The Counterculturist Podcast: 003

Thoughts on Thomas Campbell's appearance on Joe Rogan

The Counterculturist Podcast is available to paid subscribers only. Please enjoy Episode III gratis during our introductory month. If this content interests you and you’d like the opportunity to have your personal questions attended to, as well as access to our private members club and all subscriber-only content, please subscribe below!

---

Transcript

Welcome to episode three of The Counterculturist podcast for paid subscribers only. I'm your host, Jazmine Giovanni, and in this little podcast, we attempt to answer questions and get to the root of what went down in the matrix this week, so I'm very happy to have you all here. This week, a subscriber sent me a link to Joe Rogan's podcast where he was interviewing physicist Thomas Campbell. Tom is also the author of the My Big TOE trilogy and has been a consciousness researcher for over 35 years. And the question was, you know, what are your thoughts on Tom's assertions from a non-dual point of view? So that's what we're going to untangle today.

You know, the study of consciousness is humorous because everyone's looking for what's looking and as soon as you take the flying leap past that which observes and become engrossed in observation, you’re kind of already lost, so it makes the endeavor kind of sticky. I made a video on TikTok talking about the stories of spirituality that you have to untangle in order to know the true self, which is prior to stories and prior to thought, and Tom's stories are no different. You know, the models of existence set forth by physicists are no different to any other story. We have the science story, the quantum computer story, the simulation story, the matrix story. Tom stories, which you know I’ll get into here shortly, are convincing to the logically-minded science types because, as he says, “I can derive physics from this”, and that proves a theorem in his estimation. If you can derive physics from it, then, you know, it's consistent and workable. But all that means to me is that from inside the illusion you can make the illusion make sense. He says at one point that physics has to be simple with no assumptions and yet in this interview, which is my only experience with him, at every turn, each theorem and assertion that he has laid out in this interview is an assumption that is based around the independent existence of a nonexistent observer, while at the same time maintaining his adherence to a consciousness only model of existence. The problem with his version of a consciousness only model is that its completely based in materiality. He makes the distinction between some kind of ultimate consciousness and “us”, you know, the us which he calls a piece of consciousness. He states that consciousness plays us, the character, and makes statements like your “brain doesn't do any computing”, and then at the same time staunchly defends free will. And then there was a secret third thing ah, a statement that he made referring to a state between the previous two when he said consciousness can only do what the rule set of the virtual reality allows it to do. There's some disconnects here for me. In a consciousness only model of existence when there exists nothing but consciousness, what tangled up thought wad would you have to buy into to believe that consciousness can then only do what the rule set of the virtual reality allows it to do? You know, he waxes poetic about the intricacies of his theorem and tells his story at length and how you can prove this story through physics, and then in the same interview denigrates the whole thing to a virtual reality that doesn't exist, which for me begs the question, “if it's not real, then why spend a lifetime trying to prove theorems with evidence based on an illusion?” And you know, listen, I love Joe. He does a masterful job of allowing his guests to relay their viewpoint without too much interruption, but unless you're intimately familiar with nonduality or idealism, or, you know, the consciousness only model of existence, you don't know what questions really to ask to break through the contradictions of Tom's thought processes and his models, so the interview did not puncture through in moments that I that I would have wanted it to.

Tom begins the episode speaking at length about his portal to spirituality and to the study of consciousness being out of body experiences. Here's what I want to touch on with regards to that: out of body experiences can be transformational to a highly rational type that needs concrete proof to affirm that they are not the body, and that's valid. But from a spiritual point of view, that's kindergarten. Okay, the truth is whether the experience is being in a body or the experience is being out of body, it still experience. You cannot look for experience to confirm truth. Experience is inherently flawed being that the focal point of consciousness is turned outwardly to the appearance, even if it appears to be coming from inside a body. That's the thing. Experience happens in the realm of appearances, sensations, etc. The real question is who experiences? Who is the knower of this experience? I came upon that mantra many years ago and during a pretty spectacular time of upheaval, a rug pull of epic proportions, I turned to that mantra and concentrated on it so intently that it completely dissolved the experience / experiencer duality. Who is the knower of this experience? The knower is the experience. There's no experience outside the knowing of it. Consciousness is the all pervasive, fundamental, supreme eye (I). To make a distinction from one experience to the next is ridiculous. It's all equally real and unreal. The subject “you” and the object “the world” are actually both beheld by the eternal subject consciousness, and all appearances regardless of their distinction of quality, are appearing on that screen of consciousness which is never affected by the contents of what's what appears on the screen. It never ages. Age and the objects of time are experiences that are assumed and taken on, just like the transparencies over a projector, which is, you know, in this case, is symbolizing the light of awareness. I've made that analogy several times. If you're new here, the projector light with transparencies. The projector light being awareness and the transparencies being thoughts, feelings, sensations, beliefs, identities, etc that overlay on to that projector light and color the way reality looks, but it never actually touches or changes the real reality. It's only an illusion of change, so in the case of the out of body experiences, the climb up the ladder, or the roll out in order to get out, these are visualizations—thoughts—that catalyze a new experience, and these visualizations work the same way that a spell does in magic. The goal for a witch or a practitioner of magic is not to affect the outer world (and if it is, the practitioner has not been properly initiated and is ignorant, but that's another story). The goal is to conjure a new state, a new inner state that is assumed as reality and then reflected in the hologram as truth. Okay, that's what a visualization or a spell or a ritual is in effect attempting to do. They are the vehicle that takes the mind to a new state of experience. And all experiences are of the matrix and are untrue from the point of view of the absolute. Hence, the expression this is a god dream. How can you ascertain truth from an imaginary realm? To quote Tom again “I can derive physics from this.” Okay, great, but don't confuse the laws of an illusion for ultimate truth.

A secondary point I'd like to touch on. Tom claims that you are a subset of consciousness and you interact with other subsets of consciousness, i.e. other humans, your dog, your cat. His model for existence looks like an information system that is evolving its consciousness by lowering its entropy. And he speaks about, you know, the possibility that its plasma or a quantum computer. Listen, if we're dealing with a consciousness only model, there aren't subsets. How can that which is not two ever fall away from itself and create a subset? It can't. Have you ever known anything outside of the knowing of it? No. Have you ever known your pet objectively? No, you know the knowing of your pet through sensation, through the portal of sense perception. Knowing objectively doesn't exist and this is where scientists and physicists lose the plot because they've taken the flying leap over and completely disregarded the state of observation for in favor of the (objective) observer, you know, the object as the subjective observer and the object that is being observed, when those are two points in the same consciousness, equally unreal. So my point with this is where are these apparent subsets in our direct experience? There aren't any. There's only one experience and that's the knowing of experience. The knower is the experience and it's the only experience. So all assertions as to what this is, what reality is, are stories from the point of view of a facet of consciousness, not a subset, not a piece. They are stories from the point of view of a facet that is never separate from the whole. It is. It is! The all sees all in concurrent existence. This is why the all seeing eye is our universal sigil. And that eye that knows nothing but itself, because there's nothing but itself, spontaneously shifts its focal point from the inward turn (being being) to the outward (knowing being), and this is the I Am portal. As soon as consciousness shifts from being being to knowing being, that's the metaphorical big bang. I am!! And once you are, then everything else is too. As soon as you have become an object to yourself, you are thrust into a world of other objects in a realm of space and time. Space and time are not fundamentals. They are conditional upon the focal point of consciousness being turned outward as an object, because then their space between objects and the time it takes to traverse them. With a simple shift in the point of focus, the No-thing has become some-thing to itself, and the whole universe appears. And this one appears as the many, and because consciousness is fundamental throughout the apparent many that's really one, it's looking back on itself from infinite points of view and saying that! instead of I! Okay, this material world is the matrix. The realm of thought is the matrix. All thought subsequent to “I Am” is the outward turn that results in material objectification. This realm is the face of God—the reflection of the real that is mistaken for the real. And I want to remind you of the imagery of the devil card in tarot symbolized by the inverted pentagram. There is nothing unholy, evil, satanic, or wrong with this realm. It is as empty as a mirror, and whatever image you cast upon it, it will reflect back to you perfectly. So if you are a facet of consciousness that identifies as a physicist whose had a brush with consciousness, and as Tom mentioned, you know, in meditation and out of body experiences, he was awakened, then the cast into the mirror will be one of scientific reasoning and the empty no thing will begin to assimilate itself around that world view, but the realm of thinking and reasoning deductive provable reasoning is not the ultimate truth.

And this brings me to a subject matter that I've needed to address since it dawned on me ten years ago, 2015. This was a conversation that I had with my mother that was pivotal for me. I had established in my recognition that the matrix is the realm of thought. Everything subsequent to the “I Am”, all thought subsequent to “I Am” creates the world, time, space, and everything in it. So recognizing that, then we have to acknowledge that there are two different schools of spiritual teaching, and thus two different schools of spiritual teachers: matrix teachings and non matrix teachings, and the teachers that fall into those subsequent categories. A matrix teaching revolves around thought, analyzation, determination, action, etc. It enforces the doer that can excel in a realm of objects, and in the case of manifestation, astrology, witchcraft, spell work, etc., can manipulate objects toward a more desirable state. Okay, a non-matrix teaching will unforgivingly and unwaveringly guide you past the realm of thought, back through the “I Am” portal, and to a state of being rather than thinking and doing—the state of being because that's who you are, who you were, and who you will always be regardless of the apparent conditions of the matrix, and the agents, and the programs you install in order to have a certain experience. Okay, yes, the matrix was a documentary.

So, with this discussion, it's not my intention at all here to discredit a man's life's work, but this is a perfect example of a matrix teacher and the spiritual and scientific communities are rife with them. So you as a student, wherever you are on your path, need to become very clear what the will that is moving through you is calling you toward. Is it (calling you) to elevation in the matrix? Or is it (calling you) to annihilation of all untruths? And there's no judgment either way because there is no free will and all experiences are valid and destined, but it helps to be aware of the distinction here.

I find it interesting that throughout this interview, Tom emphasizes quite emphatically. The need to balance the intellect with the intuition, which is right on, especially for the times that we are in. And yet at every turn, he falls into the black hole of logic and reason. The intellectual mind cannot reach to the mystical mind. The yogis have known this for 4000 years. And the reason why the intellectual mind can't reach to the mystical mind is because the truth is prior to thought. Consciousness is the eternal fundamental in which all appearances and stories and belief systems and sensations appear, but to suggest that consciousness is evolving, and to say that "god is evolving toward becoming love”, these are statements that only a man that has rationalized himself into ignoring the obvious could make. Okay, God is not evolving. Consciousness is not evolving, and it certainly isn't evolving toward becoming love. It is!! You can't cloak the most intimate state of being in the veils of science and call it spirituality because it's not. The point of spirituality is not to answer life's impossible questions. It's to dispel all questions by residing in the state prior to what would ask them. That's the truth.

And that's my two cents. Thank you so much to the subscriber that suggested this. If you have any suggestions for me, please leave them in the comments. I look forward to hearing from all of you.

Be blessed, bye.

---

If you’d like a deep dive on nonduality and the implications of a consciousness-only model applied through life and science, feel free to read this and watch the accompanying videos. Well worth your time. xo