast,
(30:52):
or now, I guess, a growingindustry or something. Like, it's
a big enterprise other thanjust her. Her podcast. That's why
Tom is saying it's not justfor special people who are. Are isolated
by special circumstances. Andso the. The story of the rest of
(31:13):
Kai's investigations is verymuch like, oh, you know, these are
very special people becausethey're. They're disadvantaged in
a lot of physical ways thatforces them into this special focus
which gives them specialabilities. And. And Tom's message
is like, yeah, no, it's justpart of focus. Like, as long as you
(31:34):
can focus and put the effortin, it's not. It's not a magical,
special thing. It's a normalthing. It's a normal function of
consciousness. But again,Recurring theme. Our. Our culture
devalues it.
Right.
Our values. Our culture tellsus it's all false, not much less
that you should spend anyeffort on it, but it's just wrong
(31:57):
and even evil and all thesekinds of things. So. Yeah, so one
of the things that hespecifically says which caught my
eye, is that in the state ofpoint consciousness, which he very,
very easily got to in hisfirst month of meditation, you can,
(32:18):
for instance, establishtelepathic connection with your teenagers
so that you can talk. Becausehe says you can't talk to teenagers,
but you can telepathicallyconnect to them. And I'm like, oh,
really? Tell me more.Obviously, I'm like my jaws dropping
and I'm lapping it up. I'mvery intrigued by that. And I would
say I'm intrigued to the pointof I'm actually interested in trying
(32:43):
it, and I'm not exactly surehow to proceed, but it's something
that I'm very interested in.In trying to empirically investigate.
Yeah.
And then, as you. As youalready mentioned, he talks about
intention and changing the.The probabilities of the decision
(33:03):
space, which is likemanifestation, synchronicity, all
the things we've talked aboutas recurring themes. Oh, okay. Yes.
He does point out that Westernculture ignores the intuitive. And
everything is nettedconsciousness is a phrase that he
(33:26):
uses, meaning that allconscious agents are interconnected
in broader terms. Well, I wishI knew what explicitly what he said,
because this thing ofeverything is netted consciousness
directly parallels Hoffman.
Yes.
(33:46):
Because Hoffman says thateverything, every particle, every
object, every particle is consciousness.
Right.
And we only see them asphysical objects because we are perceiving
other conscious agents in thisphysical interface.
Right.
Hoffman. I mean, Campbellpretty much says the same thing,
(34:10):
as far as we can tell from theinterview, and that it's all interconnected,
which is something. Well,obviously from a lot of wisdom traditions,
this idea of inter. Beinginterconnectedness, it's something
(34:30):
that I've come across a lot.Indirect experience in group meditation,
experiences of interconnectedness.
He was describing it morespecifically, at least in the interview.
He was describing the metaphorbeing kind of like the Internet,
(34:54):
where each individualperceptive Loki is connected like
a network. That's where thenetted consciousness comes. And we
can choose to be more or lessin tune or like I think he said,
(35:14):
turn it on or turn it off, butit's not that it's ever disconnected.
The Internet's always live.The. The interconscious network is
always live. But you canchoose through intention and practice
to open A browser, and tapinto that worldwide consciousness.
(35:35):
That's in part, I think, whathe was talking about with his practice,
where he solves problems,right? There's access to that infinite
potentiality, that ultimatedatabase of information through this
netted system. But, and I'mputting my own words in it, but this
(35:57):
is kind of what I wasgathering from it. Most people aren't
connected. They're connected,but they're not using it. They're
not tapping into that network.
So again, this is a majorrecurring theme is the idea of connection
and separation. And, you know,the, the idea of. Of human experience
(36:20):
as being the problem ofperceived separation.
Right.
So it's not that we need tolog into the connection, it's that
we have to stop beingdeceived, that we're not connected.
Right.
And that deception is at thesame time. So it's not inherently
(36:41):
a malicious deception.However, I think it is a maliciously
exploited deception,persistently and consistently and
repeatedly. And so I thinkgoes back to what you introduced
before as the infinitepotential and the simultaneous nature
(37:04):
of everything possibleexisting. And kind of what I touched
upon as the point reality ofpre Big Bang. It's something that's
pointed to by Buddhism in oneinstance of Buddha supposedly knowing,
(37:25):
having infinite knowledge.Because I mean, how. How would that
be? Because he's not deceivedby his separateness of self. And
again, as we practice a lot,it's a recurring theme with a lot
of people that I interact withof practice, resulting in an increasing
(37:51):
sense of connectivity and adissolution of the illusion of separateness.
What else I wanted to point atwith this, this idea of the Akashic
record, this idea of yourinfinite simultaneous existing potential
(38:12):
of everything. And I want topull in some thoughts that I've had.
I might have expressed thembefore, having to do with past lives
and some of these otherparanormal things and how they would
work. And also a short storyby Andy Weir, who wrote the Martian
(38:35):
that everybody knows as thatMatt Damon movie, but he wrote a
short story called the Eggwhich really cracks it open. I think
this is really potentially anexample where art is hitting on this
(38:56):
ultimate reality. This storyspoke to me like, is so intuitively
true to me. And this issomething that's attributed to art,
right? Art points to the truthor literature, right? It describes
the truth. It's not reality,but what's true. And to me what that
(39:16):
means is not reality. Meansnot in space time, not in our physical
reality, but really, how canit be true but not in our physical
reality? Because it's True inthe ultimate reality. And what Andy
describes in this story issomeone who has died and basically
(39:38):
meets his creator and haseverything explained to him that
all of existence is just todevelop that individual's soul. Except
that that individual isn't oneindividual out of billions of individuals.
That individual is the onlyother individual that exists. That
(39:59):
there's a creator and there'sa separate consciousness that has
to be developed. And so he,he, you know, he asked questions
about his world and all thepeople that he knew and everything
like that. And the answer is,yeah, they're all you. There is no
one else. They're all you.You're just, they're all incarnations
of you. Which to me, this ideaof space time not being essential,
(40:27):
but consciousness beingessential explains this really weird
phenomenon of past lives,which is very illogical because people
connect to past lives andthey're like, oh, I was so and so.
And many people are the sameperson. You know, I was Julius Caesar.
What? Oh, yeah, I was Julius.You know, it's, it's a, it's a thing
(40:48):
like prominent figures arerecurring or. Yeah. Recur in various
accounts of past lives, whichdoesn't make any sense at all, of
course, and kind of thelogistics of souls and reincarnation.
So you think about it a littlebit and it's like, well, wait a second,
how are there more soul? Like,you know, if, if there was a creation
(41:12):
and there were so many soulsnow how are there more souls? And
then anyway, there's just thiswhole logistic numerical problem.
But if you see it as everyonebeing the potential of everyone else.
And again, this is like therebut for the grace of God go I. It's
(41:32):
really there. But for theexistence of space time separating
me, we are all not the same,but we are all actually the identical
entity. And you and I areactually just different, as Hoffman
calls instantiations of thesame thing. We're just separated
(41:57):
in space time. But space timeis an illusion. If we take away space
time, we go back to thesource, then we're one point reality.
But we're separated in orderto have our individual experiences
so that our unity can learnfrom our separate experiences. And
this is the story that you'vegone over before about now, this
(42:19):
is from conversations withGod, right? That, that the purpose
of incarnation or creation,same thing, right. Is to enable the
divine to have an experience.
Yes.
And so the way I see this, howthis all connects to reincarnation
(42:40):
and past lives and whatnot, isthat when we turn away from the illusion
of separateness and we accessthis database, all of us have access
to all past lives. And notonly past lives, but current lives
and future lives. Becauseessentially, I think what it's like
(43:02):
is just reaching back tobefore the Big Bang. And you're not
really reaching back. I mean,only in terms of space time are you
reaching back in time. But interms of ultimate reality, you're
just accessing, you're notreaching back.
Right, right.
Because it's everything,everywhere, all at once. There's
(43:22):
no space. So everywhere isjust here. And every. All at once
is just now. And so theproblem that we have in interpreting
these experiences is thatbecause we're incarnated, we are
constrained by the way we'reable to experience it and interpret
(43:43):
it. And so people interpretthese things as. As past lives. Like,
oh, I was this person. No,you're contacting this infinite data,
but in order to report it andprocess it and report it and describe
it, you're expressing it as, Iwas Julius Caesar, as opposed to
I accessed the data that wasspecific to what we call the individual
(44:09):
Julius Caesar. And that it'smerely. It's merely the constraint
of space time that makes itillogical. And it's merely the constraint
of our individual incarnationwhile we're accessing this information
that constrains us to say, Iwas this person as a past life, as
(44:30):
opposed to, I was everybody.
Right?
And I am everybody. So that'smy interpretation of past life experiences.
But it also connects to theexperience of mystics who. And others
who recognize that they're everybody.
(44:50):
So the time thing isinteresting too, with the. The database,
the infinite, infinitepotentiality, the akashic records,
however you want to describeit. He specifically said, like, so
you have access. You canaccess this database, find out things
about the past and even thepresent. You can see things that
(45:15):
could be the future. Butbecause the future hasn't happened,
because the decision treestill is yet to fulfill itself into
material form, those onlybecome probabilities or are only
probabilities. And I supposethat that goes to prophecy and some
of the cultural, artisticphenomena that discuss changing the
(45:42):
future.
Right.
This is what it looks like ifyou continue down this path. So it
exists as a potential ofreality, but it has not manifested
into the array of choices andexperiences throughout human history,
which I think also I haddiscussed during that old discussion,
(46:05):
is it's not just ourindividual. The array of our own
individual choices, but thefulfillment of the entirety of human
material decision making thathas created this reality that we
perceive, this material formthat we Perceive in the present.
(46:30):
State, there is a specificcorollary that or interpretation
that Campbell mentions that Iwant to point out, which is the role
of existence as a learninglaboratory and kind of the relationship
(46:51):
of the creator or the divineand the creation or reality. Right.
And that the creator createdin order to learn, which means that
there's learning to happen.And Campbell points at Old Testament,
basically the evolution of theJudeo Christian deity, or I should
(47:16):
say the Abrahamic deity,changing from a angry, vindictive
parental type to a lovingparental type. And I feel like we
already mentioned this. We didmention this. Is it because of Campbell?
You brought it up in referencewhen we were talking about the Ten
(47:39):
Commandments.
Right. But I don't know if I'dalready heard about Campbell at that
point.
Yeah, I think you.
Okay. Because Campbellexplicitly says that.
I think you cited Campbell.
Yeah. Okay. All right. Wellworth pointing back to because it
is. It was a very interestingkind of very explicit theological
observation to what he'ssaying, which is. Yeah, the. The
(48:04):
idea of God being perfectalways is part of the story of God
as a part of. As opposed tothe nature of God, which is love.
And in the ultimate is allthere is. But in the context of our
existence and of creation,there's a learning path and there
(48:30):
is a growth of the Creator,which is a weird.
I think that growth is abetter term for it, personally. And
this is my own. Sure, I saythis because there's a number of
people who assert, you know,there is no learning, but I think
(48:51):
there is experience andevolution. Basically, there's no
learning because we alreadyknow everything. We just need to
remember kind of thing. And inpart, actually conversations with
God touched on somethingsimilar. But the idea of growth and
evolution, and this is howCampbell phrased it as well, like
(49:14):
he. He did call it obviouslythe learning lab. But the purpose
is for the growth andevolution of the consciousness through
experience that moves. So theexperience of both high entropy and
low entropy and finding ourway through those experiences, evolving
(49:39):
to the lowest lower entropychoices, I guess. But it's more than
that, right? It's being. It'sthe. It's discovery in a way, but
it's discovery throughexperience. And this is the nuance
that I gather from likeconversations with God and things.
(50:01):
It's not a knowing. Learningto me elicits this knowing.
Yes, yes, yes.
Thing versus experiencingversus experiencing it. You understand
it through the experience andthrough the embodiment of it, which
can't happen in the ultimatestate because there is no relational
aspect. The Only way toexperience is to have that separateness,
(50:24):
to have a relation throughspace and time of any unique concept.
And you learn, you learn how,you learn about who we are. And the
Source learns about itself,about the nature of itself through
(50:48):
the experience. And it wasinteresting and you mentioned this
last time during the TenCommandments as well. But he. I think
it's worth rephrasing or re.Speaking about it again is the Source
is also learning or growing,evolving through our experience.
(51:11):
It's not us specificallyindividually that is evolving, but
through these experiences theSource, the oneness evolves. And
that is the importance, Ithink, because we are all that one
thing. What I think getsmuddied both with Hoffman and with
(51:34):
Campbell and with others. Ireally enjoy these models. Hoffman
and I love that they're bothbringing a scientific lens to it
because so often it getsdismissed from an esoteric lens because
our culture values andprioritizes this materialistic, physical,
(51:57):
scientific form. So I lovethat these are being brought in that
space. I don't think theyactually don't address this, but
I feel like it is a bit of amuddy spot where it's the conscious
agents we're talking about theincarnation of the avatar and nettedness.
(52:20):
But even nettedness alludes toseparateness. Like, you know what
I mean? And I don't think thatultimately I think they would all,
all agree in the ultimatestate there is only oneness. And
yet there continues to be thisessence of me versus you.
(52:41):
Well, I think it's a way ofpointing because we are communicating
to entities that perceivethemselves as separate.
Right.
And perceive themselves asabsolutely separate. And so you need
to point to nettedness.
Right.
First because I, I mean, yes,obviously in the literal sense, there's
(53:10):
not nettedness, there's unity.
Right.
There's like there is noseparation, there is no inter this
and this. There are no nodes,there are no interstices. There's
just total unity. It's theproblem of the whole adventure of
trying to investigate realityand express spiritual experience.
(53:30):
Right?
Yeah.
I mean, I think you just, youjust said it. We are delighted and
intrigued and drawn to thesemodels of scientists grappling with
ultimate reality and kind ofthe alternative to materialism. And
(53:53):
I like that. I don't know ifhe coined it, but it's the first
time I've heard idealismopposing materialism and that I would
say these models in generalsupporting a love centered, cooperative
worldview that is very muchcounteracting the fear, selfish,
(54:20):
scarcity, mindsets ofmanipulation, exploitation, everything
you know, all that moredestructive, conventional worldview.
And of course this, thisbridge between science and mysticism
(54:41):
or science and religion as, asHoffman pointed to also at the end,
you know, that his hope isthat a science of religion will be
able to develop. AndCampbell's clearly working the same
direction.
(55:02):
There's an obstacle there, andI know we touched on it earlier in
the episode and we talkedabout a little off mic, but there's,
there is a concerted orintentional effort to silence the
science of religion. Mycomment was this is 20 years old.
(55:24):
Quantum physics is not newanymore. It may not be as mainstream
as it probably should be,because I think we're actually starting
to move even beyond quantumphysics and yet even still in mainstream
culture, mainstream education,Newtonian physics is the model of
(55:44):
choice. And we like to ignorethe inconsistencies in quantum entanglement
and different kinds of thingslike that that are oddities from
the lens of Newtonian physicsand the materialism paradigm. But
(56:04):
it is an observable phenomenawithin the reality that we experience.
So it isn't not materialismbecause quantum is part of the material
form.
Right, right.
It's just a new or deeper,perhaps more detailed view of what's
(56:27):
happening under the hood. Andit doesn't discount the utility of
Newtonian physics tomanipulate the macro world. But we
still have obstacles andfriction in moving culturally, conceptually,
beyond materialism beingfundamental. And it's strange to
(56:53):
me that we're in that kind ofspace and you know, maybe it is institutional
and you know, we have thatongoing call back to this, this trap
of institution suppressing growth.
I, yeah, I, and, and I'mgonna, I'm gonna point to something
(57:17):
which is a little utre for me,I think, in that there's a recurring
theme, a thing that as youinvestigate these spaces, keeps on
coming up, is that there areissues of power.
Yes.
That are highly conflictedbecause I think the, the, oh, what
(57:43):
are they called? The earthlypowers. I gotta say, I gotta say
the earthly powers are veryinterested in the potential of this
kind of reality and at thesame time are threatened by it.
Yeah.
And so they're encouragingresearch. Like they want to pursue
(58:03):
research, but they want thatresearch to be secret.
Right.
And then we get all theseleaks of like. Yeah, they're, they're
investigating this stuff. So Imean, I, I feel weird getting into
this kind of conspiracy space.But it's recurring and I don't think
it's, it's not all kind of tinhat talk. But going directly to your
(58:23):
point of this weirdsuppression. And yet on the other
hand, there's also anencouragement of it and a leveraging
of it.
To your point, with, you know,using it for quantum computing and
for cell phones and thingslike that. We are using this knowledge.
We just don't want theimplications of that to be widely
(58:45):
disseminated and contemplated,apparently. And I mean it's certainly
easy enough to say that, yeah,it's a control thing or you know,
a power thing.
And I mean, but I mean that's,that's been. Again, that is probably
one of the central themes ofour conversation is the role of power
(59:10):
and self interest and controlin how we're trying to talk about
this stuff. Like how are theseideas developed? Spread, suppressed,
manipulated, perverted.
I guess they're missing the,the main theme, which is the love
and the low entropy and all of that.
Right.
They want, they want toleverage the benefit. Which was interesting
(59:34):
too because Campbell mentioned.
Yes.
That it's very difficult to effectively.
Yes.
Use these things.
If you want to. If you want touse remote viewing to look into the
girls locker room, you won'tbe able to develop the ability to
use remote viewing. And thenhe says it's possible. Yeah, it's
(59:58):
possible, but it's extremelyrare and difficult. And, and we're
saying how rare and difficultin general. In general it is. But
if you really want to pose,which goes back to what we were saying
about the commandments and theprecepts, Right. If you are oriented
towards fear, it's not thatyou're condemned by sin, it's that
(01:00:20):
you're creating a hugeobstacle to moving in the direction
that you're trying to move.But you're trying to move with a
particular focus or motivationor constraint. You're putting a constraint
on yourself by saying, I wantto use this, I want to exploit this
to gain more personal power,then okay, well, you can pursue that
(01:00:45):
now. You've just hugelyincreased the amount of time and
effort that you will need toinvest in and getting. Developing
this thing that you're pursuing.
I mean, in a way it's liketrying to pursue love through fear.
Just like counter.
Right.
(01:01:06):
It's counterintuitive. It'snot, it's oxymoronic really.
Well, I wonder if it'spossible to be deceived into thinking
that that's working. Becausein terms of relationships. Yeah,
right. Where you can easily. Imean, it's. I think it's in popular
fiction or it's even in truecrime and real relationships. Right.
(01:01:29):
That people do that. Yeah,right. It's like I have a relationship
based on fear and I made herlove me. It's a delusion.
Yeah.
It can be a mutuallysubscribed delusion though, right?
Yeah, yeah. So. So I wonder ifthere are other phenomenon that are
not like romantic love, butother things that are pursued using
(01:01:55):
fear. And then you getsomething that you think is.
I think that's. Yeah, I thinkthat was a very distinct thread that
was investigated during ourTen Commandments discussion, which
is you made the point thatthere's a value proposition, a valid
(01:02:19):
value proposition thatconducting behavior counter to these
guidelines, waypoints of thepath can bring material resource.
So there's in that sense somelevel of winning or gaining, but
(01:02:41):
it's at the expense of innerpeace and growth and pursuit towards
the divine.
Yeah. But I'm thinking morealmost literally in terms of say,
remote viewing. Like is itpossible black magic, basically.
(01:03:01):
Right. To use negatively, touse fear based methods to develop
an ability that looks likeremote viewing but in some way isn't
true remote viewing. Just likethis toxic relationship isn't true
(01:03:24):
love.
Right.
But it looks like, like theparticipants agree.
Right.
That it's love.
They think they're remoteviewing, but they're not actually.
But there's some kind of weirdfalsity to it.
Yeah.
You know, that maybe it hassome utility. And so, I mean, this
is kind of a definition, thatis an operational definition of real
(01:03:47):
that Campbell uses. If itinfluences physical events, then
it's real. Right. That's. Imean, that was something that's in
the beginning of his book.Something when he's talking about
his own experience. And so,you know, is a CIA working with something
that is influencing. Let's sayyou have a remote viewer and it's
(01:04:09):
like, okay, you're gettinginformation that in some ways very
verifiable, in some sense isverifiable and is effective in affecting
reality. Like I can apply thisinformation and get results and yet
somehow it's tainted. Likethere's some. I know, I'm kind of
(01:04:33):
intuiting. It pulls me intocultural tropes of demonic activity
and deception and you know,kind of like what the monkey's paw?
Like you get the wish, but youget the pri. You get the cost. Right.
Whereas if it's a true benignlove based thing, then there's no
(01:04:59):
cost.
Right.
So referencing back to thetelepathy tapes, which apparently
is an extremely popularpodcast, like just explode. Like
went viral.
Yeah.
I guess I'd also like tovisit. As for us, for us to investigate
that, because this idea of thecentral database is something that
(01:05:23):
actually comes up. It's veryinteresting because I remain skeptical
about this whole thing. Right.But taken within its own context,
there's a consistent story,I'm curious at really investigating
this, as to what thecriticisms and challenges are, because
it's controversial. But thatis a central thing of, yes, we are
(01:05:48):
able to. So first of all, yes,we, we meet telepathically and yes,
we do have access to infiniteknowledge. And it's consistent with
the idea of what, whatCampbell's talking about, what, you
know, what I've heard aboutthe Akashic records with all this
stuff. It's. Everybody'stalking about the same thing. It's
(01:06:09):
like, oh, I'm recognizing it.I'm just not recognizing from direct
experience.
Right.
And that is why I aminterested in pursuing these things.
So in terms of whateverability I might gain access to, it's
so that the ability to connectwith others by recognizing something
(01:06:31):
from a direct experience thatI know is very, very important to
me, both kind ofaesthetically, like, it's just very,
very pleasant. But also interms of my growth, because I know
that I develop that. I havebeen developing that way. And so
(01:06:54):
if I can increase the numberof experiences by which I can interact
with people and saying, yes, Iknow that experience, that's what's
interesting to me. Because thepeople that I've contacted about
these various things aregenerally uncomfortable with. Generally
(01:07:17):
there's a. There's a qualityof loneliness to having this experience.
And then my fulfillment is inremoving that.
Sure.
Loneliness by saying, yeah, I,I know that. And at the same time,
it removes my loneliness in away that I don't think playing golf
(01:07:39):
is gonna.
So next episode we're gonnatouch on lucid dreaming, which is
akin to this out of body experience.
I would, I would subscribe towhat Campbell says, which is that,
(01:07:59):
yeah, they're all the samething. Because in my, my interpretation,
all this stuff is merelyremoving yourself from the constraints
of spacetime.
Thank you for listening. Ihope you guys enjoyed this conversation.
If you have your ownexperiences you'd like to share,
we invite you to comment oremail. You can comment on Spotify,
(01:08:23):
you can comment on YouTube,you can email us@inforackingwisdom.com
and we would love to hear fromyou guys. Until next time.
See you then. Thanks a lot.Thank you for listening to the Tracking
Wisdom Podcast. Join us nexttime as we continue the discussion.
Don't forget to follow us onFacebook, Instagram and YouTube and
(01:08:46):
visit www.eth-studio.com formore information and.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!