Root Assumptions

[Deb]

This has long been an interest to me, the root assumptions that we have agreed to and accept in order to maintain a cohesive mass reality, ensuring less chance of chaos as we create our individual realities.

Lynda Dahl put up this post today about root assumptions, and I thought I'd share it here. She only listed five that she found in the Seth materials. I'm sure there are way more, but Seth may not have mentioned them. So my question to you all is, what would you add to the list of Root Assumptions? Gravity always comes up, but I think there are SO many other things we accept as tenets of life in this system. Since we accept them as truths, we do not question them. Let's question!

Hi friends, as Seth tells us, "Root assumptions are those built-in ideas of reality, those agreements upon which you base your ideas of existence." And, "These are the seeming laws by which you govern your experience." And, "Each system of reality has its own set of such agreements."

Root assumptions are simply strongly held ideas/beliefs, consciously formed by our inner selves and unconsciously accepted by each of us, that define this agreed-upon field of physical, or camouflage, reality. They are, in other words, ideas of reality which are telepathically accepted by all consciousness.

Seth doesn't list the root assumptions for physical reality in one place so here's a composite list of them:
1) Space and time are concrete, which allows us to believe in moment-by-moment action and motion and gravity.
2) Cause and effect is valid, which allows us to believe in a linear progression of a logical sequence.
3) Matter is solid, which allows us to believe in permanency of objects.
4) Consciousness is contained within the body, which allows us the illusion of complete separateness.
5) Opposites have a reality, which allows for the concept of choice between opposing ideas.
......................................................................

As 'solid' as root assumptions seem to us, Seth is constantly suggesting we learn to think beyond them for our own growth in consciousness. As examples, below are two comments he makes, the first where he pushes us to re-think the assumption that consciousness is contained within the body; and the second is about how expanding our idea of time beyond what seems to be concrete leads us to our inner self:

"(Man) has been studying the nature of his consciousness—using it as if it were apart from the rest of nature, and therefore seeing nature and the world in a particular light. That light has finally made him feel isolated, alone, and to some extent relatively powerless.
"He is learning how to USE the light of his own consciousness, and discovering how far ONE PARTICULAR METHOD of using it can be counted upon."
The "Unknown" Reality, Vol. 2, Session 708
(originally underlined words in caps)

AND...

"Time is one of your most obvious camouflages, and the study of time will lead you in a fairly direct manner from the camouflage physical self to the inner self, which you ignore. Even now your psychologists speak of the difference between physical time, by which you set your clocks, and psychological time.

"Psychological time so-called belongs to the inner self, that is to the mind. ... Outer physical time is a complete camouflage, unnecessary basically on your plane; but you have made it seem necessary because of your refusal to admit the inner self as part of your whole personality, and therefore you have not been able to utilize psychological time to its fullest advantage on your plane."
The Early Sessions, Book 1, Session 23 

[usmaak]

"Time is one of your most obvious camouflages, and the study of time will lead you in a fairly direct manner from the camouflage physical self to the inner self, which you ignore. Even now your psychologists speak of the difference between physical time, by which you set your clocks, and psychological time.

"Psychological time so-called belongs to the inner self, that is to the mind. ... Outer physical time is a complete camouflage, unnecessary basically on your plane; but you have made it seem necessary because of your refusal to admit the inner self as part of your whole personality, and therefore you have not been able to utilize psychological time to its fullest advantage on your plane."
The Early Sessions, Book 1, Session 23 

It's funny that you quoted this session.  I just read it last night before bed.

I can't think of any.  What I wonder is if it is possible to live a life where one could undo the belief in a root assumption so thoroughly that it would stop existing for them.

[leidl]

This is surprisingly difficult.  Most ideas I had reduced to one of the 5 you already listed.  Here's one: 

Life begins at birth and ends at death.

Here's a couple of assumptions known to underlie scientific enquiry:

We can understand physical reality by observing it.

Knowing more is better than knowing less.

[usmaak]

Even funnier that this came up because I just read past this material in Safe Universe III.  Like just now.  I recognized it as soon as I came upon it.

She also goes into root assumptions for all inner realities:

As an interesting comparison, let's look at the major root assumptions for all inner realities, including those of Framework 2 and our inner selves, as well as those of all entities or souls:

• Energy and action are the same thing, and neither denotes motion per se.
• All objects are blocks of mental action or directed psychic energy with no permanence.
• Space does not exist; nor does time.
• Intensity determines existence and has nothing to do with time or space.
• Mental and psychic barriers are the only barriers ever faced.

Dahl, Lynda Madden. Living a Safe Universe, Vol. 3: A Book for Seth Readers (Living a Safe Universe: A Book for Seth Readers) (pp. 29-30). The Woodbridge Group. Kindle Edition.

[Sena]

Life begins at birth and ends at death.

leidl, that may be a root assumption, but it is not a "true" assumption. Memories of past lives were investigated by Ian Stevenson, so it could mean that this present life is actually a continuation of the previous life.

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

[Deb]

This is surprisingly difficult.

I have to agree. The ones listed by Lynda seem to be the most basic ones that govern everything else we experience and co-create in our reality. Such as, "matter is solid, which allows us to believe in permanency of objects" would also cover a consensus that our universe has many solar systems and planets, our sun will "come up" in the morning, we can see our moon and stars. People have been charting the stars for tens of thousands of years.

It's funny that you quoted this session.  I just read it last night before bed.

Timing is everything. That happens a lot with the Seth stuff. I just read an article this morning that ties in with this in a way, a very enjoyable read. And more good timing. From the article:

"you, me, and anyone else — live in a quantum gravitational universe and come up with "a globally agreed-upon cognitive model" of reality by exchanging information about the properties of spacetime."

As far as your thought about undoing a belief so a root assumption no longer exists for a person... I don't know. Since these are something we agree to in F2, en masse, we may be locked into them here. I was searching for quotes on levitation, which does come up in the materials. Levitation defies our gravity, but if we could levitate an object that would qualify as a temporary suspension of belief. Seth said that levitation of objects are possible. A lot of people can levitate or fly in their dreams, as the dream state is not limited by our root assumptions. I feel this sort of applies to us being limited in this framework by our root assumptions:

"There is little use in trying to discover other levels of your own reality if you insist upon applying the laws of physical life to your own larger experience. Then you will always be in a quandary, and no facts will fit. You cannot, however, insist that the laws of your vaster existence, as you discover them, supersede the physical conditions of known life — for then no facts would apply either. You will expect to live forever in the same physical body, or think that you can levitate with your body at will. You can indeed levitate, but not with your physical body, practically speaking in operational terms. You accepted a body, and that body will die. It has limitations, but these also serve to highlight certain kinds of experience. The body in which our friend, Joseph, viewed his relatives (in the dream mentioned earlier) was not operationally physical. It was quite real, however, and at another level of reality it was operational, suited to its environment."
—NotP Chapter 2: Session 759, October 27, 1975

Memories of past lives were investigated by Ian Stevenson, so it could mean that this present life is actually a continuation of the previous life.

I would have loved to ask Stevenson if he would consider that time is simultaneous, which means that they would not be our "past" lives, but a variety of ourselves existing in the spacious present. And memories of past lives could actually be bleed through between incarnations. Nah, he probably would have thought I'm nuts.

He sure wrote a lot of interesting books. Did you see this? "...and in 1958, he submitted the winning entry to a competition organized by the American Society for Psychical Research, in honor of the philosopher William James (1842–1910). The prize was for the best essay on 'paranormal mental phenomena and their relationship to the problem of survival of the human personality after bodily death.' " Another coincidence? 

[Sena]

He sure wrote a lot of interesting books. Did you see this? "...and in 1958, he submitted the winning entry to a competition organized by the American Society for Psychical Research, in honor of the philosopher William James (1842–1910). The prize was for the best essay on 'paranormal mental phenomena and their relationship to the problem of survival of the human personality after bodily death.' " Another coincidence? 

Deb, I hadn't noticed that part, but William James was certainly the inspiration for many intelligent and open-minded people. I regret that I found the novels of his brother Henry James too difficult to read, but I enjoyed the film version of "The Portrait of a Lady".

[Kyle]

This is surprisingly difficult.

I have to agree. The ones listed by Lynda seem to be the most basic ones that govern everything else we experience and co-create in our reality. Such as, "matter is solid, which allows us to believe in permanency of objects" would also cover a consensus that our universe has many solar systems and planets, our sun will "come up" in the morning, we can see our moon and stars. People have been charting the stars for tens of thousands of years.

What about the root assumptions that hold regardless of whether we are physically embodied or not? It could be argued that these roots run deeper than those of the physical realm, and as such, are more primal elements. I imagine that most of these root assumptions are reciprocal in nature. Take trust, for instance. Trusting means having the expectation that the one you trust has the right intentions in regard to your concerns. So that's one reciprocity. There are others. They are almost too obvious, huh?

This suggests that rather than the physical world having the most basic root assumptions, these are more like specialized assumptions that are tailored to our physical environment. They define the limits of what we can do as physical beings, and stop there, since the more universal assumptions about being a person among persons are already present for all of us, physical or not. The problem that remains is that we also need to be taught about those assumptions, such as what it means to trust, or to be trusted or trustworthy.

If I haven't provoked you, please let me know and I'll try harder.

[Deb]

What about the root assumptions that hold regardless of whether we are physically embodied or not? It could be argued that these roots run deeper than those of the physical realm, and as such, are more primal elements. I imagine that most of these root assumptions are reciprocal in nature. Take trust, for instance. Trusting means having the expectation that the one you trust has the right intentions in regard to your concerns. So that's one reciprocity. There are others. They are almost too obvious, huh?

I think of those being more universal truths, such as ATI being in everyone and everything, energy's basis of love ("the universe loves itself and all of its parts"), the universe being benign and supportive. So yes, I would say these would not be limited to physical reality.

I thought THIS was interesting, I have not had time to check if Jane and Rob followed through. But I will.

Rob: "When Seth finishes Personal Reality we plan to ask him to reconcile such data from our world with the root assumptions, or basic agreements, in his own reality."
—NoPR Chapter 7: Session 632, January 15, 1973

This suggests that rather than the physical world having the most basic root assumptions, these are more like specialized assumptions that are tailored to our physical environment.

Yes, I do too. What I meant by basic is that they are the foundation for smaller or offshoot root assumptions. Such as a belief that space and time are real, we then come up with things like cause and effect, past and future, objects and places existing in different planes. Kind of like this:

"I have only given you a few of the basic root assumptions. Countless minor ones follow from these however, and serve to direct the line of inquiry, exploration and perception."

—TES7 Session 286 September 14, 1966

There are a few sessions in TES7 that deal with root assumptions. I'm hoping to read them this afternoon.

[Kyle]

Seth doesn't list the root assumptions for physical reality in one place so here's a composite list of them:
1) Space and time are concrete, which allows us to believe in moment-by-moment action and motion and gravity.
2) Cause and effect is valid, which allows us to believe in a linear progression of a logical sequence.
3) Matter is solid, which allows us to believe in permanency of objects.
4) Consciousness is contained within the body, which allows us the illusion of complete separateness.
5) Opposites have a reality, which allows for the concept of choice between opposing ideas.

...What I meant by basic is that they are the foundation for smaller or offshoot root assumptions.

That #5 seems to have the most potential for forming offshoots. What if it's not only about choosing between opposing ideas? It's the basis for value judgments (good/bad, dark/light, beauty/ugliness, ...). And so it's also the basis for value fulfillment, which Seth writes about at length. Values tend to form polarities, don't they? I should give a reference but I have to do some more searching.