Seth’s probable realities – a philosophical interpretation

[Sena]

The concept of "probable realities" is an important aspect of the Seth teachings:
"From any given point of your existence, however, you can glimpse other probable realities, and sense the reverberations of probable actions beneath those physical decisions that you make. Some people have done this spontaneously, often in the dream state. Here the rigid assumptions of normal waking consciousness often fade, and you can find yourself performing those physically rejected activities, never realizing that you have peered into a probable existence of your own." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)", Session 565 by Jane Roberts)

Bernardo Kastrup is a Dutch philosopher who was recommended to us by member @leidl . Kastrup has not, to my knowledge, read the Seth books. I find it interesting that Kastrup's philosophical reasoning has brought him to concepts which are similar to the Seth teachings. Obviously, Kastrup uses different terminology, and I shall first indicate what I think are equivalent terms used by him:

"All That Is" (Seth) = "mind-at-large" (Kastrup) = "Universal Consciousness (Kastrup)
"Entities" (Seth) = "multiple, parallel meta-alters in mind-at-large" (Kastrup)
"Probable reality" (Seth) = "Dissociated dream" (Kastrup)

The following is a quote from one of Kastrup's books in which he puts forward an idea similar to the Sethian concept of probable realities:
"Consensus reality is a particular 'dream' of mind-at-large. I am well aware that this view sounds peculiar at first sight, but essays 2.1 and 2.2 of this book substantiate it in depth. Here, all I ask is that you temporarily suspend your disbelief and entertain this view for the sake of argument. If mind-at-large can dream up an entire world and also has the potential to split itself into dissociated alters, then nothing precludes the possibility that multiple dreams may be unfolding concurrently in mind-at-large. Allow me to unpack this: as mentioned above, each person is a dissociated alter of mind-at-large, partaking in a collective dream that we call consensus reality. Our individual psyches unite at a deep, obfuscated level, and the dream of consensus reality is anchored in that unified level. This is why we are able to share the dream. But perhaps there are multiple, hierarchical, nested and parallel levels of dissociation and alter formation. Perhaps our individual psyches unite not at the ground level of mind-at-large, but at an intermediary level that is itself dissociated from other intermediary levels. We human beings may be alters of a meta-alter, and there may be multiple, parallel meta-alters in mind-at-large. As a matter of fact, there may be meta-meta-alters, and meta-meta-meta-alters, etc. So the hypothesis is that, as our consensus reality is the dream of a meta-alter in mind-at-large, other meta-alters are having other dreams in parallel to ours. Each of those dissociated dreams is a world in its own merit. Multiple, perhaps countless dreams are unfolding in the hierarchy of dissociation of mind-at-large, somewhat analogously to the parallel universes that physicists like to talk about. Each of these dreams has its own storyline: its own internal logic, physics, history and living inhabitants." (from "Brief Peeks Beyond: Critical Essays on Metaphysics, Neuroscience, Free Will, Skepticism and Culture" by Bernardo Kastrup)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/4YDmjFN

[inavalan]

It is fascinating how many people, in their own ways, get a glimpse of the wider-reality, and at some point each one runs away with their own interpretation. Once that happens, the original direct knowledge gets filtered and distorted by the individual beliefs, and by attempts to rationalization.

While I agree with the multi layered gestalt structure of reality, I have doubts about the concept of all that is.

Also, while I believe that in the wider-reality there must be an infinite number of frameworks of development, of which our physical-reality is one, in my understanding they aren't related to the concept of probable  / possible realities.

The probable realities that we as physical incarnations deal with, are specific to our physical-reality, and are explored or not by each participant function of the choices they individually make using their individual free will, exercised at the outer-self / ego level.

The model / analogy I envision, is a hyperspace with one hyperdimension being "time", another hyperdimension being the "3d physical space", and another being the "probability / possibilities space".

This hyperspace can be easily understood if we think of a video game, with its game-time, virtual game-space, and function of the choices the player makes, different path through the story of the game are taken.

If several people play the same game on line, they are simultaneously playing different possible scenarios of the game, a.k.a. different probabilities.

[strangerthings]

@inavalan

I dont agree



It is fascinating how many people, in their own ways, get a glimpse of the wider-reality, and at some point each one runs away with their own interpretation. Once that happens, the original direct knowledge gets filtered and distorted by the individual beliefs, and by attempts to rationalization.



***You sort of just described the process of birth.

***I disagree with your interpretation by calling it distorted etc How do you know their path is distorted?! It could very well lead one to their highest self.

***Everyone adds to the database.

While I agree with the multi layered gestalt structure of reality, I have doubts about the concept of all that is.

*** honest question(s): which portions of All That Is do you doubt? Our connectedness? Our agony ? Our love and support? Our creativity? The concept of "All"?

Also, while I believe that in the wider-reality there must be an infinite number of frameworks of development, of which our physical-reality is one, in my understanding they aren't related to the concept of probable  / possible realities.


***Also your interpretation and filtered, rationalized, and full of beliefs. My truth is not yours and visa-versa. There are also probable frameworks and possible ones born spontaneously.

The probable realities that we as physical incarnations deal with, are specific to our physical-reality, and are explored or not by each participant function of the choices they individually make using their individual free will, exercised at the outer-self / ego level.

***And the inner self. The inner world. The personage. Entity. Personality. Value fulfillment. Psychological climates, psychic memory. I could go on and on. This maturing ground, Earth, isnt just for the outer self.


The model / analogy I envision, is a hyperspace with one hyperdimension being "time", another hyperdimension being the "3d physical space", and another being the "probability / possibilities space".


***Time is an illusion. There is moment point. Spacious present. Hyperspace would thus be "hyper"spacious. There is not separation as you place it so. Camouflage yes. Including your boundaries. Im using the Seth material and experience here to come to my ...in the moment answer. And to me your theory cuts out an inner connectedness to the unlimited spacious present. Which is beyond the top of the mountain you currently choose to see.

 This hyperspace can be easily understood if we think of a video game, with its game-time, virtual game-space, and function of the choices the player makes, different path through the story of the game are taken.

If several people play the same game on line, they are simultaneously playing different possible scenarios of the game, a.k.a. different probabilities.

***with one minor problem... life is real not a game. Games dont include the heart of life. This here refers to the game as the entity or person in a probable life. The people being the game's personas. And that doesnt sit with me at all. My entity isnt a game nor are its probable selves. Big difference. Its like not accounting for the person blowing up the balloon yet saying its expanding and only creating an equation for the expanding balloon and not the "who" that blows.

***Probable reality is if I chose to even play a game another me chose not to. Or, created a reality where this option never occurs. Or I dont play the game and I scour and fish for info or people in the game. Your assumption assumes these people are "playing" "one" game. Then there are variants as to what they are doing while they play and who is around or what surprises life brings while someone plays. Also, the people playing the game, on one earth, have different hair colors in their other realities. Eye color too. Hair lengths differ. Some would not have a mom or dad or siblings or have siblings. Some would have their own children or not.

***Plus a few playing the same game differs so because the variants are way too controlled. For example: do they all have sight? Fingers? Hearing? Maybe someone broke their hand here but not the other reality.

*** have you played with your inner senses yet? Been so aware in the dream state you ask questions and get answers immediately? Time is a camouflage. I find it is here as an aid to our maturing ground. If your thoughts happened instantly many things would cease to be !

-------

*** in reverse time is emit.

***same word same letters and its a part of the word "time" I find it interesting that I see "ti me" as in to bind. And emit means what it does. And phonetically in reverse its kind of saying "am it". M It.  (MIT ? lol)

Words are merely symbols of multi-dimensional concepts. Meant to be understood from many points of viewing.

Then theres the whole temporal and temple views. 

[strangerthings]

@Sena

Interesting. Seth mentioned quite a few times that others didnt need Seth to arrive at this info. I appreciate Seth not using these terms though lol

It can get a little confusing like doing a family tree lol great great great great great grandpa or twice removed etc 

[inavalan]

@strangerthings

I can't make sense of what you're saying.

[Sena]

I appreciate Seth not using these terms though lol

Yes, some of Kastrp's terms are a mouthful!

Probably the best of Kastrup's books to start on would be "Rationalist Spirituality". It is available for download here:

https://book4you.org/book/5935765/5d529e