IMG_1216 BW small
Blog powered by Typepad

« More on M-space, N-space, and so on | Main | Wiki whacky »

Comments

I've said it before, but Seth Speaks really is a remarkable book. Skeptics have reacted to its popularity by acknowledging that while 'no deliberate fraud appears to have taken place, self delusion is always a possibility' (skeptics dictionary) - thanks guys!

Skepdic also says that the book, and indeed all of Seth's writings (which I suspect they never read in any great detail), are 'simply a rehash of well known spiritual and religious philosophies known for centuries, there is nothing new here'.

Hold on, if the Seth material is guily of containing 'perennial wisdom found in all religions' isnt that a good thing? Isnt it a sign rather that the material has validity?

I guess it all depends on your personal convictions.

Great post!

(off topic)
I am reading Chris Carter's book:" Science and the Afterlife Experience" and have just realized that he does not list" Alfred Russel Wallace"
in the index or in the "contents".
Wallace is also not mentioned in "Irreducible Mind" by Kelly and Kelly.
These omissions seem incredible.
Has there been any comments in the paranormal press?
Thanks

Wallace observed a lot of seances and became personally convinced of life after death, but I don't think he wrote much on the subject. I've never read anything by him, other than a few brief quotes in which he said that an afterlife was proven to his satisfaction. So I'm not sure there would be much point in listing him as a source, except possibly as an "appeal to authority" - i.e., using his authority as a major figure in biology as a reason to take his opinions in other areas seriously.

One of the interesting things I observed about Seth was that his speaking style and language was so different from Jane Roberts' written work. I really got the impression that there were two different people. Another interesting thing is that according to Seth, parts of our selves can incarnate as animals (Seth mentions that one of his fragments was current living as a dog).

"The postmortem ego is always "in" the afterlife, so it can be contacted by mediums even if another facet of the self has incarnated bearing some traces of that ego."
I found this to be a very good explanation for how someone could be contacted and also be reincarnated at the same time (but I'm not sure if time has the same meaning in the afterlife). Thanks Michael.

Hmmmm... so that's how Seth speaks.

This is terrible but as I listen to Seth coming through Jane Roberts I had this nagging feeling that I had heard that voice somewhere before....but where......where?

Then it hit me. Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbqv3MwwVd8

Not exactly the same, but something eerily similar - IMO

"Reincarnation involves the historical periods that you recognize, and the seemingly sequential progress of events. Your reincarnational selves more or less belong to the same probability, translated into historical terms. Since all time is simultaneous, however, all frameworks of historical nature are being formed at once. In those terms you are born in the past with your knowledge of the future held in unconscious abeyance, and you are born in the future convinced that your knowledge of the past comes only from history books." (Seth).

Complicated, put that by me again?? Possibly why in one of my visual experiences years ago when in a room with my husband and friend one night, on looking down momentarily and then looking up again, the room had changed and a man and women had walked in. Immediately it came to me that they were "a couple', and I thought"yep of course, Ive always known that". Then a short time later the image disappeared, probably because I suddenly remembered that they were not there before, which stopped the vision. Afterwards, I had no idea who they were and still don't to this day, and this occurred 13 years ago. And I thought, how could I know something I don't know - perhaps because knowledge of time was there, or they have been with me before in another time. Who knows. Something that has perplexed me ever since. Lyn x.

Michael, I've read your diamond vision and your thoughts about the oversoul with interest. That inspired me and I woke very early previous morning. I was filled with excitation and immediately in my head started producing much of the text you find below (I think I began already in the dream state). It's like word weed. Growing fast. Oppressing other thoughts.Words that I just need to write down and share with somebody (unfortunately with you – haha). Probably some of you folks reading this do wish that I had tried using some herbicide instead. But I've cut a lot of it down.

I like the moon. I liked it even better when it really was magic too me. And once it was. As a child, the horrors waited silently (mostly) in the darkness, trolls wandered in the forests and the glove in the fireplace was the lights in a city, full of small but powerful workshops, managed by invisible beings. Even today, I can feel the thrill through my body when I happen to touch a stroke of magic in my enlightened (relatively speaking) life. I think it's good to keep the light away from some of the shadows. Not all should be revealed. The emotional side of me prefer the mysteries more than the answers. But, I have a split mind, just as we all have, more or less. I also have a curious and analyzing side, that wants to look deeper when facing the darkness. These two sides of me are not living in perfect harmony, but it's a manageable partnership. So, it's with mixed feelings I approach the mystery of the spirit.

Michael, your impression and thoughts about how our souls can be composed made me think that my own vision, the one with the swaying sea anemone that I wrote about in another thread, also can be interpreted as an image of an oversoul, where each tentacle represents a single spirit, just like the facets in your diamond. All united in the same organism, stitched to a big reef together with other sea anemones. Probably most people prefer a diamond to a polyp (not me, though). Another example I recall is Robert Monroe's vision, where he saw his oversoul, manifested by a few earlier incarnates in some nice arrangement, being connected to other oversouls by beams of light, all forming like a network of the oversouls.

Visions of integrated souls (oversouls or whatever we call them) are probably many. I think they all should be treated as equally valid. At least to the persons experiencing them. A single persons vision, though it can have a big impact on other peoples thoughts, is a unique gift to her, as I see it. Of course, whether the oversouls exist or not, we can't tell from these spiritual experiences. They are something the subconscious reveals to us. What's behind is unknown. To me, the idea that we are more or less connected to other spirits, do fit from my quantum world perspective. On the other hand, I'm hesitant to the idea of reincarnation and to me reincarnation seems to be the best explanation for these intimate oversouls (if there are any), unless... unless they actually are composed of all our side personalities. We have several of them inside us, usually put in control by certain emotions. Some are buried deep inside since childhood. But they exist, just waiting for the right push on the button that will release them and let them play their dramas. And we can create new sophisticated personalities, not least when in trance (perhaps Seth is one of them?), that can help fill the suit of the oversoul.

A Japanese Shinto priest and parapsychologist (I have unfortunately forgotten his name), who also was active in US for some time, wrote about his experiences from the spiritual world, when OBE-ing in deep trance. Among other things, he wrote about the differences between western and Japanese spirits. The former joined groups with unrelated spirits. The latter kept their families together even in the afterlife. An interesting and different perspective, perhaps with some relevance to the subject. Would be nice reading more about it.

re: A.R.Wallace
Michael
Thank you for your reply.
For a possible alternative view see:

http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/chsarwp.htm

Chapter 1 footnote.59

From footnote 59:

"Wallace published some one hundred essays, lectures, reviews, notes, and letters to the Editor on spiritualistic subjects."

Thanks, Jack. I wasn't aware of that at all. I stand corrected.

I'm not sure, then, why he isn't referenced in some of these sources. Irreducible Mind, as I recall, doesn't deal with mediumship very much, so that may be why he's not mentioned there.

Rossoli - you mean Motoyama.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hiroshi-Motoyama/e/B001HCZHRG

Barbara, Thank you very much! That's him allright. And here's a good further link: http://www.cihs.edu/cihs/Dr_Motoyama_bio.htm

Above, I wrote that I'm hesitant to reincarnation. Well, after watching God's TV, sitting sniffing on the flowers for awhile, it occurred to me that it can well be the other way. But first I must very briefly explain my current 'working hypothesis': I do think that psi to a large degree depends on quantum couplings in the future. That sounds stupid, but I'm not yet ready (sorry!) to try to explain how I think in detail (there are several things to check up before that). However, whenever probabilities exists, even if they are low, that something can occur, there's a possibility to force that to happen with a greater probability than predicted by 'the equations'. By will, mind's ('free' or body bound) focused intention, the 'probability wave' can be altered. Anyway, if there's a spirit that wishes to reincarnate, that spirit eventually can experience future 'probabilities' (alternative(?) lives) for a fertilized egg, and eventually adhere (by quantum bounds/entanglement) so strongly to the embryo (it's quantum representation in the future) that what we call reincarnation actually happens. But I think the time for this to occur can be critical. If there already is a developed mind in the child, things might be more complicated. Spirits can adhere to all of us, young or old, but that's not reincarnation to me.

So, I've changed my mind, perhaps... Reincarnation can be a permitted quantum possibility and an act of will, but it should need an awareness of the possibility to reincarnate and a desire to do so. Without that, spirits might not try at all and the growing embryo will develop a fresh independent? spirit. So, reincarnations perhaps could be regarded as a relatively late spirit cultural phenomenon, perhaps just a couple of thousand years old and still only practiced occasionally - if it is.

"and still only practiced occasionally - if it is."

Chris Carter agrees with you on this. However, those who believe in a earth as a means to brighten the soul (for instance, Thomas Campbell) usually say it takes hundreds of incarnations to make the soul more coherent and focussed. One of them is wrong.

Something I've thought about is that time goes infinitely backwards as much as it goes infinitely forward which means that a species trillions of years in the distant past might have lived long enough to completely transcend the physical body.

We tend to think in such limited ways and want to believe that this is all there is but because of the nature of time it means that anything that is possible is more than likely to have happened an infinite number of times in the past and is likely to recur an infinite number of times in the future.

Another words, anything is possible. Just think of the rate our technology and computing power is increasing and then imagine a species that might have lived millions of years longer than hummans have lived. There is no telling what they were able to achieve.

Barbara, I've briefly scanned Thomas Campbell's (the Monroe Institute practical physicist) Big TOE (theory of everything) some years ago and after your post just updated myself by his slide show: http://www.slideshare.net/UnitB166ER/physics-metaphysics-and-the-nature-of-consciousness-by-thomas-campbell-feb-22-2008-london-lecture-slides On page 31 he asks (himself) ”Is there anything your … (Big TOE) does not cover, does not explain?” and then promptly replies: ”No”. That is sufficient to make me hesitant to the rest of his writings, to which I have much about the same (unrevealed) objections as to Michael's. But debating cross-border theories (well, many theories) is a time consuming task that I try to avoid. It has nothing to do with disrespect.

I'll disintegrate for awhile, so it's not because of lack of interest that I won't respond the coming weeks (if a response should be expected).

Michael, in the previous post it should be ”to which I have much about the same (unrevealed) objections as to Michael's digital space approach”. I apologize for discrediting the total of your inspiring writings!

Art - .....anything is possible. Just think of the rate our technology and computing power is increasing and then imagine a species that might have lived millions of years longer than hummans have lived. There is no telling what they were able to achieve.

A lot of people still subscribe to this Star Trek sort of thinking. Unfortunately the evidence of the actual progress of our scientific enterprise and technology shows it is slowing down drastically in terms of breakthrough discoveries - all the "low hanging fruit" are gone. For instance in physics - see http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/350985/description/Hard_Times_for_Theorists_in_a_Post-Higgs_World . After 50 years there is apparently nothing yet on the horizon beyond the mutually incompatible Standard Model, quantum mechanics and relativity. All the optimistic hopes of the early futurists are running into hard limits, for instance with fusion power, and with finding means of mass air transportation better than subsonic jets. About the only real progress is in in digital computer technology, but the early hopes of artificial intelligence are also unfulfilled.

If multitudes of extraterrestrial intelligences really exist with virtually unlimited powers due to the millions of years they have had to develop, then the obvious question is where are they? We have to make all sorts of ad hoc assumptions to account for the absence of significant alien contact beyond the so-called UFO phenomenon. The most economical conclusion is that such inconceivably advanced beings just aren't out there.

If there are alien intelligent beings out there, the evidence at this point seems to point to a self-limiting basic nature of science and technology, in which progress slows down more and more to a basic stasis where interstellar transportation and communication are impractical.

How many conversations have you had with an ant colony? If I were far advanced of humans givng our violent tendency's the last thing I would do is contact them and give them more advanced technology. I used to do a lot of free diving when I was young. I avoided crevices where Moray ells lurked. I liked watching them come out of their holes though if I left apiece of fish there.

'We have to make all sorts of ad hoc assumptions to account for the absence of significant alien contact beyond the so-called UFO phenomenon'


I also wouldn’t be so dismissive of all ufo reports. Sure, a fair amount of the stuff out there is pure make-believe, but there is a hard-core of very good cases. I would advise reading any of English researcher Timothy Good's books on the subject. He is very good at bringing together a wide range of ufo-related sightings, often made *by* military and professional airline witnesses.

Be very careful of skeptical explanations which claim to have 'explained' all UFO reports - it's all too neat and can have you hoodwinked. Actually, once you scratch beneath the surface of their case, you discover that it's not all been explained quite as neatly as they would have you believe.

Example: One prominent skeptic, who is an ex-military balloon engineer, (can't remember his name off-hand), has made a bit of a name for himself by setting himself up as a ufo-skeptic.

He claims that all the great ufo reports of the 1950s & 1960s are due to military weather balloon experiments, many of which were top secret. In many ufo reports, he can show that there was a balloon launch that day, ergo explaining the event. Furthermore, often planes were launched to track these balloons, this eventually entered into the mythology of 'planes chasing ufos'.

I accepted this explanation upon reading his work and at the time it seemed like a case-closed explanation.

However, I then decided to research Project Blue Book cases, and guess what? The skeptical explanation of 'ufos = weather balloons' falls flat. Why?

The simple fact is that many UFO reports during this era were actually made *by* balloon pilots and ballon engineers while they were tracking balloons! The very same balloon pilots who were keeping an eye on the balloons! Often they would be tracking a balloon and they would spot a UFO (usually disc or oval shaped) 'buzzing' the balloon, flying around it, and tracking it for some distance before shooting off at great speed or performing 'impossible' mid-air acrobatics. There are also several cases where these ufos are seen buzzing balloons by staff on the ground AND tracked on radar.

During the same era, and into the 1980s, UFOS also 'buzzed' (to use military slang) military installations where nuclear warheads were stored. Clearly, someone was taking a great interest in our nuclear capabilities.

Soviet records from the era report similar reports in the USSR. Both sides suspected each other, but the capabilities of the UFOs far outmatched any available technology of the day, or even to this day.

You can see how easy it is for skeptics to equate ufos to balloon launches, because ufos were usually spotted during balloon launches, but once you realise that the ufos are NOT the balloons (the balloons are always in full view to the balloon pilots the whole time), then this explanation falls flat. Instead, what we can infer is that these top secret balloon launches were *attracting* UFOs, in the same way, that these ufos were also attracted to nuclear facilities.

You can find the military testimonials from balloon engineers and pilots in Blue Book. Skeptics like to cherry pick and distort these findings as they see fit.

So when you ask 'where are they?' in reference to other civilisations, I think there is good evidence that we have been visited, but it's difficult to find this under the two pronged assualt of skeptical debunking and wild-eyed ufo-cult make-believe.

Douglas, as I do too often here, I'll share something at the personal anecdote level. I never "believed in" UFOs/Aliens at all until recently. If I thought there was anything to them at all it was along the lines of Jacques Vallee's thinking, but certainly not physical space craft as we think of such.

Older comments of mine on this blog reflect that mind set.

Then my son came back from Afghanistan (and prior to that, Iraq), beat up by the war, and talking about astronomy - a lot. I thought at first this was an interesting and healthy way of dealing with, maybe getting a perspective on, life on earth and the awful things he had seen and participated in. I was amazed at how much he had learned about physics and planetary systems, galaxies, etc.

Before the combat deployments he had been a typical early 20s Army officer that prided himself on being good with the women. That and working out with his buddies was his main focus in his free time.

Slowly he let on some additional and unusual detail. When he was evac'ed to Bahgram and recovering from wounds, something happened. He felt he had been "contacted" (in fairness, I should note that he did suffer blast concussion on that occasion). Then, when he had returned to the US and was awaiting discharge he had an urge to hike out to a mountain top in Texas. When he got there he witnessed a silver colored saucer shaped object darting from as high as the clouds, all the way down to the surface of the ground and then back up to the clouds - much faster than any known aircraft (and he had become familiar with military aircraft and their striking abilities). After repeating this succession of maneuvers several times, in the blink of an eye the craft shot up through the clouds and disappeared.

However, he did take a photo of it. I have a copy. It is amazing! It is a classic flying saucer and it's pretty clear in the photo.

If anyone else had related the story, even with the photo, I would have been skeptical; probably even suspecting a hoax.

I can share the photo if anyone is interested.

We've been talking a lot about how aliens could travel across light years. He has some theories involving quantum mechanics and melding the physical with the mental (i.e. allowing for the physical to travel at the speed of thought). I've been chipping in the evidence for apports and such in mediumistic activity and a possible relationship to UFO propulsion.

So I am changing my view on this. I am having to accept the possibility that we are actually being visited by material aliens and their material machines.

Wow, that's an amazing story No One!

I too got into the Jacques Vallee approach, until recently, when I suddenly thought, 'hold on, why does it have to be either/or? We always look for one size fits all explanations for things. It may well be both. Perhaps some UFO reports are actually of a more NDE/spiritual nature, but that doesnt mean that at least some are not 'nuts & bolts' space craft.

I would be keen to see the photo if you are willing to share?

I think photos will never provide convincing evidence of UFOS to the wider public though, mainly because it's a no-win situation:

Either it's too grainy in which case people say that 'you can't infer much from that',
OR
It's crystal clear, in which case 'it must be fake'. Now, with the advent of photoshop, photos and videos are no longer seen as good evidence, and indeed u-tube and the web are flooded with ufo photos and videos. Many are faked, but some may well be genuine. There's no way to tell now however.

It's a shame. Still I would like to see your photo as on a personal level I would accept it as genuine, based on what you have told me.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tamsonh/4dvkpmLEfec

Douglas, I posted it on our forum (link above) - the one Michael set up. You have to click on the jpeg to enlarge it to see anything. He has another photo that shows the ufo at a different angel and that I think is a clearer. When I get him to pass it to me I'll post it as well.

Cheers no one! Very interesting! Do you have a link to the other one too?

The comments to this entry are closed.