Framework 2 and the Cinderella story

[Sena]

The Cinderella story is of course a myth, but according to Seth it illustrates the operation of Framework 2. Framework 1 is ordinary everyday reality. This is how Seth described Framework 2:

“The inner mechanisms that happen prior to your experience will take place in the vast mental studio of Framework 2.”
“It is as if Framework 2 contains an infinite information service, that instantly puts you in contact with whatever knowledge you require, that sets up circuits between you and others, that computes
probabilities with blinding speed.”
 (The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events)

This is what Seth said about the Cinderella story:

“In the Cinderella story the heroine, though poor and of low estate, manages to attain a fulfilling and seemingly impossible goal. Her desire to attend a spectacular ball, and meet the prince, initiates a series of magical events, none following the dictates of logic. The fairy godmother, suddenly appearing, uses the normal objects of everyday life so that they are suddenly transformed, and we have a chariot  from a pumpkin, and other transformations of a like nature.

The tale has always appealed to children because they recognize the validity behind it.  The fairy godmother is a creative personification of the personalized elements in Framework 2 — a personification therefore of the inner ego, that rises to the aid of the mortal self to grant its desires,
even when the intents of the mortal self may not seem to fit into the practical framework of normal life. When the inner ego responds in such a fashion, even the commonplace, ordinary, seemingly innocuous circumstances suddenly become charged with a new vitality, and appear to "work for" the individual involved. If you are reading this book you are already too old to clearly remember the constant fantasies of your early childhood. Children however know quite well, automatically, that
they have a strong hand in the creation of the events that then seem to happen to them.”

Is there a scientific basis for Framework 2? There may be. I have skimmed through the book Bridging Science and Spirit: Common Elements in David Bohm's Physics, the Perennial Philosophy and Seth by Norman Friedman, and Friedman seems to be suggesting that the “implicate order” described by the physicist David Bohm may be the equivalent of Framework 2. These are some quotes from Friedman's book:

“In Bohm's view, quantum field theory suggests that empty space is a vast ocean of energy.
Bohm establishes a relationship between that ocean of energy and the implicate order, which
unfolds to form space, time, and matter.”

“The ocean of energy from which matter springs is not primarily in space and time at all, and
therefore it is not recognized in the mathematical formulations of physics.”

“The explicate order comprises our three-dimensional world, but cannot be fully described
without reference to the implicate order from which it springs.
The implicate order is the source from which both our physical and mental worlds are
created.
The implicate order arises from an even deeper ground called the superimplicate order. (?Framework 3)
There are deeper and deeper orders, all merging into the holomovement, which is the
infinite-dimensional ground of All That Is.”

“According to Bohm, everything has a physical and a mental aspect. In inanimate matter, the
mental aspect is very small. As we go deeper into the implicate order, the mental aspect becomes
more and more important.”

This is a diagram I modified from one I found on the web:



More on the implicate order in Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order

Seth is quite clear that Framework 2 is not purely psychic or spiritual. It has a definite physical aspect:

“Framework 2 represents the inner sphere of reality, the inner dimensions of existence, that gives your world its own characteristics. The energy and power that keeps you alive, that fuels your
thoughts — and also the energy that lights your cities — all have their origins in Framework 2. The same energy that leaps into practical use when you turn on your television sets also allows you to tune into the daily experienced events of your lives.” (The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events)

[jbseth]

Hi Sena,

Frameworks are kind of a mystery to me. I use to think that there were only 2 Frameworks, Framework 1, which is basically this 3D world we live in, and Framework 2, the other psychic realities that exists.  However, in one small section of Session 864, (see God of Jane, Chapter 13) Seth briefly talks about and describes Frameworks 3 and Framework 4.  In this session, Seth says the following:
 
Framework 2 is connected with the creativity and vitality of your world. In your terms, the dead awaken in Framework 2 and move through it to Framework 3, where they can be aware of their reincarnational identities and connections with time, while being apart from a concentration upon earth realities. In those terms, the so-called dead dip in and out of earth probabilities by travelling through Framework 2, and into those probabilities connected with earth realities.

Some others may wind up in Framework 4, which is somewhat like Framework 2, except that it is a creative source for other kinds of realities not physically oriented at all and outside of, say, time concepts as you are used to thinking of them.  In a way impossible to describe verbally, some portion of each identity also resides in Framework 4, and in all other frameworks.


In the last part of this last sentence, where Seth said “some portion of each identity also resides in Framework 4, and in all other frameworks.”, I’m not sure whether Seth was saying that there are only 4 total frameworks and some portion of identity resides in all 4 of them, or if he was saying that there are more than 4 frameworks (5, 10, 100’s, 1,000,000’s, infinite, )  and some portion of identity resides in all of them.


If Seth’s is right about this, then I think that the physicists may not have grasped or understood all of the implications of this in their explicate / implicate model of reality.


jbseth

[Sena]

In the last part of this last sentence, where Seth said “some portion of each identity also resides in Framework 4, and in all other frameworks.”, I’m not sure whether Seth was saying that there are only 4 total frameworks and some portion of identity resides in all 4 of them, or if he was saying that there are more than 4 frameworks (5, 10, 100’s, 1,000,000’s, infinite, )  and some portion of identity resides in all of them.


If Seth’s is right about this, then I think that the physicists may not have grasped or understood all of the implications of this in their explicate / implicate model of reality.

jbseth,
My understanding of Seth is that there is an infinite number of frameworks going all the way to All That Is. I don't think physicists can say anything definite about this as they can only make measurements in Framework 1. You could say that Bohm's idea of the Implicate Order is inspired guesswork to try to explain the anomalies of quantum physics. I still find it reassuring to know that there is possible agreement between Seth's teaching and the ideas of an eminent physicist.
From the practical point of view what I find is that apparent problems and difficulties in my daily life become solved when I have confidence in the operation of Framework 2.

[Sena]

A question which occurred to me was, is the human brain in Framework 1 or Framework 2? It must be in both. When an anatomist dissects the brain of a dead person, he is dealing with Framwork 1. When we make decisions and create our own reality, our brains are operating in Framework 2. It is only because of Framework 2 that we have free will.

A Seth quote:

"Scientific analysis of the brain will tell you nothing about the power that moves your thoughts, or hint at the source of the
brain's abilities. However, the constant activity between Frameworks 1 and 2 is constantly apparent in the very existence of your world, and in the relationships involving your imagination, feelings, and beliefs, and those private and shared events that compose your experience." (The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events)

[LarryH]

A question which occurred to me was, is the human brain in Framework 1 or Framework 2? It must be in both.

To me, the brain is in Framework 1; the mind is in Framework 2. Based on overwhelming evidence of near-death experiences, one can be brain dead and still be conscious. The brain is not in Framework 2 because it is physical. Consciousness is not dependent on the brain.

[Sena]

The brain is not in Framework 2 because it is physical.

Larry, my understanding of Seth is that Framework 2 is physical as well as mental. This is a quote from The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events:

"Framework 2 represents the inner sphere of reality, the inner dimensions of existence, that gives your world its own characteristics. The energy and power that keeps you alive, that fuels your thoughts — and also the energy that lights your cities — all have their origins in Framework 2. The same energy that leaps into practical use when you turn on your television sets also allows you to tune into the daily experienced events of your lives.”

All forms of energy, including "the energy that lights our cities", are physical not mental. The Framework 2 aspect of the brain may be at the quantum level, which will not appear even in the most sophisticated brain scans.

[LarryH]

Larry, my understanding of Seth is that Framework 2 is physical as well as mental.

It appears that the difference between our viewpoints is that I view Framework 1 as coming out of Framework 2, not as being a part of Framework 2. In my view, the energy that comes from Framework 2 is manifest as space, time, electricity, brains, etc. But those things are only manifest in Framework 1. They are only potential or probabilities in Framework 2 until they are manifest. Jumping to the implicate/explicate order comparison as an example, everything that is manifest in the explicate order comes out of the implicate order, but that which is manifest is no longer implicate - that is, something that is collapsed into physicality is no longer potential, it is part of the realm of space and time. Physical objects are not floating around in Framework 2. Instead Framework 2 contains myriad ideas of those objects, potentials, the uncollapsed waves. When our consciousness observes that potential, it collapses into the Framework 1 object that is consistent with our belief.

I recently had a discussion with someone who felt that all of this was just different aspects of "the Universe". I don't have an argument claiming that her definition (that the universe includes everything - the manifest and the unmanifest, the collapsed wave function and the uncollapsed wave function, the realm of space/time and realities "outside" of space/time, the physical and non-physical) is wrong. But Seth and David Bohm have made a distinction for a reason, and I think it is useful even if "wrong". That which is physical is a projection of an idea from a non-physical reality. The energy that drives that projection is consciousness.

[Deb]

I see "our" Framework 1 as being this physical dimension that we live in—energy collapsed into physical matter by consciousness, whether it's our planet, the solar system, our bodies, our homes and all the material objects within it. Including the brain, which I imagine is a receiver much like a radio, tv or better yet, modem translating messages from F2 to our F1 lives. I think the inner "us" is our mind transmitting from somewhere else, such as F2.

"It is the mind, then, as the brain’s nonphysical counterpart, that decides what data will activate the brain in that regard."

[skip]

"The brain organizes activity and translates events, but it does not initiate them. Events have an electromagnetic reality that is then projected onto the brain for physical activation. Your instruments only pick up certain levels of the brain’s activity. They do not perceive the mind’s activity at all, except as it is imprinted onto the brain."
—NotP Chapter 10: Session 794, February 21, 1977

But then Seth would probably add this, which for some reason is difficult for me to imagine, only because the current me is living in a system where things appear to have edges:

"No system is a closed system. The framework of all systems is basically infinite. Any appearance of enclosure is the result of camouflage distortions, quite necessary within a given system so that the organisms within it can focus their main attentions to the problems within a particular system."
—TES2 Session 78 August 10, 1964

"First of all, let me make it plain that while I speak of separate fields and systems, you must remember that they are all one. Traces of each system will be found in each system, because no field or system is basically closed, although they may appear closed."
—TES3 Session 126 January 27, 1965

This whole topic of frameworks and "systems" could be a doozy. Doing a search on "closed systems" brought up some great quotes. And maybe some answers. I need to take my time and study the search results.

Also, a question came to mind when I was writing this, I hope I can make this understandable. Our F1 is the 3D realm that we physically inhabit right now. Seth refers other systems where the natural laws and existences are so very different from ours that they would be incomprehensible to us. So, these other systems have their own F1 (thinking of F1 as just a label used by Seth so he could explain things). So I wonder, is their consciousness is also projected throughout the same frameworks 2-? as ours, or would there be unlimited probable frameworks? Jeez, I'm wondering how there is order in what would seem like chaos to me.

[Sena]

That which is physical is a projection of an idea from a non-physical reality. The energy that drives that projection is consciousness.

Larry, did Seth say that consciousness is non-physical? I am not sure that Seth subscribed to Descartes' idea of the dualism of mind and matter.

"I know it is difficult to comprehend,but every object that you perceive — grass or rock or stone — even ocean waves or clouds — any physical phenomenon — has its own invisible consciousness, its own intent and emotional coloration. " (The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events)

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Sena. In Reply #5 on this topic you said, “All forms of energy, including "the energy that lights our cities", are physical not mental.”


I’m not really sure how you came to this conclusion but I have a different point of view on this and I just thought I’d share it with you.

First of all, I’d say that energy, like power, is one of those rather nebulous concepts that’s hard to pin down. What is energy? In the simplest of terms, it’s sometimes defined as the ability to do work.

However, energy and matter are related to each other. Einstein’s equation, e = mc(squared), shows us this relationship.

On the other hand, while physical matter, like an apple, can be handled, touched and prodded, in this physical reality, energy can’t.  Because of this, I’d say that energy unlike matter isn’t physical, even though it does exist in physical reality.


Now here’s another thought I had on this.

Just because something exists in physical reality, doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s physical. For example, while I exist and have a body in physical reality, I also have a consciousness, thoughts and ideas and I use all of these things in physical reality. Thus I would say that these things all exist in physical reality.

However, while I would say that my body is physical, I wouldn’t say that my consciousness, my thoughts or my ideas are physical, as these things can’t be handled, touched and prodded, in this physical reality either.

Just a thought.

jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

I just found the following interesting statement by Seth in DEaVF1, Chapter 2, Session 884:

Once again, in terms of your equations, energy and consciousness and matter are one. And in those terms—in parentheses: (the qualifications are necessary)—consciousness is the agent that directs the transformation of energy into form and of form into energy. All possible visible or invisible particles that you discover or imagine—meaning hypothesized particles—possess consciousness. They are energized consciousness.


Thus, here I’d say that the energy that is transformed into “form” by consciousness, is physical, while the energy that isn’t transformed into “form” is not physical.


I should point out however, that I’m not absolutely confident, that my conclusion here is correct.


jbseth

[Sena]

Once again, in terms of your equations, energy and consciousness and matter are one.

jbseth, thanks for finding this quote. It is very clear and further interpretation may not be necessary. It is not easy for us to grasp because we have all been indoctrinated with the dualistic ideas of Descartes.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

I also found a similar quote in the Nature of Mass Events, Chapter 10, Session 872:

[…] All energy is (underlined) not only aware-ized but the source of all organizations of consciousness, and all physical forms.

Notice here in this quote, Seth is saying that the “energy” is “aware-ized” and is the source of all organizations of consciousness.  In the previous quote, Seth said,

consciousness is the agent that directs the transformation of energy into form and of form into energy.

Putting this all together, I “think” that what Seth is saying here is this. Aware-ized energy is the source of all consciousness, and consciousness creates matter. I also think that this aware-ized energy is what Seth is referring to, when he talks about the “vitality” of All That Is.

jbseth

[LarryH]

Once again, in terms of your equations, energy and consciousness and matter are one.

jbseth, thanks for finding this quote. It is very clear and further interpretation may not be necessary. It is not easy for us to grasp because we have all been indoctrinated with the dualistic ideas of Descartes.

Sena, I think Seth uses Frameworks as a useful way of categorizing different types of reality, while acknowledging that ultimately it's all one big reality. That being said, I still maintain that physical brains do not exist in Framework 2. Framework 2 contains the idea of brains, and perhaps they have the kind of physicality that we have in dreams. But to say that physical brains are in Framework 2 is to make the category meaningless. To use another analogy, let's take North America. It's all one continent, but for various reasons, we utilize artificial boundaries and separate the continent into countries, states, etc. Once we define those boundaries, even though they are artificial, we cannot then say that Chicago is part of Canada just because it's all one continent anyway. Seth's framework concept is as dualistic as Descartes, but even Descartes would have acknowledged that what he was describing was all one big reality.

[Sena]

I also think that this aware-ized energy is what Seth is referring to, when he talks about the “vitality” of All That Is.

jbseth,
Christian doctrine is that "God" is immaterial. All That Is cannot be immaterial because it is inclusive of everything. I put "God" within quotes because an immaterial being cannot exist.

[Kate]

I’m not sure whether Seth was saying that there are only 4 total frameworks and some portion of identity resides in all 4 of them, or if he was saying that there are more than 4 frameworks (5, 10, 100’s, 1,000,000’s, infinite, )  and some portion of identity resides in all of them.

There are definitely infinite frameworks. In a sense, a framework is just a perspective that is shared among entities. The infinite nature of All That Is is infinite in every direction.

[Sena]

I’m not sure whether Seth was saying that there are only 4 total frameworks and some portion of identity resides in all 4 of them, or if he was saying that there are more than 4 frameworks (5, 10, 100’s, 1,000,000’s, infinite, )  and some portion of identity resides in all of them.

There are definitely infinite frameworks. In a sense, a framework is just a perspective that is shared among entities. The infinite nature of All That Is is infinite in every direction.

Hi Kate, welcome to the forum.

[jbseth]

Hi Kate, Hi Sena, Hi All,

Welcome to the forum Kate. 

In Reply #1 on this topic I don’t think I was very clear about the point I was trying to make.

When I first came across Seth’s Framework discussions, in the book, “The Nature of Mass Events”, I noticed that he only talked about two different Framework’s, Framework 1 and Framework 2.  Because of this, one thought I had was that maybe Seth was telling us that there were “literally” only 2 frameworks. Kind of like in “Seth Speaks”, Chapter 5, Session 524, where he says, “There are 4 absolute coordinate points that intersect all realities.”

On the other hand, it also occurred to me that maybe Seth was telling us that there were 2 separate arrangements of frameworks. This is like thinking that there is one state, Maine (Framework 1) and there are 49 other states (Framework 2). From this point of view, Framework 2 didn’t actually represent just one other Framework, it represented many or all other frameworks as well.


Then later after reading “The God of Jane”, Chapter 13, Session 864, I became aware of what Seth calls Framework 3 and Framework 4. Given this then, I realized that I can completely disregard the 2 ideas I just mentioned about Framework 1 and 2. However, those 2 ideas could still be in the minds of those forum members who weren’t aware of Seth’s brief discussion of Framework 3 and 4, and that was one of my reasons for bringing this up.


Given Seth’s brief discussion about Framework 3 and 4, I’m not exactly sure what he was actually telling us about these 4 frameworks. Was he telling us:

1) there were literally only 4 Frameworks; such as there are only 4 absolute coordinate points,

2) there were many frameworks and in his discussion there was a Framework 1, a Framework 2, a Framework 3 and Framework 4 covered everything else.

3) there were many frameworks and in his discussion he only talked about 4 of the many different frameworks that exist. 

While to tend to think that he probably meant option 3 above, I also recognize that this is an “assumption” that I am making and this assumption could be wrong. It is possible that Seth may have meant either Option 1 or Option 2 instead. .

Unfortunately given his limited comments on Framework 3 and 4, his statement, “In a way impossible to describe verbally, some portion of each identity also resides in Framework 4, and in all other frameworks.”, can be interpreted as any one of these 3 options just mentioned.

If the people in this forum are coming different understandings (option 1, option 2 and option 3) of these frameworks, then this is likely to cause some confusion in this discussion; and that was the point I was trying to make.


jbseth

[Deb]

Hi all and welcome Kate!

If the people in this forum are coming different understandings (option 1, option 2 and option 3) of these frameworks, then this is likely to cause some confusion in this discussion; and that was the point I was trying to make.

3) there were many frameworks and in his discussion he only talked about 4 of the many different frameworks that exist. 

Well that's what I've been wondering as well, which is where I was going with this part of one of my posts:

Also, a question came to mind when I was writing this, I hope I can make this understandable. Our F1 is the 3D realm that we physically inhabit right now. Seth refers other systems where the natural laws and existences are so very different from ours that they would be incomprehensible to us. So, these other systems have their own F1 (thinking of F1 as just a label used by Seth so he could explain things). So I wonder, is their consciousness is also projected throughout the same frameworks 2-? as ours, or would there be unlimited probable frameworks? Jeez, I'm wondering how there is order in what would seem like chaos to me.

This morning I was going to read through all of the quotes that came up in the search engine about the frameworks, but had some technical issues here that pulled me away from that.

I finally found out how to narrow down the search results to be very specific. If you use, for example, exact:"framework 3" you'll get this: https://findingseth.com/q/exact:'framework+3'/  This morning I searched on just "Framework 3" and I ended up with 667 results that contained the word Framework, regardless of whether it was 1, 2, 3 or 4. Adding the exact:"..." is the ticket. That's going to be a big time saver for me from now on.

So while right now I don't have an answer for you, I thought I'd share the naarrow search trick so you can maybe find more quotes about F3 and F4 that came from the other books. Nothing came up searching on F5 or probable frameworks.

[chasman]

hi Deb,
       thank you for search tip.
I have been wanting to learn how to narrow searches for a while.
I just googled and found this:

https://www.lifewire.com/looking-for-specific-phrase-3482479

and welcome Kate!! 

[jbseth]

Hi Deb,

Hey, thanks for sharing this information. I use the search engine alot; it saves me a lot of writing. 

I just tried exact:"framework 5" and exact:"framework 6" and got 0 (zero) results for both.

I don't know that Seth ever said anything else about Framework 3 and Framework 4 than the little bit that is written about in "The God of Jane" and those 4 items that show up when you use the search engine and do a search for exact:"framework 3" or exact:"framework 4".

Thanks again.

jbseth

[Deb]

I have been wanting to learn how to narrow searches for a while.
I just googled and found this:
https://www.lifewire.com/looking-for-specific-phrase-3482479

Thanks Charlie. I'd been using the quote marks on phases on the Seth search engine and it never really worked for me. I finally had to ask what the problem was, and someone pointed out I needed to put exact: before the search term. I wish I'd known that a long time ago! That's one of the search tools Chris hadn't shown specifically on his list. He shows exact:thankful without the quotes, which now makes perfect sense that if there's more word you'd need to add quote marks.

I'm guessing search syntax is universal. And I learn something new every day.

[chasman]

He shows exact:thankful without the parentheses, which now makes perfect sense that if there's more word you'd need to add quote marks.

thank you again Deb.
and did you mean to write quote marks, where you wrote parentheses?

[Deb]

and did you mean to write quote marks, where you wrote parentheses?

Yep, I sure did.
I've been a complete Fogg Head all day. I fixed it.

[chasman]

Deb,
    you rock!!