The Nature of Reality

Started by jbseth, July 27, 2019, 09:46:38 AM

Previous topic - Next topic


Hi All,

The other day, in one of the other topics here, the issue of the reality came up.  Along this line, I discovered the following quote from Seth, where he describes a very different way of experiencing reality.  This quote, which also talks to the nature of "probable realities" as well, was eluded to in "Seth Speaks", Chapter 15, Session 515, where Seth gives an example having to do with a persons fathers 8 favorite chairs during his life.

I found that this quote really helps me in understanding both realities and probabilities.

TES5, Session 226, (page 230)

Reality within some systems other than you own, is experienced not as a series of moments, but as experience into all the probabilities of action that exist within any given instant. A continuity therefore is in terms of the self rather than in terms of a series of moments. Instead there is a series of selves—

(Jane's eyes now began to open wide for emphasis; they were very dark. Her voice was strong, her manner most emphatic and fast. She gestured frequently as she spoke.)

—with the inner ego operating consciously to give continuity.

In such a system therefore your ideas of present, past and future would not exist. Nor would your idea of one and only one event at a time be understood. Now this dimension exists in a reality which Priestley nor Dunne even began to examine.

The whole psychological formation of the perceiver is entirely different, and there is no one event out of all probable events, but there is experience of all the mathematically probable events that could happen to any given individual, within any given amount of time as you know it.

(Consider the whole of the next paragraph underlined, so strong and positive was Jane's delivery.)

The psychological composition of the perceiving participator is therefore entirely alien to your own. In such a system however, as in your own, the perceiver is also a participator and a creator, but he does not work with your conception of time, but with probabilities. In your terms then, he would seem to delve into each moment in all of its probabilities, so that in your time on the one hand many centuries would have passed, and on the other hand only an instant.

The time system is entirely different here. The value fulfillment is quite as valid however within both systems, and in a very loose fashion this probability system could be compared to Dunne's time three.



Quote from: jbseth
The time system is entirely different here.
jbseth, thanks for this topic. Other time systems are difficult for us to grasp, but Einstein's theory of relativity is just as mind-boogling. According to that theory as I understand it, if I am travelling on a spaceship at the speed of light, time would be passing much slower than it does on Earth. We think we understand the nature of time when we look at a clock, but I don't think our brains are equipped to understand the concept of time itself.