~Speaking of Seth~

This video is currently on Netflix in the UK:



This is a documentary in which a South African man does daily dives for about 280 days to visit an octopus with whom he has made "friends". Octopi are invertebrates and are not generally thought of as intelligent. This film suggests that an octopus may develop an attachment to a human being, just as a dog or cat does. Fits in with Seth's view that consciousness is universal.

Sena, thanks for posting--intriguing trailer!

Some of Seth's comments on animal consciousness have stayed with me, and I often reflect on them when a creature curls up in my lap.

"Your cat's consciousness never was dependent upon its physical form. Instead, the consciousness was itself choosing the experience of cathood. There was nothing that said: 'This consciousness must be a cat.'

[... 1 paragraph ...]

"There is no such thing as a cat consciousness, basically speaking, or a bird consciousness. In those terms, there are instead simply consciousnesses that choose to take certain focuses."

—NoME Chapter 6: Session 840, March 12, 1979

By extension, our own consciousness then is not best described as human consciousness, but as consciousness choosing the experience of humanness, presumably.

I've gotten the impression from the Seth books, though, that even at the entity level our identity is aligned with the human species.  Perhaps consciousness chooses to focus as entities of specific species, and the entity then breaks down to probable selves, always each of that same species.  But we are all a part of the All, made of the same stuff.

Quote from: leidl
By extension, our own consciousness then is not best described as human consciousness, but as consciousness choosing the experience of humanness, presumably.

I've gotten the impression from the Seth books, though, that even at the entity level our identity is aligned with the human species.  Perhaps consciousness chooses to focus as entities of specific species, and the entity then breaks down to probable selves, always each of that same species.

leidl, thanks for the Seth quote. How I see it is that one or two personalities of certain entities would always incarnate as octopi. Contrary to Buddhism, Seth did not agree with cross-species reincarnation. So a human would always reincarnate as a human, and an octopus would always incarnate as an octopus.

"In one manner of speaking, you are fragments of your entities. Yet you consider yourselves quite independent, and not thrust-off second-handed selves; so dogs and other animals are not simply the manifestation of stray psychic energy on the part of human beings. Animals have varying degrees of self-consciousness, as indeed people do. The consciousness that is within them is as valid and eternal as your own, however. There is nothing to prevent a personality from investing a portion of his own energy into an animal form. This is not transmigration of souls. It does not mean that a man can be reincarnated in an animal. It does mean that personalities can send a portion of their energy into various kinds of form. (10:35.) Perhaps reincarnations are over for a given individual, for example, yet within him is still some sense of yearning for the natural earth with which he has so often been involved. So he may project a fragment of his consciousness in such a way into an animal form." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/7LU2M7

"There is no such thing as a cat consciousness, basically speaking, or a bird consciousness. In those terms, there are instead simply consciousnesses that choose to take certain focuses."
—NoME Chapter 6: Session 840, March 12, 1979

Or squid consciousness? Another of one of my favorite and enlightening Seth quotes.

Really fascinating video, I need to see if it's available in the US. I've never thought of sea creatures (other than dolphins and other larger animals) as being as conscious as what I'd considered other life forms, and now I question my thinking. I've always been very close to nature, have been "adopted" at times by various wild animals as well as "adopting" them, and this video makes me want to reconsider my beliefs and experiences with nature.

I've always looked to nature and animals to understand what's "right" — my logic being that animal behavior is not tainted the way humans are by social pressures. My experience has been that when animals sense a human (or other animal) does not intend harm, a relationship of trust can develop. I experienced this recently once again.

Quote from: Sena
Perhaps reincarnations are over for a given individual, for example, yet within him is still some sense of yearning for the natural earth with which he has so often been involved. So he may project a fragment of his consciousness in such a way into an animal form."

Hey all,

Sena, thanks for the clarifying quote!  Wow, what an enlightening perspective!  I wonder how many of these animals are out there.  The eye contact of a few animals I've met over the years has struck me as uncanny; perhaps Seth offers a possible explanation.  It's been years since I read Seth Speaks; I didn't retain this information at all!  Probably because it was the first Seth book I read, and my mind was being blown from multiple angles at the time.  :-) 

Deb, I feel close to nature also.  I don't know that I've been "adopted" by any wild animals, but I find their presence comforting when I encounter them in the woods, and their quiet watchfulness feels familiar to me.  If you find My Octopus Teacher to be available in the U.S., I hope you'll direct us.

Quote from: leidl
If you find My Octopus Teacher to be available in the U.S., I hope you'll direct us.

leidl, it seems to be availble on Netflix in the USA:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2020/09/22/my-octopus-teacher-netflix-documentary-unexpected-tearjerker/5860006002/

Odd, I searched for it on Netflix last night and couldn't find it. I'll try again.

Update: I went to the link in the article, and sure enough Nexflix came up with it. Going to watch tonight.

Thanks, Sena and Deb...I appreciate the info.  The film is well worth seeing, folks...beautifully photographed and filled with wonderment.   Seth describes it pretty well here:

"A man, wondering what a tree was like, became one, and let his own consciousness flow into the tree. Man's consciousness mixed and merged with other kinds of consciousness with the great curiosity of love. A child did not simply look at an animal, but let its consciousness merge with the animal's, and so to some extent the animal looked out through the child's eyes."
—NotP Chapter 6: Session 777, May 24, 1976

Sena, thanks for mentioning this movie. I saw it last night and absolutely loved it. It was also great to see underwater again, I'm a certified scuba diver but haven't been diving since my son was born. It's a whole beautiful other world beneath the ocean's surface.

Quote from: Deb
Sena, thanks for mentioning this movie. I saw it last night and absolutely loved it. It was also great to see underwater again, I'm a certified scuba diver but haven't been diving since my son was born. It's a whole beautiful other world beneath the ocean's surface.

Deb, I had the impression that the person in the film may have had depression before starting the diving routine. He said he had had enough of his previous job. It is well known that swimming with dolphins can relieve depression, but this must be the first time that an octopus had that effect!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051125105024.htm

Sena and Deb, I'm still thinking about that octopus!  There was something uncanny about her behavior, and the subject won't leave my mind.  I've been reading about animal consciousness over on the Elias forum, and thought the below section about animals interesting, especially in light of My Octopus Teacher:

"KAAN: What is the essential difference in their inner construction that sets us apart from their type of development? Obviously we're working with belief systems, but the modality of their consciousness being different, can it be described in other terms that we can understand?

ELIAS: They are not essence. They are created of consciousness. They hold their own consciousness, but they are not of essence. They are a creation that YOU have created, being essence, from consciousness, but they do not hold essence. Therefore, they also do not hold belief systems. This is not to say that essence holds belief systems, but within physical focus you have created certain experiences that you choose.

Creatures, your planet, your vegetation, may all be viewed as tentacles of you. Your finger does not think, but it responds to you. At times, your finger may hold an automatic response. It may twitch. In like manner, all that you have created within physical focus are as tentacles extending out from you. Certain tentacles you assign certain qualities to, mirroring you."

Elias talks similarly about pets, but I unfortunately can't find the bit I wanted to share about them.  He describes pets as making choices like we do, and being a part of consciousness, but they are not essence (not multi-dimensional beings.)  As part of consciousness, a pet can choose to reflect the consciousness of its owner.  Not possessing belief systems of its own, a cat wouldn't get cancer due to its own belief systems like its owner might, but because of its connection to its owner, it has a kind of shared awareness of cancer, and can choose it.  (I may not be remembering this with precision, and will post again if I can find this quote!)  We don't exactly "cause" our pets to have illnesses, because they make the choices, either to mirror particulars of our consciousness or for reasons of their own.  But essentially, without being connected to our consciousness, they wouldn't be as aware of the option to choose cancer.

This got me thinking about the she-octopus, who spent much time in the company of the filmmaker.  Perhaps the extended access she had to humans explains some of her behaviors. I don't mean that she learned behaviors from them, exactly, but perhaps there was a kind of blurring of the edges between the consciousnesses of the divers and her consciousness.  I believe that the idea of consciousness as something flowing, without boundaries, is also described by Seth.

Quote from: leidl
He describes pets as making choices like we do, and being a part of consciousness, but they are not essence (not multi-dimensional beings.)

leidl, I think this is the key difference. Humans are multi-dimensional, animals and plants are not. Animals and plants do possess consciousness and you can "talk" to them. Humans exist in many realities, and that his how the experience of "aliens" happens. You could say that Seth and Elias are aliens, because they don't have a physical existence on Earth.

Quote from: leidl
Sena and Deb, I'm still thinking about that octopus!  There was something uncanny about her behavior, and the subject won't leave my mind.

Right? But then maybe no one has befriended an octopus before (or at least filmed it), and as in our minds humans feel "distanced" from nature, it would come as a surprise that such a creature of unknown intelligence can become trusting of and form a bond with other lifeforms. I've had a lot of pets in my time, most domesticated and some not so, and have experienced their trust and lack of fear once they realized I was not going to harm them. But in my mind they also had a more advanced intelligence than say a clam or squid. I think most animals are also curious. The behavior of the octopus made me think they have intelligence and awareness and are not wholly functioning on instinct alone. What about jellyfish? They don't even have brains, I wonder what goes on in their empty little heads? If everything in this system has consciousness, I wonder if that also means self-awareness? I remember Seth saying that trees are aware of people and will even recognize ones they know.

Quote from: Sena
Humans are multi-dimensional, animals and plants are not.

Do you remember where you read that (I know, a needle in a haystack). I don't remember reading that and I'm curious to learn more. Because then that brings up a question for me: Do animals have animal entities, or are they part of our entities? I imagine entities to not be a "closed system." I also wonder what Seth meant by "A dog, then, is not limited to being a dog in other existences. A certain level, again, of consciousness is necessary, a certain kind of knowledge, a certain understanding of energy organization before an identity can manipulate a complicated physical organism" below. By other existences does he mean incarnations in F1, or in other systems/dimensions?

Session 581, Seth Speaks, has a lot of great insight. Also I'm adding one of the newly discovered drawings Ron has posted on FB. I wonder what Rob was thinking when he gave this cat a man's face? Personality fragment?

Quote from: Deb
Humans are multi-dimensional, animals and plants are not.

Do you remember where you read that (I know, a needle in a haystack). I don't remember reading that and I'm curious to learn more. Because then that brings up a question for me: Do animals have animal entities, or are they part of our entities?

Deb, I don't think I read that in Seth. It is my interpretation. What Seth is clear about is that humans do NOT reincarnate as animals. This is where Seth differs from Buddhism. A Buddhist might say, "If you behave like a pig in this life, you may be reincarnated as a pig". My understanding is that animals do not belong to animal entities, but I am not aware of a specific Seth statement about this.

Quote from: Sena

Quote from: leidl
He describes pets as making choices like we do, and being a part of consciousness, but they are not essence (not multi-dimensional beings.)

leidl, I think this is the key difference. Humans are multi-dimensional, animals and plants are not. Animals and plants do possess consciousness and you can "talk" to them. Humans exist in many realities, and that his how the experience of "aliens" happens. You could say that Seth and Elias are aliens, because they don't have a physical existence on Earth.

It's more like humans incarnate more levels of their multi-dimensional self than animals, plants and minerals do. So in case of the the latter, to varying degrees, more of the overall entity is "left outside", as it were, than with humans. And even with humans, there seem to be individual differences.

Quote from: Deb

Quote from: leidl
Sena and Deb, I'm still thinking about that octopus!  There was something uncanny about her behavior, and the subject won't leave my mind.

Right? But then maybe no one has befriended an octopus before (or at least filmed it), and as in our minds humans feel "distanced" from nature, it would come as a surprise that such a creature of unknown intelligence can become trusting of and form a bond with other lifeforms. I've had a lot of pets in my time, most domesticated and some not so, and have experienced their trust and lack of fear once they realized I was not going to harm them. But in my mind they also had a more advanced intelligence than say a clam or squid.

Squids are known for their comparatively advanced intelligence, though. E.g., a squid can creatively find a  solution for an unfamiliar task that it's faced with.

QuoteI think most animals are also curious. The behavior of the octopus made me think they have intelligence and awareness and are not wholly functioning on instinct alone. What about jellyfish? They don't even have brains, I wonder what goes on in their empty little heads? If everything in this system has consciousness, I wonder if that also means self-awareness? I remember Seth saying that trees are aware of people and will even recognize ones they know.

Quote from: Sena
Humans are multi-dimensional, animals and plants are not.

Do you remember where you read that (I know, a needle in a haystack). I don't remember reading that and I'm curious to learn more. Because then that brings up a question for me: Do animals have animal entities, or are they part of our entities? I imagine entities to not be a "closed system." I also wonder what Seth meant by "A dog, then, is not limited to being a dog in other existences. A certain level, again, of consciousness is necessary, a certain kind of knowledge, a certain understanding of energy organization before an identity can manipulate a complicated physical organism" below. By other existences does he mean incarnations in F1, or in other systems/dimensions?

Session 581, Seth Speaks, has a lot of great insight. Also I'm adding one of the newly discovered drawings Ron has posted on FB. I wonder what Rob was thinking when he gave this cat a man's face? Personality fragment?

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

Just happened to come across this video. As it talks about the intelligence and "extraterrestrian" features of octopusses, I thought I will share it here...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=emb_rel_end&v=mFP_AjJeP-M

Great video, it made me want to interact with octopuses. Their color changing ability is amazing. I wonder what would happen if you put one on a patterned background, such as plaid or checkered fabric. And the fact that they plan ahead (coconut shell) and PLAY tells me they do think and are not purely instinctual.

I'll be heading to Florida in a week or so, I suppose it's time I finally visit Mote Marine. If they're open.

Hi All,

In regards to this conversation about men and animals, this reminds me of some of the interesting things that Seth had so say in UR1, about the various species of man-animals and animal-men, that did exist in the past (see link below).

In this session, Seth says that 50 million to 30 million years ago, there existed many species of men-animals and animal-men.  He also tells us that animals chose to develop their own kind of consciousness and men chose theirs. 

Seth also says that animal awareness is so highly poised in the present moment, that past and future are basically meaningless to them. He also says that Ego consciousness lost some of that focus in comparison. This, I suspect, may be one of the biggest differences that exists between men and animals.

https://findingseth.com/q/session:689+man-animals/

-jbseth