~Speaking of Seth~

"No matter what science says about certain values being outside of its frame of reference, science implies that those values are therefore without basis. The reasoning qualities of the mind are directed away from any exploration that might bring about any acceptable scientific evidence for such values, therefore. The fact is that man lives by those values that science ignores (quietly emphatic, and repeated). For that reason, science—after its first great adventurous era—had its own flaws built in, and so it must expand its definitions of reality or become a tin-can caricature of itself, a prostituted handmaiden to an outworn technology, and quite give up its early claims of investigating the nature of truth or reality. It could become as secondary to life as, say, the Roman Catholic Church is now, losing its hold upon world dominance, losing its claim of being the one official arbiter of reality." (from "Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, Volume Two (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts)

https://amzn.eu/0xpA5zH

"The male scientist is often ashamed of using his intuitions, for not only do they appear to be unscientific, but female as well. It is what others will think about his masculinity that such a man is concerned with. To be "illogical" is a scientific "crime" — not so much because it is an unscientific attribute, but because it is considered a feminine one. Science has followed the male orientation and become its epitome. Up until the present, science has consistently tried to do without the so-called feminine qualities. It has divorced knowledge from emotion, understanding from identification, and stressed sexuality over personhood." (from "The Nature of the Psyche: Its Human Expression (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts)

https://amzn.eu/2q2hPFZ

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Thank you for starting this post Sena. What an excellent topic. 


From my own personal standpoint, I do believe in both science and in Seth.  What this amounts to, for me is the recognition that many of the scientific ideas and beliefs do appear to work just exactly as stated. If I jump off the roof of a single floor house, I'll fall to the ground after I do so. On the other hand, I also recognize that many of Seth's teaching seem to be valid as well.


When I go to sleep at night, many times in my life, it seems as though the next thing I know I'm waking up some hours later. Time seemed to fly by in an instant.  On the other hand, during those few times in my life, when I've stayed up all night for one reason or another, time seems to go by in the same way that it does during the daylight hours, one second after the other.

Then again, many times in my life, when I've been joyfully anticipating something, like when I was a child on Christmas Eve, time seems to go by very slowly. Kind of like that saying, "A watched pot, never boils." On the other hand, many times in my life, when I've been joyfully participating in some event, time seems to fly by very quickly.

What is real? Does time go by at a constant rate, one second to the next, or does our conscious and/or our emotional state affect its nature?  Does time perhaps really drag along sometimes, fly by in others and does it depend upon where we focus our consciousness such as in Framework 1, or is it affected when we change the focus of our consciousness, such as when we daydream or when we go to sleep at night?



I do believe that we can convince ourselves that time goes by at a constant rate, one second to the next and that this is "real"; this is how both time and reality works.  I also believe that we can convince ourselves that when we experience time going by slowly, as during Christmas Eve, or quickly as when we're having fun, that we can convince ourselves that this isn't "real"; time doesn't work like that. I also believe that we can convince ourselves that when we experience time going by slowly or quickly as can occur during a daydream or during sleep at night, that we can convince ourselves that this also isn't really "real"; time doesn't work like that.


In short, we can "convince" ourselves that time goes by at a constant rate, one second to the next and that this is "real". This seems to be the general scientific, Newtonian physics concept, of how time works; but here's the real question, is this really true?

Likewise we can also "convince" ourselves that all of the ideas and concepts that we have learned from science are also "real". Again, when I jump off the roof, science tells me that I will fall and furthermore, it can also tell me how much time will occur before I hit the ground. And this really does appear to work; but once again, is this also really true?



Einstein's theories indicate that when we approach the speed of light, both time and space are impacted. Einstein's theories indicate that time is very dependent upon your reference point. Seth, on the other hand talks about psychological time, and how from some perspectives all time is now, or all time is simultaneous.  He also talks a great deal about the nature of reality. That what we often think of as real, in our camouflage Framework 1, is only real from a unique perspective as viewed within Framework 1. Other portions of ourselves, our inner ego and our entity, don't actually view this Framework 1 reality, as "real". Furthermore, from the viewpoint of these other portions of ourselves, many of our scientific concepts and idea, may likewise be no more valid, than our belief that time goes by, at a constant rate, one second to the next. I'm open to the possibility, much of what Seth says here about some of our scientific ideas and beliefs, may be more valid than our present scientific beliefs themselves.

Some of my personal experiences with time, such as in seemingly waking up instantly after falling asleep 8 hours ago, makes me think that Seth may be onto something in regards to his ideas about both time and science.



Below are 4 quotes, the first one comes from Jane and the last three come from Seth. I find these 4 quotes quite interesting in regards to the questions about science. The last one, S855, is my personal favorite.  This first quote from Jane can be found in both, "The God of Jane", Chapter 12, and TMA, Appendix D.















-jbseth

Hello Sena, jbseth and all,

I started reading DEAVF last summer, and it was the first Seth book that I stalled out on.  I never made it to Volume 2.  There were intriguing passages, but I felt like I needed to more fully internalize the earlier works before my mind could take in the information in DEAVF, which felt "next level."  I'm glad that you've shared this material, Sena.

Quote from: Sena
No matter what science says about certain values being outside of its frame of reference, science implies that those values are therefore without basis.

Indeed.  This is why, when I attempt to describe my worldview to a scientist, I usually come away feeling diminished.

Quote from: Sena
it must expand its definitions of reality or become a tin-can caricature of itself

Yes.  We might be a good way into this process now; but then I'm an optimist.  It is widely recognized, for example, that Newtonian physics is only true under certain circumstances, and falls apart elsewhere.  Some contemporary physicists sound as much like mystics as scientists.  Unfortunately the scientists I bump into seem to be of the "tin-can caricature" type.   It is really difficult for me to imagine science itself becoming irrelevant, although I can imagine this happening to a certain class of scientist.  The scientific method is still valuable, right?  The problem is that many scientists don't actually practice the scientific method, because they are unwilling to admit evidence that contradicts their models. 

Perhaps we should show them more mercy.  Seth tells us that we all fail to see evidence of other probable realities and our larger entities, simply because they don't fit in with our ingrained ideas about reality and the self.  I'm recalling the Biblical quote about casting "the beam out of thine own eye," so that we can see clearly to pluck the bit out of our brother's.

Seth's point about science being unwilling to give a place to emotion and intuition in its pursuit of knowledge applies equally to philosophy.  There is feminist philosopher named Alison Jaggar who claims that emotion is necessary in the construction of knowledge; reason is not enough.  I always looked forward to discussing her ideas in class, and then in the newest edition of the text I've used for years...she was edited out!  She had been replaced by a male philosopher discussing feminist epistemology.  I kid you not.  I continue to discuss her ideas, after a brief rant about her omission in the text.    Science may be a prostituted handmaiden to an outworn technology, but as a handmaiden to science, philosophy can't be doing any better.  Except for a few outliers.

Quote from: jbseth
Science worships skepticism, unless skepticism is applied to science

That's brilliant, jbseth, thank you.  I'll make use of this!  And I hope to jump on later this week and comment on your other excerpts.

Below is a book review published by the New York Times today on Avi Loeb's book Extraterrestrial.  Loeb, a Harvard astronomer, cleverly uses reason to make the case for open-mindedness in science.  Here's a link to the NYT article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/books/review/extraterrestrial-avi-loeb.html?action=click&module=Editors%20Picks&pgtype=Homepage

I've enclosed the article in a spoiler in case you don't want to fight the paywall.

Quote from: leidl

The Starshot scheme, bankrolled by the Russian internet billionaire and philanthropist Yuri Milner, had been announced only a year and a half before Oumuamua was discovered. It was natural for Loeb to think that great minds across the universe might have thought alike. It sounds crazy but there is a larger point he has to make, one well worth making and reading.

Central to his argument is what he calls the "Oumuamua wager," a takeoff on Pascal's famous wager, that the upside of believing in God far outweighs the downside. Likewise, believing that Oumuamua could have been an alien spacecraft can only make us more alert and receptive to thinking outside the box. As Louis Pasteur said, "Chance favors the prepared mind."

leidl, thanks for this extremely interesting article and book recommendation. The article refers to Arthur C. Clarke's SF book "Rendezvous With Rama". I read that 40 years ago.

I found the reference to Pascal's Wager interesting:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

The key fact is that the object was probably NOT a comet or an asteroid. Comets and asteroids go round and round our sun, but Oumuamua came from interstellar space and returned to that space. The following is an extract from the book:

"Eventually, the media called 'Oumuamua "weird," "mysterious," and "strange." But
compared to what? The answer, in brief, is that this scout was weird and mysterious and strange
when compared to all other comets and asteroids previously discovered, ever.
In fact, scientists could not state with certainty whether this scout even was a comet or an
asteroid.
It's not as if we didn't have a basis for comparison. Thousands of asteroids, dry rocks
hurtling through space, are discovered every year, and the number of icy comets in our solar system
is greater than our instruments can count.
Interstellar visitors are far rarer than asteroids or comets. In fact, at the time of
'Oumuamua's discovery, we had never seen an object that originated outside of our solar system
pass through it."

A Sethian criticism of Avi Loeb is that he is focussing solely on THIS physical reality, THIS universe. A Seth quote:

""Outside" in quotes of the realities of which I am aware and others are aware, there are systems that we cannot describe. They are massive energy sources, (pause), cosmic energy banks, who make possible the whole reality of probabilities. We are moving in that direction. Portions of the entity in quotes "arrive" before other portions, and send us communications that we can hardly understand. The other personality who speaks is on the edge of such a system. (Long pause.) The other system is the inside of the inside. It has seen the birth and death of many physical universes such as your own; and the entities within it, in quotes, "at one time" were the inhabitants of such universes. (Long pause.) They have evolved beyond all probabilities as we understand them, yet outside of probabilities they still have existence. (Pause.) This simply cannot be explained in words. (Pause.) They form energy sources.  (from "The Early Sessions: Book 9 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts, Session 438)

https://amzn.eu/01KdEh5

Quote from: leidl
I started reading DEAVF last summer, and it was the first Seth book that I stalled out on.  I never made it to Volume 2.  There were intriguing passages, but I felt like I needed to more fully internalize the earlier works before my mind could take in the information in DEAVF, which felt "next level."  I'm glad that you've shared this material, Sena.

Hi leidl, Hi All,

I can definitely see how this could happen; I can see how a person could stall out on DEAVF1, especially depending upon which Seth books they did and didn't read beforehand.

I kind of think of the Seth books, as being like the Harry Potter books. While they "can" be read in any order, the information presented in them does build upon that given in the previous books. As a result of this, the information that is given in the later books probably makes more sense when the books are read in the order that they were published.

Over the years, I've noticed that what Seth says about some specific topics in one of his earlier books, he may or may not touch upon in his next series of book(s). However, sometimes in one of his later books, he'll come back and expand upon some of these concepts.

For example, in SS, Seth goes quite heavily into the topic of "probabilities". However, in his next book, NOPR, he doesn't really say all that much about it. Then, in the first few chapters of UR1 he goes into some interesting details about Rob and his mother and their various probable reality relationships. This additional information really expands upon some of the concepts of "probabilities" that he talked about in SS.

If, for example, a person chose to read NOPR, as their first Seth book, and then chose to read DEAVF1 as their second, I can definitely see how they might completely "fail to grasp", many of the important implications that Seth talked about in regards to the nature of "probabilities", when they read DEAVF1. Furthermore, I can also see how, in failing to grasp some of these concepts, a person could completely stall out in DEAVF1.

-jbseth

Quote from: jbseth
If, for example, a person chose to read NOPR, as their first Seth book, and then chose to read DEAVF1 as their second, I can definitely see how they might completely "fail to grasp", many of the important implications that Seth talked about in regards to the nature of "probabilities", when they read DEAVF1. Furthermore, I can also see how, in failing to grasp some of these concepts, a person could completely stall out in DEAVF1.

jbseth, that is a useful observation. I need to go back to DEAVF1.

Quote from: jbseth
I can definitely see how this could happen; I can see how a person could stall out on DEAVF1, especially depending upon which Seth books they did and didn't read beforehand.

Hey all!  jbseth, I may have no excuse for stalling out on DEVF1, because I've read all of the Seth books written prior to DEVF1.  I haven't read the Early Sessions, Private Sessions or Jane's other books, but I was trying to read the books dictated by Seth more or less in order, because I believe he intended them to be read that way.  I should probably just start over and read them all again.

Sena, I thought Loeb's use of Pascal's wager was interesting also.  Pascal's wager has never set right with me.  I'm not convinced that one can choose to believe in God or anything else simply because it may be to their advantage.  I've been aware for years, for example, that people with strong religious or sports affiliations tend to be happier, but knowing that doesn't mean I can simply choose to believe in the Christian God or choose to know that football is fabulous, and enfold myself blissfully into those communities.  In jbseth's thread on believing for the end of the pandemic, he rightly pointed out that the new beliefs we're attempting to instill in ourselves about the pandemic need to be believable! 

Incidentally, it never occurred to me before, but the fact that Pascal's wager doesn't work for me may be because I believe that emotion and intuition have an important place in the building of knowledge, as mentioned earlier in this thread.  Believing in God, knowing God is real, involves more than believing/knowing that 4 is the answer to 2 plus 2.  Pascal errs in my view by trying to approach belief in God as if it were the correct answer to a math problem.

Pascal has an answer for those who struggle with unbelief; he says that they should act as if they believe, that doing so will cure unbelief if they seek such a cure.  Mmm...maybe.  But this sounds suspiciously like gay conversion therapy, which I'd like to see consigned to the dustbin of history.  We should allow ourselves to feel our feelings, and work with them gently and respectfully.

Quote from: leidl
Hey all!  jbseth, I may have no excuse for stalling out on DEVF1, because I've read all of the Seth books written prior to DEVF1.  I haven't read the Early Sessions, Private Sessions or Jane's other books, but I was trying to read the books dictated by Seth more or less in order, because I believe he intended them to be read that way.  I should probably just start over and read them all again.

Hi leidl, Hi All,

Hey leidl, no "excuse" is needed, as far as I'm concerned.   I thought that maybe you might have stalled out on it because you had read the Seth books out of order or something like that. I can see how that could make it confusing. Obviously that wasn't the case here for you.

When I first read UR2, many years ago, I kind of got bored with it about half way though and ended up setting it aside for about 6 months. At that time, I was really excited about Seth's discussion on both UFO's and Atlantis in this book, but not so much on his discussion of the various families of consciousness.  Later on, I picked it back up and finished the book.

What I like about DEAVF1, is that here, Seth really gets into his explanation of both All That Is and Evolution. His discussion of All That Is, is much different than that of most religions and their beliefs about God, and his discussion of Evolution is much different than that of Darwinian and the "Big Bang" concepts.

To get to this information, in this book, I tend to put blinders on and somewhat overlook the rather sad notes from Rob about Janes deteriorating health conditions.   That was even a bigger issue for me in "The Way Toward Health" book and it took me awhile before I could actually pick that book up and read it, because of this.

If there's anything about DEAVF1, that any of us may be able to help you with, please don't hesitate to ask.

-jbseth

Quote from: leidl
Sena, I thought Loeb's use of Pascal's wager was interesting also.  Pascal's wager has never set right with me.  I'm not convinced that one can choose to believe in God or anything else simply because it may be to their advantage.

leidl, for someone like me, who was brought up as a Roman Catholic, Pascal's wager was really scary. The priests at the school I attended did their best to frighten us about the fires of hell. James Joyce describes this in his book "A portrait of the artist as a young man". What Pascal's wager says is that if you believe in God and hell, and then when you die you just cease to exist, you have not lost anything. So if you are a betting man, it is safer to bet that God and his hell are true.
One of the things about Jane Roberts which appeals to me is that she too was brought up as a Catholic, and was able to overcome the debilitating Catholic beliefs,

QuoteBut this sounds suspiciously like gay conversion therapy, which I'd like to see consigned to the dustbin of history.

I agree with you, but there are still billions of Catholics and evangelical Christians who believe that if their son or daughter is in a gay relationship, God will condemn them to eternal damnation.

Quote from: leidl
Pascal's wager has never set right with me.

Hi leidl, Hi Sena, Hi All,

Yeah, I've never bought into this Pascal's wager idea either, for two main reasons.



The first being that this concept seems to be strictly based upon the "Christian" belief about God where, you might burn in "Hell" for eternity, if you sinned too much.  To me, it seems as though it was this specific belief that was the main reason behind the "wager" in the first place.

But what about all of those other beliefs that man holds about God? What about, the Buddhists, the Hindu's, the Native Americans, or the people who believe in Seth?

The reasoning behind this concept and wager, isn't logical and doesn't make any sense to any of those people who don't believe that they'll burn in "Hell" for eternity for their sins.



The second reason that I've never bought into this, Pascal's wager idea, is that somehow these "philosophers", never seemed to have recognized this issue. That is, they appear to be completely blind to the fact and their failure to recognize this issue sets up some "faulty logic" in their thinking. And they call themselves "philosophers".

As Shania Twain sang in her song many years ago, "That don't impress me much".  

(I'm not a big Country music fan, but that song seemed very appropriate here.)

-jbseth