Consciousness units (several interpretations)

[Sena]

Consciousness units (CU) are one of Seth's stunningly original teachings. This is Rob's interpretation:

"I also think that if asked Seth would point out that since the concept
of quantum mechanics is based upon the idea that everything we
"know'"—matter, energy, our sensual information —is made up of
quanta, or the interactions of insubstantial fields that in turn, and quite
paradoxically, produce very active subatomic packets or particles, then
quantum mechanics is at least analogous with his statements that
basically the universe is composed of consciousness itself. But I think
that the continuum of consciousness, or All That Is, contains not only
the phenomena of quantum mechanics, but also Seth's non-physical EE
(electromagnetic energy) units, and his CU's (or units of
consciousness). In those terms, then, quantum mechanics is a theory
that doesn't penetrate deeply enough into basic reality, even if physicists
these days are basing their unified field theories upon quantum
thinking." (Dreams, Evolution and Value Fulfillment, Volume 1, Essay no. 8, for May 23, 1982.)

Norman Friedman's interpretation:

"In order to help us understand matter, Seth describes basic building blocks that he calls
"units of consciousness," or CUs. To say the least, these units are extraordinary. Since they are not
physical and do not occupy space, they can be in all places at all times simultaneously. This
freedom from three-dimensional constraints permits them to be precognitive and clairvoyant. The
CUs contain within themselves innately infinite properties of expansion, development, and
organization, yet they always maintain the kernel of their own individuality. They do not have
human characteristics, but they do have their own leanings, inclinations, and propensities. They are
not idle energy, but are vitalized, aware, charged with all the qualities of being. The basic CU is
endowed with unpredictability, which allows for infinite patterns and fulfillments. In a sense, the
CUs are divine fragments of All That Is." (Bridging Science and Spirit)

Lynda Madden Dahl:

"Seth tells us this basic consciousness unit (CU) cannot be broken down further, that this is as far as All That Is takes its divine fragments. Also, because CUs are quite literally All That Is, every unit of consciousness is always fully aware of the position, manifest or unmanifest, of every other unit." (from "Living a Safe Universe, Vol. 3: A Book for Seth Readers (Living a Safe Universe: A Book for Seth Readers)" by Lynda Madden Dahl)

Elias Forum:
"ELIAS: "Before the incorporation of essence, so to speak, there were elements of consciousness. You may also term these to be 'units,' which others have expressed previously. (meaning Seth)) These elements of consciousness know no limits of time or space. You may think of these as very tiny black holes. You may think of them, if you will, in physical terms as elements smaller than your smallest physical particles; but these elements are that which create all physical expression. Everything within every universe within every dimension is created by these elements of consciousness, and they are everything. They are not only the driving force behind matter and action, but are matter and action also; this being the basis of what you term to be God." [session 79, March 17, 1996]" (Some may say that Elias "copied" this from Seth, but it is possible that Seth and Elias both got the information from the same source)

Terrestrial philosophers, beginning with Galen Strawson, only cottoned on to the idea of Consciousness Units in 2006, 37 years after Seth. Strawson coined the term "micropsychism", which is similar to the idea of Consciousness Units.

https://tinyurl.com/3p2jiwu6

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Thanks for starting this topic.  I think that Seth's comments about the CU units, are absolutely incredible.



Here's a brief summary of just a few of the interesting things that Seth had to say about these CU units in UR1, Section 2, S688:

- They are literally in every place and time at once.

- They act as individuals, and yet each carries within it a knowledge of all other kinds of
   activity that is happening in any other given unit or group of units.

- They form the systems of reality in which they have their experience.

- In our system, they are within the phenomenal world.

- They can and do move forward or backward in time.



The link below contains a lot of the information that Seth shared with us about these CU units in UR1, Section 2, S688:


https://findingseth.com/q/session:688+CU+units/



-jbseth

[leidl]

Hello Sena and jbseth,

I'm intrigued by these ideas, but it still isn't clear to me whether Seth's ideas fit better with microspsychism or cosmopsychism.  (It also isn't clear to me that such a binary choice must be made.)  Micropsychism, as we've said elsewhere on this board, is the idea that consciousness exists in the smallest bits, and that the smallest bits are fundamental.  Bigger, more complex things are made of them.  And those big things (like us) are the way they are, because of the way the small things are.

Cosmopsychism is the idea that the whole is fundamental, and the whole, Seth's All That Is, is consciousness.  Little things are the way they are because the big thing they are part of is the way it is--conscious.

The famous problem for micropsychism--I don't remember if we've talked about this, but I'll mention it again even if we have, for anyone who might be interested--is what is called the combination problem.  If the small bits are conscious and fundamental, how do bigger things, which are just arrangements of smaller things, develop a sense of their own experience that goes above and beyond the consciousness of the small bits?  Imagine you have a box full of conscious Legos.  You build a big monster-like thing out of them.  You wouldn't really expect that arrangement of conscious Legos to suddenly have its own, seemingly independent consciousness--in fact you'd be stunned if it happened.  It wouldn't be explainable!

In another thread Sena mentioned that he thinks Seth's C.U.'s are compatible with the idea of micropsychism.  I have a hard time holding the idea of All-That-Is, the whole, in my head alongside a bottom-up approach like microspychism.  But let's just say that is a shortcoming on my part, and the two can peacefully co-exist.  Is there something in the list of traits of C.U.'s which jbseth has provided that solves the combination problem? 

Or, is it wrong to think that what is fundamental must EITHER be the micro or the All?  Perhaps thinking that way is a habit we've inherited from materialist scientists, who think that the physical is all that exists, and are trying to find the smallest, most fundamental form of it. 

For several years I thought that the combination problem dealt a fatal blow to micropsychism, but now I'm wondering if those of us who reject materialist science in favor of the view that the fundamental nature of reality is consciousness really need to pick between micropsychism or cosmopsychism, as I previously believed. 

"Before the incorporation of essence, so to speak, there were elements of consciousness. You may also term these to be 'units,' which others have expressed previously. (meaning Seth)) These elements of consciousness know no limits of time or space.

If C.U.'s know no limit of time or space, perhaps it isn't fully correct to think of them as "small".  Maybe this is one of those descriptions that inescapably involve distortions.  Maybe calling C.U.'s "small" is the way to make the point that they are fundamental, at least to people who have been conditioned to believe that subatomic particles are fundamental.  Maybe it is more accurate to say that C.U.'s have no size.  If so, then perhaps we can toss out the distinction between micropsychism and cosmopsychism, and just go with panpsychism. 

These are my ruminations of the past couple of days. 

[Sena]

Cosmopsychism is the idea that the whole is fundamental, and the whole, Seth's All That Is, is consciousness.  Little things are the way they are because the big thing they are part of is the way it is--conscious.

leidl, thanks for that clear definition of cosmopsychism. If cosmopsychism were true, All That Is would have been indivisible. You and I would not exist as independent beings, and Seth would not have talked about Consciousness Units. If cosmopsychism were true, there would be no multiplicity.

I am not saying that the philosophical concept of micropsychism exactly fits with Seth's ideas, but it does allow for multiplicity.

The other interesting thing about Consciousness Units is that the idea very clearly had not come from Jane Roberts' own mind. There is nothing in her writings (e.g. The God of Jane) to indicate that it was her own idea.

What Seth has given us is a rational alternative to a god up there creating inferior beings "out of nothing". In Seth's cosmology there is no creation out of nothing.

[jbseth]

I'm intrigued by these ideas, but it still isn't clear to me whether Seth's ideas fit better with microspsychism or cosmopsychism.  (It also isn't clear to me that such a binary choice must be made.) 

Hi leidl, Hi All,

I've read a lot of the Seth information and I know a fair amount about what Seth talked about. I'm not anywhere near as well versed in the various philosophers and their various ideas.  Partly because of this, I'm somewhat "skeptical" about some of the philosophers, and their ideas. If only because I don't really know how much of Seth's philosophy they may have grasped in deriving their various ideas and concepts.


For example, Seth talks about Framework 1, 2, 3 and 4.  He also talks about realities and what he sometimes referred to as, I believe the "fundamental" reality. As I understand it, this "fundamental" reality" is the true reality that exists behind all other realities. This is the basic reality that exists behind Framework 1. As best I can tell, Seth describes this fundamental reality as being All-That-Is.




As I understand it, Framework 2 is where we go when we die. This Framework 2, however, isn't this Fundamental Reality. Instead, this Fundamental Reality also exists behind Framework 2. 

Now, on top of this, our consciousness also exists in Framework 2, as well in Framework 1. Since all time is simultaneous, our existence in both FW1 and FW2 occurs at the same time. We here in FW1, just don't realize this.

In UR1, Seth talks to Rob about how Rob died as an 11 year old. Seth also told Rob that Rob also died in WW2.  Seth told Rob this, while Jane was channeling this information from Seth, and Rob was taking the notes. Thus, in addition to dying when he was 11 years old and during WW2, Rob also existed in this world at that time, since he was taking these notes.  This kind of makes me wonder just where / what the Rob who died at 11 years of age and the Rob who died during WW2 were at & doing?

Seth's idea about consciousness are really incredible and involved.  Consciousness gets even more bizarre that this as Seth talks to Rob about Rob's mother and how in some realities, she didn't have any children.



When these philosophers, come up with their concepts, such as microspsychism or cosmopsychism, do they comprehend and get all of these various concepts (FW1, FR2, consciousness existing in both simultaneously, probable realities, etc.) that Seth has talked about?


I'm not sure that they do, and that's one of the major reason why I somewhat skeptical about some of their conclusions.


If what Seth has to tell us is, in fact, true, then I think a lot of philosophers conclusion might be somewhat limited by their lack of comprehending many of Seth's ideas.


-jbseth

[Sena]

When these philosophers, come up with their concepts, such as microspsychism or cosmopsychism, do they comprehend and get all of these various concepts (FW1, FR2, consciousness existing in both simultaneously, probable realities, etc.) that Seth has talked about?

jbseth, I agree that no terrestrial philosopher has given us anything like the full picture Seth has given us, but I like to look out for any "independent confirmation" of Seth's ideas. I think Galen Strawson has given us a little of this independent confirmation.

I found another bit of confirmation of Consciousness Units, this time not from a philosopher but from a neurobiologist, Semir Zeki:

"Attempts to decode what has become known as the
(singular) neural correlate of consciousness (NCC) sup-
pose that consciousness is a single unified entity, a
belief that finds expression in the term 'unity of con-
sciousness'. Here, I propose that the quest for the NCC
will remain elusive until we acknowledge that con-
sciousness is not a unity, and that there are instead
many consciousnesses that are distributed in time
and space.........
Micro- and macro-consciousnesses, with their individual temporal hierarchies, lead to the final, unified
consciousness, that of myself as the perceiving person.
This and this alone qualifies as the unified consciousness,
and this alone can be described in the singular."

https://tinyurl.com/1ev5ysld

[Sena]

Quote from: Sena
"Before the incorporation of essence, so to speak, there were elements of consciousness. You may also term these to be 'units,' which others have expressed previously. (meaning Seth)) These elements of consciousness know no limits of time or space.

If C.U.'s know no limit of time or space, perhaps it isn't fully correct to think of them as "small".  Maybe this is one of those descriptions that inescapably involve distortions.  Maybe calling C.U.'s "small" is the way to make the point that they are fundamental, at least to people who have been conditioned to believe that subatomic particles are fundamental.  Maybe it is more accurate to say that C.U.'s have no size.  If so, then perhaps we can toss out the distinction between micropsychism and cosmopsychism, and just go with panpsychism.

leidl, thanks for highlighting this question of the size of the Consciousness Units. The quote above is from Elias, not from Seth. Seth is clear that C.U.'s are very small indeed:

"In greater terms the cell is a huge physical universe, orbiting an invisible CU; and in your terms the CU will always be invisible — beyond the smallest phenomenon that you can perceive with any kind of instrument. To some extent, however, its act can be indirectly apprehended through its effect upon the phenomenon that you can perceive.  The EE units mentioned earlier5 represent the stage of emergence, the threshold point that practically activates the CU's, in your terms. We will have more to say about these later." (from "The "Unknown" Reality, Volume One (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts, Session 688)

https://amzn.eu/0hZbpCT

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi leidl, Hi All,

In UR1, S682, Seth seems to tell us quite a bit about these CU units. In this session, (see spoiler below) he seems to be making the following 4 points.


1 – Seth is using an Analogy:

First of all, he seems to be saying that when he talks about these CU units here, he's using an "analogy". 

My understanding of the word analogy is that it described something as being "like" something else. For example, "Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what your going to get" is an analogy for how life works.

However, this doesn't actually meant that life actually works like a box of chocolates and along these same lines, it doesn't actually meant that there are CU units and they actually work like this.



2 - They are Awareized Energy:

Then he talks about CU units as being "aware energy, identified within itself as itself, not "personified" but awareized".  Here, where he's talking about the difference between "awareized" verses "personified" energy, he seems to be talking about what he describes in TES3, S138, as the three dilemmas. In S138 he describes these 3 dilemmas as:

1) This first dilemma results in action, and from action's own working upon itself we have seen that identity was formed, and that these two are inseparable.

2) It is however a mistaken notion that identity is dependent upon stability. Identity, because of its characteristics, will continually seek stability, while stability is impossible. And this is our second dilemma.

3) The ego is a state resulting from the third creative dilemma, which happens when consciousness of self attempts to separate itself from action.

Along with this, in this same session, Seth also tells us the following.

Consciousness of self is not the same thing as consciousness of ego self. Consciousness of self is still consciousness directly connected with action.

From this then, I'm assuming that by "awareized" consciousness, Seth is referring to "Consciousness of self" or "identity" and by "personified" consciousness, he's referring to "consciousness of ego self".



3 – Involved in the Creation of the Soul"

Following this then, he seems to be telling us that these CU units are involved in the creation of the soul. In SS, Seth tells us that another name for the soul is the "entity".



4 – Big / Small:

Following this, Seth also seems to imply that these units can appear in several places at once, in fact they are in all places at once. This would indicate a huge size.  On the other hand, there are also "many millions" of them in an atom – which indicates a very small size.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

-jbseth

[Sena]

First of all, he seems to be saying that when he talks about these CU units here, he's using an "analogy". 

jbseth, that is very significant. Seth seems to be saying that with our human brains we can have only a limited understanding of Consciousness Units. They are too small to see even with the most powerful microscope.

[leidl]

Hey guys,

If cosmopsychism were true, All That Is would have been indivisible. You and I would not exist as independent beings, and Seth would not have talked about Consciousness Units. If cosmopsychism were true, there would be no multiplicity.

Yes!  I agree, Sena, this is the problem of viewing reality as a whole.  Personally, though, I think the problem is easier to solve working from the top down than it is from the bottom up.  To make this case I'm going to use an analogy that I've heard elsewhere, which I find effective.  (jbseth, I agree, to say something is "like" something else when you know that likeness is going to break down at some point is not totally satisfying.  But when we're talking about things that we only have glimmers of because of the limits of human perception, analogies are often what we're stuck with.  It's a bummer.)

Some people who see consciousness as being the irreducible, fundamental nature of reality explain "independent beings" by saying that consciousness is like a massive river which contains whirlpools.  In a sense a whirlpool seems like an independent construction, but it is entirely made of the river.  A whirlpool is a temporary, localized modulation of the river's water.  It is both distinct and indistinct from the river.  Similarly, if the ALL is consciousness, human beings and everything else are modulations of consciousness.  Bodies and objects appear distinct, but they are just modulations of the one fundamental thing. 

"When you look into the mirror you see the camouflage image. You do not see the ego, though you know that it exists. But the idea, ego, is in itself an arbitrary unit chosen for particular reasons. It is not a thing. You have drawn lines, imaginary lines, and made an arbitrary boundary. This does not mean that the ego does not exist."
—TES3 Session 133 February 17, 1965

I feel like the above Seth quote supports the whirlpool-in-the-river view of human identity, and I'm confident I've come across other similar quotes from him.  But Sena has shared Seth quotes that seem to describe reality as forming from the bottom up, and I acknowledge that.  My guess is that both are limited truths.  Personally I think the river analogy has a lot of explanatory power, though.  Over in the Synchronicities forum, Larry has told some astonishing tales, and Larry is a very credible reporter.  His stories suggest we are not the discrete entities we believe we are.  We are immersed in the all.  The apparent "independent being" that is my body is the icon Donald Hoffman describes; it is just an image of a process, rather than the process itself.  We can point to a whirlpool and say "there is a whirlpool!"  But it is just an image; the dynamic flow of the river is really what is there. 

I'm somewhat "skeptical" about some of the philosophers, and their ideas.

As well you should be, jbseth.  Philosophers are pretty good at a couple of things: finding problems with concepts, and finding things that they think are problems with concepts, that are not problems at all.     I'd like to think that the so-called combination problem is a real problem, because...that's the way it seems to me.  And I'd like to think that the indivisibility problem isn't really a problem, because...it seems to me that it really isn't.  The river analogy works for me!  It gives us explanatory power on precognition, channeling, remote viewing, and many other things.  But honestly, I think the chances are good that both viewpoints have limits, and we aren't going to solve this debate while wearing these bodies.  From our angle of vision, CU's are both big and small!  The neurobiologist Zeki looks really interesting--I'll check him out. 

[Sena]

Some people who see consciousness as being the irreducible, fundamental nature of reality explain "independent beings" by saying that consciousness is like a massive river which contains whirlpools.  In a sense a whirlpool seems like an independent construction, but it is entirely made of the river.  A whirlpool is a temporary, localized modulation of the river's water.  It is both distinct and indistinct from the river.  Similarly, if the ALL is consciousness, human beings and everything else are modulations of consciousness.  Bodies and objects appear distinct, but they are just modulations of the one fundamental thing.

"When you look into the mirror you see the camouflage image. You do not see the ego, though you know that it exists. But the idea, ego, is in itself an arbitrary unit chosen for particular reasons. It is not a thing. You have drawn lines, imaginary lines, and made an arbitrary boundary. This does not mean that the ego does not exist."
—TES3 Session 133 February 17, 1965

I feel like the above Seth quote supports the whirlpool-in-the-river view of human identity, and I'm confident I've come across other similar quotes from him.  But Sena has shared Seth quotes that seem to describe reality as forming from the bottom up, and I acknowledge that.  My guess is that both are limited truths. 

leidl, whirlpools-in-the-river is a nice analogy, but it is not the Seth view. It is Buddhism. "In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" – that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul, or essence in phenomena." (Wikipedia). A whirlpool in a river is a temporary phenomenon. Buddhists are expected to get rid of the illusion of Self and attain Nirvana where there is no such illusion.

In Seth, the Consciousness Units are indestructible, and the Soul or Entity is also indestructible.

"No energy is ever lost. It may seem to disappear from one system, but if so, it will emerge in another. The inward and outward thrust that is not perceived is largely responsible for what you think of as ordinary consecutive time. It is of the utmost and supreme importance, of course, that these CU's are literally indestructible. They can take any form, organize themselves in any kind of time-behavior, hyphen, and seem to form a reality that is completely dependent upon its apparent form and structure." (from "The "Unknown" Reality, Volume One (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts, Session 688)

https://amzn.eu/96xNSox

[jbseth]

I'm intrigued by these ideas, but it still isn't clear to me whether Seth's ideas fit better with microspsychism or cosmopsychism.  (It also isn't clear to me that such a binary choice must be made.) 

Hi leidl, Hi Sena, Hi All,

I'd like to respond here to the issues that I've had with the question about microspsychism and cosmopsychism and which one fits better with Seth's ideas. I've been having a hard time finding the right words to express my concerns about this question. However, this morning, I think that I've come up with a good "analogy" that'll probably work. With this in mind, please understand that in what I'm about to say here, I don't mean any disrespect to anyone here at all.  Please don't take any of this wrong. In no way do I mean any disrespect to anyone here.



For this "analogy", let's take a look at the way that some people describe "God's" existence. Some people describe God's existence as being "Transcendent".  Perhaps a good example of this is the God of the Jewish faith, or the God of the Christian "Old Testament". A God that is transcendent is a God that is considered to be above, beyond or outside the range of normal human physical experience.  On the other hand, some people also describe God's existence as being "Immanent". A God that is immanent could be said to be a God that encompasses or manifests within the material world. 




Now, along with this, some people believe that these two terms, transcendent and immanent, are binary. That is, God can be either transcendent or immanent, but not both.  It is us humans, who opt to place these binary limitations upon these two terms. However, this does not necessarily mean that these binary limitations are valid.  It is possible that God could, in fact, be both, transcendent and immanent. These limitations in human belief however, have no actual impact upon God. They only have an impact upon what certain humans believe about God.





Seth tells us that All-That-Is, exists in everything. Thus, All-That-Is appears to be immanent.  However, Seth also tells us that All-That-Is, is greater than the sum of its parts.  Thus, it also appears to me that All-That-Is is transcendent.


Now, given what Seth says here about All-That-Is, if someone were to ask the question, which idea, transcendence or immanence, best fits "Seth's" idea of "All-That-Is", it would seem to me, that there is something wrong here, with the question itself.  As I see it, the problem here exists in the implication or belief that one of these two concepts, transcendence or immanence, actually fits better into Seth's idea of All-That-Is, than the other. 

Seth, on the other hand, seems to indicate that God (All-That-Is) is both transcendent and immanent. Furthermore, he also doesn't appear to say anything about one of these two concepts fitting better than the other. Given this then, I would most likely try to explain that neither one of these two concepts fits better than the other because Seth seems to tell us that they both apply. Thus, he also seems to imply by this that they aren't binary either.  People who firmly believe that these 2 concepts are and must be binary, sometimes have a problem with this.  I can see however, that this type of thing can occur, when the person who asked this question doesn't know that Seth seems to indicate that All-That-Is, is both immanent and transcendent.




I think that this very same issue "may" exist here in regards to your question about microspsychism or cosmopsychism and which one best fits with Seth's ideas and this is the concern that I've been trying to raise here.  I'll also admit that I don't know that this same issue does exist here.  From what I can tell, the answer to this question much more involved and complex than the transcendent verses immanent question I used in my analogy.

leidl, you also said: (It also isn't clear to me that such a binary choice must be made.)

I agree with you about this. Perhaps a binary choice isn't really applicable here.  This is a really great question though.  




Some of my thoughts on this topic go back to an understanding what Seth has to say about All-That-Is at the very beginning.  He talks about this in DEaVF1 and I think in the Seth Material or in Seth Speaks as well.  It seems to me the he says something like All-That-Is had a dream and All-That-Is had to dream the ideas that occurred in this dream into existence. My impression is that this occurred well before the earth or humans were dreamed into existence, but he does say that our consciousness existed before the earth.


-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi leidl, Hi Sena, Hi All,

leidl, I really like your massive river and whirlpool concept.


I'm beginning to think that to figure this all out, we need to look at what Seth says about "All-That-Is". Specifically perhaps in understanding what he had to say about All-That-Is before the beginning.

He's some interesting concepts from Seth that I think relate to this topic.



In NotP, S787, Seth tells us the following:

- Energy is not divided. There are no small individual parts of energy, it's all one.

- Energy and "All That Is" are synonymous.

- Pure energy is everywhere within itself conscious.



In DEaVF1, Ch 1, S882, Seth tells us the following.

- Consciousness and matter and energy are one, but consciousness initiates the transformation of energy into matter.

The consciousness of each reader of this book existed before the universe was formed—in parentheses: (in your terms)—but that consciousness was unmanifest. Your closest approximation—and it is an approximation only—of the state of being that existed before the universe was formed is the dream state. (Long pause.) In that state before the beginning, your consciousness existed free of space and time, aware of immense probabilities.


Now, along with all of this, here's some of what Seth had to say about All-That-Is, before the beginning. This comes from DEaVF1, Ch 1, S882.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

-jbseth

[Sena]

Now, along with all of this, here's some of what Seth had to say about All-That-Is, before the beginning

jbseth, thanks for the quotes. This is another quote from DEaVF1, p.159:

"The universe formed out of what God is.
The universe is the natural extension of divine creativity and intent,
lovingly formed from the inside out (underlined)—so there was
consciousness before there was matter, and not the other way around.
In certain basic and vital ways, your own consciousness is a portion
of that divine gestalt. In the terms of your earthly experience, it is a
metaphysical, a scientific, and a creative error to separate matter from
consciousness, for consciousness materializes itself as matter in
physical life.
(Long pause.) Your consciousness will survive your body's death, but
it will also take on another kind of form—a form that is itself composed
of "units of consciousness."

[jbseth]

Your consciousness will survive your body's death, butit will also take on another kind of form—a form that is itself composedof "units of consciousness."

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Yeah. Along with this, in DEaVF1, S882, Seth also tells us that.

The consciousness of each reader of this book existed before the universe was formed—in parentheses: (in your terms)—but that consciousness was unmanifest.

If our consciousness existed before the universe was formed, then it also must have existed before the earth was formed and it also must have existed before our present bodies were formed.

If our consciousness existed before existed before our bodies were formed, then consciousness must not depend upon our bodies.

If our consciousness doesn't depend upon our bodies, then there's no reason to believe that when we die, when our bodies die, our consciousness ceases to exist.




I had a dream last night that had something to do with travelling by car. In this dream, I was driving along on a freeway and missed an exit that I was supposed to take. As a result, I decided to turn around at the next exit. However before I got there, I found that the freeway went right along a tropical beach and it was so inviting that I decided to stop and go for a swim. It was an enjoyable dream.

In the mist of experiencing that dream reality, I had no conscious recognition, that in this reality, I was sleeping in bed.  My consciousness, for all practical purposes, didn't appear to be here at all. It appeared to be there instead.

Likewise, while in this reality, right now, I have no conscious recognition of what, if anything, I'm might be doing in that dream reality at this moment. My consciousness, for all practical purposes doesn't appear to be there at all. It appears to be here instead.





I think that for many people, this type of experience, is perhaps the closest that they can come, to the recognition that our consciousness doesn't depend upon our body. The problem here is that in this reality, we do a really great job of convincing ourselves, through belief, that this reality is "real" and that other dream realities aren't "real".

It is a result of this "belief" that we often don't recognize, this lack of connection that exists between our consciousness and our human body. 


-jbseth

[Sena]

Yeah. Along with this, in DEaVF1, S882, Seth also tells us that.

The consciousness of each reader of this book existed before the universe was formed—in parentheses: (in your terms)—but that consciousness was unmanifest.

jbseth, yes, a very significant quote.
Another quote from the same book:
"The universe formed out of what God is."
It follows that every reader of the book was (is) formed out of what God is.

[leidl]

Sena and jbseth,

Thank you for all the excellent food for thought. 

It is of the utmost and supreme importance, of course, that these CU's are literally indestructible.

Yes, CU's are indestructible.  But that doesn't mean they don't change, does it?

"This is, as you all well know, a physical system in time. Here cells die and are replaced. Knowing their own indestructibility, the CU's within them simply change form, retaining however the identity of all the cells that they have been."
—UR1 Section 2: Session 688 March 6, 1974

"The cells of course are changing. [...] The CU's that are within all matter have a memory bank that would far surpass any computer's. As cellular components, the atoms and molecules, therefore, carry memory of all the forms of which they have been part."
—UR2 Section 4: Session 707 July 1, 1974

If CU's retain identities and memories of all they have been, and they change form, then they are always changing, like all of reality.  Each new added memory changes them. 

I agree, Sena, the Buddhist teaching that after many incarnations the self is extinguished and absorbed into the ALL is not Sethian.  It is also not a claim I am making.  The whirlpool analogy is an analogy, and analogies break down.  The analogy does not, for example, take into account that ultimate reality is timeless; for that reason alone nothing is lost ultimately.  But whirlpools and bodies are transient in this camouflage reality.  The body I had when I was 6 is gone.  But it is only in time that something can be lost. 

Now, given what Seth says here about All-That-Is, if someone were to ask the question, which idea, transcendence or immanence, best fits "Seth's" idea of "All-That-Is", it would seem to me, that there is something wrong here, with the question itself.

Yes, I like this analogy, jbseth.  You're right, something is wrong with the question itself about whether Seth's ideas are more in line with micropsychism or cosmopsychism.  Perhaps a better question would be in which ways are his ideas micropsychist, and in which ways are they cosmospsychist?  Because these labels break down, too; ultimate reality is not going to fit neatly under any label we come up with.  By asking better questions we can dodge the binary categories, which are always suspect.  Seth says that consciousness and energy and matter are one, and he also says that all reality is made of bits called consciousness units.  We have to stop being so literal, and accept that Seth's statements are pointers to a reality that is impossible for him to adequately relay.

I enjoyed hearing about your dream, jbseth.  It is tempting to think that a successful life is ending up in the right place after a series of correct turns.  But we're not very good at discerning which turn is correct...sometimes "missing the exit" is perfection. That thought is almost enough to make me look forward to my next mistake.   

[Sena]

Yes, CU's are indestructible.  But that doesn't mean they don't change, does it?

"This is, as you all well know, a physical system in time. Here cells die and are replaced. Knowing their own indestructibility, the CU's within them simply change form, retaining however the identity of all the cells that they have been."
—UR1 Section 2: Session 688 March 6, 1974

"The cells of course are changing. [...] The CU's that are within all matter have a memory bank that would far surpass any computer's. As cellular components, the atoms and molecules, therefore, carry memory of all the forms of which they have been part."
—UR2 Section 4: Session 707 July 1, 1974

leidl, yes, the fact that CU's change, and that they are memory banks, is very significant.

"When you arrive, or emerge, into physical life, not only is your mind not a blank slate, waiting for the scrolls that experience will write upon it, but you are already equipped with a memory bank far surpassing that of any computer. You face your first day upon the planet with skills and abilities already built in, though they may or may not be used; and they are not merely the result of heredity as you think of it. You may think of your soul or entity — though only briefly and for the sake of this analogy — as some conscious and living, divinely inspired computer who programs its own existences and lifetimes. But this computer is so highly endowed with creativity that each of the various personalities it programs spring into consciousness and song, and in turn create realities that may have been undreamed of by the computer itself." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Session 519)

https://amzn.eu/61pMSmN

In Buddhism there are no memory banks, so the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth (reincarnation) is completely illogical. There is no logical connection between one whirlpool and a previous whirlpool. It is only the Seth teachings on CU's which give credibility to the reincarnation idea. All Buddhists should become Sethians.

"The problem with reincarnation is that explanation, however, is twofold: 1) we have, as of yet, no way to verify it prospectively in an objective manner; and 2) we have no mechanism to explain how reincarnation might occur. Though reincarnation is indeed a central tenet of all sects of Buddhism, no sect of Buddhism posits the existence of a non-corporeal "soul"—an eternal, unchanging version of ourselves that's capable of living independently of a brain and a body. Rather, in Buddhism, the self is viewed as something that has no "absolute" existence, as something that changes constantly from moment to moment, as well as something that's capable of existing only within the confines of a physical brain."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/happiness-in-world/201210/the-problem-reincarnation

If there were no CU's, reincarnation would be an impossibility. The alternative to CU's would be a "central computer" which stores the information of all possible incarnations, but Seth did not go down that road.

The fact is that there is scientific evidence for reincarnation - See attached pdf for a summary.

The fully detailed research paper is here:

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2016/12/STE27Bstevenson-1.pdf

[leidl]

Hello Sena and all,

The idea of our present selves being made of CU's with vast memory banks containing memory of all their prior forms does seem to give us a mechanism for reincarnation.  But in the timeless reality of All That Is, the notion of memory is trickier, because it implies linear time.  I wonder if the concept of "memory" is not useful outside this reality.  In F2, for example, the memory banks of the CU's could contain awareness in the spacious present of all that is happening.  From our point of view, this would mean all the forms that the CU's had participated in over time.

I saw this image today on a website I visit regularly, beautywelove.blogspot.com.  The blog author attached it to an Alan Watts quote, but I thought it worked pretty well as a metaphor for a Sethian entity which contains an array of probable selves.  The CU's and the individual probable selves are always changing (while retaining a kernel of their unique identity) and thus the larger entity of which they are a part must always be changing.

Some days, I can really relate to the little guy with his belly in the water who is aimed backwards.  It is reassuring to think that the larger entity of which I am a part is still moving forward, and I am being carried forward with it, despite my belief that I'm moving backwards.   

[Sena]

Some days, I can really relate to the little guy with his belly in the water who is aimed backwards.  It is reassuring to think that the larger entity of which I am a part is still moving forward, and I am being carried forward with it, despite my belief that I'm moving backwards.   

leidl, lovely metaphor for the entity!