~Speaking of Seth~

I'm currently reading Stephen A. Schwartz's book, originally published in 1978, "Secret Vaults of Time: Psychic Archaeology and the Quest for Man's Beginnings (Studies in Consciousness)".

The idea of psychic archaeology, using various ESP methods, is quite interesting. There are several very successful well-documented examples, overwhelmingly ignored by the Western scientific establishment.

The author (as those involved in psychic archaeology) look(ed) at the past as "fact", which I believe to be an incorrect view, considering Seth's "inverted time" and "the present as a point of power" concepts.

According to Seth and taking into account the research described in the book "forbidden technology" by  Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, there may have been advanced civilizations long before prehistoric humans. That would be interesting to see if Psychic Archaeology confirms that.

Regarding what you're saying about inverted time, that seems very interesting. It makes me think of the Mandela Effect. Maybe the past varies with the content of our memories.

This is a description of what one of the psychics experiences:

• It was Ann Emerson who discovered what was going on inside McMullen's head when he went to a site, what happened to him during his period of disorientation and running around—which was all a nonpsychic observer could see. The only comment the Professor makes about McMullen's psychic dynamic is, "At no time would he go into what could even remotely be called a trance."
  
  McMullen has explained what different processes obtain, depending on what is being asked of him. When he goes to a site, he says, "I project myself up in the air ... I'm looking down on what's going on below as if I were up in a helicopter or perhaps a tall tree." Once he has attained his out-of-body perspective, he sees things not as they are but "as they used to be ... the time period the professor is asking about." When this is happening, he cannot see the site as it is now. This is why he first walks around to orient himself.
  
  To make contact with this past time period and to answer certain types of questions, McMullen maintains he has nonphysical informants. He sees them as beings of light and hears their voices directing him. "It is as if there were a kind of overlay," Emerson says, "Water level, maybe major rock structures or hills and valleys are still the same, although the trees are bigger and the ground surface may have changed due to erosion and such. You know, he'll ask me, `Is there a mound or point over there?' when it would seem all he has to do is look over and see it. That was how I came to realize that he does not see the present reality when he is perceiving the past—it wasn't there in the time he is now seeing."
  
  Having accomplished his aerial survey, McMullen says he "returns" to the point of view of his body and then often begins rapidly walking around the site landscape. "I used to try to follow with my recorder," Emerson recounts, "but couldn't keep up or get a decent tape. Now I wait until he returns and then we either talk or we walk along, at a reasonable pace, back over the ground, this time recording his impressions. It's as if he had two pictures, one present and one past, and has `synched' them by triangulating certain extant geographical configurations and big trees that are still alive."
  
  Once he begins, McMullen states that he can "see their campfires, their houses, sense the feelings people have ... whether they're happy, angry, or expectant, what a ceremony they may be performing means, and how they feel about it." He can even smell them. He has told Ann Emerson he can see colors and actually hear people talking. In fact, she remembers "he has told me, and I think Norman also, more than once that sometimes so many are talking that it takes him a while to sort things out, to know [which one] to listen to."
  
  To both Ann and Norman Emerson, the role of McMullen's informants on problems involving on-site survey is still unclear. McMullen says he usually sees two people, whom he identifies by their voices as a man and a woman. In Ontario at least they generally are the same ones and, as Mrs. Emerson says, "If you ask George if they are `dead' people he tells you they say, `Who is dead? You are the ones who are dead because you are so unaware.'
  
  These informants are not the only or even the primary source of McMullen's information. "I don't know that we are totally clear on this," Mrs. Emerson says, "George is very frank and open when you ask him but it's hard to know what to ask or how to interpret what he is trying to tell you. Sometimes it seems there are just no words to say what he is trying to explain."
  
  To Emerson, it seems that "George is getting information from several sources. First, he is overhearing and empathetically picking up the mood of the people he is viewing, with a sort of passive reception. The kind of thing you would hear and sense if you went to a dinner and just looked around and sat quietly listening. Second, he seems to be able to ask questions sometimes, and those answering the questions appear to be people who lived a long time ago. On one occasion, for instance, George and I went out to a site only to be met by what George said were six Indians who said, `How come it took you so long to get here? Tell the professor between the six of us, we represent two centuries of history at this place. We believe we can give you the answers to any questions the professor is going to raise....' Now that seems to me to be a case of a mediumistic phenomenon involving Indians who inhabited that site over a long period of time. I know it sounds weird but, through George, these people have given me pretty good answers.
  
  "The third source are his informants, although I personally am not clear how much information they provide or whether they just sort of guide the process.
  
  "Since I don't see all this, I really can't say what is actually going on and, to be perfectly truthful, beyond a certain point I don't care. It is for scientists with training different from mine to measure it; you need to know your limitations. My interest and expertise [lie in] archaeology."
  
  When no on-site work is required and McMullen is simply asked to psychometrize an artifact, the process, although similar, becomes even stranger. Then, if asked for the artifact's site of discovery, the psychic says he goes out until he is "way up in the sky and can see the earth," from which vantage point he "knows" or is told the location, as he was in the case of the argillite carving which he described as having come from "southwest of Prince Rupert."
  
  In other cases, he has told the Emersons, his informants have to "go" and get more information before answers can be given, and he himself sometimes has to go, out of body, back in time, to see the artifact's location. Once he has held an object, he can "always tune back in on it or go to the place where it comes from to get [additional] information."

Quote from: wadihicham on April 13, 2023, 03:50:41 PM...
Regarding what you're saying about inverted time, that seems very interesting. It makes me think of the Mandela Effect. Maybe the past varies with the content of our memories.

https://speakingofseth.com/index.php/topic,2833.msg23285.html#msg23285

"(To me:) Your mother did not simply choose to believe, in her old age, in a different past than the one that was accepted by the family—she effectively changed probabilities. She was not deluded or obsessed. Her memory in that regard, now, was not defective: It was the memory of the probable woman that she became."

—DEaVF1 Chapter 3: Session 891, December 26, 1979

search (https://nowdictation.com/q/mother+'different+past'+probabilities/)

"The year 1980 exists in all of its potential versions, now in this moment. Because mass events are concerned there is not a completely different year, of course, for each individual on the face of the planet—but there are literally an endless number of mass-shared worlds of 1980 "in the wings," so to speak."

—DEaVF1 Chapter 3: Session 891, December 26, 1979

"In the most basic of terms, as 1980 happens the energy that comes into your universe is as new as if (in your terms) the world were created yesterday—a point that will be rather difficult to explain. All of the probable versions of 1980 spin off their own probable pasts as well as their own probable futures, and any consciousness that exists in 1980 was (again in those terms) a part of what you think of as the beginning of the world."

—DEaVF1 Chapter 3: Session 891, December 26, 1979

Quote from: inavalan on April 15, 2023, 10:36:19 PM"The year 1980 exists in all of its potential versions, now in this moment. Because mass events are concerned there is not a completely different year, of course, for each individual on the face of the planet—but there are literally an endless number of mass-shared worlds of 1980 "in the wings," so to speak."

—DEaVF1 Chapter 3: Session 891, December 26, 1979

Yes, that's exactly the Mandela effect. For some people the past is such that Mandela died long ago in Prison while for a majority he died not so long ago and was the first black president of South Africa. No one is wrong, they just don't come from the same past !

A point is not clear to me. I will formulate it as follows, hoping it will be clear:
Does the person I was yesterday still exists, or is he now only part of a probable past that I construct from my present moment ?

Quote from: wadihicham on April 16, 2023, 01:26:39 PM

Quote from: inavalan on April 15, 2023, 10:36:19 PM"The year 1980 exists in all of its potential versions, now in this moment. Because mass events are concerned there is not a completely different year, of course, for each individual on the face of the planet—but there are literally an endless number of mass-shared worlds of 1980 "in the wings," so to speak."

—DEaVF1 Chapter 3: Session 891, December 26, 1979

Yes, that's exactly the Mandela effect. For some people the past is such that Mandela died long ago in Prison while for a majority he died not so long ago and was the first black president of South Africa. No one is wrong, they just don't come from the same past !

A point is not clear to me. I will formulate it as follows, hoping it will be clear:
Does the person I was yesterday still exists, or is he now only part of a probable past that I construct from my present moment ?

The way I understand these, it isn't that people may not "come from the same past", as much as they create "different pasts" from the now.

The present only apparently comes after the past; today only apparently comes after yesterday.

If we were lucid, in the way Seth inferred in the quote (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php/topic,3106.msg24313.html#msg24313) I posted yesterday, we would be aware of this "time" camouflage, which would be highly beneficial to our learning, as we'd know better what we have to do, and do it. This is what other forms of consciousness (e.g. cells) know, and what the primitive man knew too. Societal conditioning hypnotizes us into forgetting, psychically lobotomizing us into cuckoos (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=one+flew+over+the+cuckoo+nest).

We would need to decrypt the following lines:

QuoteBut beyond this life, and before this life, and forming this life, there are identities and there are realities and these are not dead. Identity as experience is intimate. It is a psychic reality but it exists electromagnetically. Identity, the self that you are, is made up of the selves that you were and, my dear friends, the selves that you shall be. The selves that you were still exist. The selves that you shall be already exist. The lives that you have lived, in your terms, are still being lived. There is no past, present or future. Time, as you know it, is a distortion brought about by the operation of the physical senses. Direct experience has no need of physical time. You exist now, period. The past, the present and the future as you know them are illusion, and yet they exist now. You can influence the past today; you can have memory of the future. You can draw upon the knowledge of the future today. You can change the past tomorrow. Your time is valid only within your system, and it is not particularly valid within your system. The dreams that you dream are as real as the classroom in which you sit. The dreams that you dream form your today.

TES7 Seth's Lecture to Pat's Boston High School Class March 25, 1967 

As always with Seth, it looks simple but it is not at all ! Here is a first attempt at interpreting the quote:

It seems that there are two levels of reality. A physical level where time has meaning and seems to exist, and a psychic level where past and future co-exist.

Physical reality is constantly re-created (like frames during the screening of a movie )

Quote"If you imagine yourself as a part of energy and a part of All That Is and an identity that forms and creates your body, then you know you create it with each breath that you take"
—ECS4 ESP Class Session, June 15, 1971
 

I suppose that with each round trip between physical reality and psychic reality, a probable past and a probable future are chosen. In this sense, I agree with you:

Quote from: inavalan on April 16, 2023, 07:00:49 PMhe way I understand these, it isn't that people may not "come from the same past", as much as they create "different pasts" from the now.

The present only apparently comes after the past; today only apparently comes after yesterday.

This leads me to two questions:
Is the spacious present frozen or does it have its own time (a time that would not be an illusion).
The other question is the one I already asked, but I rephrase it differently: If everything is simultaneous, what is the present moment, the one of which "I" am aware here and now while I write this text? How is it that I experience this particular moment and not the other ones that co-exist with it ?

Quote from: wadihicham on April 17, 2023, 06:42:56 AMWe would need to decrypt the following lines ...

I believe that the Seth material needs intuitive interpretation, which I see as fundamentally different from decryption, and from intellectual understanding.

The interpretation differs from one reader to another, according to each one's beliefs and level of evolvement. Although there differences in terms of abilities, people also follow different paths in their quests for value fulfillment.

For me, I need to understand what Seth is trying to teach us. Of course I know and accept that one cannot grasp it all by means of the intellect, our concepts reflect only camouflage patterns to begin with.
When I said we need to decrypt , I meant we need to clarify by exchanging, particularly regarding our intuitive understandings. However, be careful: rejecting rationality too much, is at the risk of turning Seth's cosmology into some sort of religious text meant to be read piously without being questioned.

Quote from: wadihicham on April 21, 2023, 04:18:22 AMFor me, I need to understand what Seth is trying to teach us. Of course I know and accept that one cannot grasp it all by means of the intellect, our concepts reflect only camouflage patterns to begin with.
When I said we need to decrypt , I meant we need to clarify by exchanging, particularly regarding our intuitive understandings. However, be careful: rejecting rationality too much, is at the risk of turning Seth's cosmology into some sort of religious text meant to be read piously without being questioned.

Intuitive interpretation has nothing to do with religion. Religion is based on faith. Science becomes a religion when you put your faith in its precepts.

The intellect is a tool to be used to the extent it is meant to be used for.

What you understood from my post isn't what I meant, because you filtered it through your beliefs.

We may give some words different meanings, but we definitely look at Seth and at reality from quite different perspectives (as I assessed from the book you recently recommended; our further exchanges confirmed it).

Your warning is misconceived. It is a strawman argument.

Quote from: inavalan on April 21, 2023, 01:22:32 PMWe may give some words different meanings, but we definitely look at Seth and at reality from quite different perspectives (as I assessed from the book you recently recommended; our further exchanges confirmed it).

I consider this an opportunity, as it is by exchanging with people with different perspectives that one progress. I said, "We would need to decrypt the following lines" you said, "I believe that the Seth material needs intuitive interpretation." Fine, I would be glad to know about your intuitive interpretation ! It would be much more constructive than focusing on our presumed differences.

It is obvious that Seth material needs intuitive interpretation , here is a quote from Seth:



By my "warning" I wanted to state that rationality and intuition go hand in hand and reinforce each other !