Numbering each aspect of a dream

[Sena]

This rather mysterious passage from "The Nature of the Psyche" reveals how much Sethian dream interpretation differs from the Freudian variety:

"If you numbered each aspect of a dream, then each number would represent itself in a different numerical system entirely. The surface numbers, or the familiar ones, would still serve to explain the dream in the context of your own world. As you live in an obvious physical universe, sharing in its reality, so each of you exists in a far vaster psychological or psychic universe — surrounded by, supported by, and part of psychic or psychological entities infinite in their variety. Your smallest action affects their reality, as theirs does yours. To some extent in the dream state you can perceive such entities more clearly, as at night the stars become more apparent, physically speaking. Psychological realities cannot be compared in terms of size, or bigger or smaller, for the validity and brilliance of each existence carries a personalized intensity so unique that it overshadows any such considerations........ The psychological mobility of consciousness, however, allows for an inner kind of communication impossible to verbalize, an interlocking spiritual and biological language by which experience is directly transmuted. Many of your dreams therefore are translations of events occurring in other levels of the greater psyche." (from "The Nature of the Psyche: Its Human Expression (A Seth Book), Chapter 9" by Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/cLSs1nR

[Bora137]

A different numerical system? Does this mean different to 1, 2, 3 etc - if it does this seems completely impossible to conceive of. In the same way a new colour system would be.

Sena:

The psychological mobility of consciousness, however, allows for an inner kind of communication impossible to verbalize, an interlocking spiritual and biological language by which experience is directly transmuted.

Once in a while I will have a dream and wake with a feeling of deep profundity, like I've been far more complete for a while and been capable of experiencing complexities I can't while awake. I will try to fathom what just happened but of course without success once more compressed and compacted into this physical vehicle.

Thanks Sena a great section

[Sena]

A different numerical system? Does this mean different to 1, 2, 3 etc - if it does this seems completely impossible to conceive of. In the same way a new colour system would be.

Bora, I have just been reading physicist Max Tegmark's view that the universe is inherently mathematical. Is Seth saying that there is more than one system of mathematics? I am not sure.

Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes.

In Tegmark's view, everything in the universe — humans included — is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical, he says. And space itself has properties such as dimensions, but is still ultimately a mathematical structure.

https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html

[Tob]

A different numerical system? Does this mean different to 1, 2, 3 etc - if it does this seems completely impossible to conceive of. In the same way a new colour system would be.

Bora, I have just been reading physicist Max Tegmark's view that the universe is inherently mathematical. Is Seth saying that there is more than one system of mathematics? I am not sure.

Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes.

In Tegmark's view, everything in the universe — humans included — is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical, he says. And space itself has properties such as dimensions, but is still ultimately a mathematical structure.

https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html

'This will also have something to do with your life readings in some cases, where the personalities involved are closely entwined with your own. This is not to say that you will get false data. It is possible however that along the way true data will become distorted. I am in no way responsible for these distortions.' (session 13)

'This particular house exists. Yet you may open the door on any given day to a probable world from your immediate standpoint, and never know the difference. This happens all the time, and I mean at any time. You move through probabilities without knowing it. The transitions are literally invisible to you, though they may appear as trace elements in your dreams. As a diamond has many facets, so does your reality in that regard. Since your birth a probability has occurred that you could have followed, in which your wars did not happen. There is another probability in which the Second World War ended in nuclear destruction, and you did not enter that one either. You chose "this" probable reality in order to ask certain questions about the nature of man - seeing him where he wavered equally between creativity and destruction, knowledge and ignorance; but a point that contained potentials for the most auspicious kinds of development, in your eyes. The same applies to Ruburt.' (Session 797)

Very early in the Seth material he is already using the term 'data'. You receive 'data' to construct your specific universe. Moment for moment for moment. In UR he is presenting the example of the Christmas tree and the light. If you – in your own individualized  universe - are 'blinking' at the sequence of 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, etc. you would be getting the frames 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 (via the synapses). With a different vibration you could be getting 2, 6 11, 16, 21 and thus construct another reality. Seth is also occasionally (rarely) using the term 'frames', without explaining it carefully. The term 'capsule comprehension' is a circumscription of the holographic character of creation.

Seth did develop a 'skeleton' of basic information (Seth) in TES 2. It is about physics.  Explained from the other side. What he did develop in his books can be termed psycho-physics. In the current Seth literature the physics part is conveniently ignored and the 'psycho' part inflated with kitchen psychology. A dangerous course according to Seth. In TES 3 he provided a systematic as to what kind of dream fragments have to be interpreted in the context of which subconscious layer, thus  providing - distorted - information either coming from the collective subconscious or rather being representative of specific incarnations. And these dream fragments may follow  a numbering system as well. Mental enzymes play a key role and the non-physical counterparts of our DNA. F1 is created from F2, not the other way around.

According to Tom Campbell, there are no electrons with a negative charge and a specific 'spin'. Reality is pixelated. Electrons are points with specific traits, such as a negative charge. In the same way as the pixels on the computer screen 'are in charge' of everything which is going to be displayed, different from moment to moment to moment.

According to Seth there are different time systems. Time can 'flow' backwards, sideways or 'inward' (UR). Not yet clear to me. There is an infinite number of '1's and '2's. and an infinite number of space-s 'in between'. I assume that opens the door to an entirely new kind of mathematics.

[Sena]

In the current Seth literature the physics part is conveniently ignored and the 'psycho' part inflated with kitchen psychology and dreams. A dangerous course according to Seth. In TES 3 he provided a systematic as to what kind of dream fragments have to be interpreted in the context of which subconscious layer, thus  providing - distorted - information either coming from the collective subconscious or rather representative of specific incarnations. And these dream fragments may follow number systems as well.

Tob, thanks for drawing our attention to TES3. I wonder whether the following quotes are the kind of material you had in mind:

"If a dream object or event does so straddle what you call not only time but space, and if as I say dream objects and creations maintain some independence from the dreamer, then you must see that although the dreamer creates his dreams for his own purposes, selecting only those symbols which have meaning to him, he nevertheless projects them outward in a value fulfillment and psychic expansion. The expansion occurs, again, as the dream drama is acted out. For the dreamer a contraction occurs as he is finished with the events or drama for his own purposes, but energy cannot be taken back. Energy projected into any kind of construction, psychic or physical, cannot be recalled, but must follow the laws of the particular form into which it has been for the moment molded. Therefore, when the dreamer contracts his multi-realistic objects backward, ending for himself the so-called dream that he constructed, he ends it for himself only. But the reality of the dream continues. I do not care if this idea now appears impossible or farfetched, either to you and Ruburt or to others. The fact remains that it is so. The fact also remains that on other levels but conscious ones, you know and every individual knows that the dream world that the conscious mind believes so foolish and irrational, is indeed constructed by the inner self with utmost care, with a precision known only by the intuitions. And each individual knows that such a splendid creation as this then exists beyond the self that was its origin." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 3 of The Seth Material", Session 92 by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/aqUBh7O

[Tob]

In the current Seth literature the physics part is conveniently ignored and the 'psycho' part inflated with kitchen psychology and dreams. A dangerous course according to Seth. In TES 3 he provided a systematic as to what kind of dream fragments have to be interpreted in the context of which subconscious layer, thus  providing - distorted - information either coming from the collective subconscious or rather representative of specific incarnations. And these dream fragments may follow number systems as well.

Tob, thanks for drawing our attention to TES3. I wonder whether the following quotes are the kind of material you had in mind:

"If a dream object or event does so straddle what you call not only time but space, and if as I say dream objects and creations maintain some independence from the dreamer, then you must see that although the dreamer creates his dreams for his own purposes, selecting only those symbols which have meaning to him, he nevertheless projects them outward in a value fulfillment and psychic expansion. The expansion occurs, again, as the dream drama is acted out. For the dreamer a contraction occurs as he is finished with the events or drama for his own purposes, but energy cannot be taken back. Energy projected into any kind of construction, psychic or physical, cannot be recalled, but must follow the laws of the particular form into which it has been for the moment molded. Therefore, when the dreamer contracts his multi-realistic objects backward, ending for himself the so-called dream that he constructed, he ends it for himself only. But the reality of the dream continues. I do not care if this idea now appears impossible or farfetched, either to you and Ruburt or to others. The fact remains that it is so. The fact also remains that on other levels but conscious ones, you know and every individual knows that the dream world that the conscious mind believes so foolish and irrational, is indeed constructed by the inner self with utmost care, with a precision known only by the intuitions. And each individual knows that such a splendid creation as this then exists beyond the self that was its origin." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 3 of The Seth Material", Session 92 by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/aqUBh7O

Yes, this is one of the aspects I had in mind. What Seth is trying to tell us is different from what it looks like if you 'just' read 'Seth Speaks'. Over decades this was the only book I read. It was the only one I understood. According to Seth it is a 'summary' of the other books, a summary which is still understandable, although he does provide isolated 'cross'-references to topics such as probable systems, probable realities, time arrows running backward etc.

But the basics of his teachings are laid down in TES 2 (the 'skeleton'), and TES 3, where he tried to communicate the creation of individualized universes from F2. I.E: Creation of F1 realities on an individualized basis from F2. At the end of TES 2 he was satisfied (and proud). The 'skeleton' was there.

Thus, he tried to explain the 'reality creation mechanism' of F1, which is individualized. Everybody creates his/her own universe. Constantly. This implies recreation. Constantly as well. You are the only one in your universe.

This is just a part of his message: the description of the 'reality production mechanism' in F1. On an individual basis.

The second part is the message, that you get what you create with the vibratory level of your belief systems. Unerringly. If you stick to a set of belief systems which are quite common, in particular those enumerated in NoPR, you get a reality with which you are most likely not satisfied. Thus, it is time to change the belief systems. To the reality creation mechanism described above it doesn't matter. Whatever the vibratory level may be, you get it. It is just a neutral mechanism. Neither good nor bad. But if you are unsatisfied with your present circumstances you must investigate the underlying belief systems. And modify them. This is paramount. You cannot gloss them over. In several books Seth explicitly referred to the 'Pollyanna' effect (smiling and grinning unpleasant circumstances away). I had to look it up, I did not know what 'Pollyanna' means. It was a US show.

You cannot smile and grin the unpleasant effects away which are the result of underlying negative belief systems and their vibrations. You HAVE to deal with the belief systems (Seth). You have to replace the negative (dysfunctional) ones and replace them carefully with constructive ones. Internalize that and do your exercises. Reality will not change from Monday to Tuesday as there is a time effect implied (Seth). But things WILL begin to change.

This is his main message. You create your own reality and you do so with the vibration of your belief systems. You get 'frames' 5, 10, 15, 20, while you could get - via the synapses - 6, 11, 16, 21, i.e. a reality  which suits you better. The 'reality production mechanism' is there without any opinion of its own. It is like a machine. It produces reality in line with the vibrations it is fed with.

If you recognize some or all of the belief systems he mentioned in NoPR as being common and widespread, it is time to sit and replace them. This is an active process.

You replace belief systems with other belief systems which you design. And you do that with your brain, not randomly. You think about your old belief systems, discover where they came from and the purpose they did (successfully) serve decades earlier, then you let them go and replace them by something which is more appropriate and adjusted to your age and desires in the NOW.

Probable realities are tested in dream time. In the waking state the synapses make the choice (NoPR). They 'know' more than the brain (Seth). You cannot realize and test all probabilities. Much happens in dream time.

[Sena]

Yes, this is one of the aspects I had in mind. What Seth is trying to tell us is different from what it looks like if you 'just' read 'Seth Speaks'. Over decades this was the only book I read. It was the only one I understood. According to Seth it is a 'summary' of the other books, a summary which is still understandable, although he does provide isolated 'cross'-references to topics such as probable systems, probable realities, time arrows running backward etc.

But the basics of his teachings are laid down in TES 2 (the 'skeleton'), and TES 3, where he tried to communicate the creation of individualized universes from F2. I.E: Creation of F1 realities on an individualized basis from F2. At the end of TES 2 he was satisfied (and proud). The 'skeleton' was there.

Thus, he tried to explain the 'reality creation mechanism' of F1, which is individualized. Everybody creates his/her own universe. Constantly. This implies recreation. Constantly as well. You are the only one in your universe.

Tob, thanks for emphasizing the importance of Early Session 2 and 3. I came across Seth's reference to "elementary telepathy", which Seth distinguishes from "communication of thoughts as such".

I don't quite agree with your statement that "You are the only one in your universe." Elementary telepathy ensures that the creation of physical reality is a co-operative venture of billions of conscious entities. What is of relevance to us in our daily lives is that we co-operate with those close to us in creating our reality.

"Now. On its simplest level, and this is hardly simple, but on its most basic level, what you call telepathy operates in the following manner. Telepathy on this level is the intangible, nonmaterial communication of inner energy, or inside energy, to the physical materialization of itself within the physical field. This elementary telepathy is not the communication of thought as such, but is the communication of intent, desire and purpose. It is therefore the communication of inner energy to various still-forming aspects of itself, a blazing, so to speak, of invisible paths or bridges. And at the same time the laying down of these intangible paths serve as the inner framework over which or upon which future physical lines or structures will be laid. No physical communication systems, such as nerves and so forth, are accomplished before these invisible inner energy telepathic structures are first set forth, for these impress within the unformed physical structures the habits and ways which the physical structures will then follow; and these inside telepathic lines continue to exist within the physical structures after they are completed, and for a while after the physical structures have been broken down." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 3 of The Seth Material" Session 121 by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/bIhhkMu

[Tob]

Yes, this is one of the aspects I had in mind. What Seth is trying to tell us is different from what it looks like if you 'just' read 'Seth Speaks'. Over decades this was the only book I read. It was the only one I understood. According to Seth it is a 'summary' of the other books, a summary which is still understandable, although he does provide isolated 'cross'-references to topics such as probable systems, probable realities, time arrows running backward etc.

But the basics of his teachings are laid down in TES 2 (the 'skeleton'), and TES 3, where he tried to communicate the creation of individualized universes from F2. I.E: Creation of F1 realities on an individualized basis from F2. At the end of TES 2 he was satisfied (and proud). The 'skeleton' was there.

Thus, he tried to explain the 'reality creation mechanism' of F1, which is individualized. Everybody creates his/her own universe. Constantly. This implies recreation. Constantly as well. You are the only one in your universe.

Tob, thanks for emphasizing the importance of Early Session 2 and 3. I came across Seth's reference to "elementary telepathy", which Seth distinguishes from "communication of thoughts as such".

I don't quite agree with your statement that "You are the only one in your universe." Elementary telepathy ensures that the creation of physical reality is a co-operative venture of billions of conscious entities. What is of relevance to us in our daily lives is that we co-operate with those close to us in creating our reality.

"Now. On its simplest level, and this is hardly simple, but on its most basic level, what you call telepathy operates in the following manner. Telepathy on this level is the intangible, nonmaterial communication of inner energy, or inside energy, to the physical materialization of itself within the physical field. This elementary telepathy is not the communication of thought as such, but is the communication of intent, desire and purpose. It is therefore the communication of inner energy to various still-forming aspects of itself, a blazing, so to speak, of invisible paths or bridges. And at the same time the laying down of these intangible paths serve as the inner framework over which or upon which future physical lines or structures will be laid. No physical communication systems, such as nerves and so forth, are accomplished before these invisible inner energy telepathic structures are first set forth, for these impress within the unformed physical structures the habits and ways which the physical structures will then follow; and these inside telepathic lines continue to exist within the physical structures after they are completed, and for a while after the physical structures have been broken down." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 3 of The Seth Material" Session 121 by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/bIhhkMu

I think you are the only one in your universe. Jane and Robert sitting at one table in their apartment did actually produce two tables and two apartments. They did produce two houses and two Elmira's as well. There is a passage where Seth is explaining the construction of the other people in your universe. But at the moment I hesitate to use a term. 'Secondary' something. But 'secondary' is used for various topics in the Seth material.

What I have in mind is that he uses the term 'perspective' and 'angle'. All universes (perspectives/angles) overlap in one single point. (Jane' universe, Robert's universe, the cat's universe, and the bug's universe (TES 2). This is also the entry point for Seth into our reality. I am not yet clear how and where he did describe the commonalities and the rules according to which we have the impression to live in one single common universe. There is something in TES 2 to that effect, but I am not sure it is sufficient.

[Tob]

Yes, this is one of the aspects I had in mind. What Seth is trying to tell us is different from what it looks like if you 'just' read 'Seth Speaks'. Over decades this was the only book I read. It was the only one I understood. According to Seth it is a 'summary' of the other books, a summary which is still understandable, although he does provide isolated 'cross'-references to topics such as probable systems, probable realities, time arrows running backward etc.

But the basics of his teachings are laid down in TES 2 (the 'skeleton'), and TES 3, where he tried to communicate the creation of individualized universes from F2. I.E: Creation of F1 realities on an individualized basis from F2. At the end of TES 2 he was satisfied (and proud). The 'skeleton' was there.

Thus, he tried to explain the 'reality creation mechanism' of F1, which is individualized. Everybody creates his/her own universe. Constantly. This implies recreation. Constantly as well. You are the only one in your universe.

Tob, thanks for emphasizing the importance of Early Session 2 and 3. I came across Seth's reference to "elementary telepathy", which Seth distinguishes from "communication of thoughts as such".

I don't quite agree with your statement that "You are the only one in your universe." Elementary telepathy ensures that the creation of physical reality is a co-operative venture of billions of conscious entities. What is of relevance to us in our daily lives is that we co-operate with those close to us in creating our reality.

"Now. On its simplest level, and this is hardly simple, but on its most basic level, what you call telepathy operates in the following manner. Telepathy on this level is the intangible, nonmaterial communication of inner energy, or inside energy, to the physical materialization of itself within the physical field. This elementary telepathy is not the communication of thought as such, but is the communication of intent, desire and purpose. It is therefore the communication of inner energy to various still-forming aspects of itself, a blazing, so to speak, of invisible paths or bridges. And at the same time the laying down of these intangible paths serve as the inner framework over which or upon which future physical lines or structures will be laid. No physical communication systems, such as nerves and so forth, are accomplished before these invisible inner energy telepathic structures are first set forth, for these impress within the unformed physical structures the habits and ways which the physical structures will then follow; and these inside telepathic lines continue to exist within the physical structures after they are completed, and for a while after the physical structures have been broken down." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 3 of The Seth Material" Session 121 by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/bIhhkMu

I think you are the only one in your universe. Jane and Robert sitting at one table in their apartment did actually produce two tables and two apartments. They did produce two houses and two Elmira's as well. There is a passage where Seth is explaining the construction of the other people in your universe. But at the moment I hesitate to use a term. 'Secondary' something. But 'secondary' is used for various topics in the Seth material.

What I have in mind is that he uses the term 'perspective' and 'angle'. All universes (perspectives/angles) overlap in one single point. (Jane' universe, Robert's universe, the cat's universe, and the bug's universe (TES 2). This is also the entry point for Seth into our reality. I am not yet clear how and where he did describe the commonalities and the rules according to which we have the impression to live in one single common universe. There is something in TES 2 to that effect, but I am not sure it is sufficient.

Yes, it has to do with 'telepathy'. But as I said I have not yet found a passage where it is sufficiently explained. There is an issue with a black garden hose, which could turn into a vicious black snake if the 'originator' of the hose wouldn't take care of his initial 'production' of the idea of a black garden hose.

[Tob]

Yes, this is one of the aspects I had in mind. What Seth is trying to tell us is different from what it looks like if you 'just' read 'Seth Speaks'. Over decades this was the only book I read. It was the only one I understood. According to Seth it is a 'summary' of the other books, a summary which is still understandable, although he does provide isolated 'cross'-references to topics such as probable systems, probable realities, time arrows running backward etc.

But the basics of his teachings are laid down in TES 2 (the 'skeleton'), and TES 3, where he tried to communicate the creation of individualized universes from F2. I.E: Creation of F1 realities on an individualized basis from F2. At the end of TES 2 he was satisfied (and proud). The 'skeleton' was there.

Thus, he tried to explain the 'reality creation mechanism' of F1, which is individualized. Everybody creates his/her own universe. Constantly. This implies recreation. Constantly as well. You are the only one in your universe.

Tob, thanks for emphasizing the importance of Early Session 2 and 3. I came across Seth's reference to "elementary telepathy", which Seth distinguishes from "communication of thoughts as such".

I don't quite agree with your statement that "You are the only one in your universe." Elementary telepathy ensures that the creation of physical reality is a co-operative venture of billions of conscious entities. What is of relevance to us in our daily lives is that we co-operate with those close to us in creating our reality.

"Now. On its simplest level, and this is hardly simple, but on its most basic level, what you call telepathy operates in the following manner. Telepathy on this level is the intangible, nonmaterial communication of inner energy, or inside energy, to the physical materialization of itself within the physical field. This elementary telepathy is not the communication of thought as such, but is the communication of intent, desire and purpose. It is therefore the communication of inner energy to various still-forming aspects of itself, a blazing, so to speak, of invisible paths or bridges. And at the same time the laying down of these intangible paths serve as the inner framework over which or upon which future physical lines or structures will be laid. No physical communication systems, such as nerves and so forth, are accomplished before these invisible inner energy telepathic structures are first set forth, for these impress within the unformed physical structures the habits and ways which the physical structures will then follow; and these inside telepathic lines continue to exist within the physical structures after they are completed, and for a while after the physical structures have been broken down." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 3 of The Seth Material" Session 121 by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/bIhhkMu

I think you are the only one in your universe. Jane and Robert sitting at one table in their apartment did actually produce two tables and two apartments. They did produce two houses and two Elmira's as well. There is a passage where Seth is explaining the construction of the other people in your universe. But at the moment I hesitate to use a term. 'Secondary' something. But 'secondary' is used for various topics in the Seth material.

What I have in mind is that he uses the term 'perspective' and 'angle'. All universes (perspectives/angles) overlap in one single point. (Jane' universe, Robert's universe, the cat's universe, and the bug's universe (TES 2). This is also the entry point for Seth into our reality. I am not yet clear how and where he did describe the commonalities and the rules according to which we have the impression to live in one single common universe. There is something in TES 2 to that effect, but I am not sure it is sufficient.

Yes, it has to do with 'telepathy'. But as I said I have not yet found a passage where it is sufficiently explained. There is an issue with a black garden hose, which could turn into a vicious black snake if the 'originator' of the hose wouldn't take care of his initial 'production' of the idea of a black garden hose.

"If five people were in this room, then they would each construct, in their own personal perspective, their own image of Ruburt, which would be composed of definite, material, atoms and molecules. You would have five actual physical constructions, plus Ruburt's own. (session 69)

[Deb]

As you live in an obvious physical universe, sharing in its reality, so each of you exists in a far vaster psychological or psychic universe — surrounded by, supported by, and part of psychic or psychological entities infinite in their variety. Your smallest action affects their reality, as theirs does yours.

This is the part I find the most fascinating. He mentions in maybe a couple of places how we affect others, in other realities. It also makes me think about my all time favorite quote from the audio CDs (honor yourself), where Seth said:

You act upon those that you know and those that you do not know in ways that no other individual can ever act.

The butterfly effect?

The different math part... I can't process that. I have enough trouble mastering the math we know and love.

[strangerthings]

If my universe isnt my own someone had better inform me because when I affirm :

"MY universe is intrinsically safe" to me I refer to my very own center I do not share it with anyone else

If I walk down a path and get mugged thats my universe  not someone elses.

I am responsible for my own joy in my universe not any one elses.

In my universe the color blue/purple is always purple to me and 99% of the time it is blue to everyone else LOL
It is purple dont argue with me hahahahahahahaha
I had a pillow that was purple to me and blue to everyone else.

I can wish well beingness for others in their universe but we certainly do not share the center of MY world. That is mine bugger off. lololol

  

[Sena]

"If five people were in this room, then they would each construct, in their own personal perspective, their own image of Ruburt, which would be composed of definite, material, atoms and molecules. You would have five actual physical constructions, plus Ruburt's own. (session 69)

Tob, thanks for finding that interesting example, but I am not sure whether each of the five people creates their own universe. I'll take the example of my winning the lottery. If the money I have won belongs only to my universe, will other people accept the money from my universe?

The full quote is here:

"If five people stand observing that glass, or rather if five people seem to be observing that glass, you have five different glasses, not one. Each person constructs that glass in terms of his own personal perspective. Therefore, given the five people, there are five different perspectives and space continuums in which a glass exists. Each of the five people is aware of only one space continuum, his own, in which his physical construction exists. However each of the five people has constructed a glass. In fact you have five physical glasses. Each physical glass is constructed of quite real molecules and atoms, which have their own generalized consciousness and capsule comprehension, and which form together in the gestalt called a glass. There is a point where five perspectives overlap. If you could find this one focal point, you could glimpse, and barely glimpse, the other four, using deduction from the point of overlapping. If ten people seemingly observe this glass, you have ten personal perspectives that actually exist, ten space continuums, and ten actual glasses. Each individual is completely unaware of the other perspectives. It is as if they did not exist. Mathematically this can be worked out. The space continuums are created by each individual, in which he forms his own physical constructions. Now understanding this, you should be able to see how other planes, other reality continuums, can exist simultaneously with your own, and be unperceived consciously. This point of over lapse, or overlap, this point of overlap is extremely important, for there are points of overlapping in all universes; and this will also be a be a basic factor in travel, although not in any future in the physical universe in which you will be involved." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 2 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

https://amzn.eu/fh1dOGY

[Tob]

"If five people were in this room, then they would each construct, in their own personal perspective, their own image of Ruburt, which would be composed of definite, material, atoms and molecules. You would have five actual physical constructions, plus Ruburt's own. (session 69)

Tob, thanks for finding that interesting example, but I am not sure whether each of the five people creates their own universe. I'll take the example of my winning the lottery. If the money I have won belongs only to my universe, will other people accept the money from my universe?

The full quote is here:

"If five people stand observing that glass, or rather if five people seem to be observing that glass, you have five different glasses, not one. Each person constructs that glass in terms of his own personal perspective. Therefore, given the five people, there are five different perspectives and space continuums in which a glass exists. Each of the five people is aware of only one space continuum, his own, in which his physical construction exists. However each of the five people has constructed a glass. In fact you have five physical glasses. Each physical glass is constructed of quite real molecules and atoms, which have their own generalized consciousness and capsule comprehension, and which form together in the gestalt called a glass. There is a point where five perspectives overlap. If you could find this one focal point, you could glimpse, and barely glimpse, the other four, using deduction from the point of overlapping. If ten people seemingly observe this glass, you have ten personal perspectives that actually exist, ten space continuums, and ten actual glasses. Each individual is completely unaware of the other perspectives. It is as if they did not exist. Mathematically this can be worked out. The space continuums are created by each individual, in which he forms his own physical constructions. Now understanding this, you should be able to see how other planes, other reality continuums, can exist simultaneously with your own, and be unperceived consciously. This point of over lapse, or overlap, this point of overlap is extremely important, for there are points of overlapping in all universes; and this will also be a be a basic factor in travel, although not in any future in the physical universe in which you will be involved." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 2 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

https://amzn.eu/fh1dOGY

What else do you need?

Software developers are currently dealing with exactly the same aspects when developing interactive computer games. You get another perspective of the 'common universe' than others. You never see your forehead. Others can see it. And if YOU are in a position to be in any new, probable universe the very next moment, depending on your vibration, you must have a maximum of independence. You cannot constantly ask billions of people for permission to shift to a probable reality and they should follow, because you need a few people around there as well to have the impression to be at home.

You are creating your own universe. You are creating YOUR versions of others. The ones with the forehead. I think the term he uses is 'primary and secondary construction'. And you do that constantly because your universe is 'blinking'. One moment later you are in another universe as you have created another one. And if it is different enough from the first one you call it 'shifting'. Isn't that the parlance of basically all the esoteric folks?

Well, there is a physical basis to it and before you come to the 'shifting' tralala you have to deal with the basis. And Seth did that by providing what he called the 'skeleton' in TES 2. To be enriched with more and additional information whenever Jane Robert's condition allowed the transmission of these specific kinds of information (i.e. when her subconscious did not block). Thus, one has to bring the bits and pieces of information together. By reading the books carefully and systematically. And once you have done that you do not begin anymore a Seth presentation with a lecture on the 'sinful self'. Because his teachings are basically not about 'sinful selves' or 'un-sinful selves', but about the individualized creation of reality. Your personal F1 creation. Created from F2.

[strangerthings]

My individuality is my universe.

My soul is my universe.

My mind is my mind. With many mansions!

My thoughts are mine, my emotions are mine, my beliefs are mine, my imagination is mine and they exist in my universe.

My perspective. My psychological world I am the center of.

@Sena if you went in on the ticket with others then you share. When you win the lottery you have to give it all to me LOL since I think its mine. teehee Im totally making a joke.

My dreamverse is mine although I might perceive others in it. IT is all mine. mine mine mine

When I astral travel I am ..... meeting others that are too astral traveling. Their path is theirs mine is mine.

OBE same thing.

Sharing doesnt mean to me that I still do not have my own space continuum. Its my space. I choose to share if I want.

Maybe the word "reality" is helpful in so far as "my reality" is my universe. Yours is yours. To me it is the totality of my existence up to right now. How can that possibly belong to another?

We view life and others etc through our soul first. I do not even see anothers soul to which they view me through their own soul. Like Seth says, if we focus enough we can.

It is like "more than one earth" ...space is not wasted....overlapping earths and yet each unique.


Un=not
I = 1
Verse= https://www.etymonline.com/word/*wer-?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_52647

Not one verse but MANY! I am a multi verse being. I am a multi dimensional being. I sing many songs at once but can you hear them?

words make a verse in a song. There is more than one verse. Usually. Never can one be sang identically as you sang it one minute ago. It is always turning, changing, bending the chords to sing. so to speak.

words make a verse in poetry.

Verse 10 Chapter 3 ... many different verses and yet still a verse.

Multi Verse.

1 can not exist without the O in ONE and its always on E.

That might confuse some people but my point is that -- My VERSE is not your VERSE. And yet we are looking at the very directed focus of a glass just not the same glass. They are not identical. If you made a coat, and I asked you to make me one just like it, will you make the EXACT same coat? No. You might stitch a little off to the left instead of the right. The buttons might have a little more thread because the one you made for yourself did not have enough thread and the bottom button keeps popping off ...so you learned and made it better improving it. Or ... Even cut from the same cloth your thoughts will be different when you make my coat. Different songs playing on the radio, completely different psychological atmosphere. Your coat is yours, making it completely different than MY coat that is mine. Even the ownership changes the coat. After a few years of wearing the coat, my smell is different on the coat,  the oils differ, my travels have differed so the threads might be different and more worn. etc etc. It will perhaps only appear to be the same coat especially when new. But no threaded coat is made the same.

I do not sing the verse in a song the same way someone else will. But it is still a verse. It is still the glass. It is still a cup.

My cup runneth over .... I am so grateful!

Yours might be half full!
Theirs might be empty.
But the cup is there.

[Sena]

The idea that each person lives in his or her own universe is fantasy.
What is credible is the idea of a branching multiverse:

You cannot view this attachment.

A branching multiverse enable one to create one's own reality. If I change my beliefs, I can move to a safe branch of the multiverse.
There are likely to be billions of people on the same branch as me, but very irritating people might be on a different branch. If a relationship ends acrimoniously, it means that the two people have chosen to be on different branches.

http://www.godel-universe.com/mwi-trees/

[Tob]

The idea that each person lives in his or her own universe is fantasy.
What is credible is the idea of a branching multiverse:

You cannot view this attachment.

A branching multiverse enable one to create one's own reality. If I change my beliefs, I can move to a safe branch of the multiverse.
There are likely to be billions of people on the same branch as me, but very irritating people might be on a different branch. If a relationship ends acrimoniously, it means that the two people have chosen to be on different branches.

http://www.godel-universe.com/mwi-trees/

Yes. You are person A creating the person A universe in F1. With the help of mental enzymes and the non-physical counterparts of your DNA plus 'idea construction' (and a lot of other things). You add another frame, another moment, by creating the next universe, and the next and the next. And in line with your belief systems (the vibratory levels) you get A1, A2, or B1 or B2 or C1 or C2. You 'decide'. In each new construction of your reality (constantly newly created) you find billions of inhabitants (theoretically), de facto a few hundred or dozens of colleagues and acquaintances, etc. And you create these persons in your reality. In the same way as you create the glass, and the table. YOU create them.

And others create their version of you in THEIR reality. All different realities (glasses, tables etc.) exist (Seth) in the sense that they are composed of atoms and molecules. I do not see 'your' glass in my reality. I see 'my glass' in my reality, because everything created in my reality is 'created' by me. You don't see 'my glass' in your reality. You see your version of the 'gestalt of a glass, which has been created beforehand as an idea construction. Apart from the fact that nothing 'exists' at all because it is all a camouflage (F1). With the exception of the ideas themselves. They do exist (Seth).

But if you know that there is a 'neutral' reality production mechanism (in F1) and that you get whatever you are the vibration of - in particular with reference to your belief systems- then it becomes understandable how sources such as Seth can recommend and postulate that in case you are not satisfied with your reality you have the option to change it 'immediately' (with a time lag according to Seth).

Actually there are no universes at all, as it is all camouflage (Seth). But what you perceive in your environment is created by you. It is not 'objectively there'.

And there is an overlap mechanism with the 'universes/realities' created by others so that you all have the impression to live in one common universe. In a cinema you concentrate on the film, not on the pixels or the projector. You get the impression to be immersed in the activity on the screen. At any given moment you could however concentrate on the popcorn, the icecream, the pixels, the projector, the distractions and the noise behind you. Usually you prefer to concentrate on the activities on the screen, not on the pixels or the projector. According to Seth what we perceive as reality does not exist. It is a projection and it is highly individualized. And it can be changed on an individual basis. That is his main message.

If you listen to quantum physiscists you can hear them more and more often say that there is 'no out there' out there. It is all a projection. Nevertheless they go camping, to the cinema and have fun. And while they have fun they do not think about the 'pixelization' of their fun.

The key terms of Seth regarding the production of realities in F1 is 'primary and secondary construction'.

The bug in Jane's appartment lived longer and was fatter in the universe/reality created by cat Willie. The bug created by Robert Butts in his own universe/reality had a different colour than the bug  created by Jane Roberts in her apartment. This is the information provided by Seth in his books (TES2). It does not make sense to say it is fantasy. Maybe it is fantasy but it is the information he tried to convey. And it is part of a much larger system of information. Discarding that would require reading and understanding the books systematically first. Then one could come to the conclusion that the whole thing is fantasy, or nonsense, or full of errors, or whatever. So far this work has not yet been done.

As far as I understand from the Seth-related literature the physics aspects have not yet been analyzed. They have been systematically ignored. This is fully understandable as it is just not possible to read 7000 pages of complicated material where dozens if not hundreds of technical terms have been used, mostly none of them pre-established. And if one technical issue is explained by using and resorting to 5 or 10 other technical issues which are covered or introduced 4 or 5 books earlier it is obvious that such an analysis would take years, if not much longer.

Seth did produce a 'skeleton' in TES 2. To him a lot has been achieved at the end of that book. He was very proud. Transmitting the information was not easy, for example Jane Roberts was not versed in the techncal terms (Seth encouraged her to read books about astrophysics) or her subconscious just blocked the transmission. This was the case when Seth tried to explain the reality production mechanism of F1 (early TES 3). The session had to be terminated. It was the first session which was unsuccessful. Thus it seems that Seth was using every occasion he got to transmit bits and pieces of the larger picture he intended to transmit. This is the reason why the information seems to be so uncoordinated sometimes. And the non-coordination (from our point of view) is for us the reason why it is so difficult to read his books and bring bits and pieces together.

In a way I assume the most realistic statement was his last sentence in NoPR:

'centuries before the beginning of what seems to have begun'.

[strangerthings]

I can move to a safe branch of the multiverse.

All the branches on the tree are safe .
It is you on the branch that deems it so.
However, because someone's version of the branch is safe does not mean that my version on the branch is safe (even though it is).

It is like saying "I live in a safe universe" rather than saying, "the universe is safe."

I am the center of my world. So me saying "my universe" is like saying "my reality".

My universe within the universe that you know. That too is a multiverse.

Macrocosm and Microcosm.

I am the microcosm within the macrocosm. However they are the same thing. lol

The word "version" is rooted in "VER / WER". VERSE ION

I am an ion within this VERSion. Or, I am a VERSE within an ion.

The perspectives and psychological aspects of my world is the home I return to. My home is my center, it's my corner of the world, of this universe and for me that is the universe. However, it includes everyone in it, just... my version of them.

How many All That Is -- is there? And All That Is ---- IS --- All That Is. lol

My truth is not your truth. My god is not your god. But nonetheless there is a "god". I am a god in training. No one can prophecy my life but me. For if that were not so my Inner Being would have told me by now.

My Entity and all that we encompass, is my universe. We all fit inside of a nut sized concentrated "ball" of energy.

The ball of energy is just that. A ball of energy. You have one, she has one, he has one, I have one.

Nonetheless, a ball of energy is still "a ball of energy". The ball is there and we copy copy copy its foundation and form one of our own. We use its construct here, the rules of the game for such a construct.

And we then construct our own ball.

Its still a "ball" still a glass ..... but uniquely designed by .... me. Now I have a ball too.

BTW whats wrong with fantasy? teehee Is that not where my imagination thrives? Some would say, to create your reality is mere fantasy...and to that I say HALLELUJAH! WOOHOO

For without fantasy we would be in sad sad shape IMO.

[Sena]

All the branches on the tree are safe .

St, I am not sure that all branches are safe. In order to live a safe universe, we need to understand what could make the universe unsafe.  Seth had a lot to say about a person called John Nelson, one of the officials at Jane's publishing company,  who was apparently living in an unsafe universe:

"Ruburt's methods of dealing with such a situation were highly apparent, in his physical symptoms. Yours were not as easy to perceive. They did not show. In an unsafe universe you run your personal life along certain lines. This applies generally more or less, and specifically to you also. In that context you do not trust good fortune—indeed, it seems practical not to trust it. You hide good fortune for fear it will be taken away. It does not seem to belong in an unsafe universe. You do not tell people that you are doing well—you tell them that you must work from morning to night; that you do not have enough time. You have to prove that you are as hassled as they are.

[... 5 paragraphs ...]

(9:40.) You have built up the idea of free time being wrong, sinful, no matter what you tell yourself about wanting more of it. That is one thing. Deeper, however, is the fact that the belief in an unsafe universe sets up certain habits of resistance, and more practically, of self-protection. The resistance is protective. It shows itself in fears that seem perfectly realistic, and indeed highly practical—the feeling itself is not let go of easily, for you and others rely upon it. It is a state of alarm and readiness. You are so used to feeling unsafe that you consider alarm of one kind or another as a realistic approach to life.

When you begin to realize that you do indeed live in a safe universe, these patterns of reaction begin to break up. To some extent however as they do you can feel weaponless, or unprotected. Then you read the newspaper and you see that New York City is in great financial difficulty. In a certain way this is almost reassuring, because it correlates with the old habitual belief system that says "Aha, yes, there is a threat. I was right all along." Thus the older beliefs momentarily feel their old unity, and it is, again, realistic behavior to feel yourself also threatened.

The body is then pushed in different directions, with resulting strain. Before, you would accept that threat as realistic. The entire context of the unsafe universe protects itself by comments such as "It is too good to be true," where any good is immediately suspect, while bad effects are considered quite natural.


(To me:) Your symptoms have been reassuring to the portion of you that habitually followed the old line of thinking. The reasoning falls thusly: "Everything is going well. The books are selling. Ruburt is definitely improving. With so much right, something must go wrong, or things would not go right," meaning realistic. Beside this the dis-ease serves to protect you from the frightening "fear" that if everything goes well something must be wrong, because in an unsafe universe that is a belief. So you provide a "little" wrong to preserve the larger good.

[... 4 paragraphs ...]

There, you have made some good strides. Your good strides there, however, led to your momentary-enough concern with New York City's economic fate. Your beliefs in the safe universe are spreading. That is why you used the symptoms "just in case." In the unsafe universe, however, you—not you alone—believe that something good will be fought over. The books prove their merit in that reality, because they are fought over to whatever degree.

[... 2 paragraphs ...]

In your world, however, and according to your beliefs, some "realistic" events had to prove out the practicality of the safe universe in publishing terms —so you have a creative conflict.

At John's level, and in his unsafe universe, the events still prove how valuable the books are, since, to whatever extent, they are fought over. At Ruburt's level and your own, the events show you that the universe, as it applies to your publishing world is safe—with leeway for action—and also opens up creative relationships with people at Prentice that were latent before. Now, these become "practical," where before they were not considered so. This means that a great deal of energy is released.

[... 2 paragraphs ...]

Worrying about taxes, again to whatever degree, is the same sort of thing. It is as if you can trust your abundance only if you can prove to yourselves that there is a threat connected with it, or say "After all, it is not all that good." These are all examples, yet they point out habitual reactions that belong to the unsafe universe, that seem appropriate and realistic there.


(10:46.) You cannot equivocate, you or Ruburt. You cannot say "I live in a safe universe, but—" —but anything. You cannot say "I live in a safe universe, but I am threatened by the economic problems of my state," move to Pennsylvania, or to Timbuktu (humorously intent). It will make no difference, because the threat will follow you and erupt in one way or another, while you believe in that system.


—TPS3 Deleted Session October 20, 1975

It occurred to me that religion, especially the Roman Catholic religion, fosters a belief that we are living in an unsafe universe. As I was brought up as a Catholic, I have to overcome negative thought processes in order to live a safe universe.

[strangerthings]

@Sena ,

Absolutely!

All of that!

Sometimes I have to clarify what I say because what I am saying is not always clearly typed out. Yay me

I mean that the potential is there for every branch. We choose to live or not live in its abundance and safety.

Thats all I meant.

And that the abundance is there, the comfort and safety and good fortune is there. We have to feel out for it and hold on to it.

HAve faith that is is there and we have it.

Whoops! lol

My bran moves so fast sometimes my fingers just can not keep up. lol