Seth again

Here's some more interesting stuff from Seth Speaks, by Jane Roberts. All of these excerpts are from Chapter 10.

Seth on our physical reality: 

It is as if your present situation and all its physical phenomena were projected from within yourself outward, giving you a continuous running a motion picture, forcing you to perceive only those images that were being transposed. These seem so real that you find yourself in the position of reacting to them constantly…

They serve to mask other quite valid realities that exist at the same time, however, and actually from these other realities you gain the power and the knowledge to operate the material projections…

The inner senses are equipped to perceive data that is not physical. They are not deceived by the images that you project in three-dimensional reality…

Anything of which you are aware in three-dimensional existence is only a projection of a greater reality into that dimension. 

This matches up pretty well with the ideas of N-space and M-space that we've discussed earlier. Of course, the fact that the Seth material – or some of it – can be understood in terms roughly equivalent to the N-space idea doesn't mean that the N-space idea is correct. But it is at least intriguing to note the parallels.

Seth on apparitions: 

I have explained to some degree the way images are constructed out of an available field of energy. You perceive only your own constructions. If a "ghost" wants to contact you, therefore, he can do so through telepathy, and you can yourself construct the corresponding image if you desire. Or the individual might send you a thought-form at the same time that he telepathically communicates with you.

In our terms, the apparition's form is rendered in the M-space of the particular individual. Two or more individuals may render the equivalent form, each in his or her own subjective M-space. Another individual, whose consciousness is not telepathically in tune with that of the consciousness behind the apparition, may not render the apparition's form in his M-space at all. 

This might account for cases where two or three people see an apparition, while a fourth person in the room with them sees nothing. It might also account for the peculiar fact that an apparition (contrary to most movie ghosts) usually appears just as solid and three-dimensional as any other physical object, and is seen from the appropriate perspective by each observer– that is, one observer may view the apparition head-on, while an observer who is standing off on the side will see the apparition in profile. Light and shadow are also rendered appropriately. 

All of this is about what we would expect if the apparition is modeled in M-space like any other "real" thing. But since the rules (in the N-space program) governing the apparition are different from those governing other objects, the apparition can appear and vanish instantaneously, walk through walls, etc.

Seth has some interesting things to say about the experience of souls when they are between incarnations. Much of this dovetails nicely with the purported "between-lives memories" recovered by hypnotherapist Michael Newton and discussed in books like Journey of Souls. Note that Newton's books came out considerably later than the Seth books.

In discussing the planning stage of the soul's next incarnation, Seth says: 

Now in this time of choosing all of these matters are considered, and suitable preparations made, but the planning itself is all a part of experience and of development. The in-between existence, therefore, is every bit as important as the period that is chosen. You learn to plan your existences, in other words. You also make friends and acquaintances in these rest periods who you meet again and again – and only, perhaps, during in-between existences…

This agrees very well with Michael Newton's books, in which reunions between souls are enacted by his patients with considerable displays of emotion. His deeply hypnotized subjects often are reduced to tears as they "meet" their between-lives friends (or soul mates), who seem to be part of a closely intertwined group soul. The need to plan the next incarnation is also stressed by patients in Newton's hypnosis sessions. 

Seth says that an individual can choose to relive parts of his earthly life with different scenarios, in order to learn from alternative versions of his life. In these experiments the individual creates thought-forms of people to interact with. Seth says: 

He is told the nature of those who participate with him. He realizes they are thought-forms, for example, and his own; but again, thought-forms do possess a certain reality and consciousness. They are not cardboard actors for him to simply push around at will. He must, therefore, take them into consideration, and he has a certain responsibility toward them.

They will grow in consciousness and continue their own lines of development on different levels. In one way, we are all thought-forms…

Again, I find this interesting in respect to Michael Newton's work. I recall a passage in one of his books – probably the first one – in which a patient is remembering a past life as a woman. Though I don't have the reference handy, the patient, while hypnotized, says something like, "The incarnation was useful to me, and I believe it was good for her, also." This always puzzled me, since it seemed to imply that the soul was somehow different from the human being who served as the soul's vehicle. It is, however, perhaps more understandable if we view the human being as a thought-form projected by the soul, which nevertheless has a degree of autonomy – an ever-increasing autonomy, inasmuch as the thought-form grows and develops on its own, eventually establishing independence. Whether or not there is any truth in this, I can't say; but it's an intriguing notion, perhaps worth exploring further.

A common objection to reincarnation is that many mediumistic reports make no mention of it. Seth addresses this problem:

The in-between period itself, however, has many dimensions of activity and divisions of experience. As you can see, to put it as simply as possible, everyone does not "know" everyone else.

Instead of countries or physical divisions, you have psychological states. To an individual in one, another might seem quite foreign. In many communications with those in these transitional states, messages through mediums can appear as highly contradictory. The experience of the "dead" is not the same. The conditions and situations vary. An individual explaining his reality can only explain what he knows. Again, such material often offends the intellect that demands simple, neat answers and descriptions that tally.

Most individuals from these stages who communicate with "living" relatives have not reached the time of choosing as yet, and have not completed their training.

They may still be perceiving reality in terms of their old beliefs. Almost all communications come from this level, particularly when there is a bond of relationship in an immediately previous life.

So it could simply be the case that many mediumistic reports are made by spirits who have not yet progressed to the training stage of their experience. Newton's patients seem to go directly to this experience, bypassing the earlier stages. This may be because Newton's deep hypnosis is accessing the higher self, rather than the incarnational self.

Of course, it's also possible that "between-lives" accounts recovered by hypnosis are simply confabulations. The tendency of the mind to confabulate – to make things up – while hypnotized is well established. Personally, I find the accounts presented in Newton's books pretty compelling, but I admit that my reaction is subjective and that little in the way of objective, testable evidence is provided.

Before signing off on this post, I want to mention a relevant web essay to which I was directed by a Facebook friend. Although the linked essay doesn't entirely align with my own speculations, there's a large degree of overlap. Moreover, the quotations from a different Seth book that appear at the end of the essay are very well chosen.

Comments

[Matt Rouge]

Very nice post.

What I find interesting is that the Seth channelings came out quite awhile back (1963 to 1984: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Material), but I have seen very little that I don't perceive as jibing with what I would term "mainstream New Age thought." Plus, they match up very well with reports from NDEs, etc. Not to mention my own experiences.

In a world in which skeptics are right (all of this is hogwash), one would expect much less consensus on these matters, I should think. Of course, a skeptic would probably say that there has been mutual cultural influence: Roberts was influenced by Eastern religion, etc., and all of us New Age and SBNR types have been drinking from the same well.

And yet, there is no central committee to ensure orthodoxy. It's very well organized for an enterprise based on loose collusion, isn't it?

[Matt Rouge]

A little off-topic, but what a pathetic situation on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seth_Material#Ownership_proven_by_threats_to_edit_war

You mentioned this recently, Michael: Wikipedia is great on the whole, but the skeptics are strong there and engaged in a war against anything that violates their worldview. Wikipedia definitely is not "NPOV" when it comes to anything spiritual.

[Juan]

I'm sorry, but I think it would have to address more pressing problems as the problems listed in this thread rather than studying parallels between information model and these channeling:

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/5343-two-fundamental-problems-afterlife-16.html

Do you know any case of mediumship which has contributed to new scientific/technical knowledge?

[Warren]

Loving the on-going Seth posts - a real blast from my past!

I was especially interested in Seth's views on the subject of apparitions. I have recently started reading (for the first time) the early SPR books, like "Phantasms of the Living" and Myers' "Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death", and I have been quite surprised at how complex the subject of apparitions really is, and how difficult to explain many of them are. It is very interesting to see Gurney and Sidgwick and Myers ("oh, my!") putting forth their various hypotheses to try to explain various types of apparitions. Some of their hypotheses strike me as more plausible than others, but I usually come away with the feeling that even their best explanations don't quite work. The "Seth/Prescott" view outlined in this post seems to me to be at least a little closer to the right direction....

[Michael Prescott]

Speaking of Wikipedia, I received a lengthy email just today from someone insisting that all mediums have been debunked. (It may have been the indefatigable Forests.) He listed numerous mediums with links to their debunkings, but nearly all the links were to Wikipedia entries.

Now, I agree that some of the mediums on his list have in fact been debunked, but Wiki just isn't a reliable source in these matters.

In fairness, he also listed a few non-Wiki sources. They are ...

"Is Spiritualism Based on Fraud?" by Joseph McCabe, text online at:

http://archive.org/stream/isspiritualismba00mccarich#page/n3/mode/2up

An anti-Leonora Piper essay by Ivor Lloyd Tuckett:

http://archive.org/stream/evidenceforsuper00tuckrich#page/320/mode/2up

"Trick Methods of Eusapia Paladino":

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89090346453#page/333/mode/1up

"Spiritualism and Sir Oliver Lodge":

http://archive.org/stream/spiritualismsiro00mercuoft#page/n3/mode/2up

[Cyrus]

There is something to note about thought forms as described here.

It suggests an imaginary character possesses some type of abstract autonomy. Dreams consist of thought forms interacting with the bigger mind, and I can see how certain dream characters seem a bit more 'life like' than others.

It's a weird concept and hard to wrap my head around. Do you think a thought form can gain, and gain in autonomy until it becomes a spirit, and then it incarnates on Earth? Do you become like that spirits parent?

Is this an origin of spirits? Just an idea

[doubter]

Juan - Do you know any case of mediumship which has contributed to new scientific/technical knowledge?

This objection to the real existence of discarnates and an afterlife may be a legitimate problem, and has also been discussed on two other threads at the skeptiko forum, at:

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-haven/2178-criteria-challenge.html

and

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/3436-criteria-challenge.html

It is interesting that Seth addresses this problem in one of Michael's quotes:

"... Most individuals from these stages who communicate with "living" relatives have not reached the time of choosing as yet, and have not completed their training.

They may still be perceiving reality in terms of their old beliefs. Almost all communications come from this level, particularly when there is a bond of relationship in an immediately previous life."

Of course the skeptic will claim this is just an ad hoc rationalization.

[Kathleen]

It's an interesting loose collusion, Matt. I was in Church today (trying to mend my ways), and came upon something from someone who may be the original New Ager: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you: For every one that asks receives; and he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it shall be opened."

I do think that Seth provides a very elegant explanation of apparitions - if they are real - and he seems to say that they can be real even if they only manifest for some persons -that seems like how it would work.

[Matt Rouge]

Regarding apparitions, there is also the interesting fact that they can appear in photographs without anyone present seeing them. Now how does the appearance on film relate to M-space(s)?

I experiments in quantum mechanics (e.g., dual slit) require an adjustment of the M/N-space hypothesis. For there seems to be a kind of *objective* subjectivity at work, not merely individuation in M-spaces. That is, if an apparition is not instantiated in M-spaces at the time, why would it appear on film later and make itself *objectively* present in *all* M-spaces (i.e., everyone who looks at the photograph will see the apparition, or at least what may be interpreted as an apparition).

That doesn't mean I don't think the answer is on the right track, but I think the truth may be even more complicated.

[Alexander Zlotnik]

"Speaking of Wikipedia, I received a lengthy email just today from someone insisting that all mediums have been debunked. (It may have been the indefatigable Forests.)"

I received exactly the same oe-mail. Did the sender appear as "Leo Kennedy"? It is not doubt Darryl/Forests
If he bothered with all that,I asked him to send me material where John Sloan and Emily French were debunked and considered frauds.
Still passionely waiting

[Michael Prescott]

Yes - Leon Kennedy, actually. I figured it was a mass email, because no one would go to that much trouble otherwise.

Regarding apparitions and photos, one possibility is that they somehow impress their image directly on the film. This was the hypothesis of the Scole group. How they can do this, I have no idea, but I suppose if one can tap into N-space directly, one can manipulate matter (which is only information).