Do people who don't believe in climate change not experience its effects?

[Sena]

In the first few paragraphs of "Seth Speaks", Chapter 16, Session 565, Seth seems to be indicating that each possible action in our lives, big or small, may exist in some probable reality. Here he mentions small things like to sneeze or not sneeze, to walk to the window or the door; along with big things like, to save a child from drowning, commit suicide or harm another.

jbseth, thanks for highlighting this Seth quote.
How I see it is that there are an infinite number of universes, some of which are very similar to each other, and some very different. So if it is a trivial choice like sneezing or not sneezing in either case you will go into two universes very similar to one another. If you make a major decision and act on it, you will go into a universe significantly different from the previous one.

[Deb]

I wanted to post a thread going down a new rabbit hole. I couldn't really figure out how to organize the info. This thread is going into that direction in its own way. I was going to pose a series of questions with hopefully some answers.

Sorry, I've been out of the loop the past couple of days, been focused on wrapping up final edits on Rich's book so I could print and trim it, and send to Mary Dillman for review. It'll go out in today's mail, a major milestone as I've been working on it for months.

T.M. this would make a great new topic, you already have a great start and it all makes sense to me.

Would you like me to spit this particular message off and make it a new topic? If so, let me know what you want to the title to be and on which board. Would you want it in this one, Questions/Explanations?

I've been dying to update the topic for Psychic Politics, there's a lot in the book about probabilities and what Jane calls the "focus personality" related to that. I've been listening to the audio version when I get out for walks, so it's been slow going.

I've learned that Jane was very good at recognizing and examining patterns of events in her reality creation—the whys behind events. Dream interpretation as well, although there were times when Seth gave her a leg up.

Here he mentions small things like to sneeze or not sneeze, to walk to the window or the door; along with big things like, to save a child from drowning, commit suicide or harm another.

Oh jeez, that's pretty amazing. To sneeze or not to sneeze—the "world" of probabilities is a lot more complex than I imagined. I'm glad I'm not aware of the process while it's happening, or have to keep track of any of it.

[T.M.]

Hi All,

Hi Deb,

When I get some material a bit more organized, I will start a thread. Thank you for the suggestion about posting in Questions and explanations!  That's perfect

[pyromancy]

I have a hard time picturing a person who really doesn't think humans affect the planet's environment.

They aren't deniers as much as they're more like skeptics on the -magnitude- of the changes. Compared to people at the other end who think it's the end of the world. A person saying they deny climate change completely is just trolling in my opinion. People who say stuff like that have thoughts in the back of their minds which I bet makes them skeptical of their own nonsense.

I really think theres a very very small number of people who actually think that greenhouses gases don't exist. But then again this also makes me think of people who don't have any knowledge of science in remote undeveloped places and they have no opinion one way or another. It's incredible to think of how many millions of people actually have no concept of what microbes are, and the current global pandemic therefore makes no real sense to very many people to witness the calamity unfolding in the modern towns that border villages with tribespeople in the wild.

I've even read about studies showing that just having many cars on the road of urban centers elevates the temperature significantly by about one degree or more simply because of the heat from all the engines. Just imagine how the current events make it so the global temperature has slightly dropped as a result of so many factories/ships/cars shuttering. Engine heat and greenhouse gases are two different things.

It's like saying 500,000 campfires around a megacity wouldn't elevate the temperature. No one actually thinks that.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Given what I've read in the Seth information over the years, I've come to the conclusion that, as Seth says in "Seth Speaks", Chapter 16, Session 565, somewhere all probable actions are actualized.  However, I'm not completely convinced that my conclusion here is, in fact, correct.

Somewhere else, in the huge amount of Seth information, Seth may have said something else that clearly tells us that this conclusion is incorrect.

The reason that I bring this up is because this very specific type of thing has occurred to me on more than one occasion. My most recent example of this, occurred as a result of a discussion regarding the coronavirus here in this forum.  Here's what I'm talking about.




For many years, in regards to Seth and his ideas about health and illness, I was under the impression that illnesses and viruses work as follows.  When people get sick, they don't actually "catch" a virus from someone else. What happens is that they may do something (overwork, get overstressed, do too much physical labor, stay outside in the cold for too long, etc.) that depletes their energy reserves. As a result of this, they may subconsciously feel the need for a break.

And so, as a result of this, at less than a conscious level, they activate the viruses "within themselves" and this results in them "catching" a cold. Then as a result of catching the cold, they opt to take a day or two off from work and from life's other stressors to recover from the cold. This then allows them time to recover and rebuild their energy reserves.

It was my understanding that people didn't actually pass on viruses, one to another. Instead, if your energy reserves were low and you saw someone else sneeze, for example, you don't actually pick up their viruses. Instead you activate your own.

This was my understanding of what Seth was saying about viruses and virus transmission.





Then one day, in the last couple of months or so, while looking up some Seth information on viruses, I came across DEaVF1, Chapter 6, Session 906. In this session Seth talks very specifically about the transmission of viruses and how this works.

In this session, Seth talked about a friend of Jane and Rob's who recently returned from the Winter Olympics. This person had a lot of pent up energy after watching the Olympics. Along with this, Seth said the following about how people transmit viruses:

[...] When a skunk is frightened, it throws off a foul odor indeed, and when people are frightened they react in somewhat the same fashion at times, biologically reacting to stimuli in the environment that they consider alarming. They throw off a barrage of "foul viruses"—that is, they actually collect and mobilize from within their own bodies viruses that are potentially harmful, biologically trigger these, or activate them, and send them out into the environment in self-protection, to ward off the enemy (more vigorously).

Then, along with this, Seth also says:

Now, your friend had been to the Olympics (last month, at Lake Placid, New York), and he was charged by the great physical vitality that he felt watching that athletic panorama. [Because of that, and for other personal reasons], he could find no release for the intense energy he felt, so he got rid of it, protected himself, and threw out his threatening biological posture: the viruses.

(With a smile:) Your bodies had not received any such goodies in some time, so they exuberantly used them as triggers to regenerate the immune systems.

This turned out to be a very interesting session in regards to viruses, how we transmit them and why we may actually opt to receive them to regenerate our immune system.

Anyway, after recently rediscovering this session, I came away with a new understanding in regards virus transmission and this new understanding was much different than my previous beliefs. According to Seth, viruses are in fact actually transmitted from person to person.

Thus, it is because of this, that I'm not absolutely certain that my present conclusions about probable events are, in fact, correct.  There may be some other Seth information, out there, like Session 906, that sheds some new light on this topic of probable events.


- jbseth

[LarryH]

I think that both of what Seth said about viruses are true. They can be inactive in our bodies for a long time and then become active. They can be transmitted from others and be either active or inactive depending on our individual circumstances. When Seth said that we have viruses in us all the time, that is scientifically true, but that does not mean that we have always had the specific covid-19 virus in our bodies all the time.

[Sena]

Given what I've read in the Seth information over the years, I've come to the conclusion that, as Seth says in "Seth Speaks", Chapter 16, Session 565, somewhere all probable actions are actualized.  However, I'm not completely convinced that my conclusion here is, in fact, correct.

jbseth, your conclusion is correct, but the implication is that there are an infinite number of parallel universes. That is the only way that "all probable actions can be actualized".
The following is Rob's commentary on Seth:

"But I note with some amusement that science absorbs such heresies by weaving them into and developing them out of current establishment thinking—concepts, say, like the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Put very simplistically, this "quantum approach" allows for the theme that each of us inhabits but one of innumerable probable or parallel worlds."
—DEaVF1 Essay 8: Sunday, May 23, 1982

Seth's own statements on multiple universes are not so clear-cut:

"The idea of one universe alone is basically nonsensical. Your reality must be seen in its relationship to others.8 Otherwise you are always caught in questions like "How did the universe begin?" or "When will it end?" All systems are constantly being created." (from "The "Unknown" Reality, Volume One (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts)

In the following quote, Seth relates the formation of universes to Consciousness Units, and thereby seems to deviate from conventional physics:

"These CU's therefore can operate even within time, as you understand it, in ways that are most difficult to explain. Time not only goes backward and forward, but inward and outward. I am still using your idea of time here to some degree. (Pause.) Later in this book I hope to lead you beyond it entirely. But in the terms in which I am speaking, it is the inward and outward directions of time that give you a universe that seems to be fairly permanent, and yet is also being created. This inward and outward thrust allows for several important conditions that are necessary for the establishment of "relatively" separate, stable universe systems. Such a system may seem like a closed one2 from any viewpoint within itself. Yet this inward and outward thrusting condition effectively sets up the boundaries and uniqueness of each universal system, while allowing for a constant give-and-take of energy among them. (10:" (from "The "Unknown" Reality, Volume One (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts)

From the Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/00ewkYS

[pyromancy]

I thought this was interesting. Law of One is a very popular channeling text available free online, and there is a query about Seth. It was channeled in the 80s.

https://www.lawofone.info/results.php?q=seth

From Law of One regarding Seth:
36.3 Questioner: Out of the Seth Material we have a statement here: Seth says that each entity here on Earth is one aspect or part of a higher self or Oversoul which has many aspects or parts in many dimensions all of which learn lessons which enable the higher self to progress in a balanced manner. Am I to understand from this, is it correct that there are, shall we say, possibly many experiences similar to the one that we experience here in the third density that are governed by a single higher self? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. The correctness of this statement is variable. The more in balance an entity becomes, the less the possibility/probability vortices may need to be explored in parallel experiences.