Seth and 'The Seth Material'

Post Reply New Topic

I thought I'd throw a wildcard out since I see that the whole forum seems to be stuck on the ever gnawingly dull topic of supposed American hayseedism. I also don't think we've touched on occult topics for as far as I can remember either.


I got turned on to the Seth Material a few months ago as my research into the occult ratcheted up. Read Seth Speaks first, then The Nature of Personal Reality, working on my third book which is dream-oriented.

The dictation of course is between forty and fifty years old but it gets into super-detail about our universe as a construct of consciousness, how we create our own realities as thought energies themselves try to make manifest, how the inner/subjective reality is high hand on the pendulum rather than external reality, how our inner selves share in building the whole world that we know as our seemingly stable 3D camouflage that our five senses engage (for us simultaneously with other incarnations of self), how all the different camouflages overlay and connect in strange ways, the illusory nature of time and space, etc. So far its been the most articulate thing on the subject that I've ever read to date. Despite seeming off-the-wall (ie. scared-of-death fantasty land for this crowd) content the arguments and explanations laid out by Seth are remarkably cogent.

I really started getting into this stuff once I had the validity of NDE's worked out and realized that to have any sort of eternal consciousness, memory, etc. that our existence here comes preloaded with the assumption that we're here for a reason. Evolution of self fits like a glove and it gets explained here that we are essentially gods in god school, learning how to create and that its when we have attained enough mastery for it to be safe for us to be given to more reactive environments that we can advance from Creatorship and Creaturehood 101 (I'm coining that) to Creatorship 201 or something like that.

Does anyone else here have experience in reading these?

A neat prequel to the beginning of the Seth channellings was a flight of inspiration Jane had after an unremembered dream, scribbled 40 pages while out of body for three hours. This particular piece reads like the definitional preamble to a section of stat tax code but yields for a lot underpinning for what was to come:

I need a video, I think in the abstract at times, but this is way too much. I got a B on my Hindu and Buddhist sections of my World Religions class precisely because of this.

"Ideas are mental transformations of energy by an entity into physical reality. " - So when this idea is still in my head, is the physical reality my ability to physically see it in my mind? To be conscious of it? Or is my understanding of this concept too rigid? Again, a video would be helpful to put it all into perspective.

The best I can really do is offer a Coast to Coast with Rick Stack who was one of Jane/Seth's ESP students. He's talking with George Noory and gives a good surface skim:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpfbj6CJvx8&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

The thing about the Seth channelings/dictations though is they're much more technical and detail-oriented than what you get here. For myself I couldn't have found a better media just because I'm very left brained thus its incredibly helpful.

Yes. Total disdain and contempt. We do not construct our own reality. There is one reality and we all live in it. And we shall all die in it.

ruveyn

i dont know it yet, but thanks for the suggestion. it sounds quite interesting to me so far and ill try to find it / eventually comment after reading. some thoughts i have in that rough direction:

i think that where to draw a line between a possible higher experience of self and new agey mysticism depends on one critical point, namely what you define as reality. we generally assume that there is a fixed physical reality that can be perceived by us but exists independent from our perception of it, and that this reality follows the laws of logic and causality and can therefor be tested and understood in scientific terms. well we have seen over and over that it can, that our environment, our external reality is comprehensible to us and most importantly also widely predictable. therefor i think this fundamental assumption of an independent physical reality is a very reasonable one and although radical scepticists and their matrix hypotheses can not be proven wrong, the possibility seems incredibly unlikely to me.

given we can agree on this basic idea the next question naturally would be: how similar is what we perceive to what is, in other words, is this physical reality we assume to exist and our subjective reality really the same thing? and id definately say no, it is not. if our reality is what we perceive we can indeed change our reality because we can change our perception of it, and since our perception creates our subjective reality we are definately able to form it. if you ever took lsd or had a lucid dream or a severe shock or bothered to really get into serious meditation or gave some thought about sleep or attention or mental disorders like depression or schizophrenia you will know what i mean by saying that there are various distinct states of mind that are radically different from our normal daily perception of things and can very well also go beyond it.

all of these examples correspond to a physical reality, to a specific pattern of brain activation that can be measured and identified as the necessary hardware representation of these states, but the way these mindsets present themselves to us and the subjective reality they shape can not be described by those same physical parameters they depend on. our mind is a whole new metaphysical level. furthermore i think and have been able to prove to myself several times that a different state of mind can be induced by will alone, and that it can be used to improve perception. im not talking about something like deciding that skies are green to me from now on, rather about things like openness of mind, attention, being entirely calm, being able to switch off things like fear or freezing, the amount of sensory or intellectual input you can handle, things like that. one might be sceptical about ones mind having that much power over its reality, but it definately does and understanding that can be an immense tool to improve ones self and to get a clearer perspective about many things in life.

nevertheless, what we can definately not change by means of our mind alone is the cosmic reality of matter, energy and forces. there are quite a number of people who take a superficial understanding of string theory and thelike into occult context, but theoretical concepts of energy and the distribution of information as mindblowing as they might be have little to do with spirituality altogether and i always found this theoretical physics mashup in cloudy sentences about entities and the whole kind of annoying. there is a physical system and there is a metaphysical system that is our mind and they are closely linked and wired together, but its the physical part that is independent from the metaphysical part and not the other way around and the mind can not exist without the brain as much as the music is lost when the player is broken. in my opinion there is no such thing as metaphysical metaphysics.

Last edited by echinopsis on 10 Nov 2012, 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Did you ever learn about paragraphs in school?

ruveyn

"Messages From Michael" and other books in the series by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro make for a better read, imho; but they are just as fictitious.

Fun to play around with at woo-woo parties, but not much good for anything else ... garden mulch, perhaps ...

yes i did, but i tend to forget that many people find walls of text so annoying since im a fast reader and unnecessary blank spaces in between dont have any value to me other than adding confusion. sorry. i edited my post in case you might like to read it and/or have also content related criticism.

Paragraphs have the useful function of delineating sub themes in a length text. They are the large idea subdivided into the subordinate ideas and serve a -logical- function. Undifferentiated text puts the burden of analyzing the main idea into subordinate ideas upon the reader. It is the writer who should assume this burden.

ruveyn

Paragraphs ... punctuation ... spelling ... capitalization ... how can any of it matter if the message itself is nonsensical?

What if the message is not nonsensical. A good message can be diminished or lost because of poor organization and presentation.

ruveyn

The real catch to this in my opinion - we have various stages of self, many much more powerful to us and yet not in direct communication unless we're in a very specific kind of situation with ourselves. The essential story is that there is no such thing as any particle without a rudimentary type of consciousness, as it forms larger gestalts such as molecules, single celled organisms, etc. up through reptiles, mammals, and man, you have larger gestalts which are aware of self, not aware of the consciousness of every particle but at the same time a particular atom in my arm has its own atomic consciousness, separate from mine and likely nothing like mine but all the same its there, much like my ego doesn't generally see either the moment to moment thought processes of my higher self nor does it generally see the portion of my consciousness that rather than facing out like my conscious ego does (five senses) it faces inward for all the autonomic data as well as intuitive info from the subconscious.

I think what I'm really saying to your idea of a stable reality in the scientific sense - in a Newtonian macro and every day level sense it happens because we take our 'root assumptions' (higher order parts of ourselves) seriously enough that the conscious mind doesn't cheat the Monopoly or Risk rules we have; like physics you can pass one law off on another or 'evade' it but you can't all out break it. Quantum mechanics, double-slit experiment (with delayed choice reprisal), etc. is where you start seeing where consciousness creates reality in more definite terms. Then again - if its happening in the micro QM level, its happening in the macro Newtonian level, but it simply means that it comes through in terms of what we'd deem at this point random chance where, if consciousness creates reality its never quite as random as it seems.

The reason I don't see this as airy-fairy and woo-woo is that there's no anti-masculinity poison pill in it, there's no "you must be vegan", "Don't eat anything - carrots have feelings too", it actually...lol...in my take on things at least seems like a very neoconservative-friendly doctrine because its both conservative and liberal in ways when it looks at consequentiality, karma purely as a learning tool rather than punishment (ie. helping us to see what our beliefs are - especially when its our beliefs itself that are the creation/miscreation templates), every single thing we see and experience as a symbol. Essentially it goes into the age old "I'm in my car on Smith Rd going to KMart but technically I'm not moving, there's no car, no road, no XXXXX Heights, and no KMart - I simply am and the only true reality is my 'I' experience" - ie symbols to where if you hit a symbol in front of you you'll still bash up the symbol you're driving, have a person in the car in front of you possible hobble out holding their back, have insurance rates jump sky high or even have a law suit - that doesn't banish all of our known reality as crystalized thought but rather just tells you the steadfastness of consequence and contract in how seriously we take our physics. In essence both consequentiality and technical nonexistance as what we 'think' things are have simultaneous truth.


Seth Material goes into something I never used to believe in myself, and I had to suspend disbelief because of it. I used to believe that out of an event only one thing can happen, that probabilities are imaginary heuristics because our observations always have imperfect data, and that anyone who talked about Level III Multiverse was just a cook or a nut. Once I understood the double-slit experiment though i was forced to at least partially reconsider. The general tenet that I'm still trying to understand, not are all incarnational selves simultaneous but all parallel selves, all parallel pasts, all parallel futures stretch out in - on a global level - quite likely googleplexes. That's pure insanity if you're thinking of a universe of limited energy, but a different thing altogether when the possibility is thrown into the mix that consciousness creates enough of whatever it wants that our understanding of just how much energy is available contains a critical perceptive flaw from our specific physical vantage point.


Take or leave the Seth material as you like - but the claim is that the brain is nothing more than a physical representation/symbol of the mind rather than the mind itself, broader memory is not held in the brain, and when we 'create' with our own minds we are taking thought and shifting it down into frequency where it goes from pure idea or thought down to what you could consider pre-matter on down to matter. That's not a figurative statement; the claim is that indeed that brash.


Well, that's just saying that 'metaphysical metaphysics' is either real or its rubbish, to say its a separate thing from physical reality is simple patrony (like saying that religion is 'supernatural' but define supernatural in a way where it can only mean fictitious or whole cloth imaginary).

I'm not going to try and flex my muscles on string theory, I'll readily admit that I'm not a scientist. Looking at the bigger picture though I look at the theories layed out here (in the Seth Material and what not), especially with consciousness as the root fundamental of all things existent, a much more complete explanatory model than reductive materialism can achieve.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to tell anyone how to think or what to think although I might work to clarify stances here and there. All the same I think you can tell a little more readily whether this is something you'd find interesting or something you'd feel forced to dismiss.

If I should ever decide to go back for my masters (ie. if such a time and place should occur where male and Masters does not mean likely overqualified and un/underemployed) I'll have to throw my thesis your way for grammatical review.

Exactly.

The whole purpose of the written language is to communicate, not obfuscerate ... obsuffocate ... osbofsic ... ... confuse the hell out of your audience!

where i was going with the "no metaphysical metaphysics" was that i actually completely agree on the brain being solely "a physical representation of the mind and not the mind itself", thats why i would call it a metaphysical level.

there is a very simple example to illustrate what i mean by that - the color red doesnt exist anywhere in the whole material universe. there might be a bunch of photons with certain properties and there might be matter with certain properties, but there is no red. red is what we see when we see an object reflecting light of a certain wavelength, but it is only in our mind and only valid in our mind just like all the hate and love and fuss. those are qualities that go beyond physics, so the mind or consciousness (which are really synonymes to me) is true metaphysics, but it is not metaphysical in the sense that it does not go beyond physics by being independent of it. without the brain there are no neural networks so there is no material encoding and decoding of information so there is no information. no hardware - no software - no data if you will.

as you might have noticed im far out on the scientism side of things and consciousness is rather a secondary and somewhat accidental product of the physical world to me, something that by definition only makes sense when we are talking about information integration in a central nervous system (or an artificial system for that matter). therefor i find the concept of rudimentary consciousness on the subatomic level (are you tieing this to the "choice" of one possible outcome out of many despite identical conditions and the sum of choices forming a pattern or did i just not get that at all?) or any sharing or storage of information via nonphysical channels very hard to grasp, let alone thinking of physical reality as a collage of symbols.

the reason why im nevertheless curious is that i have to agree on the limitations of the materialistic perspective, which come into play as soon as we are talking about consciousness, because from that level on there is nothing to investigate by means of true science. this doesnt mean that i would ever kick all my perfectly logical evidence based assumptions and their implications in the bin, it just means that im realising that they can not tell the whole story. and i dont feel a need to agree with things in order to find them interesting, experience tells me that maybe not truth but yet the best ideas are found in weird places. i really appreciate your somewhat deeper introduction to this, although im still struggling with the definition of "consciousness" here and i have a feeling i should read before commenting anything else.

one more so-so related thing: in my opinion the multiverse idea isnt that nuts at all. i think that a lot of obstacles in modern theoretical physics stemmed from people being unable to wrap their head around why our universe would look exactly like THIS out of the often infinite number of possibilities their theories predicted, so its actually seems like a perfectly sane thing to say, well, maybe all of those possibilities exist and we just get to see this one and not another one, and thats because this one happens to be remarkably stable in some way and to allow matter and elements and galaxies to form which eventually leads to life which eventually leads to consciousness. there is no evidence i know of that would actually suggest it, but from where im standing its definately not madness.

also, just read through the martial arts thread - congrats!