Lost my cat - help me

[usmaak]

On Monday, I lost my cat that I've had since she was 10 weeks old.  She was almost 18.  It was not a sudden thing.  She'd been sick since shortly before Christmas and what followed was a three month battle to try and improve her life.  During that time, I dedicated just about every waking (and many when I should have been sleeping) moment to fighting for her health.  Losing that battle was inevitable, but I was hoping for more time.  On Monday, we were pretty much backed into a corner and there was nothing left for us to do for her.  It was a complex situation and we'd finally run out of options. 

This has affected me far more than I'd expected and I've been pretty useless since Monday afternoon.  Who am I kidding?  I've been pretty damned useless since December.  Losing her has left a huge hole in my life.  I understand nothing lives forever.  I understand that pets have a shorter lifespan than their human counterparts.  I understand it all.  Understanding doesn't help me.

Aside from my wife, my cat was the most important thing in my life.  I am at a loss as to how to get past it.  I'm trying to approach it from a Seth perspective, but I'm lost.  I read the words, and they are just words.  I don't feel them.  I am completely exhausted from months of poor or no sleep and fighting what I suspected all along was a losing battle.  I look and feel like I've aged five years in the last three months.  I need to find some way to put this into perspective and reclaim my life.

Any of you Sethies have any sage words of wisdom that might help me get my head on straight?

[Deb]

Just sent you a personal message.

[leidl]

Hello usmaak,

I'm aware that your thread is from 2018.  Since 479 people have clicked on it since you wrote it, it seems many are looking for helpful insight on the loss of pets.  Perhaps I should say the "apparent" loss of pets, since Seth tells us entities and their probable selves exist outside time, and are never lost.  You mentioned that understanding Seth's teachings did not ease your discomfort, and I'm curious if you learned something from that experience that you would care to share?  Did you discover, for example, a particular belief you were holding to be the source of the discomfort?

One thing I'm sure of--your cat found quality when it found you.   

[jbseth]

Hi All,

I was getting ready to respond to this, when I noted in leidl's comments, that this post was dated April 6, 2018.

How or why did this apparently old posting, get reposted today.

Is it legitimate, does usmaak want help with this or is it some sort of computer / program glitch?

Does anyone here, usmaak, Deb, know?


-jbseth

 

[Deb]

usmaak's post wasn't reposted, leidl just responded to his April 2018 post today and that is what you saw.

[jbseth]

Ahh,

That makes sense. Thanks Deb. 

-jbseth

[usmaak]

Hello usmaak,

I'm aware that your thread is from 2018.  Since 479 people have clicked on it since you wrote it, it seems many are looking for helpful insight on the loss of pets.  Perhaps I should say the "apparent" loss of pets, since Seth tells us entities and their probable selves exist outside time, and are never lost.  You mentioned that understanding Seth's teachings did not ease your discomfort, and I'm curious if you learned something from that experience that you would care to share?  Did you discover, for example, a particular belief you were holding to be the source of the discomfort?

One thing I'm sure of--your cat found quality when it found you.   

Thanks.  That's kind of you to say.

I'd have to say that time heals all wounds.  I still think about her but have moved to the point where I remember more of the good than the bad that happened at the end.  It ended up that she got sick because she was given a long lasting antibiotic named Convenia.  Because I work with a rescue group for diabetic cats, I was aware of the risks of it but she'd had it before and I didn't see the harm.  I had to learn to forgive myself for letting her get that shot because every one of the symptoms that she had can be caused by a negative reaction to Convenia.  I had a friend who put it best when she told me that we always make the best decisions for our pets that we can and if it doesn't work, we have to forgive ourselves.  It took a while for that advice to take hold but it did.

I wish that I could offer some sage advice but I've always struggled with the Seth material and actually putting it into practice.  I'm usually more absorbed in the physical, camouflage world and seeing around it can be a challenge.  It's always been more of a theoretical thing for me.  Although I do have something that happened to me that made me think.  That's a story that I'll have to put down on another thread.

[Deb]

I wish that I could offer some sage advice but I've always struggled with the Seth material and actually putting it into practice.  I'm usually more absorbed in the physical, camouflage world and seeing around it can be a challenge.  It's always been more of a theoretical thing for me.

Believe me, you are not alone. Every one of us works on keeping ourselves on track with what Seth says, and struggles on various levels with implementation. Some things are easier than others. But... that's why we are here. We are F1 human students learning about the nature of reality. Otherwise we wouldn't be here—we'd be graduates.

[leidl]

usmaak, thank you for the reply.  Good to know you felt yourself again with time, and glad to know time is good for something other than adding wrinkles.

I had a friend who put it best when she told me that we always make the best decisions for our pets that we can and if it doesn't work, we have to forgive ourselves.

Yes, that's great advice.  And it can be applied to all of our decisions, not just the pet or child related ones.  But we can only hear things when we're ready to hear them, it seems.

I can relate to the difficulty you've had applying Seth's teachings.  He is intriguing as a metaphysicist, and when I was younger I read him simply for that reason.  But life continues to hurl teachable moments at me, and so I try to take out the tools Seth has given us and throw them back.  Getting a hit takes practice.

I've got a cat who appears to be getting ready to exit this reality.  If I've got to go through something that hurts a bunch, I'm going to try to get all the value I can from the experience, in hopes of hurting less in the future.  I've studied my beliefs about loss and death from many angles, hoping to find the belief that is creating this pain, but nothing has worked.  Experiencing the pain of loss may be inevitable in this reality; part of the gameboard, part of what we sign up for when we come here.  Even the so-called enlightened ones shed tears, after all. 

It's lovely that you do rescue work with diabetic cats!

jbseth, my apologies for confusing you.  I was googling for information on what Seth says about the loss of pets, and ended up....here!  There seem to be many paths leading to this space.  As always, thanks to Deb for creating it.

[usmaak]

I've studied my beliefs about loss and death from many angles, hoping to find the belief that is creating this pain, but nothing has worked.

My thoughts on the material have been all over the place for the last 30+ years.  I've gone from being a "true believer" to thinking that this is all some giant cosmic joke/mistake.  I have a checkered history with beliefs.  I was brainwashed at a born again christian camp for two summers when I was a kid.  That really messed me up in myriad ways and I still retain echos of being messed up from that to this day.  I was a member of the First Church of Christ Scientist for a few years (though they have found me and still send me requests for money every once in a while).  They can't take a hint.  I've been reading and studying everything I can get my hands on for what seems like forever.  Ask me what I think/believe next week and I can pretty much guarantee you it will be different than what I think/believe right now. 

[LarryH]

Yesterday I took my cat Gabby to the animal hospital because she had not been eating. Over $700 later after several tests, nausea and appetite treatments, she was back home. She has begun to eat, though not at a normal level yet. After I got home yesterday, I came here, and the first new post that I saw was in this thread. Synchronicity. Over a year ago, Gabby had a life-threatening event that required constant care for about two months. She recovered and has been stable until now. During the year, I had conversations with her telling her that as long as her quality of life seems to be good, she will be cared for, but that she was free to choose to leave the planet on her own terms. She is my favorite cat ever, but my attitude about death is very Sethian. If she leaves, she will show up in my dreams. She will be there to greet me when I leave. Loss will be balanced by memories as well as an opportunity to shift focus.

usmaak, I am sorry for the pain that you have felt, and I hope the loss has been transformed in some way that you can celebrate and be thankful for.

[leidl]

That really messed me up in myriad ways and I still retain echos of being messed up from that to this day.

usmaak, I can relate...my belief system still shows myriad effects of my religious upbringing as well.  In my case I didn't experience a couple of intense periods of indoctrination, but more of a slow drip as a result of a Christian education from K-12 plus 4 years of college.  For much of my adult life I've considered myself to be a recovering Christian, just another way of saying "messed up."  But the belief that we were negatively affected by religion is really just another hurtful belief, isn't it?  I'm trying to choose to see myself as someone who was indoctrinated with religious beliefs early on, and as a result has a good understanding that beliefs are just beliefs.  Neutral building blocks of reality.  If we don't like what we've built, we can tear down and start over with different beliefs. 

On one level the Seth material is just another belief system, and I've had periods of doubt about it.  But the more I understand it, the more likely it seems to me that it is a pointer to the true nature of reality, much like Eckhart Tolle, Mooji etc., but designed more for the western world, and without any guru bling.  It combines the best of psychology with the best of philosophy, and explains some of the odd experiences I've had that cannot be explained by a materialist paradigm.  I like reading a variety of thinkers too.  Doing so reinforces the truth that religions cannot do more than point at the nature of reality, and they all point at the same one, but with a different set of underlying assumptions.

During the year, I had conversations with her telling her that as long as her quality of life seems to be good, she will be cared for, but that she was free to choose to leave the planet on her own terms.

Larry, I so appreciate this.  While I've been communicating something similar to my own "best cat ever," your wording has a subtle difference that resonates.  My best to you and Gabby.

[jbseth]

jbseth, my apologies for confusing you.  I was googling for information on what Seth says about the loss of pets, and ended up....here!  There seem to be many paths leading to this space.  As always, thanks to Deb for creating it.

Hi leidl, Hi All,

leidl, there is absolutely no need for you to "apologize" here for anything here.

At first, I thought that this first post was some sort of glitch, where usmaak's old message showed up. Then after Deb, explained what was going on here, I realized that this is what was taking place and I recalled seeing his same thing being done here previously, on several occasions.

If anything, let me apologize for my unintentional misunderstanding.



What you have going here, I think, is an example of some of the very best of the threads I've seen in the Seth Forum. I greatly applaud both your efforts here and your comments too.

You've pulled up a message from the past, that still touches many of us today.

This thread has touched upon the feelings involved in losing a beloved pet, the aspects of being a recovering "Christian" or "whatever" is the specific background of our pasts, the aspects of both questioning Seth and what to believe and the aspects of coming from the heart and dealing with and feeling some powerful emotions.  I suspect that there of many other members of this forum, who have had experiences with many of these things as well. I know I have. 


Thank "you" for being such a wonderful member of this forum and for starting this post.

-jbseth

[usmaak]

usmaak, I can relate...my belief system still shows myriad effects of my religious upbringing as well.  In my case I didn't experience a couple of intense periods of indoctrination, but more of a slow drip as a result of a Christian education from K-12 plus 4 years of college.  For much of my adult life I've considered myself to be a recovering Christian, just another way of saying "messed up."  But the belief that we were negatively affected by religion is really just another hurtful belief, isn't it?  I'm trying to choose to see myself as someone who was indoctrinated with religious beliefs early on, and as a result has a good understanding that beliefs are just beliefs.  Neutral building blocks of reality.  If we don't like what we've built, we can tear down and start over with different beliefs.

I was told that at nature, we were sinners and that if we didn't walk the fine line of belief and not sinning, we would roast in hell for all of eternity.  It is still with me as a little nagging thought that says, "what if this is what's true?"  I read the reviews for Seth books and others and the one star reviews love quoting the bible and basically saying that this is how the devil leads us astray.  It sound ridiculous but that kid in me still wonders.

It keeps me from truly believing in anything at all.  I know it too, but seem powerless to stop it.

[Deb]

I was googling for information on what Seth says about the loss of pets, and ended up....here!  There seem to be many paths leading to this space.  As always, thanks to Deb for creating it.

Yes, there are times I can't find something in the Seth search engine, Google what I'm looking for, and end up back here myself, lol. You're welcome, it's been quite an experience. When I started this I had no idea whether anyone would show up, and 6 years later we're still here. Very rewarding.

And now I have a very short story about cats. This is from Mary Dillman's good and long-time friend Karen, part of a group email dated December 6 (Mary had found she had terminal cancer a few weeks earlier):

"A few weeks ago, Mary had a psychic discussion with her old cat, Emily. She told her of the situation, and that Emily would not like being moved to a Kitty Shelter. The next morning, Emily was deceased. When I told Mary, she was relieved and at peace."

Cats and other animals are conscious beings, and make their own reality. They choose their lives and deaths. That doesn't make it any easier for us when they die, we still miss them and mourn. But knowing they too choose their circumstances does soften the blow.

Seth touched on a situation in the Susan Watkins book Conversations with Seth. Here's just a small part. If you want me to share the whole quote, let me know. It was Seth talking to a distraught class member about her crushing guilt for letting her cat out and it was hit by a car. Essentially he told her it was not her fault, the cat chose its fate. The mutual purposes that brought the class member and cat together were accomplished.

Seth: "Now, the animal went on as a youngster leaves the house and grows up. You aided in the evolution of its consciousness, then allowed it its freedom. You will meet its consciousness again in another form."

BTW, on religion: I consider myself a recovered Catholic, although religion never really stuck with me. Probably because I went to public school. My son, when we were new to this neighborhood, would come home at the age of 3 from a friend's house and ask me, "Mommy, does it hurt when you burn in hell?" That went over really well with me. Last I heard, he's an atheist, but we don't discuss religion as there's really nothing about it for us to discuss. He's tolerant when I talk about Seth. 

[jbseth]

Hi usmaak, Hi leidl, Hi All,

I think that many of us here can probably relate to and understand what you are saying here.  Truly, with compassion in my heart, for this situation, I offer up the follow thoughts.


The human mind is an incredible thing.

We can "program" ourselves to believe just about anything that we choose.  However, a very awesome thing about our mind is that we can also "reprogram" ourselves and change our beliefs about almost anything, as well.

Often this idea of "reprogramming" is seen only in terms of its "negative" aspects. Such as in terms of people using it for "mind control" or "brainwashing".  However, we can also use reprogramming to reprogram ourselves in a "positive" way. In a way that is to our benefit.



Some of the beliefs that we hold as adults, have come to us from our parents, teachers and other adults when we were children. Some of these beliefs came to us at a time when we didn't necessarily have the understanding needed to really assess them for ourselves. As a result of this, we accepted many of them without question.

These people, our parents, teachers and other adults are not / were not infallible. Many of them may have also accepted some of their beliefs as children, without question. 



It's difficult to know the truth about many of life's questions, such as what actually happens to us when we die?  For some of us, the best that we can do in regards to answering these questions is to take a look at what others have to say and then make up our own minds about what we choose to "believe".

Some of us have been heavily influenced, by the beliefs that we were given, and accepted, as children. Many people never question some of the beliefs that they accepted as children.  Furthermore, some people so completely believe them that it never even occurs to them that some of these beliefs could, in fact, be wrong. Not only could they be wrong, but in some cases, they could actually be harmful to us.



Sometimes it's difficult for us, as individuals, to recognize that we may be carrying some beliefs that we accepted when we were young, some of which may not be true and some of which may in fact be fear based and harmful to us.

Along with this, sometimes it's difficult for us as individuals to come to terms with the recognition that often, it's the fear in these fear based beliefs that impacts us, and not necessarily the truth in the belief, itself.  This can be a difficult situation to unravel.



I would like to offer up the idea that with some work, it is possible to look at, question, and change our beliefs and in doing so, to largely get beyond the fear.

For me, in doing this, I largely looked to other (non-Christian) sources, and in doing so, I have come to realize that there seems to be a lot of things going on here, that don't necessarily confirm to the "Christian" belief system. Here I'm talking about such things as the true nature of reality, dreams, NDE's, OBE's, psychic stuff, reincarnation, and past life regression experiences. Some of these things are talked in some books such as "The Holographic Universe".

Each one of us have to travel our own path in doing this, but who's to say, maybe this is all a part of our path to the truth that we each individually have chosen to travel in this life. 

-jbseth

[leidl]

I was told that at nature, we were sinners and that if we didn't walk the fine line of belief and not sinning, we would roast in hell for all of eternity.

I was taught that I'm a worthless sinner without the grace and mercy of God also, usmaak.  A God that punitive is a small one indeed; smaller than any human I've known.  I say let's squish 'im in a tiny locked box, and throw away the key.  If the God concept is useful to us in some way, we can still believe.  But I want to believe in a God worth believing in, one big enough to include all of us in his/her being. 

The teaching from my youth that haunts me lately is something said by one of my English professors.  She quoted Malcolm Muggeridge, a British author:  "It has been said that when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse: they believe in anything."

I wonder sometimes if this is what has happened to me, now that I am focusing on channeled material of all things.  Is there anything I won't believe anymore?  Good scientists need to be open to the possibility that one of their favored theories will be disproven, allowing a whole new paradigm to arise and provide answers.  Same goes for us metaphysicians, or so I tell myself.  But have I gotten so open-minded that all of my critical thinking skills have fallen out?

Deb, I love Emily's story, thank you for sharing.  Yes, knowing our pets choose to stay or walk on does soften the blow when they go.  Perhaps the reason Larry's words to Gabby sound so right to me is that they acknowledge her agency.  My own kitty appears to be a shadow of his former self, but his essence hasn't diminished at all.  He's just choosing to change his form slowly before my very eyes; another cat might choose to step in front of a car.  I'd like to think that we communicate with our pets in our dream states to choose the methods of transitioning that will serve us all best.  I'd also like to think that in one probable world, my little guy kicks this cancer in the ass and dances on, and a probable me is right there, taking joy in the sight of it.

These people, our parents, teachers and other adults are not / were not infallible. Many of them may have also accepted some of their beliefs as children, without question. 

jbseth, thank you.  It helps us to be reminded of the innocence and good intent of those who taught us.  We may well have agreed with them in F2 that they would teach and we would believe, for our own reasons!

it's the fear in these fear based beliefs that impacts us, and not necessarily the truth in the belief, itself.

I'll reflect on this some more, jbseth.  It reminds of me Sena's view of Covid; fear should indeed be looked at deeply!  There is no need to fear it, though.  Or we'd just be jumping from one fear-based belief to another.

Thanks to all.   The shining good will evident in this thread is a real comfort.  My little friend is resting comfortably at the moment, too.

[Sena]

I wish that I could offer some sage advice but I've always struggled with the Seth material and actually putting it into practice.  I'm usually more absorbed in the physical, camouflage world and seeing around it can be a challenge.  It's always been more of a theoretical thing for me.  Although I do have something that happened to me that made me think.  That's a story that I'll have to put down on another thread.

usmaak, it is good that you are "struggling" with the Seth material. It is better to struggle than to convince oneself that one has understood it all. I look forward to reading your story.

[Sena]

She quoted Malcolm Muggeridge, a British author:  "It has been said that when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse: they believe in anything."

I wonder sometimes if this is what has happened to me, now that I am focusing on channeled material of all things.  Is there anything I won't believe anymore?

leidl, I rather admired Malcolm Muggeridge when I was a practising Catholic 40 years ago! I think we need to read Seth (and any other teacher) with a critical mind. I don't accept the Seth teachings on Christ.

P.S. I found this book which refers to Muggeridge: "Contesting the Moral High Ground: Popular Moralists in Mid-Twentieth-Century Britain by Paul T. Phillips". Two quotes:

"Certainly St Augustine's Confessions, which Muggeridge termed
"the first great autobiography" in the modern sense, was a model
both in writing and a guide for an ultimately righteous life. The pub-
lic persona, with a gift for words, the remaking of a man with lustful
pursuits into a powerful advocate of Christianity, were all striking
parallels to Muggeridge's later life, as was the tendency to see a good
deal of humankind condemned."

"His last days as a conservative Christian also lessened his standing among the national intelligentsia, even among
some Christians in those ranks, thus contributing to the diminution
of his general reputation. Abroad, especially in conservative Christian
circles in the United States, he continues to be revered – but more as
a cult figure who appeals especially to conservative Catholics and the
Christian Evangelical Right."

[jbseth]

The teaching from my youth that haunts me lately is something said by one of my English professors.  She quoted Malcolm Muggeridge, a British author:  "It has been said that when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse: they believe in anything."

Hi All,

I thought that I'd take a deeper look at this two sentence statement by Malcolm, in order to see if I could uncover what's really behind it.



In Malcolm's first sentence he says:

"It has been said that when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing."

I would say that for some people this sentence is true. I'm sure that there are people who stopped believing in God and became atheists. Some of the people who grew up with Christian based beliefs for example, but then as they got older went to school and ended up working in the scientific and/or medical professions I suspect have done this.



Then in Malcolm's second sentence he says:

"The truth is much worse: they believe in anything."

I would say that this sentence is somewhat problematic. If for no other reason than the fact that the first sentence appears to be true for some people.


Here's another issue. Typically, people like Malcolm, only conceive of God in very specific "Christian" based terms. That is, they believe that the Christian beliefs about God are true and all other beliefs about God (Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhists, Seth's) are completely wrong.

These people have already determined for themselves that the only valid beliefs about God are their "Christian" based beliefs.  They never seem to consider the possibility that these "Christian" base beliefs about God could be "wrong". That they might not be true.

With that in mind, we can see that in his second sentence, he is applying a value judgement here in his statement, "The truth is much worse:".  The truth is much worse than what? What's being implied here is that the truth is much worse than his "Christian" held beliefs about God.




Then he ends this sentence by saying, "they believe in anything."

Well, I'd say that here what he's saying is true.

Many people do leave the "Christian" faith for various reasons and search for something else or "anything" else instead.  Some of these people do find comfort in some other beliefs instead. This happens because unlike Malcolm, they come to question some things about the Christian religion and are open to the possibility that the "Christian" held beliefs about God may not, in fact, be true. Along with this, goes the fact that, in our world, there are many other beliefs about God besides Christianity (Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Seth's, etc.).


It seems to me that this statement made by Malcolm is actually a rather close minded "Christian" based statement indeed. Furthermore, hidden within it lies the idea that only the "Christian" based beliefs about God are true and anyone who believes anything else must be wrong.


-jbseth

[Deb]

"Binary thinking, also known as dichotomous thinking, happens when even complex concepts, ideas, and problems are overly simplified into being one side or another. The gray area in the middle is ignored or goes unnoticed. Binary thinking helps us feel a sense of certainty."

Sounds like the definition of Malcolm Muggeridge to me. I'm one of the grays and I would bet I'm not alone here. 

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,


I agree Deb.

Binary thinking can be very limiting.  Not only does it keep us from seeing the grey area in the middle, but it also keeps us from recognizing the unity that exists.



SS, Ch 11 S546:

[...] In trying to make sense in its terms of physical existence, the intellect has set up these opposing factors. The intellect says, "If there is good, there must be evil," for it wants things explained in neat parcels. If there is an up, there must be a down. There must be balance. The inner self, however, realizes that in much larger terms, evil is simply ignorance, that "up" and "down" are neat terms applied to space which knows no such directions.

(10:25.) A strong belief in such opposing forces is highly detrimental, however, for it prevents an understanding of the facts — the facts of inner unity and of oneness, of interconnections and of cooperation. A belief, therefore, an obsessional belief in such opposing factors, is perhaps the most detrimental element, not only after death but during any existence.

-jbseth

[leidl]

I rather admired Malcolm Muggeridge when I was a practising Catholic 40 years ago!

Sena, despite all I still admire his wit.  One of his most famous quotes, "Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream", would even be a good motto for Sethian black sheep!  I didn't realize his reputation suffered in his later years.  His Wikipedia page describes a television event where he discussed Life of Brian with Monty Python.  He apparently called the film "tenth rate" and "a miserable little film."  He probably didn't do himself any favors there!

"The truth is much worse: they believe in anything."

I would say that this sentence is somewhat problematic. If for no other reason than the fact that the first sentence appears to be true for some people.

jbseth, your observation made me laugh out loud.  You're right!  Additionally, Muggeridge appears to assume that believing in God gives people some kind of protection against believing "in anything."  It clearly doesn't; there are God-fearing folks who believe all kinds of nonsense.

Then he ends this sentence by saying, "they believe in anything."

Well, I'd say that here what he's saying is true.

Many people do leave the "Christian" faith for various reasons and search for something else or "anything" else instead.

I'm not convinced his idea that ex-believers will believe anything is true.  This is the part of the quote that has haunted me, but what evidence do we have that ex-believers are any more gullible than believers?  A certain percentage of them may jump straight into some new belief, in the way some people who break up with their partners are prone to imprudent rebound relationships.  But this isn't true for everyone, surely.  Yet somehow I spent decades thinking maybe this quote applied to me.  I was around 19 when I first heard the quote and was already becoming ambivalent about my faith, but for whatever reason, never bothered to critically evaluate the quote until now.  I just feared it was true of me.  Probably because I admired both Muggeridge and the professor who quoted him.  I was like a girl who is told she is ugly by a schoolmate, and believes it all her life rather than simply looking in the mirror and seeing otherwise.  Beliefs are sneaky things, they tiptoe around in the dark and lodge themselves in places that make them weirdly hard to find, and sometimes they even successfully hide in plain view!

"Binary thinking, also known as dichotomous thinking, happens when even complex concepts, ideas, and problems are overly simplified into being one side or another. The gray area in the middle is ignored or goes unnoticed. Binary thinking helps us feel a sense of certainty."

Yes!  The quote is sophistry.  I am humbled to have carried this unhelpful nonsense with me for so long, but am really glad I mentioned it here.  Because you all made the obvious finally obvious.   

[jbseth]

Then he ends this sentence by saying, "they believe in anything."

Well, I'd say that here what he's saying is true.

Many people do leave the "Christian" faith for various reasons and search for something else or "anything" else instead.

I'm not convinced his idea that ex-believers will believe anything is true. 

Hi leidl, Hi All,

Yeah, I agree. I think I was overstepping a bit here.  What I was actually trying to say was that in this statement, if he would have replaced the word "anything" with the world "something", then would been much more legitimate.

I don't necessarily think that ex-believers will believe "anything" else. I do however believe that many ex-believers will gravitate towards, "something" else. Even if this something else is atheism.

Some of them may gravitate toward one of the Eastern based belief systems such as Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. because these religions are so different than Christianity. Then again, some of them may gravitate towards other systems such as New Age, Channeling, Seth, or something else.


I'm really been enjoying your comments and insights here. I can tell by what you have been saying, that you have thought a great deal about many of the things you've posted here. 


-jbseth

[jbseth]

Beliefs are sneaky things, they tiptoe around in the dark and lodge themselves in places that make them weirdly hard to find, and sometimes they even successfully hide in plain view!

Hi leidl, Hi All,

Yeah, beliefs are really interesting. Some beliefs are hidden behind other larger associated beliefs and this makes them hard to recognize. Then again, we can also hold conflicting beliefs that oppose each other and as a result of this, they block or subvert us from taking action in certain areas of our lives.


One of the greatest quotes that I've ever come across regarding beliefs, came from a book I bought on the subject of "remote viewing". This book was called "Phenomena" and was written by Annie Jacobsen.

On the page that precedes the prologue in this book, the author quotes, Soren Kierkegaard, who said the following:


"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true: the other is to refuse to believe what is true."


According to Wikipedia, Soren Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard

-jbseth

[Sena]

Here's another issue. Typically, people like Malcolm, only conceive of God in very specific "Christian" based terms.

jbseth, that is true. They think of the vengeful man in the sky. If you spoke of All That Is 400 years ago, you would have been denounced as a heretic and burnt at the stake.

[leidl]

jbseth, thank you for your kind words.  I really like hanging out with you all. 

I've read Kierkegaard on and off over the years; he was a Christian philosopher and early existentialist.  Muggeridge was an admirer of his!  They were both somewhat cranky social critics.  What I love about Kierkegaard is his rejection of groupthink, his insistence that we must each find our own path to God, and he saw this as a life's work.  He's got a book called The Crowd Is Untruth--how's that for a title?  Here is a quote from Kierkegaard which shows his prescience about the times we live in; he died in 1855.  This is excerpted from Muggeridge's book A Third Testament.

"Suppose someone invented an instrument, a convenient little talking tube which, say, could be heard over the whole land...I wonder if the police would not forbid it, fearing that the whole country would become mentally deranged if it were used...

On the whole the evil in the daily press consists in its being calculated to make, if possible, the passing moment a thousand or ten thousand times more inflated and important than it really is. But all moral elevation consists first and foremost in being weaned from the momentary."

The only thing that explains Kierkegaard's foresight to me is Seth's claim that everything is actually happening all at once.  Kierkegaard must have had some glimpses.   

[jbseth]

"Suppose someone invented an instrument, a convenient little talking tube which, say, could be heard over the whole land...I wonder if the police would not forbid it, fearing that the whole country would become mentally deranged if it were used...

On the whole the evil in the daily press consists in its being calculated to make, if possible, the passing moment a thousand or ten thousand times more inflated and important than it really is. But all moral elevation consists first and foremost in being weaned from the momentary."

The only thing that explains Kierkegaard's foresight to me is Seth's claim that everything is actually happening all at once.  Kierkegaard must have had some glimpses.   

Hi leidl, Hi All,

Wow this really is interesting. I don't know a lot about the philosophers and I don't know anything about Kierkegaard. From my background, I would say that I know much more about the world's religions, the psychologists like Freud and Jung, and the "Transcendentalists", than I do the philosophers.

It seems to me that in the first sentence, Kierkegaard, may have been picking up on some intuitive insights from the future. These little talking tubes that he's referring to, may have been, for example, radio broadcasting, television broadcasting, or now, the internet and cable networks.

There seemed to be others in the 1800's, such as Jules Verne, who in his novel, "From the Earth to the Moon" seems to have picked up on some insights from the future. We went to the moon about 100 years after he wrote this novel.


Regarding the middle sentences, I have to laugh because, I'd say that the same issue (On the whole the evil in the daily press consists in its being calculated to make, if possible, the passing moment a thousand or ten thousand times more inflated and important than it really is.) still exists today.  


Not knowing much about Kierkegaard, and his philosophy, I'm somewhat at a loss in trying to understand what he was getting at in his middle sentence where he mentioned "moral elevation". I don't know if he believed that God was going to judge us after we die and send the people who committed too much "sin", to some sort of hell, or not.

If he did, then it occurred to me that maybe what he was saying here was that it is a person's entire life that really matters. Not what occurred in just a moment.

What do you think he was suggesting in this sentence where he mentioned "moral elevation"? Any thoughts?

-jbseth

[LarryH]

(quoting Muggeridge)
On the whole the evil in the daily press consists in its being calculated to make, if possible, the passing moment a thousand or ten thousand times more inflated and important than it really is.

I don't see it that way. I assume this comment is referring to sensationalism, where something that happened is exaggerated. But that just makes an event seem perhaps twice as important as it really is. Far more damaging is when social media spreads falsehoods, buys into crazy conspiracy theories, spreads propaganda, and calls conventional media "fake news". We saw what can happen from this on January 6 in Washington DC.

[jbseth]

Quote from: jbseth (quoting Muggeridge)On the whole the evil in the daily press consists in its being calculated to make, if possible, the passing moment a thousand or ten thousand times more inflated and important than it really is.

I don't see it that way. I assume this comment is referring to sensationalism, where something that happened is exaggerated. But that just makes an event seem perhaps twice as important as it really is. Far more damaging is when social media spreads falsehoods, buys into crazy conspiracy theories, spreads propaganda, and calls conventional media "fake news". We saw what can happen from this on January 6 in Washington DC.



Hi LarryH, Hi All,

In regards to my previous comment that "the evil in the daily press",  "still exists today", here's what I was referring to.

Some years ago I noticed that there seems to be what I call "high" new days, "low" news days, and "other" news days. On "high" news days, the news published by the daily press seems highly relevant to me. I would call both 09-11-2001 and 01-06-2021 high news days. However, on "low" news days, the news of the day seems to be rather irrelevant and not even "newsworthy" to me. Then again there are "other" news days, that lie somewhere in between these two.

Since each one of us has our own unique ideas, beliefs, desires and experiences, I suspect that we also have our own beliefs about which days are the high news days, which days are the low news days and which days are the other news days.


My understanding, which could be wrong here, is that the comment that was made about "the evil in the daily press", was made by Kierkegaard and this comment was excerpted from Muggeridge's book, "A Third Testament".


Assuming that my understanding here is correct, here's what I was thinking when I responded to Kierkegaard's comment about "the evil in the daily press", by saying that it is "still existing today".  I believe that Kierkegaard's comment was in reference to low news days that occurred in his times and I was reflecting on the fact that we still have low news days today.

-jbseth

[leidl]

Hey all...

Yes, the quote referenced by Larry was Kierkegaard's originally.  I like to imagine life in the 1850's as slow-moving and simple, but apparently click-bait existed long before "clicking" did.  To me, the kind of thing that Kierkegaard was probably addressing was proto-click-bait, rather than the cultural divisiveness that results in groups of people with their own news sources and sets of facts.  I doubt he could even have imagined such a thing.

Yesterday, Sonia Sotomayor's emphasis on the wrong syllable in "Kamala" was our clickbait, along with Melania's  decision to have hired help write her final thank you notes.  Millions of people clicked on these stories, including me, and in that sense Kierkegaard's comment about things being inflated a thousand or ten thousand times seems a fair description of our present time.  I'm not saying these types of stories do as much damage as stories that misrepresent important facts, Larry.  But they do plenty of damage, and we were flooded with them even on a big news day.  I wonder, jbseth, if your theory about big and small news days held true back in the day when we had a few networks and no social media.  Now, anyone with a Twitter account is a news source.

We've talked a fair amount here about why we might collectively create the pandemic, but have we talked about why we might collectively create these alternate political realities?  If our beliefs create our reality, then do we actually have two realities here now?  To me this would be an interesting conversation, assuming we can talk about it from a Sethian angle. 

But all moral elevation consists first and foremost in being weaned from the momentary.

jbseth, Kierkegaard, like the existentialists who followed him, focused on the responsibility of each individual to define himself/herself through personal choices.  Kierkegaard did believe in eternal damnation, yes, and thus saw personal faith as the ultimate anxiety-inducing choice: we have to choose what to believe with our flawed vision and feet of clay, and if we fail to make the right choice from this temporal place, we are damned for all eternity.  If we are going to make the right choice, we have to turn from the crowd and the click-bait, and go inward in search of our own path to God.  "The crowd is untruth."  You are responsible for the choice you make now for all eternity.  So you must turn from the titillating story of the passing moment and turn inward, per Kierkegaard.

In my view Kierkegaard is still relevant, I just think he was wrong about how much is at stake.  Either I'll get it right eventually, or another of my probable selves will. 

[jbseth]

Hi leidl, Hi All,

Several years ago, I came across a great little book in a bookstore titled "Philosophy for Beginners" by Richard Osbourne.  While this book is written in "comic book" format, the information in it is really quite good and presented in a fairly straightforward manner.

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Beginners-Richard-Osborne/dp/1934389021/ref=sr_1_4?crid=1YLJKZQFGX69D&dchild=1&keywords=philosophy+for+beginners&qid=1611338365&sprefix=philosophy%2Caps%2C314&sr=8-4

In this book, the author starts more or less with the ancient Greeks and their thought, and then he takes us through the Romans and the Roman period. After this he talks about the philosophy of early Christian times (such as Philo, Origen and St. Augustine) and then he goes on to the medieval Christian philosophy. This is then followed by the philosophy during the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and Idealism periods and follows this on up to the twentieth century.



It occurs to me that much of the philosophic thought seems to follow the ideas and beliefs that were discovered and/or held by man at any given time. During the Renaissance period and afterward, when man started to explore ideas that lead up to today's scientific thought, the philosophy of the times changed from being, a heavily Christian based philosophy to a philosophy that has a lesser and lesser dependence upon Christianity. As a result of this, it appears that we've ended up with philosophies that are based upon the ideas that "God is Dead" and of Existentialism. This is not a complaint on my part, just an observation of how we got here.

During the medieval period, we had people like St. Thomas Aquinas spouting what I would call a heavily Christian based philosophy. Then we had people like Thomas More during the Renaissance period and people like Martin Luther during the Reformation period. Next during the Enlightenment period when things started to change we have people like Francis Bacon, Descartes, Locke, Berkeley and Kant. Then following this during the "Idealism" and "Romantic" periods we had people like Hegel and Kierkegaard. Then as we moved into the later 1800's and the 1900's we had people like Marx, Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell who moved quite a distance away from the heavily Christian based philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas.

From this then, it appears to me that Kierkegaard was on the trailing edge of this trend in philosophy to gradually move away from Christian based thought.  As a result of this, I can see how some of his philosophy was probably influenced by certain aspects of Christian thought. These are ideas that I myself, being much more of a believer in the philosophy of "Seth" do not necessarily share with him.


Do you think that there's been a trend in philosophy to move away from Christian based ideas in the last 500 years or so, or am I just missing something here?


-jbseth

[Sena]

During the Renaissance period and afterward, when man started to explore ideas that lead up to today's scientific thought, the philosophy of the times changed from being, a heavily Christian based philosophy to a philosophy that has a lesser and lesser dependence upon Christianity. As a result of this, it appears that we've ended up with philosophies that are based upon the ideas that "God is Dead" and of Existentialism.

jbseth, that is a very neat and accurate summary of the history of philosophy. The best-known existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre were very anti-God. Martin Buber was an existentialist who was not anti-God:


Alfred North Whitehead was not an existentialist, but his idea of God is somewhat consistent with Seth's idea:

https://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/theology-philosophy/alfred-north-whitehead/

"God is in the universe, or nowhere, creating continually in us and around us. This creative principle is everywhere, in animate and so-called inanimate matter, in the ether, water, earth, human hearts. But this creation is a continuing process, and `the process is itself the actuality,' since no sooner do you arrive than you start on a fresh journey. Insofar as we partake of this creative process do we partake of the divine, of God, and that participation is our immortality, reducing the question of whether our individuality survives death of the body to the estate of an irrelevancy. Our true destiny as cocreator in the universe is our dignity and our grandeur."


Another philosopher whose idea of God was somewhat similar to that of Seth was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/106/The_Gods_of_Spinoza_and_Teilhard_de_Chardin

"Certainly this takes thinking about evolutionary theory in a very different direction from traditional notions of natural selection. For Teilhard, to speak of evolution is to speak of an "ascent toward consciousness" or a "psychical transformation." It is easy to see why connections have been made between Teilhard's ideas and the development of the internet. What is more interesting here is the direction of the evolutionary process of complexification. Teilhard sees human evolution as converging on a final human state: evolution is heading toward a culmination "in some sort of supreme consciousness." The culmination of absolute organised universal consciousness is Point Omega (or the Omega Point) the other most important of Teilhard's ideas."

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Thanks for your comments Sena.

Yeah, it seems to me that in the last 500 years or so, the philosophers gradually moved away from a philosophy that was heavily based upon Christian ideas.

As you point out in regards to Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Buber both seemed to take existentialists ideas in different directions, in regards to their ideas about God.


I also agree that there seems to be some philosophical ideas that were similar to Seth's.  I've always thought that Rene' Descartes comment, "I think, therefore I am" seems to be very much in line with some of Seth's ideas.


In regards to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, it appears that Seth thought quite highly of his ideas.  Here's what Seth had to say about him from session 203.

TES5, S203:

(Bill asked Seth what he thought of the direction in which the writings of Father Teilhard de Chardin led, and Seth enthusiastically agreed these writings are valid. Jane, her eyes open, looked at Peggy sitting quietly on the couch.)


Personally, it seems to me that a lot of Seth's philosophy has been mentioned by others in the past. For example, Plato's Cave story kind of reminds me of Seth's ideas about our outer ego and our inner ego. It also seems to be related to Seth's Framework 1 and Framework 2.

As I recall, somewhere Seth said something to the effect that there really are no new ideas; implying that even his ideas have been spoken of by others in the past. To me, there really does seem to be some truth to this.


-jbseth

[Sena]

In regards to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, it appears that Seth thought quite highly of his ideas.  Here's what Seth had to say about him from session 203.

TES5, S203:

(Bill asked Seth what he thought of the direction in which the writings of Father Teilhard de Chardin led, and Seth enthusiastically agreed these writings are valid. J

jbseth, that is very interesting. I did not think a Jesuit priest would appear in the Seth writings. Teilhard de Chardin was definitely not a mainstream Jesuit. Some Jesuit priests are fairly broad-minded. I have met several, including one who gave up the priesthood to marry an ex-nun.

[jbseth]

jbseth, that is very interesting. I did not think a Jesuit priest would appear in the Seth writings. Teilhard de Chardin was definitely not a mainstream Jesuit. Some Jesuit priests are fairly broad-minded. I have met several, including one who gave up the priesthood to marry an ex-nun.

Hi Sena, Hi All,

I don't know a lot about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. I've heard his named mentioned on several occasions but typically it wasn't in regards discussions about Seth, channeling or psychic ideas.  Instead the comments I heard about him seemed to be more along the lines of discussions about other more open minded Christian thinkers such as people like Thomas Moore (the author of the book "Care of the Soul") who was a Catholic monk for many years.

Given what's written about Chardin in the Wikipedia site below, I wonder just what Seth was referring to, when he responded to Bill's question. While Chardin's ideas seem to differ somewhat from the typical "Catholic" beliefs, they also seem to be more along the lines of Darwinian evolutionary ideas. Which aren't particularly like Seth's ideas about evolution.


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


I went back and reread session 203. Bill and Peggy Gallagher were visiting Jane and Rob when this unscheduled session took place. About halfway through this session Seth tossed out the idea of the God concept to the group, as a question for general discussion. After meeting with silence, Seth asked Bill and Peggy to comment on it, starting with Bill. After Bill made some comments, Seth responded with some comments of his own. Then for 2 paragraphs he began talking about the changes that'll take place in 100 years. These comments generally seem to go along with what Seth says in "Seth Speaks" about what life will be like after the second coming. Then Seth says:

"There is not real division between you and God and I... only a unity that you cannot as yet understand."

It was immediately after this that Bill asked Seth his question about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Then, after this, Seth asked Peggy for her thoughts about God and she responded that she didn't know enough about it. Then Seth continued on talking and ended the session talking about what it's like when man is in touch with God.

Sadly, there are no further comments from Seth either about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin or about Seth's comments about him. 

-jbseth

[leidl]

Hello Sena, jbseth and all!

Teilhard de Chardin is one of those people who has long been on my radar, but I've never sat down and read him.  The blending of science and mysticism always gets my attention.  Thanks to Sena for bringing him up!  jbseth, I'm glad you retrieved the statement from Seth that triggered Bill to ask a question about de Chardin; it helps me see the connection between Seth and de Chardin.  Because yes, they had opposing views on evolution.  I guess I'm not the only one who admires philosophers I disagree with.    A single point of connection is sometimes all it takes, and it isn't hard to find quotes from de Chardin that either support Seth's quote below, or are Sethian in some other way.

Seth:  "There is not real division between you and God and I... only a unity that you cannot as yet understand."

De Chardin: 
"We are one, after all, you and I, together we suffer, together exist, and forever will recreate each other."

"Matter is spirit moving slowly enough to be seen."

"By means of all created things, without exception, the divine assails us, penetrates us, and molds us. We imagined it as distant and inaccessible, when in fact we live steeped in its burning layers."

"The universe as we know it is a joint product of the observer and the observed."

De Chardin views God as immanent in all reality, and whose creative power constitutes our being, which fits with Seth's idea of All That Is. 

Regarding existentialism, whether the philosopher in question is Christian or atheist, I feel like they all paved the way for Seth's main message about our beliefs creating our reality.  Their emphasis on how we create ourselves through our choices, and thus should make choices consciously, had been percolating in society for more than a hundred years when Seth came along.  Seth rejects Sartre's view that we are thrown into a meaningless world and must build our essence from scratch, but Seth and the existentialists agree that we are responsible for making what we are.  I prefer Seth's playful approach to creating reality over Sartre's angsty one, though!  By giving us a view of the self that is beyond time, and grounded in a reality (F2, etc.) that is good and only good, we can finally shake off the anxiety that permeates the existentialists.

[Sena]

"The universe as we know it is a joint product of the observer and the observed."

leidl, yes that is very Sethian, and contrary to Catholic theology. I have read very little of de Chardin.

De Chardin views God as immanent in all reality, and whose creative power constitutes our being, which fits with Seth's idea of All That Is.

This is interesting, and brings us to the question of pantheism. I found this article:

https://tinyurl.com/y6xk4xlh

"To Teilhard God is not identifiable
with the energy in the atom, but He is of His own will involved in
the world of matter. In other words, Teilhard holds a belief in the
immanence of God in a way that he distinguishes from pantheism.
Pantheism is a total identification of God with the universe, so that, if
the universe were to be blotted out, there would be no God left. Im-
manence means that God is involved in all that He has created, but
exists in His own right, so that He is in no sense dependent on the
universe for His existence."

I agree that this is close to Seth's position, and therefore Seth is probably NOT a pantheist. Seth may accept panpsychism, but that is another topic:

https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=1793.0

https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=1061.0

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi leidl, Hi All,

There are many different philosophical terms that have been used to discuss God. Here I'm talking about concepts like immanence, transcendence, pantheism etc.  I've always felt that the term "Panentheism" probably comes the closest to describing Seth's explanation of All That Is.

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



In TECS3 ESP Class Session, May 4, 1971, Seth says the following:

"All That Is is more than the sum of its parts."


While the terms immanence and transcendence, seem to be mutually exclusive of each other, I'm not sure that these terms are mutually exclusive with the term "Panentheism".


-jbseth