Independent confirmation of Seth teachings

[Sena]

Critics of Seth may say that his teachings are merely ideas or theories. One way of overcoming this criticism is to show that someone else has reached similar conclusions from a different direction or angle. One such possibility is in the work of physicist David Bohm. Bohm was an American born in 1917 and died in 1992. There is no indication that he had heard of the Seth teachings, and his conclusions could be said to be independent of those teachings.

David Bohm was born in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in 1917. His father ran a successful furniture business, making his way to the USA from what was then Austria-Hungary. He obtained his doctorate in physics from the University of California, Berkeley Radiation Laboratory, and was afterwards involved with the Manhattan Project. He later became a victim of McCarthyism due to his supposed communist leanings.

After Bohm's arrival in Brazil on 10 October 1951, the US Consul in São Paulo confiscated his passport, informing him he could retrieve it only to return to his country. He applied for and received Brazilian citizenship. In 1957, Bohm relocated to the United Kingdom, and in 1961 he was made professor of theoretical physics at the University of London's Birkbeck College.

The similarity between Seth's teachings and the findings of David Bohm have been highlighted by Norman Friedman in his book, "Bridging Science and Spirit: Common Elements in David Bohm's Physics, the Perennial Philosophy and Seth". Friedman points out that Bohm's concept of the "implicate order" correspond to Framework 2 described by Seth:

"According to this view, when the implicate order unfolds, the explicate order displays. The
explicate order is the ordinary world of experience. It is the unfolded portion of the holomovement,
which displays to us an aspect of the implicate order. The implicate order, on the other hand,
provides the commonality for matter, life, and consciousness. It is in the implicate order that matter
and consciousness are basically identical, differing only in subtlety." (p.43)

"Seth arbitrarily designates the various levels as frameworks but cautions against too much
reliance on any demarcations since the levels are utterly interpenetrated. His construct clearly is
similar to the spectrum of implicate orders and the hierarchy of consciousness. Although he
discusses only four frameworks, Seth clearly indicates that this enumeration can extend without
limits. "Behind [Framework 2]" he says, "are endless patterns of orderliness and complexity that are
beyond your conscious Framework 1 comprehension."
An obvious correlation exists between Bohm's explicate order, Ken Wilber's physical (material)
level, and Seth's Framework 1. This level stretches from electrons to stars, encompassing the world
in which we carry on our daily lives, the everyday world of experience, the world of display. Seth's
Framework 2 can be identified with Wilber's deep structure and with Bohm's implicate order.
According to Seth, Framework 2 houses the probabilities that are available to Framework 1. Thus
all the events of Framework 1 emerge from Framework 2, which is the creative medium responsible
for physical life. In Framework 2, the moment point is operative, as it is in the implicate order and
in the deep structure.

"Seth says that reality is formed from elementary consciousness units (CUs), the arrangement
and form of which result in our universe. This seemingly reductionist approach falls apart when the
CU is defined. According to Seth, CUs have definite propensities and purpose; therefore, the basic
building blocks of the universe are conscious. In order to avoid confusion, we must remember that
the consciousness of the CU is not like that of a sentient being. The CU is not inert, however, and it
has the uncanny ability to appear as a particle in our three-dimensional universe and to swarm as a
wave outside our universe.
The similarity between Seth's concept of CUs and Bohm's view of particles is apparent. To
Bohm, the elementary particle is so constituted as to enable it to react to active information found in
the wave function through its quantum potential. Basil Hiley, Bohm's collaborator, makes clear that
this does not mean that the elementary particle has cogs and gears on a microscopic level; this
would be returning to the Newtonian model of inert billiard balls. Rather, the elementary particle
should be viewed as an aspect of the whole as defined by quantum field theory. The particle is a
manifestation of the field (or implicate order) in our three-dimensional space and as such it has a
kind of protointelligence. This intelligence is evident because the implicate order is itself alive." (p.112)

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Sena, thanks for starting this post. 


I'm not sure that many of the things that Seth talks about, either can be or ever will be proven as anything other than ideas or theories.  Furthermore, I suspect that there are some people who never will accept some of Seth's concepts as being anything other than ideas or theories.  I think that we each have to decide for ourselves, what we think of them.


I haven't thought about this book for a long time now.  It seems to me that Norman Friedman, the author, had a pretty good understanding of both physics and the Seth information. I think I'll take a look at what he had to say about the Seth information in Chapter 3 of this book.


According to Amazon, he also wrote another book called, "The Hidden Domain", which I didn't realize.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B013AOZBBK/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i1


Norman, the author, seems to know quite a bit about both physics and Seth. I was curious about what kind of background he had. Was he a physicist, a scientist, an engineer, or perhaps a professor or a school teacher, etc.  Being curious about this,  I went to see what was written about him in the biography section of his "Bridging Science and Spirit" book, and noticed that there wasn't one.  So I looked on the internet and all I found was some information about another person named Norman Friedman who wrote many books on the navy and naval craft.

I seem to recall hearing about him in the past. I believe that he may have attended and perhaps presented some of his material at some of the Seth Conferences in the 1980's or 1990s'.

Do you or anyone else here in the forum know anything about this Norman Friedman and his background?


-jbseth

[Sena]

Do you or anyone else here in the forum know anything about this Norman Friedman and his background?

jbseth, that is an interesting question. The only Norman Friedman I found on Google is "an American author and naval analyst". He has written about a dozen books on naval battles. I don't think he is our Norman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Friedman

[LarryH]

Do you or anyone else here in the forum know anything about this Norman Friedman and his background?

I have a vague recollection that Friedman was an electrical engineer. I have read both books (many years ago). Elsewhere here, I have also said that David Bohm's implicate order seem to mesh with Seth's Framework 2. I was familiar to Bohm before I read Friedman's books and felt then that there was a correlation.

[Deb]

Critics of Seth may say that his teachings are merely ideas or theories. One way of overcoming this criticism is to show that someone else has reached similar conclusions from a different direction or angle. One such possibility is in the work of physicist David Bohm.

Thanks for this topic! I was working on a new page today for the Seth House on science supporting Seth's concepts—we have a board here, Seth's Concepts Validated by Science, that has 3 pages of such topics. I've been picking through them to add to the Seth House website. This is another great one to add.

I have Friedman's book, bought it a few years ago and didn't get too far into it. It's not an easy read, but I just need to stick to it and adapt to his writing style. I actually had put it in a "donate" pile of books just over a week ago, and then when I saw your post I put it back in my bookcase. Your excerpt from the book is excellent information. I also didn't realize he'd written a second book.

I did a search for Friedman, and came up with the wiki page for the Norman Friedman who has holds a doctorate in theoretical physics. He looks very familiar, but maybe I'd searched on him in the past. The wiki page only listed about 30 books written about naval matters. Then I put in his wife's name, Leah Friedman, and came up with this obit:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/stltoday/name/norman-friedman-obituary?pid=106628634

So not the same person, still not much information about him. The forward to the Bridging Science book was written by Fred Alan Wolf, who holds doctorate in... theoretical physics. Friedman's Intro explains how he came across Seth, but I need to read it again.

I've been off Facebook for about a month, but I think I'll go back in tomorrow and ask Lynda Dahl if she has more information about Friedman. The Bridging Science book was produced by Seth Network International, which was Lynda and Stan's creation. Lynda's an absolute sweetheart and will no doubt send me some information about Friedman.

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Thanks Deb. 

On Amazon, when you use their "Look Inside" feature and scan the first few pages of this book, on the copyright page it says:

Friedman, Norman, 1926 – 2008

Then, a few pages later, in his Acknowledgements he mentions that his wife, Leah, spend countless hours reading and correcting the initial manuscript.

From this it appears that this Norman Friedman, was born in 1926, had a wife named Leah, and died in 2008.


According to Goggle, the Norman Friedman, Ph.D, who wrote all those naval related books, was born in Dec. 19, 1946.


-jbseth

[Sena]

From this it appears that this Norman Friedman, was born in 1926, had a wife named Leah, and died in 2008.

jbseth, that settles it, but we would still like to know what background he had in physics and/or philosophy.

[Deb]

I just messaged Lynda Dahl, asking if she knows Friedman's background or where we can find more info. I'll let you know what she says.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Yesterday I started reading through Chapter 3, of Norman Friedman's book, "Bridging Science and Spirit". This is the chapter about Seth.

I'm only about half way through this chapter so far, but from what I've read, it definitely appears to me that Norman really understood Seth's ideas and concepts very well.  Along with talking about Seth's ideas, he also writes about some very interesting Seth related stories as well. 



In this chapter, Norman briefly mentions Seth's concepts relating to the inner ego and the outer ego. Then he tells us about an experimental psychologist named Ernest R. Hilgard and his wife Josephine, a psychiatrist, who are both researchers in the field of hypnosis.  In their research, they have uncovered what they call the "hidden observer".

In their book, "Hypnosis in the Relief of Pain", the Hilgard's describe how once they hypnotized a blind student. While under hypnosis, they told this blind student that he would be totally deaf to all sounds. Then, after this, while this student was still under hypnosis, they made various loud noises close to his ears, such as banging blocks of wood together. When they did this, he showed no response to the loud noises.

Next, they suggested that there may be some part of him that is still hearing their voices and processing the information. They asked that if this was taking place, would he please raise the index finger of his right hand as a sign of this.

In the next moment, to everyone's amazement, this hypnotized blind student raised his right index finger.

Then immediately after this, this student began to talk. He asked them if they would please restore his hearing so that they could tell him what they just did. He said that he felt his finger rise in a way that was not normal, so they must have done something to make it rise and he wanted to know what they did.

While still under hypnosis, they restored his hearing and asked him what he remembered of this experience.  In response to this, he told then that he remembered that he was told that he would be deaf after the count of three. Then he said that everything was quiet for a while and he started to get bored and so he started thinking about a math problem that he'd been working on. Then all of a sudden he felt his finger rise.

The student was then brought out of hypnosis.



The Hilgards said that in later experiments, this "hidden observer" was encountered again.



At some level, a portion of this student's consciousness was able to understand Hilgard while his "normal" consciousness appeared to be totally deaf.  Is this "hidden observer" indicative of Seth's inner ego?

-jbseth

[Sena]

At some level, a portion of this student's consciousness was able to understand Hilgard while his "normal" consciousness appeared to be totally deaf.  Is this "hidden observer" indicative of Seth's inner ego?

jbseth, I agree with you that the Hilgard's hidden observer probably corresponds to Seth's Inner Self. I hope you don't mind if I complicate the topic even further!
I found a reference to Hilgard in a book called "The Daemon: A Guide to Your Extraordinary Secret Self" by Anthony Peake:

"The instructor then asked the subject what he remembered. Because the trance was light the student never actually lost consciousness. All that occurred was that his hearing ceased. In order to deal with the boredom of being deprived of both sight and sound he decided to work on some statistical problems in his head. It was while he was doing this that he suddenly felt his finger lift. This was obviously strange to him because under normal circumstances he was, like all of us, the 'person' who decides on how the body moves. In this case he was not. Not only that but somebody else in his head was responding to an external request that he had not heard. As far as Hilgard was concerned the person who responded was the 'Hidden Observer'. Hilgard then re-hypnotized his subject and spoke directly to this Hidden Observer that had made the man's finger rise. This is what it said: After you counted to make me deaf you made noises with some blocks behind my head. Members of the class asked me questions to which I responded. Then one of them asked if I might not really be hearing, and you told me to raise my finger, so it is all clear now. Here we have a direct communication with the being that I call the Daemon. It shows a far more chatty and garrulous individual than that implied by the split-brain experiments. Of course it must be stressed that Hilgard never suggested that he was communicating with the non-dominant hemisphere of the brain. Indeed, I have the impression that this possibility was never pondered upon." (from "The Daemon: A Guide to Your Extraordinary Secret Self" by Anthony Peake)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/3PVDtKF

So what we have here is:
Hilgard's hidden observer = Seth's Inner Self = Peake's Daemon

(Daemon is obviously completely different to demon)

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

That's awesome Sena.      Thanks for sharing that.

According to Wikipedia (see below) the ancient Greeks used the word Daemon in reference to as a lesser deity or guiding spirit.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(classical_mythology)


-jbseth

[Sena]

According to Wikipedia (see below) the ancient Greeks used the word Daemon in reference to as a lesser deity or guiding spirit.

jbseth, could also be the Christian guardian angel.

[Deb]

No word from Lynda Dahl yet, but I got this from Mary Dillman's friend Karen:

Hi Deb,
Norm was a fabulous guy...he spoke at many a Seth conference...most often in a 'fireside chat' format because he was so into physics that he often went over everyone's head.  So usually Bette Kielty would pose questions for Norm to answer. Norm had an engineering degree (pretty sure), and had an electronics company in St. Louis, Missouri.  In the early 2000's he developed Alzheimer's and was nursed at home for years.
If you look up his company (see below), you will see many patents....Norm was an inventor and doer.   His only shortcoming, was that he was unable to experience the experiential side of he Seth material. He understood the theoretical stuff, but never let himself go to get out of body, of practice ESP.  He and I were opposites, and had many interesting times together because of that.

Obit:
"Friedman, Norman age 82 on Saturday, March 29, 2008. Beloved husband for 59 years of Leah Friedman; loving father of Laura Friedman (Dan Picus) of St. Louis, MO and Jenny Friedman (Rocky Chrastil) of Minneapolis, MN and dear grandfather of Carolyn Kousky (Francis Raven), Rebecca Kousky, Jessica Chrastil, Rachel Chrastil and Nick Chrastil. Mr. Friedman in his retirement was Founder and CEO of Soundolier, Inc. of St. Louis, MO and he also authored and published two books about Science and Spirituality.Services: A Memorial Service will be conducted at the LUPTON CHAPEL, 7233 Delmar Blvd., University City on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 4 p.m. Private interment. In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions appreciated to the charity of the donor's choice. The family will receive friends at their residence following the service."

[jbseth]

Hi Deb,

Thanks for that information from Karen.  

It definitely sounds like Norman was perhaps an engineer; not that this really matters to me one way or the other, but this might explain his incredible grasp of quantum physics.

I'm also going on an assumption that he must have had a pretty good grasp of philosophical ideas, as well, given what he wrote in his book, "Bridging Science and Spirit" in regards to both "the perennial philosophy" and his understanding and grasp of Seth's concepts.

-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

I just completed reading Chapter 3 of Norman Friedman's book, "Bridging Science and Spirit".


In this book, Chapter 3 is for the most part, all about Seth's ideas and concepts. While some of this is presented in relationship with the ideas of quantum physics, he also talks about Seth's ideas from a religious and philosophical perspective.

In addition to talking about CU units and EE units, he also talks about the inner ego, the outer ego and probable realities. Along with this he also talks about reincarnation, Seth thoughts on "Myths", and Plato. Then he talks about Frameworks 1 and 2, dreams, lucid dreams, hallucinations, REM sleep and the ideas of Freud, and Jung. Furthermore, he also talks about time, and he gives some examples of how to look at things from various levels of space-time perspectives, using an example based upon the idea of "Flat Land". Along with this, he also talks about Seth's moment point concept.

All in all, the information in this chapter gives us a pretty good review of many of Seth's ideas and concepts. He also wrote this in such a way that these ideas come across as pretty clear; which is not really all that easy to do with many of Seth concepts. 


From what I've read, I can say that he really appeared to know and understand Seth ideas and concepts very well.

For anyone who's fairly familiar with many of Seth's ideas, this chapter, in this book presents a great review of many of Seth's ideas and concepts, from a person who was, I believe, outside of the Seth inner circle (outside of the Jane / Rob / Sue Watkins / ESP class member, inner circle).

 
-jbseth

[Michael Sternbach]

Hi All,

I just completed reading Chapter 3 of Norman Friedman's book, "Bridging Science and Spirit".


In this book, Chapter 3 is for the most part, all about Seth's ideas and concepts. While some of this is presented in relationship with the ideas of quantum physics, he also talks about Seth's ideas from a religious and philosophical perspective.

In addition to talking about CU units and EE units, he also talks about the inner ego, the outer ego and probable realities. Along with this he also talks about reincarnation, Seth thoughts on "Myths", and Plato. Then he talks about Frameworks 1 and 2, dreams, lucid dreams, hallucinations, REM sleep and the ideas of Freud, and Jung. Furthermore, he also talks about time, and he gives some examples of how to look at things from various levels of space-time perspectives, using an example based upon the idea of "Flat Land". Along with this, he also talks about Seth's moment point concept.

All in all, the information in this chapter gives us a pretty good review of many of Seth's ideas and concepts. He also wrote this in such a way that these ideas come across as pretty clear; which is not really all that easy to do with many of Seth concepts. 


From what I've read, I can say that he really appeared to know and understand Seth ideas and concepts very well.

For anyone who's fairly familiar with many of Seth's ideas, this chapter, in this book presents a great review of many of Seth's ideas and concepts, from a person who was, I believe, outside of the Seth inner circle (outside of the Jane / Rob / Sue Watkins / ESP class member, inner circle).

 
-jbseth

JB,

Thanks for the summary! Seems like it's time for me to take another look into the book.

What I took away from my first (partial) reading of it was most of all a reference to a concept by physicist Fred Alan Wolf. The latter also contributed the foreword to the book; before reading it, I had known Wolf only from his appearance in What the Bleep Do We Know?

To me, Seth's statements are no standalone ideas, but tie in with the ongoing paradigm shift that hopefully shapes a condition more desireable than the present one for humanity's future. They both contribute to this and are gradually confirmed by it. I do expect that much of what Seth shared will be general knowledge one day. At least if human consciousness develops towards a unification of science and mysticism, as it should.

[Sena]

For anyone who's fairly familiar with many of Seth's ideas, this chapter, in this book presents a great review of many of Seth's ideas and concepts, from a person who was, I believe, outside of the Seth inner circle (outside of the Jane / Rob / Sue Watkins / ESP class member, inner circle)

jbseth, when I referred to "independent confirmation" of Seth's teachings, I was thinking of David Bohm. Norman Freidman has done us a great service by comparing Bohm's ideas to the Seth teachingss.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

I just completed reading Chapter 2 of Norman Friedman's book, "Bridging Science and Spirit". This chapter is about the "Perennial Philosophy".

This idea, the Perennial Philosophy, was made famous by Aldous Huxley in his book, "The Perennial Philosophy" which was initially published in 1944.

Mysticism can be thought of as the expression of inner wisdom that is reached through some type of altered state of consciousness. It has been recognized that there are elements of mysticism, in all the major religions, including many tribal traditions. In fact, many of these religions are based upon mystical experiences. The Perennial Philosophy, is the label used for this common mystical ingredient that appears to exist in all religions. It is the common ground of all religions, if you will. 

There are several people who seemed to have recognized that a basic feature of the Perennial Philosophy is a hierarchy of consciousness. One of these was William Blake, an English poet, who lived from 1757 to 1827. Another was Ken Wilber. Wilber describes 6 levels of consciousness where each level transcends and includes all lower levels. This is described of being kind of like how a 3D sphere contains a 2D circle, but a 2D circle doesn't contain a 3D sphere.

(To me, personally, this levels of consciousness idea brings to mind, Seth's gestalts of consciousness concept.)

The basic premise of the Perennial Philosophy is that the eternal self is one with the absolute and each individual is on a journey to discover this. Wilber defines this journey as the "Atman-project", where each human soul is climbing up these ladders of consciousness, where the Atman is the top of the ladder, the ultimate reality of nature.

The next question is this, how did the Atman become the lower levels of the ladder? Wilber has an answer to this. He explains how this occurred and uses the term "involution" as opposed to "evolution" for this process.

There is a lot of thought provoking ideas expressed in this chapter and Normal Friedman apparently had a pretty good grasp of this topic, the Perrenial Philosophy, as well as Seth's ideas and quantum physics.  All I can say is that Norman must have been a pretty sharp cookie.     

-jbseth

[Sena]

The Perennial Philosophy, is the label used for this common mystical ingredient that appears to exist in all religions. It is the common ground of all religions, if you will.

jbseth, I agree with you that that is the main message of Aldous Huxley's book. I first saw this book in my grandfather's house and I read it many years ago.

My understanding of Friedman is that he is saying that Seth's teaching is quite DIFFERENT from the Perennial Philosophy. The main difference is that according to the perennial philosophy one is supposed to overcome one's desires so that one's personality will become merged with the Supreme Being (Brahman). Seth's teaching is that one does not need to extinguish one's personality.

An extract from Huxley's book:

"To sum up, that mortification is the best which results in the elimination of self-will, self-
interest, self-centred thinking, wishing and imagining. Extreme physical austerities are not likely to
achieve this kind of mortification. But the acceptance of what happens to us (apart, of course, from
our own sins) in the course of daily living is likely to produce this result. If specific exercises in
self-denial are undertaken, they should be inconspicuous, non-competitive and uninjurious to
health. Thus, in the matter of diet, most people will find it sufficiently mortifying to refrain from
eating all the things which the experts in nutrition condemn as unwholesome."

"The Perennial Philosophy" was published in 1945. That was before Huxley experimented with psychedelic drugs such as mescaline. I think his philosophy changed as a result. "The Doors of Pereception" published in 1954 is about his drug experiments.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Well I certainly feel silly, but oh well, such is life.

Today I decided to take on Chapter 1 of Norman Friedman's book, "Bridging Science and Spirit" and I also decided that before I do, I'm going to start at the very beginning of this book and read the Forward, the Preface and the Introduction first.

In the Preface of this book, Norman explains that he is not a practicing physicist, but rather an interested spectator. Then he goes on to explain that he has a bachelor's degree in physics and a master's degree in engineering.

As I was reading this, I recalled reading it once before, perhaps 25 years ago, when I bought this book back in 1995; and the only reason that I know this, is because I used the receipt for this book as a bookmark.

-jbseth

[Deb]

In the Preface of this book, Norman explains that he is not a practicing physicist, but rather an interested spectator. Then he goes on to explain that he has a bachelor's degree in physics and a master's degree in engineering.

Hah! Well, mystery solved. I probably read that years ago too. I only got to page 74 of the book and set it aside for "later." I know that because my bookmark came with my (used) book, a red piece of construction paper with Steve Job's famous "here's to the crazy ones" quote printed on it. 

I may as well add it here, it's very Seth.

"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things. They push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do."

[jbseth]

jbseth, I agree with you that that is the main message of Aldous Huxley's book. I first saw this book in my grandfather's house and I read it many years ago.My understanding of Friedman is that he is saying that Seth's teaching is quite DIFFERENT from the Perennial Philosophy. The main difference is that according to the perennial philosophy one is supposed to overcome one's desires so that one's personality will become merged with the Supreme Being (Brahman). Seth's teaching is that one does not need to extinguish one's personality.

Hi Sena, Hi All,

I've never read Aldous Huxley's book, "The Perennial Philosophy", although I have heard this term before and I generally understood its meaning.

I seem to be picking up on a very different idea from Noman's book. To me, it seems to me that Norman is more or less trying to demonstrate how David Bohn's physics, the Perennial Philosophy and Seth's concepts and ideas, like Framework 2, are all "similar" in many ways.  And to me personally, I think he makes a good point. They are in some ways similar.

On the other hand, again for me personally, I do recognize that there are also many differences between the Perennial Philosophy and Seth's ideas.

-jbseth

[jbseth]

"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things. They push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do."

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Wow, I love that Deb. Thanks for sharing it with us.

And yes, I think it does describe many of us Sethites; only I would say this a little differently using Seth's concepts.

The people who are crazy enough to believe that they "create their reality", are the ones who do. 

-jbseth

[Deb]

The people who are crazy enough to believe that they "create their reality", are the ones who do. 

Good one!

[Sena]

To me, it seems to me that Norman is more or less trying to demonstrate how David Bohn's physics, the Perennial Philosophy and Seth's concepts and ideas, like Framework 2, are all "similar" in many ways.  And to me personally, I think he makes a good point. They are in some ways similar.

jbseth, I don't think the Perennial Philosophy would accept that we are all co-creators with All That Is. Their belief is that God or Brahman is the sole creator.

A quote from Huxley's book: " Every thing, event or
thought is a point of intersection between creature and Creator, between a more or less distant
manifestation of God and a ray, so to speak, of the unmanifest Godhead; every thing, event or
thought can therefore be made the doorway through which a soul may pass out of time into eternity.
That is why ritualistic and sacramental religion can lead to deliverance."

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

I think you are probably right here. I'm not sure that those who believe in the Perennial Philosophy probably don't believe in Seth's ideas that we are co-creator with All That Is.

-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Wow, I just finished reading Chapter 1 of Norman Friedman's book, "Bridging Science and Spirit". This is the chapter where Norman goes into David Bohm's ideas in regards to quantum physics.  Whew, that was quite the undertaking. 


Sena, I wanted to reply to your comment here, where you said:

"Critics of Seth may say that his teachings are merely ideas or theories. One way of overcoming this criticism is to show that someone else has reached similar conclusions from a different direction or angle. One such possibility is in the work of physicist David Bohm."

Yes, I agree with you completely on this. 

After reading Chapter 1 of "Bridging Science and Spirit", I too see a lot of similarities here between Dr. Bohm's ideas and Seth's.  Not only did Dr. Bohm's "explicate order" sound like Framework 1 and his "implicate order" sound like Framework 2", but his "Holomovement" sounds a lot like Seth's "All That Is".

In addition to this Dr. Bohm seemed to indicate that this "implicate order" contains numerous or even infinite levels, (the "implicate order", the "superimplicate order", the "super-superimplicate order", etc.) and this idea sounds a lot like Seth's ideas of numerous gestalts of consciousness.




In addition to this, I've also found a lot of conclusions that are similar to Seth's in the book, "The Holographic Universe", by Michael Talbot.

In this book, in Chapter 2, Michael also talks about David Bohm and his views of the universe, which are very Seth like. In addition to this, in Chapter 4, Michael also talks about health, the "placebo effect" and how some people who had lymph node or hip cancer, seemed to "believe" themselves to be cured, by some treatment or other, and apparently then became cured or at least had a major decrease in the cancer. This seems to be reminiscent of some of Seth's concepts having to do with health and belief.

Then, along with this, in this same chapter, in talking about some people with "Multiple Personalities", Michael mentions that some personalities have had some amazing and incredible effects upon the body. Such as where in some cases, a persons allergies instantly disappeared when another personality took over and a persons burns, scars or eye color changed when another personality took over. How incredible is that?

This seems to be independent confirmation of what Seth had to say about the people with "Multiple Personalities" such as "Eve" in the book, "The Three Faces of Eve". In TES6, Session 256, Seth said the following.

"Now, I will tell you the nearly unbelievable. There was not one shared body in the case of the four Eves. There were four separate bodies.

After the first shock this should come as no surprise. As you know, the physical body is itself never the same, and the atoms that compose it appear and disappear constantly while the appearance of permanency is retained. Such a process, and a natural one, took place in the case of Eve.

But as the personalities alternated they took over the organic processes so completely that while the body appeared, generally speaking, to be the same, it was not the same."


-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

In reading Chapter 1 of Norman Friedman's book, "Bridging Science and Spirit", he mentioned a fish, in a fish tank, metaphor. Once I came across this, I seemed to recall reading something similar in the book, "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot.

Then, when I looked into this Holographic Universe book by Michael Talbot, not only did I find this exact same metaphor, but I also realized that Michael Talbot, in Chapter 2 of his book, also talks about Dr. Bohm as well.


This led me to wonder, why it is that, prior to initially buying this "Bridging Science and Spirit", book, I don't ever recall hearing about this physicist, Dr. David Bohm, and I wondered why.  While I'm not hugely familiar with all the physicists, I have heard of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Feynman, for example. Why not Bohm? 

This made me wonder if he was really legitimate.

In answer to this question, here's what I found out about this, from both books by Norman Friedman and Michael Talbot.



Dr, Bohm, is legitimate and is almost universally respected for his intelligence within the physics community.  However, while some physicists do agree with him and his ideas, many of them don't.

As I understand it, what happened is this. Quantum theory and to a lesser degree, relativity was never adequately understood in terms of physical concepts by most physicists. These are strange and bizarre concepts and not at all like Newtonian physics in many ways. The ideas and concepts behind them are hard to comprehend.

As a result of this, most physicists gradually slipped into the habit of talking about the equations behind these ideas, because these (the equations) they did understand. As a result of this, over time, the equations themselves became the essential contents of physics.

However, there are also some physicist who point out that these equations "describe" the events but don't "cause" the events. That is, none of these equations can explain the why's of nature, the flowers, the trees, and the birds do all the things that they do.

-jbseth

[Sena]

Dr, Bohm, is legitimate and is almost universally respected for his intelligence within the physics community.  However, while some physicists do agree with him and his ideas, many of them don't.

jbseth, how I see it is that David Bohm was not a "mainstream physicist". As I understand it, mainstream physicists are all atheists. When I read the Wikipedia article on Bohm, I specifically looked for criticisms of his physics. The only criticism I found was about "the quantum theory of hidden variables". It appears that this does not affect his views on the explicate and implicate orders:

"In the early 1950s, Bohm's causal quantum theory of hidden variables was mostly negatively received, with a widespread tendency among physicists to systematically ignore both Bohm personally and his ideas. There was a significant revival of interest in Bohm's ideas in the late 1950s and the early 1960s; the Ninth Symposium of the Colston Research Society in Bristol in 1957 was a key turning point toward greater tolerance of his ideas."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm

Then I searched Google for "criticism of david bohm implicate order". I found this article:

https://www.labnews.co.uk/article/2030082/time-to-reconcile-science-and-philosophy

A quote from that article:

"But the scientific method has come under fire of late for being unable to solve big problems in Physics and Biology with regard to their ultimate origins and causation. Back in 2008 Chris Anderson, proposed in Wired magazine (The End of Theory: the data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete) that instead of hypothesis testing science, we should turn to informatics for such answers, based on the informaticist's credo that if you haven't answered the question at hand, you just need more data. That attitude subsumes that the world's knowledge is a closed set. That is in direct conflict with Bohm's thesis that there are two 'orders', the Explicate and Implicate.

The only way we have for determining the Implicate Order is through the scientific method, or hypothesis testing using controlled experimentation. Beyond the methodology, controlling an experiment is critically important for its success or failure. However, the rationale for controlling the experiment may not be obvious beyond needing to ensure the unbiased, objective observation and measurement of the dependent variable."

I don't find this article convincing, and I am happy to stick with the implicate order and Framework 2.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Sena, thanks for your comments and observations. 

For some reason, I hadn't even thought about your comments that many physicists are "atheists". I'd say that this is probably very true and it probably is a "major" reason why so many of the physicists reject Bohm's ideas.

It seems to me that Bohm's concepts imply that some extremely large and high form of consciousness, his holomovement concept, which is sort of like Seth's, "All That Is" is probably overseeing all of life. This idea, in and of itself, might just be too close to some form of "God" concept for many of these physicists and it may just be this potential "God", concept, is what really drives them away. Nice catch.

Personally, I consider myself a "Sethite".  I think that Seth was able to see and grasp a much bigger picture of how things really work than almost all humans on earth, today. As a result of this, Seth was able to see, well beyond the present teachings, concepts and understandings of many of our physicists, today.

-jbseth