MY PERSONAL PROOF THE UNIVERSE IS NOT RANDOM

[Mark M]

"Once you accept, you see, that idea then you must, if you follow your thought completely through, accept the idea of a random accidental universe in which you are at the mercy of any accident; in which mind or purpose have little meaning; in which you are at the mercy of all random happenings..."

—Seth, ECS2 ESP Class Session, November 17, 1970

"Now: There is no such thing, basically, as random motion. There is no such thing as chaos. The universe, by whatever name and in whatever manifestation, attains its reality through ordered sequences of significances."

—Seth, NotP, Chapter 9: Session 788, September 6, 1976

For 10 years or more, I usually play a friend at Scrabble two times per week and about 90% of the time he gets the K and very very often, I get most of the 4 U's which, unless you have the Q, are rather the bummer vowel.

I will often have 2 or even 3 U's on my rack of 7 letters.

My friend often will have racks with a shortage of vowels, and often my problem is the opposite, a shortage of consonants on my rack.

What I have described happens over and over again.

Statistically speaking, I should get the K just as often as he does and he should have a U problem as often as I do. Same for those lopsided racks of either too many consonants or too many vowels.

But no, those patterns I described repeat and repeat.

It's not a random universe.

[inavalan]

"Once you accept, you see, that idea then you must, if you follow your thought completely through, accept the idea of a random accidental universe in which you are at the mercy of any accident; in which mind or purpose have little meaning; in which you are at the mercy of all random happenings..."

—Seth, ECS2 ESP Class Session, November 17, 1970

"Now: There is no such thing, basically, as random motion. There is no such thing as chaos. The universe, by whatever name and in whatever manifestation, attains its reality through ordered sequences of significances."

—Seth, NotP, Chapter 9: Session 788, September 6, 1976

For 10 years or more, I usually play a friend at Scrabble two times per week and about 90% of the time he gets the K and very very often, I get most of the 4 U's which, unless you have the Q, are rather the bummer vowel.

I will often have 2 or even 3 U's on my rack of 7 letters.

My friend often will have racks with a shortage of vowels, and often my problem is the opposite, a shortage of consonants on my rack.

What I have described happens over and over again.

Statistically speaking, I should get the K just as often as he does and he should have a U problem as often as I do. Same for those lopsided racks of either too many consonants or too many vowels.

But no, those patterns I described repeat and repeat.

It's not a random universe.

So, what do you make of this conclusion? How do you interpret it? How do you use it?

I think that it depends on what we'd call "random universe".

For example, is the text typed by a toddler on a keyboard a random text, even if we observed that some letters appear more frequently?

If I were to observe such an event, like the one you mentioned, I'd probably try to contact my inner source of knowledge and guidance, and ask for an interpretation, the deeper interpretation for me, and for the associated guidance.

There is also the possibility of your focus influencing your reality.

[Sena]

For 10 years or more, I usually play a friend at Scrabble two times per week and about 90% of the time he gets the K and very very often, I get most of the 4 U's which, unless you have the Q, are rather the bummer vowel.

I will often have 2 or even 3 U's on my rack of 7 letters.

My friend often will have racks with a shortage of vowels, and often my problem is the opposite, a shortage of consonants on my rack.

What I have described happens over and over again.

Statistically speaking, I should get the K just as often as he does and he should have a U problem as often as I do. Same for those lopsided racks of either too many consonants or too many vowels.

But no, those patterns I described repeat and repeat.

It's not a random universe.

Mark, that is interesting. I sometimes get the feeling that a particular event is "fated" to happen, or not happen, as the case may be. I don't mean determinism(absence of free will). How I see it is that the events of my life are the result of a "negotiation" between myself and All That Is.

"Certainly, when finally the two moved to the same street, neither thought of looking there, consciously. When they met, therefore our hypothetical people, they could only gasp with amazement at the ways of coincidence, and the strange fashion of chance or fate."
—TPS4 Deleted Session November 19, 1977

Seth is clear that we should not try to forcr or coerce fate:

"You cannot force reality to give you what you want. You cannot manipulate events for egotistical purposes. You can manipulate events and you can manipulate them for your own egotistical purposes; but when you do so, you give yourself a traffic ticket. You must want what is best for your own development and the development of others rather than specifically determining what you think consciously is better for you and then trying to force or coerce fate to get this for you."
—TES8 Session 403 March 16, 1968

I appreciate that Seth is clear about this, whereas some other teachers who go on about "creating your own reality" give the impression that there are no limits to what you can create.

[inavalan]

I find it interesting, and also a little disappointing how people get the same information / data, and how they interpret it differently, unconsciously, to fit their beliefs.

I understand that everything is multi-layered symbolism, and everybody gets what they can according to their level of evolvement, but that makes it so easy to see what isn't there, and waste time and energy.

I recently read this:

•     "It is certainly too simple to say what I am going to say, yet it is almost as if you would be better off turning the entire rational approach upside down, taking it for granted that all of its assumptions were false, for they are indeed more false than true (intently). Again, you see, the divisions are arbitrary on your part. The intellect is, again, the result of highly spontaneous processes of which it itself knows nothing, and the intuitions that are considered so undisciplined and unreasonable are based upon calculations far more spectacular than those of which the conscious mind can conceive. The intellect could not follow them, so the distinctions are not basic: They are the result of beliefs and habitual usage. Therefore, of course, I speak of them separately, as you think of them.
  
      The magical approach takes it for granted that the human being is a united creature, fulfilling purposes in nature even as the animals do, whether or not those purposes are understood. (Pause.) The magical approach takes it for granted that each individual has a future, a fulfilling one, even though death may be tomorrow. The magical approach takes it for granted that the means for development are within each individual, and that fulfillment will happen naturally. Overall, that approach operates in your world. If it did not, there would be no world. If the worst was bound to happen, as the scientists certainly think, even evolution, in their terms, would have been impossible, of course — a nice point to put somewhere (all intently)."
  
      "The intellect is brilliant, but on its own, now (underlined), it is indeed in its way isolated both in time and in space in a way that other portions of the personality are not. When it is overly stressed, with all of the usual frameworks or rationales that go along with it, it can indeed become frightened, paranoid, because it cannot really perceive events until they have already occurred. It does not know what will happen tomorrow, and since it is overly stressed, its paranoid tendencies can only fear the worst. Now those tendencies are not natural to the intellect, but only appear when it is forced to operate in such an isolated fashion — isolated not only in time and space, but psychologically isolated from other portions of the personality that are meant to bring it additional information that it does not possess, and a kind of magical support."
  
  --- "The Magical Approach: Seth Speaks About the Art of Creative Living (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts
  

[Sena]

I find it interesting, and also a little disappointing how people get the same information / data, and how they interpret it differently, unconsciously, to fit their beliefs.

inavalan, could you please enlarge on what you mean, in the context of this discussion. If everyone interpreted the Seth teachings in the same way, there would be no need for a forum.

[inavalan]

I find it interesting, and also a little disappointing how people get the same information / data, and how they interpret it differently, unconsciously, to fit their beliefs.

inavalan, could you please enlarge on what you mean, in the context of this discussion. If everyone interpreted the Seth teachings in the same way, there would be no need for a forum.

It was a general observation.

I don't think an argumentation is useful, as I don't think that this spiritual quest is advanced through intellectual arguments, but though individual interpretation based exclusively on inner guidance.

I think that for everyone, the only way to evolve is to tap into their own inner source of knowledge and guidance, while making their best effort to leave aside all their beliefs and expectations, in order to reduce distortions as much as possible. Any attempts to advance based on others' opinions, including gurus and dogmas, add those sources' distortions to that individual's distortions.

I plan to express opinions on the subject in discussion, with no intention to argue, just for information. I consider that these forums are a useful bouncing wall that allow people to get symbolic messages from their inner guidance.

From this perspective it isn't important what one claims, but what I understand. This way I can get a piece of knowledge that the person I interact with doesn't have, because I get it through inner guidance.

[Sena]

I plan to express opinions on the subject in discussion, with no intention to argue, just for information.

I look forward to reading your point of view.

[Deb]

Just a couple of days ago I was listening to a Dean Koontz book, and the main character said "there is order below what appears to be chaos in the universe." I thought that was pretty profound for a fiction writer.

I've been able to see, after the fact, how synchronicities in my life have worked towards seemingly predestined events. Such as unknowingly crossing paths with people (same place, same time in random distant locations) until the final actual meeting that ended up in a long term relationship. Maybe I give stuff like that too much credit, IDK. We have an enjoyable and lengthy topic here on Synchronicity. As in, there are no coincidences and so noticing a pattern (in this case the letters) may have some meaning, and attention to it can support it's continuation.

The Scrabble "coincidences" reminded me of ESP tests involving random number generators... and the observer effect too.

I understand that everything is multi-layered symbolism, and everybody gets what they can according to their level of evolvement, but that makes it so easy to see what isn't there, and waste time and energy.

There are people who are into things like numerology. Or dissecting parts of words into deeper meaning, while ignoring that the story would fall apart if they translated the same words into other languages. There are tarot cards and tea leaves, etc. Humans look for meaning in a lot of different things. But I feel that's a good practice, it encourages introspection and awareness.

As for the Seth teachings, the words may be unchanging in the books (that's been debated), but people interpret what's written based on their unique POV (upbringing, beliefs, experiences and internal definitions of words). So not everyone interprets the Seth materials, or much else in this reality, the same way. It's been educational for me to read other peoples' interpretations, it helps me to examine and some times reconsider my own. That's one of the reasons we are here.

[Mark M]

Thanks for the various musings.

Sena's quote is from a notable session:

"You cannot force reality to give you what you want. You cannot manipulate events for egotistical purposes. You can manipulate events and you can manipulate them for your own egotistical purposes; but when you do so, you give yourself a traffic ticket. You must want what is best for your own development and the development of others rather than specifically determining what you think consciously is better for you and then trying to force or coerce fate to get this for you."

—TES8 Session 403 March 16, 1968