"Arrival" movie

[myststars]

Hi All

I just saw the movie arrival and i recommend to all who wants something profound.The plot may be "simple" when read it  but the movie itself is profound.Each and every one of you will have a personal experience.It mirrored some stuff in myself and i transceded it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2543164/?pf_rd_m=A2FGELUUNOQJNL&pf_rd_p=2495768522&pf_rd_r=1QDSNJQA3KEMV5V6PHB1&pf_rd_s=right-7&pf_rd_t=15061&pf_rd_i=homepage&ref_=hm_cht_t3


Enjoy!

[Bumblebee]

I saw it and REALLY loved it! I haven't seen a similar intelligent movie in a very long time. I also recommend it!

[Sena]

I just saw the movie arrival and i recommend to all who wants something profound.

@myststars , thanks for recommending Arrival (2016). I am currently watching it for the second time. I found an interesting article about the film in this book: "Changed in a Flash: One Woman's Near-Death Experience and Why a Scholar Thinks It Empowers Us All" by Krohn, Elizabeth G, Kripal, Jeffrey.

A quote from the book:

What so delighted me about Arrival is that Hollywood finally got it right. This was no silly shoot-'em-up space western, with Will Smith punching out an alien or the Marines rescuing Los Angeles from ugly extraterrestrial monsters. The military was present in Arrival, of course, but it worked only by not working, that is, by holding back. The military, for once in such a movie, practiced wise restraint. And when the haters of our fake propaganda news (you know who I mean) inspired some soldiers to carry a bomb onto the floating alien craft, the result was not an open war, but once again restraint, this time on the part of the wise aliens.

Even more telling, it was not the physicist Ian Donnelly (played by Jeremy Renner) who provided the goods to save the day. Rather, it was Louise Banks (played by Amy Adams), the expert linguist, the academic who specialized in human language and the subtleties of interpretation. The (male) physicist-mathematician was there for support and occasional insight, yes, but his forms of knowledge were minor and more or less useless. Pretty much everything relied on the intuitions of the (female) linguist and her willingness to be vulnerable and physically exposed to the alien presence. She took a stance that was anything but aggressive, military, and male. She literally took her protective suit off to stand before the tentacled aliens and communicate with them visually, physically, and even, we imagine, spiritually. She took a stance of communion.

Once such a stance is established and operationalized, the narrative plays out through a series of communications that are at first misinterpreted but eventually read correctly. It is not guns and bombs that save the world, but communion, communication, and, above all, paranormal interpretation. The octopi-like aliens, for example, spin an inky circle that apparently means, "There is no time." At first, the human team thinks that this means, "You are out of time. It is too late." But this is not what the aliens are communicating. They mean something like, "There is no such thing as time. Time is an illusion." Or as they put it, "All is one."

If there is any unifying message of the world's mystical traditions, by the way, that is it.

They also communicated the messages, "Louise has the weapon" and "Use the weapon." Yikes. That is what they seemed to say, anyway. But what Louise Banks possesses is not a "weapon." Again, that is the wrong interpretation. Rather, what she has is a "gift." And misinterpreting this single word—"gift" as "weapon"—could spell disaster for the entire planet, since the phrase "Use the weapon" seems to imply: "Use your nuclear arsenal. We are threatening you." But this violent military reading is all wrong. This is not what the aliens are communicating with their Zen-like circles of emptiness and enlightenment. The gift, it turns out, is Louise's paranormal ability to see outside of time, and in particular to see the future. Louise is learning to think and cognize outside of linear time. She is learning to accept as a precious gift what feels like a terrible curse. It feels like a terrible curse because throughout the movie she is in fact precognizing the early death of her own precious daughter, not yet born, from a rare and incurable disease. Significantly, we as viewers, caught in our own (false) assumptions about linear time, assume that these scenes are flashbacks to the past. But she is remembering the future, not the past. We don't get it, until we do.

Another kind of circle.

And this, it turns out, is the reason the aliens have landed, to teach us about the illusion of time. This is the goal of their global "invasion." In three thousand years, they will need our help, so they are giving us help now.

"Time is an illusion" is clearly a Sethian theme, meaning that past, present, and future are simultaneous.

[Tob]

I just saw the movie arrival and i recommend to all who wants something profound.

@myststars , thanks for recommending Arrival (2016). I am currently watching it for the second time. I found an interesting article about the film in this book: "Changed in a Flash: One Woman's Near-Death Experience and Why a Scholar Thinks It Empowers Us All" by Krohn, Elizabeth G, Kripal, Jeffrey.

A quote from the book:

What so delighted me about Arrival is that Hollywood finally got it right. This was no silly shoot-'em-up space western, with Will Smith punching out an alien or the Marines rescuing Los Angeles from ugly extraterrestrial monsters. The military was present in Arrival, of course, but it worked only by not working, that is, by holding back. The military, for once in such a movie, practiced wise restraint. And when the haters of our fake propaganda news (you know who I mean) inspired some soldiers to carry a bomb onto the floating alien craft, the result was not an open war, but once again restraint, this time on the part of the wise aliens.

Even more telling, it was not the physicist Ian Donnelly (played by Jeremy Renner) who provided the goods to save the day. Rather, it was Louise Banks (played by Amy Adams), the expert linguist, the academic who specialized in human language and the subtleties of interpretation. The (male) physicist-mathematician was there for support and occasional insight, yes, but his forms of knowledge were minor and more or less useless. Pretty much everything relied on the intuitions of the (female) linguist and her willingness to be vulnerable and physically exposed to the alien presence. She took a stance that was anything but aggressive, military, and male. She literally took her protective suit off to stand before the tentacled aliens and communicate with them visually, physically, and even, we imagine, spiritually. She took a stance of communion.

Once such a stance is established and operationalized, the narrative plays out through a series of communications that are at first misinterpreted but eventually read correctly. It is not guns and bombs that save the world, but communion, communication, and, above all, paranormal interpretation. The octopi-like aliens, for example, spin an inky circle that apparently means, "There is no time." At first, the human team thinks that this means, "You are out of time. It is too late." But this is not what the aliens are communicating. They mean something like, "There is no such thing as time. Time is an illusion." Or as they put it, "All is one."

If there is any unifying message of the world's mystical traditions, by the way, that is it.

They also communicated the messages, "Louise has the weapon" and "Use the weapon." Yikes. That is what they seemed to say, anyway. But what Louise Banks possesses is not a "weapon." Again, that is the wrong interpretation. Rather, what she has is a "gift." And misinterpreting this single word—"gift" as "weapon"—could spell disaster for the entire planet, since the phrase "Use the weapon" seems to imply: "Use your nuclear arsenal. We are threatening you." But this violent military reading is all wrong. This is not what the aliens are communicating with their Zen-like circles of emptiness and enlightenment. The gift, it turns out, is Louise's paranormal ability to see outside of time, and in particular to see the future. Louise is learning to think and cognize outside of linear time. She is learning to accept as a precious gift what feels like a terrible curse. It feels like a terrible curse because throughout the movie she is in fact precognizing the early death of her own precious daughter, not yet born, from a rare and incurable disease. Significantly, we as viewers, caught in our own (false) assumptions about linear time, assume that these scenes are flashbacks to the past. But she is remembering the future, not the past. We don't get it, until we do.

Another kind of circle.

And this, it turns out, is the reason the aliens have landed, to teach us about the illusion of time. This is the goal of their global "invasion." In three thousand years, they will need our help, so they are giving us help now.

"Time is an illusion" is clearly a Sethian theme, meaning that past, present, and future are simultaneous.

According to Bashar the film 'Arrival' is realistic. In the same way as the book 'A.D. After Disclosure', which he encourages us to read. According to him the window of open contact will begin in 2023. From then on he will no longer be communicating through Darryl, at least not to the general public. (The announced timeframes, however, are constantly subject to change, as there is no such thing as the prediction of 'the future' and Bashar has not been overly 'reliable' so far.)

According to him there is an 'Open Contact Protocol'. Developed by them, not by us. What they want to avoid is turmoil and commotion on the planet. Furthermore, open contact is about interaction with the entire planet, not just humans. Thus there is an ongoing communication with dolphins and other species as well.

It has definitely nothing to do with the Pentagon in the sense that the issue of nuclear weapons etc. is involved. This is a reflection of outmoded belief systems (by the way, why don't we associate the Kremlin, or Montenegro, or the Club Mediterranee?).

Essassani ships are in any case currently deployed over the Pentagon, the Kremlin and the respective site in China. But not to await or initiate military contacts with high ranking commands, etc. Rather to surveil the reactions of the military. In the same way as the nuclear launch codes have been deactivated several times by the ships.

The communication with Bashar is far more complicated than we think. There is not just the translation of 'something' into English. The messages from Bashar come from the ship which is conscious. It does represent his higher mind. It has been grown. Syntax is of overarching importance. Before translating messages or information into English, they have to be translated from a kind of higly formalized syntax structure into something which can then be communicated by Bashar to Darryl Anka. The formalized syntax is the key element  and may be the reason why much of the information is in the end highly repetitive. As the transmission process is multi-layered and so complicated, information which has been transmitted once will be more easily transmitted a second time if it is unchanged. It may also be the reason why hieroglyphs are said to be found on the outside of crashed U.F.O.s.

There are several types of U.F.Os with different kinds of propulsion systems. The ones which are used to be at the other end of the universe within a fraction of a second are making use of the constant recreation of the universe. From one moment to the next they are in the respective frame where they want to be - without intermediate travelling from A to B. Bashar did explain the principle several times, including in this video:



This is what Seth meant when he said that once we discover how to travel from one point in space to the other without the baggage of fuel etc. we will have gone 'inside' (F2 in his parlance), without noticing that at first.

Other U.F.Os did and do in fact crash. There are different kinds of propulsion systems. According to Bashar the crashing U.F.O.s may be part of a larger agenda, which we do not understand and which he does not want to talk about. Similar to the much larger dimensions of 'Napoleon-related activities' in various reality systems mentioned by Seth (TES6), which we equally cannot grasp in their entirety as long as we are incarnate.

[Sena]

According to Bashar the film 'Arrival' is realistic. In the same way as the book 'A.D. After Disclosure', which he encourages us to read. According to him the window of open contact will begin in 2023.

Tob, interesting prediction about 2023.

[Deb]

"Changed in a Flash: One Woman's Near-Death Experience and Why a Scholar Thinks It Empowers Us All" by Krohn, Elizabeth G, Kripal, Jeffrey.

Thanks for the tip on this book. Great quote too. I've been interested in NDEs and OBEs lately, Eben Alexander renewed my interest.

The part about misunderstanding/miscommunication makes so much sense too. It reminded me of the comedic "Mars Attacks" movie where a person in the crowd released a white dove as a sign of peaceful intent. The alien misunderstood and vaporized the dove. 

So 2023. That's not very far away. Should be interesting times.

[strangerthings]

Bashar answers peoples' genuine questions in problem areas of their life the way a quantum physicist would answer a 6 year old! 

What in the world kind of answers were given to those last few people 

Geez

Holographic universe? I am not real? I strongly disagree!

Anyway, I will be watching arrival tomorrow. I hope its good and not propaganda lol Too much entertainment gets turned down for me lately because of it. Stopping before it gets anywhere. I end up watching oldie but goodies.

At first I thought yall meant "the arrival" LOL whew! teehee

[strangerthings]

@Deb mars attacks omg I havent seen that movie in forever lollllz

[Tob]

Bashar answers peoples' genuine questions in problem areas of their life the way a quantum physicist would answer a 6 year old! 

What in the world kind of answers were given to those last few people 

Geez

Holographic universe? I am not real? I strongly disagree!

Anyway, I will be watching arrival tomorrow. I hope its good and not propaganda lol Too much entertainment gets turned down for me lately because of it. Stopping before it gets anywhere. I end up watching oldie but goodies.

At first I thought yall meant "the arrival" LOL whew! teehee

These were not 6 year old people, but persons who did decide for themselves that they want to attend a Bashar session by the topic of 'What is Consciousness?' to ask a few questions they deemed important to receive his unique opinion on. As it is usually the case in these sessions - there are a few exceptions of course - they seemed to be very satisfied with the information given.

According to Seth you create a camouflage universe in F1 from F2. It is an illusion as it does not exist. This means (by deduction) you do not 'exist' either. You only think you do. Bashar took this topic a bit further and explained the holographic character of the production of what appears to us to be solid reality. But it is not there. It is a projection of consciousness INSIDE consciousness. Similar to Plato's cave and in line with the current thinking of many renowned quantum physicists and Nobel Laureates:

'There is no 'out there', out there'.

To you as a person it does not matter whether you are solid or not. You know since you were 6 or 10 that you are not solid, but composed of molecules, which are composed of atoms, which are composed of subatomic particles, which are composed of even smaller and smaller units, down to strings and superstrings as far as the current state of the discussion goes. It is clear that your body is basically composed of 'nothing' (apart from the 60 - percent of water it contains, which of course does not exist either). Maybe you are not even that but just a wave.

Below is a link to Michael Talbot's book on the holographic universe. It is easy to read and in that sense recommendable to everybody, including the 10 year olds. You can be sure many participants to the Bashar sessions managed to familiarize themselves with this book or similar intellectual concepts before preparing their questions. The hardcore literature is not understandable to non-physicists because of the formulas.

https://pdfroom.com/books/the-holographic-universe/wW5mwDOkgYo/download

Two nobel laureates came forward with an explanation according to which the universe is basically functioning like a hologram. A physicist (Bohm) as well as a neuro-scientist (Pribram). To both of them this seemed to provide the best solution to the issues they were working on.

If you ensure that your brain is provided with all the necessary inputs you can isolate it entirely from the body and put it into a box. The brain will still 'perceive and think' as long as the respective data are organised in the correct form so that 'the perception' does make sense in the way it used to. The brain will not die.

Phantom pain (pain from legs or arms which do no longer exist since they have been amputated) can be explained that way.

According to Seth you don't exist in the sense you think you do. You are projecting a reality illusion from F2 to F1, which is called 'camouflage' in his vernacular. Bashar went a bit further and used the term 'holographic'. But this is not the end. The concept of multiverses, as well as fractals and the wave/particle issue have to be included as well.

According to Jane Roberts in her own books she is 'a particle'. Unfortunately she did not elaborate on that, given the fact that Seth was emphasizing that we should not imagine the CUs (in the Seth teachings the smallest consciousness units) as particles. There is a lot of physical information in the Seth material. It has not yet been analysed coherently.

Only if reality is virtual (i.e. not 'objectively' real) can the multitude of 'realities' be explained. Only then you can be 'shifting' across probable realities. Otherwise the nagging question would have to be answered: where are all these infinite numbers of parallel realities physically?

They are nowhere (else). Everything is 'here and now'. But not in the sense we think it is.

According to Seth you don't exist 'objectively'. You are consciousness experiencing itself in and by means of a self-created camouflage environment, depending on the specific vibration of your belief systems.

The 'capsule comprehension' is a clear circumscription of the holographic principle in the Seth teachings.

Again:

"Centuries before the beginning of what seems to have begun' (Seth)

[Tob]

Bashar answers peoples' genuine questions in problem areas of their life the way a quantum physicist would answer a 6 year old! 

What in the world kind of answers were given to those last few people 

Geez

Holographic universe? I am not real? I strongly disagree!

Anyway, I will be watching arrival tomorrow. I hope its good and not propaganda lol Too much entertainment gets turned down for me lately because of it. Stopping before it gets anywhere. I end up watching oldie but goodies.

At first I thought yall meant "the arrival" LOL whew! teehee

These were not 6 year old people, but persons who did decide for themselves that they want to attend a Bashar session by the topic of 'What is Consciousness?' to ask a few questions they deemed important to receive his unique opinion on. As it is usually the case in these sessions - there are a few exceptions of course - they seemed to be very satisfied with the information given.

According to Seth you create a camouflage universe in F1 from F2. It is an illusion as it does not exist. This means (by deduction) you do not 'exist' either. You only think you do. Bashar took this topic a bit further and explained the holographic character of the production of what appears to us to be solid reality. But it is not there. It is a projection of consciousness INSIDE consciousness. Similar to Plato's cave and in line with the current thinking of many renowned quantum physicists and Nobel Laureates:

'There is no 'out there', out there'.

To you as a person it does not matter whether you are solid or not. You know since you were 6 or 10 that you are not solid, but composed of molecules, which are composed of atoms, which are composed of subatomic particles, which are composed of even smaller and smaller units, down to strings and superstrings as far as the current state of the discussion goes. It is clear that your body is basically composed of 'nothing' (apart from the 60 - percent of water it contains, which of course does not exist either). Maybe you are not even that but just a wave.

Below is a link to Michael Talbot's book on the holographic universe. It is easy to read and in that sense recommendable to everybody, including the 10 year olds. You can be sure many participants to the Bashar sessions managed to familiarize themselves with this book or similar intellectual concepts before preparing their questions. The hardcore literature is not understandable to non-physicists because of the formulas.

https://pdfroom.com/books/the-holographic-universe/wW5mwDOkgYo/download

Two nobel laureates came forward with an explanation according to which the universe is basically functioning like a hologram. A physicist (Bohm) as well as a neuro-scientist (Pribram). To both of them this seemed to provide the best solution to the issues they were working on.

If you ensure that your brain is provided with all the necessary inputs you can isolate it entirely from the body and put it into a box. The brain will still 'perceive and think' as long as the respective data are organised in the correct form so that 'the perception' does make sense in the way it used to. The brain will not die.

Phantom pain (pain from legs or arms which do no longer exist since they have been amputated) can be explained that way.

According to Seth you don't exist in the sense you think you do. You are projecting a reality illusion from F2 to F1, which is called 'camouflage' in his vernacular. Bashar went a bit further and used the term 'holographic'. But this is not the end. The concept of multiverses, as well as fractals and the wave/particle issue have to be included as well.

According to Jane Roberts in her own books she is 'a particle'. Unfortunately she did not elaborate on that, given the fact that Seth was emphasizing that we should not imagine the CUs (in the Seth teachings the smallest consciousness units) as particles. There is a lot of physical information in the Seth material. It has not yet been analysed coherently.

Only if reality is virtual (i.e. not 'objectively' real) can the multitude of 'realities' be explained. Only then you can be 'shifting' across probable realities. Otherwise the nagging question would have to be answered: where are all these infinite numbers of parallel realities physically?

They are nowhere (else). Everything is 'here and now'. But not in the sense we think it is.

According to Seth you don't exist 'objectively'. You are consciousness experiencing itself in and by means of a self-created camouflage environment, depending on the specific vibration of your belief systems.

The 'capsule comprehension' is a clear circumscription of the holographic principle in the Seth teachings.

Again:

"Centuries before the beginning of what seems to have begun' (Seth)

The Seth books (without Jane Robert's own productions) comprise 7000 pages. They have to be read word after word, line after line, page after page. One has to start with the 'Early Sessions', not with 'Seth Speaks', which has been provided by Seth as a kind of comprehensive and relatively easy to understand introduction into his entire cosmology.

One would have to study the complete material carefully. This means it is not possible to read and analyse more than 10 pages per day (on average). Concentration is not equally good on every day. A stable average of 10 pages may be realistic. Rather less. A year has 365 calendar days, i.e. 220 working days. 6 weeks have to be deducted for holidays. Thus, you can calculate roughly four years for a first systematic scanning of his works from a scientific (natural science) point of view, just to get a general gist of his cosmology in order to reach the point where you can begin asking reasonable questions.

As you have to read the subject matter twice before being able to concentrate on selected key issues, you can roughly calculate 10 years until you can come forward with a first coherent scientific overview, which is then - hopefully - in line with the terms of the current scientific disciplines. (There are formulations in the Seth material for which no corresponding scientific term does exist. And there are concepts in current science which will have to be necessarily abandoned if the Seth teachings are to be taken seriously.)

As Seth was systematically using personal issues of Jane Roberts, Robert Butts, or their environment to provide an introduction into what he wanted to get across, one should not skip the personal 'stuff' as irrelevant. It is not. The term 'mental enzymes' (they play a key role in the reality production mechanism of F1 was injected by Robert Butts after experimenting with 'psychological time'.)

According to Seth it requires pioneers to work with the material in order to take it further. Jane Roberts and Robert Butts did not know during the time that TES1 and 2 were transmitted that they would actually be ending up as such kind of pioneers for the rest of their professional lives.

Seth managed to provide a 'skeleton' of his physical cosmology by the end of TES 2 and he was very proud of that. As there were energetic issues to be systematically taken into account he made it clear that over the course of the coming books he would be using any occasion to provide supplementary information. This is why the whole material appears to be sometimes unsystematic from our point of view. When he tried to explain the reality production mechanism in TES3 (at the beginning) Jane's subconsciousness blocked, the session had to be terminated.

Seth's cosmology can be termed 'psycho-physics'. We are creating our reality (what we perceive to be our reality) using the vibrations of our belief systems (with the help of the said mental enzymes, as well as bodily functions, such as the synapses etc.) The dream state plays a key role as this is the state where alternatives and probabilities can be tested without harm to our ego personality (outer ego in his terms). Unfortunately, all the bits and pieces of his cosmology are scattered across the various books.

Nevertheless. the material has to be interpreted as a unity, something that is definitely not easy as it comprises 7000 pages, at least. One cannot isolate Seth's concept on the issue of the multiverse or probable realities while ignoring his explanations what is going on during dream-time (testing of probabilities). Accordingly, physicists should not shrink back from allowing, approaching and integrating this kind of information to the extent necessary (they may be still risking their jobs and reputation, etc.). And psychologists should not shrink back from interpreting his dream-oriented material in the context of the physical aspects of the production of our camouflage reality, which are duly tested and prepared in dream time. Thus, an interdisciplinary or at least transdisciplinary approach is necessarily required.

[strangerthings]

Tob Im not a noob LOL

nuff said

[Sena]

According to Jane Roberts in her own books she is 'a particle'. Unfortunately she did not elaborate on that, given the fact that Seth was emphasizing that we should not imagine the CUs (in the Seth teachings the smallest consciousness units) as particles.

Tob, WHERE in the Seth books did Jane say she was a particle?

I am not aware that Seth said that Consciousness Units were not particles:

"CU's can also operate as "particles" or as "waves." Whichever way they operate, they are aware of their own existences. When CU's operate as particles, in your terms, they build up a continuity in time. They take on the characteristics of particularity. They identify themselves by the establishment of specific boundaries.

(Long pause.) They take certain forms, then, when they operate as particles, and experience their reality from "the center of" those forms. They concentrate upon, or focus upon, their unique specificiations. They become in your terms (underlined) individual."

—DEaVF1 Chapter 3: Session 889, December 17, 1979

[Tob]

According to Jane Roberts in her own books she is 'a particle'. Unfortunately she did not elaborate on that, given the fact that Seth was emphasizing that we should not imagine the CUs (in the Seth teachings the smallest consciousness units) as particles.

Tob, WHERE in the Seth books did Jane say she was a particle?

I am not aware that Seth said that Consciousness Units were not particles:

"CU's can also operate as "particles" or as "waves." Whichever way they operate, they are aware of their own existences. When CU's operate as particles, in your terms, they build up a continuity in time. They take on the characteristics of particularity. They identify themselves by the establishment of specific boundaries.

(Long pause.) They take certain forms, then, when they operate as particles, and experience their reality from "the center of" those forms. They concentrate upon, or focus upon, their unique specificiations. They become in your terms (underlined) individual."

—DEaVF1 Chapter 3: Session 889, December 17, 1979

I did not say that Seth said that they were not particles. I said that he said he did not want us to think of them as particles.

"We must unfortunately often deal with analogies, because they can form bridgeworks between concepts. There are units of consciousness, then, as there are units of matter. I do not want you to think of these units as particles. There is a basic unit of consciousness that, expressed, will not be broken down, as once it was thought that an atom was the smallest unit and could not be broken down. The basic unit of consciousness obviously is not physical. It contains within itself innately infinite properties of expansion, development, and organization; yet within itself always maintains the kernel of its own individuality. Despite whatever organizations it becomes part of, or how it mixes with other such basic units, its own identity is not annihilated." Session 682 (UR1)

Jane Robert's remark is in one of her own books. I think it is 'Adventures in Consciousness' where she is dealing extensively with the wave/particle issue and probabilities. It is the book where the concepts are supported by Robert Butt's illustrations.

[Tob]

According to Jane Roberts in her own books she is 'a particle'. Unfortunately she did not elaborate on that, given the fact that Seth was emphasizing that we should not imagine the CUs (in the Seth teachings the smallest consciousness units) as particles.

Tob, WHERE in the Seth books did Jane say she was a particle?

I am not aware that Seth said that Consciousness Units were not particles:

"CU's can also operate as "particles" or as "waves." Whichever way they operate, they are aware of their own existences. When CU's operate as particles, in your terms, they build up a continuity in time. They take on the characteristics of particularity. They identify themselves by the establishment of specific boundaries.

(Long pause.) They take certain forms, then, when they operate as particles, and experience their reality from "the center of" those forms. They concentrate upon, or focus upon, their unique specificiations. They become in your terms (underlined) individual."

—DEaVF1 Chapter 3: Session 889, December 17, 1979

I did not say that Seth said that they were not particles. I said that he said he did not want us to think of them as particles.

"We must unfortunately often deal with analogies, because they can form bridgeworks between concepts. There are units of consciousness, then, as there are units of matter. I do not want you to think of these units as particles. There is a basic unit of consciousness that, expressed, will not be broken down, as once it was thought that an atom was the smallest unit and could not be broken down. The basic unit of consciousness obviously is not physical. It contains within itself innately infinite properties of expansion, development, and organization; yet within itself always maintains the kernel of its own individuality. Despite whatever organizations it becomes part of, or how it mixes with other such basic units, its own identity is not annihilated." Session 682 (UR1)

Jane Robert's remark is in one of her own books. I think it is 'Adventures in Consciousness' where she is dealing extensively with the wave/particle issue and probabilities. It is the book where the concepts are supported by Robert Butt's illustrations.

Jane Roberts: "In other terms, we are particles of energy, flowing from the source self into physical materialization. Each source self forms many such particles or "Aspect selves" that impinge upon three dimensional reality, striking our space-time continuum. Others are not physical at all, but have their existence in completely different systems of reality. Each Aspect self is connected to the other, however, through the common experience of the source self, and can to some degree draw on the knowledge, abilities, and perceptions of the other Aspects", in: 'Adventures in Consciousness', page 119.

There is definitely a statement somewherelse in the book, according to which she defines herself personally as a particle. I remember to be astonished because of the above Seth recommendation, not to categorize CUs a priori as particles, but it is not possible to pursue all these questions at the same time. In this context it is as important to find out what Jane Roberts actually meant by 'Aspect Self' and how Seth was dealing with this issue on his part (presumably using his own terminology, which may deviate). And how the terms can be aligned.

[Sena]

Jane Roberts: "In other terms, we are particles of energy, flowing from the source self into physical materialization. Each source self forms many such particles or "Aspect selves" that impinge upon three dimensional reality, striking our space-time continuum. Others are not physical at all, but have their existence in completely different systems of reality. Each Aspect self is connected to the other, however, through the common experience of the source self, and can to some degree draw on the knowledge, abilities, and perceptions of the other Aspects", in: 'Adventures in Consciousness', page 119.

Tob, yes I can see how this paragraph could be misunderstood. The first sentence seems to be saying that each human being is an extremely tiny particle. That does not make sense. The second sentence, which I have bolded, is quite clear that a human being is made up of MANY particles.

[Tob]

Jane Roberts: "In other terms, we are particles of energy, flowing from the source self into physical materialization. Each source self forms many such particles or "Aspect selves" that impinge upon three dimensional reality, striking our space-time continuum. Others are not physical at all, but have their existence in completely different systems of reality. Each Aspect self is connected to the other, however, through the common experience of the source self, and can to some degree draw on the knowledge, abilities, and perceptions of the other Aspects", in: 'Adventures in Consciousness', page 119.

Tob, yes I can see how this paragraph could be misunderstood. The first sentence seems to be saying that each human being is an extremely tiny particle. That does not make sense. The second sentence, which I have bolded, is quite clear that a human being is made up of MANY particles.

Maybe. Maybe not. Jane Roberts was working with her own terms. In particular 'Aspects'. According to Seth we should not perceive CUs a priori as particles. They can OPERATE as particles or waves, but we should not perceive them as particles. In Seth's terms each human being is made up of many CUs, not many particles. They may become particles, if the operate as particles. In F1. According to Seth, millions of CUs fit the size of one atom.

I am currently still struggling over the difference between one single CU and a conglomerate of CUs in order to get a clearer picture what 'identity' and 'personality' is. I am afraid this will take 10 years.

I strongly recommend having a look at the illustrations in Jane Robert's 'Adventures' book. This will help safe a few years. Things become immediately much clearer.

[Tob]

Jane Roberts: "In other terms, we are particles of energy, flowing from the source self into physical materialization. Each source self forms many such particles or "Aspect selves" that impinge upon three dimensional reality, striking our space-time continuum. Others are not physical at all, but have their existence in completely different systems of reality. Each Aspect self is connected to the other, however, through the common experience of the source self, and can to some degree draw on the knowledge, abilities, and perceptions of the other Aspects", in: 'Adventures in Consciousness', page 119.

Tob, yes I can see how this paragraph could be misunderstood. The first sentence seems to be saying that each human being is an extremely tiny particle. That does not make sense. The second sentence, which I have bolded, is quite clear that a human being is made up of MANY particles.

Maybe. Maybe not. Jane Roberts was working with her own terms. In particular 'Aspects'. According to Seth we should not perceive CUs a priori as particles. They can OPERATE as particles or waves, but we should not perceive them as particles. In Seth's terms each human being is made up of many CUs, not many particles. They may become particles, if the operate as particles. In F1. According to Seth, millions of CUs fit the size of one atom.

I am currently still struggling over the difference between one single CU and a conglomerate of CUs in order to get a clearer picture what 'identity' and 'personality' is. I am afraid this will take 10 years.

I strongly recommend having a look at the illustrations in Jane Robert's 'Adventures' book. This will help safe a few years. Things become immediately much clearer.

A few weeks ago someone uploaded a link to an e-library. With the exception of Sue Watkins and TES4,7,8,9 everything is downloadable.

(By the way: The second sentence above seems to say that source self is forming many particles or 'aspect selves'. In her terms an aspect self is an individual. The many particles refer to the many aspect selves which are created by the source self. In Seth's terminology: entity and individual soul, incarnate or not.)

[Sena]

They can OPERATE as particles or waves, but we should not perceive them as particles. In Seth's terms each human being is made up of many CUs, not many particle

This is interesting. Seth said many times that physical reality is "camouflage". CUs are NOT camouflage; therefore they are not physical particles. CUs are a kind of unit we have difficulty imagining.

I strongly recommend having a look at the illustrations in Jane Robert's 'Adventures' book.

I searched Adventures for CUs, and did not find anything.  Adventures is not a Seth book; it is Jane's personal interpretation. I think I prefer to stick with Seth.

Have you come across "Bridging Science and Spirit" by Norman Friedman? That is a useful scientific interpretation of the Seth teachings.

[Deb]

A few weeks ago someone uploaded a link to an e-library. With the exception of Sue Watkins and TES4,7,8,9 everything is downloadable.

I'm just thrilled with the resource. I was able to download everything I wanted, including Conversations with Seth. I had most converted to PDFs, except for the Early Class sessions which would not convert, so I have them for Kindle. Now I can search for everything, whether or not it's on the Seth Search Engine.

It's a goldmine.