First of all, I love Hemi-sync and Monroe's model of consciousness because it's safe and practical. I have been using Monroe's tapes for 2 years now and my brain is pretty familiar with it. If I place the intent to go to focus 10 and say in my head, "Go to focus 10," or "I am now going into focus 10," etc., my consciousness will immediately begin to shift to that particular focus level and I will start to experience the sensations, and as long as my physical body is relaxed and my mind is clear, I will experience that particular state of consciousness, the state of mind of focus 10. I am quite familiar with the focus levels of 10-20; 21 and higher I am not as familiar with.
Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is, I have recently come across Frank Kepple's model of consciousness and I have taken a liken to it as I am a huge fan of Bruce Moen and it helped me better understand Moen's 3D blackness. It sort of simplifies Monroe's model, and I have wanted to come to a compromise between them, using both of them. Who says I have to use one or the other? As Neale Donald Walsch says, think both/and instead of either/or (which I find is the only way to not think dualistically without having first-hand experience of oneness/gnosis/enlightenment/cosmic-or-christ consciousness, whatever you decide to call it.) However, I realize they both use the word "Focus" to define particular states of consciousness. Therefore, I have taken into consideration that my physical body consciousness may be linear and straightforward, meaning that using the word focus to experiment with both the Monroe and Kepple model may be confusing to my brain (and also to people who aren't really familiar with Monroe's model).
For example, if I want to use Kepple's model and I say, "I am now going into focus 3," I have to take into consideration that my brain might think I'm doing what I have been doing for the last 2 years and try to shift to Monroe's model of focus 3 instead of Kepple's. And Monroe's focus 3 is not quite different from C-1 waking consciousness, meaning that I wouldn't accomplish what I'm trying to do. Basically, it would be problematic to try and use both. Therefore, I have taken it upon myself to come to a sort of compromise between these two models of consciousness.
As you know, Monroe's focus levels are focus "points". Focus: noun 1. a central point, as of attraction, attention, or activity 2. Physics . a point at which rays of light, heat, or other radiation, meet after being refracted or reflected. Therefore, Kepple describes his "focuses" as groups of points which have a certain similarity since his focus 1 is physical reality and the real time zone (C1 - F20?), his focus 2 is an individual's subconscious (Focus 21 & 22?), his focus 3 is focus 23-26 (the BST's) and focus 27, and his focus 4 is everything "beyond" that. Thus, according to Kepple's viewpoint, he can't really call them focus 1, focus 2, and so forth because a focus is a single point of attention; so I have taken it upon myself (for myself, and others if it helps them) to change the name of Kepple's term "focus" to Locus. Locus 1, Locus 2, Locus 3, and Locus 4. Now my brain has a means to differentiate between the two models of consciousness where particular Focuses are grouped within a Locus. Locus is "(Latin for "place", plural loci) a collection of points which share a property." If anyone sees a conceptual error within this new rearrangement, please let me know.
P.S. I put this topic in this section because Monroe was originally about OBE's and switched to phasing and projection, and Kepple was about phasing and projection, for as far as I know.
Quote from: Chronic on May 20, 2012, 19:12:02
I am quite familiar with the focus levels of 10-20; . . .
. . .his focus 1 is physical reality and the real time zone (C1 - F20?), his focus 2 is an individual's subconscious (Focus 21 & 22?)...
I think trimming your wall of text may make it more readable.
Also I think Focus 21 was Kepple's F Z oC, not (?) F 2 oC. My points
on Kepple's claims can partly be read
here (http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_book_reviews/frank_kepple_astral_projection_truth_newsletter-t32536.0.html). Personally I think
the "
F oC"-concept was a poor job done by Kepple.
To my knowledge the GateWay Wave CDs are about
Locale I (C 1, F 3, F 10, F 12 and possibly F 15 (?))
and about one Focus Level in Locale II (F 21).
You talk about F 20, what Focus is that?
F20 is not necessarily a focus level as is F10, F12, F15, F21, etc. but when you first start out and go through the tapes you undoubtedly count up from every number, and when I got to F20 I had a noticeable shift of consciousness, so I basically rope it off from F21-27, like a borderline; but now I'm thinking maybe now I should group it as F1-F19, F20-22, and F23-27, since at F20 I experienced the change in consciousness. I notice everyone has a hard time figuring out where the RTZ is, in relation to the focus levels, (I definitely know I did) so I just tend to say it's F12-F20 (F12-19 from now on), maybe when I gain more experience I'll be able to pinpoint a more exact level of focus it is associated with. From what I've read, I think Focus 21 has been labeled the 3D blackness, not sure if I'm mistaken here, but it would make plenty of sense since from the 3D blackness you can pretty much access whatever it is in the astral you are intending to access, as demonstrated by Bruce Moen. Honestly, I haven't read much of Frank's work, and have just came across his theory a couple weeks ago from the website http://focus-4.es.tl/ and what I wrote about Frank's model of consciousness is pretty much from there, but the more I check out this pulse forum I'm realizing that that focus-4.es.tl site may be plagiarized, not sure though. Seems more to be someone who was just inspired by Frank's work though.
I never really got into the Gateway Series because, since it's like an introduction, it seemed like the introduction of a book to me: kind of boring; so after I did the focus 10 and focus 12 tapes I kind of moved on from the Gateway Series. I mostly use the Going Home Series now, whenever I do use Hemi-Sync. I don't really use it anymore though as I can just go into the focus levels without it, which is what I think it was intended for anyways, to be sort of like training wheels.
Quote from: Chronic on May 20, 2012, 20:23:32...I notice everyone has a hard time figuring out where the RTZ is, in relation to the focus levels...
The Focus Levels are related to brain wave patterns of humans in the physical. When someone
goes OBE (to the RTZ) there have been some tests which indicates that the brain wave
patterns are atypical, not fitting any regular dream state. Also different OBE persons
show different brain wave patterns while in OBE, so it may not be possible to talk about
_one_ Focus Level for someone in OBE in the RTZ. Further there are indications that
the _same_ OBE person may have _different_ brain wave patterns on different OBEs,
which further makes it difficult to talk about a certain Focus Level. Each Focus Level
is defined by a specific brain wave patterns quite similar for every human, even if
you can go deeper or shallower within each Focus. But OBEs don't follow similar
brain wave patterns. Still, you can get an OBE while listening to Hemi-sync in a
random chosen Focus Level of your choice.
There's no real "compromise" available here as the systems are independent of each other.
They're both the creations of individual people through their individual experiences. As such, there really are no connections between them besides the ones that WE create for ourselves.
WE, as readers, take their systems and create our own out of them. Your system will come out of your direct experience with the wider reality system. Only worry about having those experiences. :)
Quote from: Xanth on May 21, 2012, 10:33:38
There's no real "compromise" available here as the systems are independent of each other.
They're both the creations of individual people through their individual experiences. As such, there really are no connections between them besides the ones that WE create for ourselves.
That doesn't make any sense. Both are systems created to help understand the spectrum of consciousness and they have a lot of similarities. There's nothing wrong with exploring that.
Yes, but they were created entirely from the unique and individual perspective from the experiences of the person who created them. It's important to recognize that.
I see them to be used as a guide, not a rule. Eventually, everyone will have to free themselves from such guides and create their own, personal, unique, and individual rules for themselves.
Due to the fact we can't have other people's experiences, we'll never really truly know what Frank or even Robert Monroe mean when they describe the Focus levels they speak of. The best we can do is read their descriptions/experiences and guess using our own experiences as reference.
QuoteI think trimming your wall of text may make it more readable.
Complimentary spaces, incoming! :wink:
QuoteP.S. I put this topic in this section because Monroe was originally about OBE's and switched to phasing and projection, and Kepple was about phasing and projection, for as far as I know.
Monroe's and Frank's ideas are about as on-topic as it gets here, no worries.
There is also an "astral concsiousness" and "astral chat" section that is a good place for musings like this, but this is an ok place too.