Author Topic: Do people who don't believe in climate change not experience its effects?  (Read 371 times)

Offline happiness

  • **
  • Posts: 38
Since our beliefs create our reality, does it mean that people like Trump who doesn't believe in climate change gets not to experience its negative consequences?

But Seth said that if humans do not treat planet Earth with love and respect, but continue to exploit the planet and destroy it, then we will not deserve the planet. In the end, we will not destroy the planet, but the planet will destroy us. The trees, the birds and the environment will not support us because we will not be worthy of them.

So from this, it seems that people like Trump will still face the negative consequences of climate change and environmental exploitation even if he doesn't believe in them.

But yet Seth also said that our beliefs create our reality, and people who believe in peace will find themselves unharmed by wars and earthquakes.

It seems like there are two classes of beliefs.

There is a class of beliefs that can't be manipulated to your benefit, like the belief that climate change is a hoax.  In other words, you still have to face climate change even if you don't believe in it, so it would be a waste of your time and effort trying to convince yourself that climate change is a hoax. So for this class of belief, you should rely on evidence and science to make judgement, and stop wasting your time and effort trying to argue with the evidence and science.

Then there is a second class of beliefs that can be manipulated to get the kind of reality you prefer in your life, like a belief in peace vs war. For this kind of beliefs, it is fruitful for you on work on them if you want to get a better life and avoid getting caught in the middle of wars and earthquakes.

My question is how do you tell whether a certain belief of yours belong to the first class or second class, and hence whether it is fruitful to work on it? For example, I currently have a belief that eating certain sinfully delicious food, like chocolate cakes, fried chicken, milk tea and desserts, will prevent me from getting a good body, muscular, hunky and gym fit. If this belief belongs to the first class, then I would say "let's look at the scientific evidence". It is a scientific fact that eating unhealthy food will not result in a muscular and fit body. So it would be futile to try to argue with that or change that. But if this belief belongs to the second class, then I would say "let's examine why I have this limiting belief". Is it because I do not believe that I am worthy of having both chocolate cakes and a muscular body at the same time? Am I unknowingly imposing such a limitation on myself out of a lack of self love and worthiness?

A closely related topic got to do with another statement Seth said: "You create your past from your present." This is used for healing. For example, if you are a smoker and develop lung cancer. You could make yourself believe that you were never a smoker, then your past will be changed and all the bad effects of smoking on your body will be reversed! You will then get the body of a non-smoker, free of cancer.

So if you murdered someone, you could try to make yourself believe that you did not kill him. If this belief is of the second class: the kind that could be manipulated to your benefit, then maybe you could end up causing some drastic changes to your memory. You may then develop split personality. And because you were another personality when you commit the murder, you will be acquitted.

What do you think? Do you think convincing yourself you did not commit the murder works or would it be futile like the other beliefs of the first class, such as climate change?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 06:31:13 AM by happiness »

Offline LarryH

  • ***
  • Posts: 386
Hi happiness, I think that if someone does not believe in a mass event like climate change or a pandemic, their lack of belief will not affect that mass event. If they believe that they will not be personally affected by those mass events, I think that has some power of protection for them personally.

Now, it occurs to me, though, going back to my first comment, that if a person of power does not believe in these mass events, then that will influence what he/she does or does not do. But one could say that putting that person in power is in itself a mass event. We created the leader that we have for purposes that are consistent with our reasons for creating the mass event. So let's say hypothetically that a leader is late and muddled in responding to a crisis. That crisis becomes greater. But the crisis was created en masse for a greater purpose. Perhaps the greater crisis is more of an incentive to address issues in how we as a society deal with healthcare, the economy, business, government spending priorities, taxation, lifestyle, the environment, education, service, relationships, and values.

Offline Deb

  • Head Instigator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • ~You are the black sheep of the Universe.~
    • Like us on Facebook!
"You make your own reality. There is no other rule."
NoPR Chapter 1: Session 613

Quote from: LarryH
But the crisis was created en masse for a greater purpose.

I agree. And I do find comfort in the idea that there are reasons for what does or does not happen, it's not random and meaningless.

In a reality of unlimited probabilities, which probability we choose comes from our beliefs and expectations. There are probable worlds and probable mass event results, just like there are probable selves.

Actually now that I think about it, for me creating a reality where climate change "was" a hoax is preferable to one which meant the destruction of civilization.

Quote from: happiness
What do you think? Do you think convincing yourself you did not commit the murder works or would it be futile like the other beliefs of the first class, such as climate change?

I don't think it works that way—convincing yourself or pretending something that you did didn't happen is self-delusion. Murder is a decision and my understanding (of the Seth teachings) is that the past would have to be changed to "un-do" it. I think a different probability would have to be chosen at the point the decision was made. So then the present would be a different probable reality, the murder would not have occurred in it, and there would be no "memory" of it either happening or being changed. You'd have to be a really learned Seth student to pull that off.

« Last Edit: May 18, 2020, 03:58:31 PM by Deb »

Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Quote from: Deb
In a reality of unlimited probabilities, which probability we choose comes from our beliefs and expectations. There are probable worlds and probable mass event results, just like there are probable selves.
Deb, here is a difficult question to which I don't know the answer to. If there are unlimited probabilities, does that mean there are unlimited parallel universes? Is one of my probable selves in a parallel universe where the climate is perfect?
I think what Seth says is that we are not conscious of many beliefs. This could mean that I unconsciously chose to be on an ecologically damaged Earth as a challenge and learning opportunity.

"You felt before, unconsciously, that you were drifting and that life had little meaning. Beneath the surface of events you felt unfulfilled, and felt that you had great courage and abilities with never a chance to use them, and no “heroic” episodes then to rouse you to fuller understanding, and no real impetus to lift you or to bring excitement into your days. Unconsciously, therefore, you chose a situation in which a crisis was precipitated, rousing all the greatest elements of heart and soul, so that they must strain to understand, to perceive, to triumph. And so you shall, in whatever way is most important for you, and you will learn more and be more fulfilled than you would have been had those conditions not been initiated."
—NoPR Chapter 11: Session 646, March 7, 1973

"Obviously, many riots are quite consciously instigated. Certainly thousands of individuals, or millions of them, do not consciously decide to bring about a hurricane, or a flood or an earthquake, in the same manner. In the first place, on that level they do not believe such a thing possible. While conscious beliefs have a part to play in such cases, on an individual basis the “inner work” is done just as unconsciously as the body produces physical symptoms. The symptoms often seem to be inflicted upon the body, just as a natural disaster seems to be visited upon the body of the earth. Sudden illnesses are thought of as frightening and unpredictable, with the sufferer a victim, perhaps, of a virus. Sudden tornadoes or earthquakes are seen in the same light, as the result of air currents and temperature, or fault lines instead of viruses. The basic causes of both, however, are the same."
—NoPR Chapter 18: Session 665, May 23, 1973
« Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 06:44:34 AM by Sena »

Offline Deb

  • Head Instigator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • ~You are the black sheep of the Universe.~
    • Like us on Facebook!
Quote from: Sena
Deb, here is a difficult question to which I don't know the answer to. If there are unlimited probabilities, does that mean there are unlimited parallel universes? Is one of my probable selves in a parallel universe where the climate is perfect?
I think what Seth says is that we are not conscious of many beliefs. This could mean that I unconsciously chose to be on an ecologically damaged Earth as a challenge and learning opportunity.

In my mind that's what Seth is saying, our probable selves occupy probable universes or earths with a variety of problems and conditions. We have chosen our "conditions" in each reality personally, based on what we intend/need to learn as individuals and en masse. Humanity is at different levels of progress, and we all have different things to learn. And the reasons for what issues we choose are as individual as we are.

"If there are individual probable selves, then of course there are probable earths, all taking roads that you have not adopted. [...]"
—SS Chapter 16: Session 565, February 1, 1971

"And I know I am only going to confuse you but if you have probable selves then you know there are probable universes and probable earths and probable histories of your earth and you see what this is going to do to your concept of reincarnation as you now hold it. So within the system that you know, you also have probable reincarnational selves within those probable historical earths. Now this does nothing to deny the basic integrity nor validity of what you may prefer to call the soul. It simply means that the inner self also is far more creative, far richer, and far varied and much different than you originally supposed."
—TECS3 ESP Class Session, February 16, 1971

"Even the physical planet, having vanished, basically would continue to exist. Those responsible for such a destruction would have destroyed only reality as they knew it, in the probable system. Other probable earths and other probable races of mankind coexist, and you are apart of these also."
—TES9 Session 499 August 27, 1969     [This is a really good session, I'm tempted to type up most of it when I have time, Seth goes on to explain how the "destruction" could be used as a lesson in other probabilities.]

Sena, that second quote you put up from Chap. 18 NoPR is a real doozy. It says a lot.

Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Quote from: Deb
In my mind that's what Seth is saying, our probable selves occupy probable universes or earths with a variety of problems and conditions.
Deb, I find this fairly easy to accept. There is a scientific basis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation


Offline LarryH

  • ***
  • Posts: 386
If I "choose" through belief a probable world and Deb does not choose that same probable world, we presumably do not disappear from one another's experience. We are still in each others' probable worlds, even though we have chosen different probabilities. So are we experiencing multiple probabilities based on multiple simultaneous belief choices? It seems if our beliefs choose our probability, there should only be one probable world each that we experience. Does that mean that the Deb that I carry into my probability (when she has chosen another probability) is a zombie Deb with no consciousness but fulfilling my purposes as if she had chosen this probability? Or are we infinite Larrys and Debs, with every subtle belief shift splitting into new universes?

Offline Deb

  • Head Instigator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • ~You are the black sheep of the Universe.~
    • Like us on Facebook!
Ha ha, you ask the best questions.

My first impulse is this: I may not share your beliefs in this reality around global warming. There is a probable me that shares your beliefs on global warming in another probable reality, but maybe not other beliefs. In another reality, you share my beliefs that I have in this one. As far as me being a zombie elsewhere or not existing at all... I don't have a clue. I suppose that's possible. Wish we could ask Seth.

My brain goes numb when thinking about this type of stuff, the same way it always has when I've contemplated infinity.

Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
I feel that what is important is that we have chosen THIS reality (with climate change and coronavirus) as a learning opportunity. A learning opportunity means that some will "go under", and others will thrive (in a spiritual sense).
« Last Edit: May 20, 2020, 04:13:33 AM by Sena »

Offline LarryH

  • ***
  • Posts: 386
Quote from: Sena
I feel that what is important is that we have chosen THIS reality (with climate change and coronavirus) as a learning opportunity. A learning opportunity means that some will "go under", and others will thrive (in a spiritual sense).
My question addressed the condition of when one of us chooses a different reality, we are presumably still in the original reality as well. If you change your reality, you are still in my reality (unless in this reality you literally disappear). So does that mean that the you that is still in this reality is the part of you that did not change your beliefs? Maybe it's related to the idea that one can hold conflicting beliefs at the same time, so each outcome is explored separately.

Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Quote from: LarryH
If you change your reality, you are still in my reality (unless in this reality you literally disappear). So does that mean that the you that is still in this reality is the part of you that did not change your beliefs?
Larry, where internet forums are concerned there is a process of coming and going, so if a member leaves the forum it could be that he has chosen to change his reality.
In real life, there is telepathic communication between people who are close to each other, so that if one person changes his reality his partner may follow. It could be that divorces are due to one person changing his reality and the partner choosing not to follow.

Offline LarryH

  • ***
  • Posts: 386
OK, let's keep it simple. Two family members are in one reality together, and one member changes his/here reality. The other family member retains his/her reality. That original reality still has the family member who changed his/her reality. The member who changed his/her reality is now in both realities unless that person has died in the original reality. In your example, the divorced couple are both still there in the same original reality, just not together. It seems that in order to create a different universe, they both have to agree, and they both explore both realities. In other words, all probabilities require agreement of all participants in those probabilities.

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Hi LarryH, Hi All,

I’ve discovered that whenever Seth had to something to say about some specific topic, like probable realities, some of the other things that he said about some other topics are occasionally directly or indirectly related, in some interesting way.

In regards to probable realities, here are some examples of what I’m talking about.



In the Seth Material, Chapter 10 and in TES2, S68, we learn that Bill Macdonnel, whom Seth calls Mark, attended this session with Jane and Rob. In this session, Seth talks about the nature of reality. He tells us that we each create our own reality, if you will in our very own personal perspective and each of these exists in an entirely different space continuum.

You and Ruburt perceive Mark, and yet neither of you sees Mark’s Mark. As he sits in his chair, constantly he creates his own image physically, using his own psychic energy, and using particular atoms and molecules for the construction of his body.

There is the Mark which Mark has created, an actual physical construction. There is another Mark does not see, and this Mark is an actual physical construction created by you. There are at this time still two more physical Marks, one created by Ruburt, and one created by your cat.

So, maybe what we typically consider to be reality, is already something very similar to a probable reality, since there are actually four Marks here, and not just one, as we typically think.





Then, along with this, in TES2, S71, Seth talks about “Primary” and “Secondary” “Constructions”. In this session, Seth says.

A primary construction is a psychic gestalt, formed into matter by a consciousness of itself.

[…]

Secondary physical constructions are those created by a consciousness of its conception of other consciousnesses, from data received through telepathy and other means.

So, maybe what Seth is saying here is that when Mark creates Mark in his (Mark’s) reality, that’s a primary construction and when Mark creates Joseph, in his (Mark’s) reality that’s a secondary construction. Along with this, when Joseph creates Joseph in his (Joseph’s) reality, that’s a primary construction and when Joseph creates Mark, in his (Joseph’s) reality that’s a secondary construction.

In other places in “Seth Speaks” I believe, Seth talks about how we each create thought-forms and I suspect that this is probably related to this idea of secondary constructions.




Now, along with this, Seth also had some other really interesting things to say about probable realities. In Chapter 15 of “The Seth Material” and in TES9, S486, Seth talks about a Doctor Pietra, who was Rob, in a different probable reality. Seth says that while Rob was a painter, who found it easy to paint medical images, Dr. Pietra was a doctor, who dabbled in painting.

Seth tells us that Dr. Pietra, in attempting to make this contact with one of his other probable realities, was using drugs of much greater precision and stability than any that were known in Rob’s reality. Thus it appears that these two probable realities are not nearly identical.



In UR1, Session 680, Seth talks about Rob’s parents and how they “did not share the same reality at all”.  Seth tells us how in another reality, Rob’s Mom married a doctor, and became a nurse. In that reality she only had one son, who was Rob. Seth tells Rob that his birth in this life coincided with the birth of his probable Mom’s son (also Rob) in that other life. In this reality, Rob had 2 brothers but in that other life, Rob was an only child. This kind of makes you wonder what actually happened with Rob’s 2 brothers in that other reality. Did they not exist? Were they born to different parents?

Then, in UR1, Session 681, Seth also tells Rob that he died as a young boy in this reality, which became a probable reality.

(To me:) You died as a young boy in an operation, however, in this life as you think of it. You died again in the war, where you were a pilot — but those are not your official deaths, so you do not recognize them.

Along with this, in this same session, he also tells Rob.

In dreams you are acquainted with probable events, from which you then choose; (to me:) so before you died as a child, you knew that you could pick or choose that death. In greater terms you chose both life and death, and the picture of you at the age of 16 was never taken in one reality.


All in all, I find that these are some pretty interesting things to consider in regards to the nature of probable realities.


-jbseth


Offline T.M.

  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Hi All,

I'm realizing more and more there is a definite emotional component, as well as beliefs that go along with reality creation.

Offline LarryH

  • ***
  • Posts: 386
Quote from: jbseth
(Seth): There is the Mark which Mark has created, an actual physical construction. There is another Mark does not see, and this Mark is an actual physical construction created by you.
jbseth, this example from Seth is part of what I am struggling with. Does the Mark that Mark has created also have his consciousness separately in the Mark that is a physical construction created by Rob? The implication is that the two Marks are somehow different. How different are they? Does Mark's consciousness influence both Marks, or does only Rob's consciousness influence the Mark that Rob created? The second option reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's novel, Breakfast of Champions, in which bad science fiction writer Kilgore Trout is convinced that he is the only person in the universe.

Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Quote from: LarryH
In your example, the divorced couple are both still there in the same original reality, just not together.
I don't think that is correct. Being in a different reality need not mean a totally different physical reality. The change is mainly in the way each individual SEES reality.
The multiple universes may be all rather similar to one another, with subtle differences.

Offline LarryH

  • ***
  • Posts: 386
Quote from: Sena
Being in a different reality need not mean a totally different physical reality. The change is mainly in the way each individual SEES reality.
The multiple universes may be all rather similar to one another, with subtle differences.
Sena, in jbseth's seth quote above, Rob has other probabilities in which he died as a child, as a pilot, had no brothers, etc. Those are not very subtle differences.

Offline Deb

  • Head Instigator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • ~You are the black sheep of the Universe.~
    • Like us on Facebook!
Let's see if I can add to the confusion! Five or six years ago I was taking the Seth Online Intensive and we had our live conferencing thing going. I was having a hard time wrapping my head around our incarnations, probable selves and how they do or do not affect one another. Somewhere Seth does say we have a telepathic connection with them, they are all us, and sometimes there are sort of bleed throughs and also cooperative assistance. I was ok with that. My question was, does the physical death of an incarnation or probable self affect the other "versions" in some way? Rick laughed like it was a dumb question and sarcastically said, "Of course not" and went on a little bit about it. There were about 100 of us on the conference call and I felt a bit stupid.

Then a few years ago I started reading UR1, and read this, which made me feel better:

• "Historically, however, many probabilities exist at once. When your mother died in her 50’s in one probable system, your mother in this system was the recipient of energy that then returned."

• "(Some quick figuring showed us that the 50’s for my mother had encompassed the years 1942–51. From my present viewpoint I had no idea if she’d consciously or unconsciously experienced any influx of energy resulting from the death of a probable self during that decade."

—UR1 Section 1: Session 680 February 6, 1974

My thoughts about probable selves (and incarnations etc.) is that we are all fully real in our own realities, going off on our own paths. It gets complicated when I think that each of my probable selves also comes to crossroads in their existence, and they create more probable selves, and on and on. That's about when my brain goes numb. When finally reunited at the end of an incarnational cycle, I imagine that's a lot of experiences being brought together. It's no wonder when people have NDEs they say the afterlife is so much more real, saturated, intense than what we know here.

I equate probable selves as being splinters of the "original" self, the way I and my other incarnations are splinters of our entity. Thank god we are normally focused on only one reality at a time in F1. I remember Seth saying he had to concentrate very hard when speaking with the class attendees because from his "lofty position" he could see all of the incarnations and probable selves of each person at once. He had to keep focused on which self was actually in the room and interacting with him.

As far as the Marks, when I first read that I took it to mean physical appearance (such as the coffee table story), rather than actually creating Mark the personality. That quote from TES2 S71 about primary and secondary constructions supports that too—we create our physical appearance (primary), others (secondary) construct their own version of us based on what we telepathically send them. I think it would be great if we could see how others see us. But I suppose even if someone takes a photo of us or makes a painting, we will still see it from our subjectivity. And so will they.

Offline LarryH

  • ***
  • Posts: 386
Deb, thanks, that helps me to clear stuff up. I especially like the idea that we have telepathic connections between probable selves and different incarnations. And creating Mark's physical appearance as opposed to a whole different Mark also makes sense.

Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Quote from: LarryH
Sena, in jbseth's seth quote above, Rob has other probabilities in which he died as a child, as a pilot, had no brothers, etc. Those are not very subtle differences.
Larry, what I mean by subtle differences is that the physical appearnce of Earth No.2 in Universe No.2 will be very similar to the present Earth. So if I choose to go to Earth No.2, I will not be aware of the change as far as physical appearance is concerned. The only changes I perceive will be those which result from a decision I made, consciously or unconsciously.

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Hi Sena, Hi LarryH, Hi All,

I have a question regarding probable realities.

One day recently, in the morning before lunch I was planning to make and eat a ham sandwich for lunch. Later on however, at lunch time, I opted to make and eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich instead.

Sena, is this kind of what you are talking about in regards to these subtle differences in realities?

Sena, LarryH, and Everyone else, what do you think? Does a probable reality exist where I made and ate a ham sandwich for lunch instead?


-jbseth




Offline LarryH

  • ***
  • Posts: 386
Quote from: jbseth
Does a probable reality exist where I made and ate a ham sandwich for lunch instead?
I suspect that if it changed something outside of your life, it may. For instance, you eat the ham sandwich, and that results in you running out of ham earlier. You buy more ham during your next grocery visit. The store notices that it is running out of ham, and just because of your purchase, orders enough ham to cause one person at a meat packing plant in Iowa to be put on overtime. He is on overtime just enough to contract Covid-19, but is asymptomatic until he suddenly gets dizzy while driving and runs into a power junction box, causing a power outage in 14 counties. The governor of Iowa declares a state of emergency and calls out the National Guard. The National Guard includes one who would have made his wife pregnant that night if he had been home. That baby would have become President of the United States and would have saved the Union through quick and decisive action during the Great Pandemic of 2065, but because a flat-earther who did not believe that there was a virus is elected instead, the country descends into a barren wasteland, and the de-populated land is taken over by North Korea. The upshot is that we all would have been better off if you had chosen peanut butter and jelly. Next time, think this through before you make any rash decisions. :)

Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Quote from: jbseth
Sena, is this kind of what you are talking about in regards to these subtle differences in realities?
jbseth, my understanding is that Seth's teaching on probable realities is mainly relevant where major life changes are concerned, such as moving to a different twon or country, changing to a completely different job etc. So I don't think that eating a different kind of sandwich means a change to a different probable reality.

Offline Deb

  • Head Instigator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • ~You are the black sheep of the Universe.~
    • Like us on Facebook!
I think Sena nailed this one. I think I remember reading somewhere in the materials that the more significant decisions in our lives are what result in probable selves. Seth even mentioned we ponder and pre-trial choices we make in our waking life, so that would involve major decisions. We make so many minor decisions every day (Should I roll over to my right side or left side in bed? Do I have eggs or toast for breakfast? Do I brush my teeth now or later? Wash my hair today or not? Paper or plastic? The blue pill or the red pill?) that every decision turning into a probable self would be pointless. Well, except for maybe the red/blue pill choice.

I'll see if I can track down any more information about significance.

Offline LarryH

  • ***
  • Posts: 386
Jbseth's scenario might be called the peanut butterfly effect.

Offline T.M.

  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Hi All,

Hi Jbseth,

Yes you did eat the ham sandwich, in a probable reality. I was looking for the specific Seth quote yesterday for this thread on the search engine, couldn't find it. It's from NOPR, I'm pretty sure. Roughly paraphrased it goes something like this.
Every thought/decision is played out somewhere, even the ones we don't choose to physically actualize.

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Hi LarryH, Hi Sena, Hi All,

I love your sense of humor, LarryH, and I apologize for eating that ham sandwich.  ;D


I've been wondering about this issue for many years. It seems to me that every single choice that a person makes in life, big or small, potentially puts then into scenarios that or may not play out very differently from each other.

I'm just not exactly sure how this actually plays into probable realities, from Seth's standpoint.

For example, like LarryH suggests, since I made and ate the PB & J sandwich, I ran out of jelly sooner than I would have otherwise. As a result of this, the next time I went to the store I bought some jelly but maybe not ham. This event, buying the jelly may have lead to other events (big or small) like bumping into a friend in the store that I haven't seen for awhile. As a result of bumping into this friend, I discovered that he was moving to California, in two days, which I didn't know. This could then lead to a whole string of other events in my life like helping him to move, etc.

If I had eaten the ham sandwich instead, the next time I went to the store I may have purchased ham but not necessarily jelly. This then could have lead to a completely different series of other events.  Since I needed the ham sooner than the jelly, I went to the store sooner and as a result, I didn't run into my friend.  Then later on, after the fact, I found out that my friend had already moved out of state to California.

These issue may be small or big, but since my friend didn't live here any longer, I wasn't able to have him and his wife over for dinner some night which turned out to be a significant issue in my life.


- jbseth

Offline Deb

  • Head Instigator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • ~You are the black sheep of the Universe.~
    • Like us on Facebook!
But then does this get into synchronicities, rather than probable selves? Or are they related?

Offline T.M.

  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Hi All,

I'm starting to think our ideas of time, space and location may be lacking a bit.

Seth said it all thoughts played out.....how?......where?

Does that mean theirs a probable world/people. Or maybe some fragment of identity comes alive just long enough to play out it's script. The stronger the emotional input, the longer the fragment lasts. If it's enough of an emotional input, perhaps that births a new personality.  Something along that line

I think all thoughts create the environment that spawned them, that would include it's own past, present, future.

Eta: there's no one specific place, there's many. Consciousness itself creates the space it wants/needs
« Last Edit: May 21, 2020, 03:08:29 PM by T.M. »

Offline T.M.

  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Hi All,

I don't think my last entry conveyed my point very well.

Let's say Jbseth is a radio station. His resonant frequency is 96.5  He's wants a ham sandwich, then debates on a P.B. and decides on that.  The ham sandwich desire went to frequency 96.6.
At the second reality split, the 2 were mirror images of each other, with the same past/present/future. Both are using the energy and vitality earth puts out.(so another probable literal earth and personality was not created in that sense, both realities are using the source energy and pattern, of the one earth, in its own way)
However the 2nd reality containing the ham sandwich has the blueprint of ham sandwich. From the very second of the split, now time is entering. Both realities will contain roughly the same past, and present to an extent. The future will be different as the awareized energy in the thoughts pursue their inherent blueprint, each creating that reality for itself,  one-the P.B., the other, the ham.

Now, I'm not sure how long the ham sandwich reality lasts. Maybe just long enough to consume the ham sandwich. Maybe beyond

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Hi T.M., Hi All,

I to think that they may be different like different channels on a radio or TV.

I'm not sure whether Seth meant that they were individual events, from the same world or different worlds or perhaps from the same universe or perhaps different universes.


Going back and taking a look at what Seth had to say about this in “Seth Speaks”, Chapter 16, Session  565, I notice that he used the term, “action” quite a bit.



Sorry, you must be logged in to view spoiler contents.


- jbseth




Offline T.M.

  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Hi All,

Hi Jbseth,

Thank you for the spoiler. I have literally spent hours thinking on that passage and trying to figure it out!
I'm going to look for the quote I was thinking about too. It really made things more clear for me. I think it's in the last chapters of Nopr. It's very close to the info in the spoiler as well. I've tried the Seth search engine as well.
To no avail. I don't remember enough key words of it.

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Hi T.M.

Thanks for the reply, I'll look through my NOPR book to see if I can find it too.

-jbseth

Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Quote from: jbseth
The other probable actions, however, are as valid as they ever were, though you have not chosen to actualize them physically. They are carried out as effectively as the one you chose to accept. If there was a strong emotional charge behind one of the rejected probable actions, it may even have greater validity as an act than the one you chose.
jbseth, thanks for this Seth quote. I think this phrase "strong emotional charge" is relevant. Deciding on which sandwich to eat would usually not carry a strong emotional charge

Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
This topic of probabilities reminds me of a story by Borges, "The Garden of Forking Paths":

"Basing his work on the strange legend that Ts'ui Pên had intended to construct an infinite labyrinth, as well as a cryptic letter from Ts'ui Pên himself stating, "I leave to several futures (not to all) my garden of forking paths", Doctor Albert realized that the "garden of forking paths" was the novel, and that the forking takes place in time rather than in space. In most fictions, a character chooses one alternative at each decision point and eliminates all others. In Ts'ui Pên's novel, however, all possible outcomes of an event occur simultaneously, each one itself leading to further proliferations of possibilities."

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



https://archive.org/stream/TheGardenOfForkingPathsJorgeLuisBorges1941/The-Garden-of-Forking-Paths-Jorge-Luis-Borges-1941_djvu.txt
« Last Edit: May 22, 2020, 01:15:38 AM by Sena »

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Hi T.M., Hi All,

Wow T. M., I think you led us to a gold mine. I looked into the index of my copy of NOPR, and basically, the entire chapter of Chapter 14 is pretty much all about probabilities. This is a very interesting chapter where Seth ties together several concepts including probabilities, creating your reality, changing your reality and how you change your past, present and future.

This chapter, Chapter 14, is titled, “Which you? Which World? Your Daily Reality as the Expression of Specific Probable Events".

I’ve found several interesting comments from Seth about probabilities in some of the first paragraphs of this chapter which I’ve captured in the spoiler below. This is definitely some good information to be aware of for anyone who’s curious about probable realities.


Sorry, you must be logged in to view spoiler contents.


- jbseth




Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Quote from: Sena
Quote from: jbseth
The other probable actions, however, are as valid as they ever were, though you have not chosen to actualize them physically. They are carried out as effectively as the one you chose to accept. If there was a strong emotional charge behind one of the rejected probable actions, it may even have greater validity as an act than the one you chose.
jbseth, thanks for this Seth quote. I think this phrase "strong emotional charge" is relevant. Deciding on which sandwich to eat would usually not carry a strong emotional charge


Hi Sena,

You and I may have different opinions of the following and that's OK. But here's how I see things.

The Seth comment about the “strong emotional charge” IS “relevant” to his comments that “rejected probable actions”, may even have a greater validity as an act than the one you chose to experience.”

However, in this sentence, Seth doesn’t appear to be saying anything about whether or not a “strong emotional charge” is or isn’t necessary or somehow connected to the existence of a probable event. 

Thus, I don’t believe that this “strong emotional charge” comment has any bearing on the issue of when I opted to make and eat a PB and J sandwich, instead of a ham sandwich, whether my other option, the ham sandwich, was a valid “probable event”.


-jbseth







Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Quote from: jbseth
The overall private experience that you perceive forms your world, period. But which world do you inhabit? For if you altered your beliefs and therefore your private sensations of reality, then that world, seemingly the only one, would also change. You do go through transformations of beliefs all the time, and your perception of the world is different. You seem to be, no longer, the person that you were. You are quite correct — you are not the person that you were, and your world has changed, and not just symbolically.
jbseth, thanks for highlighting Chapter 14 of NOPR. My understanding is that Seth is not referring to trivial events such as choosing a ham sandwich. He is talking of changing the world you inhabit, changing the person you are.

"In your terms probable events are brought into actuality by utilizing the body’s nerve structure through certain intensities of will or conscious belief. These beliefs obviously have another reality beside the one with which you are familiar. They attract and bring into being certain events instead of others. Therefore, they determine the entry of experienced events from an endless variety of probable ones. You seem to be at the center of your world, because for you your world begins with that point of intersection where soul and physical consciousness meet." (from "The Nature of Personal Reality: Specific, Practical Techniques for Solving Everyday Problems and Enriching the Life You Know (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

From the Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/ea0O3ux

It seems to me that what is important is the belief that led you to eat the ham sandwich rather than the actual event of eating it. For instnace, if you had previously believed that vegetarianism is best, and now you change that belief, you may enter a different world.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2020, 04:19:29 AM by Sena »

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Quote from: Sena
Quote from: jbseth

The overall private experience that you perceive forms your world, period. But which world do you inhabit? For if you altered your beliefs and therefore your private sensations of reality, then that world, seemingly the only one, would also change. You do go through transformations of beliefs all the time, and your perception of the world is different. You seem to be, no longer, the person that you were. You are quite correct — you are not the person that you were, and your world has changed, and not just symbolically.


jbseth, thanks for highlighting Chapter 14 of NOPR. My understanding is that Seth is not referring to trivial events such as choosing a ham sandwich. He is talking of changing the world you inhabit, changing the person you are.



Hi Sena,

As I see it, in paragraph above, in the first sentence, Seth seems to be talking about how “private” experience (verses mass experience) forms your world. Then he says that if your altered your beliefs, you’d alter your world. Following this he tells us that we change our beliefs all the time and when we do this, our world changes. As a result of this, we seem to no longer be the person that we were. Finally in the last sentence, he tells us that we are not the person that we were, our world has changed.

These are all ideas that I completely agree with.

Furthermore, I agree with your statement that here, “He is talking of changing the world you inhabit, changing the person you are.”

But as I see it, no part of this paragraph has any bearing whatsoever on the topic of whether or not a PB&J sandwich verses a ham sandwich is a probable event or probable reality.




I will however point out that in SS, CH16, S565, where Seth is talking about probable realities he does seems to be talking about very trivial things (sneeze or not sneeze, cough or not cough, walk to a window or door, scratch your elbow, learn a lesson) as well as some other things that aren’t so trivial (save a child from drowning, commit suicide, harm another, turn your cheek).   

SS, CH16, S565:
In your daily life at any given moment of your time, you have a multitudinous choice of actions, some trivial and some of utmost importance. You may, for example, sneeze or not sneeze, cough or not cough, walk to the window or the door, scratch your elbow, save a child from drowning, learn a lesson, commit suicide, harm another, or turn your cheek.

It seems to you that reality is composed of those actions that you choose to take. Those that you choose to deny are ignored. The road not taken then seems to be a non-act, yet every thought is actualized and every possibility explored. Physical reality is constructed from what seems to be a series of physical acts. Since this is the usual criterion of reality for you, then nonphysical acts usually escape your notice, discretion, and judgment.



Here in this session he clearly says that “every thought is actualized and every possibility explored.”

If I had a thought about having a ham sandwich for lunch, and then later changed my mind and had a thought about having a PB& J sandwich for lunch instead, it seems to me that what he is saying here is that somewhere these thoughts are actualized.

Again, I don’t think that you and I necessarily agree on this, and that’s OK.

Furthermore, I’m not actually certain that my conclusion here is correct about this. Somewhere else, in the vast amount of Seth literature, Seth may have said something that clearly points out that this belief of mine is not valid. This is what I’m looking for, but as of this moment, I haven’t come across it yet.



What I wanted to do here however, was to turn this conversation back to the comments between you and Deb in Reply # 5, in this topic and ask the group the following question.


Does the existence of a probable event or a probable self, necessarily imply the existence of a probable world or probable universe?

What people think about this?

- jbseth






Offline T.M.

  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Hi All,

Hi Jbseth,

"Does the existence of a probable event or a probable self, necessarily imply the existence of a probable world or probable universe?"

I'm still working on what this means also. Just some of my rough ideas:  if something exists in thought, it exists, whether it's 3D physical or not.  So, if this is so, then yes perhaps there's endless probable worlds, that aren't necessarily physical.
An idea exists, yet it takes up no discernable space in the process

• "On one level they could be said not to exist, and yet they do exist. While in your dream, you are able to see and touch and move about in these locations. It is only when you awake that they escape you. This should be considered along with our material on the expanding universe, since dream locations represent, certainly, a reality, even a framework that has no existence in your space; and measured purely along the lines used to measure your space, you would receive no hint at all of their existence or reality. Measured purely in terms of your camouflage conceptions, many things which you know to exist would seem not to exist."

• "The brain is a camouflage pattern. It takes up space. It exists in time. The mind takes up no space, it does not have its basic existence in time. The reality of the inner universe does not take up space, nor does it have its basic existence in time. Your camouflage universe, on the other hand, takes up space and has an existence in time, but it is not the real and basic universe, any more than the brain is the mind."

• "If the dream world and the mind and the inner universe do exist, and if they do not exist in space, and if they do not exist basically in time, though they may be glimpsed through time, then your question will be: in what medium or in what manner do they exist; and without time how can they be said to exist in duration?"

—TES2 Session 44 April 15, 1964

Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Quote from: jbseth
Does the existence of a probable event or a probable self, necessarily imply the existence of a probable world or probable universe?
jbseth, I think the answer is yes.

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Hi T.M., Hi Sena, Hi All,

Thanks for sharing T.M. and Sena.

T.M., lately I’ve been wondering about some of these things as well.  Specifically, I’ve been wondering if there’s something significant in regards to the fact that in “Seth Speaks” in Chapter 16, Session 565, (the chapter on probabilities) Seth seems to be referring to “actions” or perhaps, probable “actions”.



Anyway, today I’ve come across some very interesting information in sessions located in both TES5 (S232, S233 and S235) and TES7 (S309) where Seth talked about probabilities.

In sessions 232 and 233, the discussion mainly seems to consist of the activities and relationships that occur between the ego, the subconscious, the self that dreams, the self that experiences probabilities, and the inner ego.

In session 235 the discussion mainly seems to consist of how the probable system is organized.

Then, in session 309, Seth seems to take a very different look at, and approach to, the topic of probabilities. That is, very different from that discussed in S232, S233 and S235.   

I think that perhaps the real key to understanding probabilities may have to do with understanding what Seth is trying to tell us about probabilities in all of these sessions.


I’ll share this information in one or more following posts.


- jbseth

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Hi All,

Below is some interesting information from Seth on probabilities.

This comes from TES5, S232.


Sorry, you must be logged in to view spoiler contents.



 
- jbseth






Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Hi All,

Below is some interesting information from Seth on probabilities.

The very last few sentences are also interesting in regards to what Seth says about who (ego, subconscious) decides what we'll make real.


This comes from TES5, S233.


Sorry, you must be logged in to view spoiler contents.


 
- jbseth






Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Hi All,
   
Below is some interesting information from Seth on probabilities.

This comes from TES5, S235.


Sorry, you must be logged in to view spoiler contents.


 
- jbseth

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Hi All,   

Below is some more interesting information from Seth on probabilities.

This perspective on probabilities from Seth is very different than the perspective that he gave us on this topic in TES5, S232, 233 and S235.


This information comes from TES7, S309.


Sorry, you must be logged in to view spoiler contents.


 
- jbseth






Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Quote from: jbseth
You must take it for granted also, you see, that this probable self has operated in each incarnation, in each materialization of the whole personality, and has therefore at its command literally millions of probable situations and conditions upon which to make value judgments.
jbseth, thanks for the extracts from TES5. I don't have that book.
When Seth mentions "value judgements", I assume that the major decisions we make are based on these value judgements. Since we don't have conscious recolllection of these "millions of probable situations", we to have use our gut instinct when we make these decisions, and hope our Inner Self will guide us.

Offline T.M.

  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Hi All,

Hi Jbseth,

Thank You for the spoilers from the various books!!  I don't have a lot of the books that were done after Jane passed. I'm slowly getting a digital library of them though. Sometimes I don't get notifications from some of the threads either, I didn't know you had posted those till I checked in today. I want to take some time and read them.


I wanted to post a thread going down a new rabbit hole. I couldn't really figure out how to organize the info. This thread is going into that direction in its own way. I was going to pose a series of questions with hopefully some answers.

Where are we?  Earth. What is Earth?  I think it likely we are in a place that is surrounded by 2 torroidal fields, one negative, one positive. It solidifies any particle (for lack of a better word) in the 3rd dimension. So while that particle is multi dimensional, on the 3rd dimension, it's experiences are objectified-solidified.
Meanwhile, it's still having experiences on its other planes of existence. I think this is where the world's and people's of probabilities and dreams exist.

Any body in the 3d field has its filters, be it a human, animal, insect, tree, rock, or blade of grass. When a particle of consciousness perceives another particle of consciousness, both, perceive the other through their camouflage. I'm looking at a tree through my window. The tree registers as a tree, via my 3d filters. Outside of those filters, and 3d,the tree may well be something other than a tree.

All consciousness emits energy. Earth is giant energy field, that attracts other consciousness. All that put together is likely a huge powerhouse. I suspect all this energy allows groups of consciousness an ability to experience whatever world they want and agree to experience, to exist, simultaneously with other groups to experience whatever world they want to experience.

So if a person was adept enough at manipulating their body and filters, they could literally walk into any word they want to experience.

Offline T.M.

  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Hi All,

I think we think we have probable selves. That they are coming from us. It might be more correctly said they are coming to us, and through us.

All consciousness perceives and creates.

The Entity we come from likely has a vast amount of abilities. Whenever we need a certain ability, we can likely draw it from our Entity. Any abilities we have and refine we pass on to our Entity as well, where it can be used by any other personalities of our Entity.

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Hi All,

This morning, I was thinking some more about the nature of probable realities.


In the first few paragraphs of “Seth Speaks”, Chapter 16, Session 565, Seth seems to be indicating that each possible action in our lives, big or small, may exist in some probable reality. Here he mentions small things like to sneeze or not sneeze, to walk to the window or the door; along with big things like, to save a child from drowning, commit suicide or harm another.

Then he gives us an example of what he’s talking about. A friend wants to meet you for an engagement and you choose between: A) saying no and staying home, B) saying no and going somewhere else or C) saying yes and keeping the engagement.

Certainly, this example doesn’t appear to fall into the category of a big or life changing event such as changing a job, getting married, or moving out of state.


However, whenever Seth seemed to talk about probable selves, the probable selves themselves seemed to be very different from one another. Examples of what I’m talking about here are: 1) Rob who was to be contacted by a probable self from another probable reality, a Dr. Pietra, 2) Rob and his probable self who died as a child, and 3) Rob and his probable self who was the child born by his probable mother who married a doctor and who only had one child.

Certainly Rob and these probable Rob’s were very much different than the Rob who would have chosen to walk to a window instead of a door, or the Rob who would or wouldn’t have chosen to keep an engagement with a friend.



As a result of this, I decided to reread Chapter 16, of Seth Speaks to see if I could get some fresh insights into these seemingly different issues around probable selves and probable realities. This chapter consists of 3 sessions, sessions 565, 566 and 567.



In Session 565, Seth does appear to be indicating that any action, big or small, also has probable actions. But then along with this, Seth also mentions a scenario where the person who had the 3 choices, decided to tell his friend that he won’t go to the engagement. Then Seth says that if this person then imagines that he did go instead, and the circumstances are good, his imagination will open a door and he’ll be able to perceive what took place, at least for a little way, along the road not taken.  Immediately after telling us about this in S565, Seth says the following:

Such an experiment will not carry you too far, however, and the probable self who has chosen the action that you denied, is in important respects quite different from the self that you know.”

It doesn’t seem to me that this probable self, who attended the engagement would necessarily be that much different than the person who didn’t and so I wasn’t quite sure what Seth was getting at here.




In Session 566, Seth seems to be talking about something different in regards to probable realities. In this session, Seth says the following:

“[…] Occasionally at surface levels of consciousness, you might wonder what might have happened had you made other decisions than those you have; chosen different mates, for example, or taken up residence in other portions of the country. You might wonder what would have happened had you mailed an important letter that you subsequently decided not to mail; and in such small wonderings only, have you ever questioned the nature of probabilities. But there are deep connections between yourself and all those individuals with whom you have had relationships, and with whom you were involved in deep decisions.”

Along with this, in this same session Seth also says the following (and the second half of this sentence may be a key big here).

Now: One event can be actualized by more than one probable self, however, and you will resemble some probable selves more than others. […]”



Given this then, here’s what I’m now thinking might be going on in regards to probable realities. In S565, Seth tells us that almost any action results in a probable event. I’m thinking that this is perhaps what he was trying to tell us here.

Then, in S566, Seth talks about how sometimes we might wonder how some of the big events in our lives, may have gone differently if we had chosen a different option.  In this session, Seth isn’t actually telling us that only big events can or do become probable events. What he’s saying here instead is that in regards to the big events in our lives, typically these are the only events that we ever consciously wonder about in terms of what might have happened otherwise.

Then in his examples with Rob and Dr. Pietra, with Rob and his probable self who died in childhood, and with Rob and the only son of his probable mother, these are all examples where Rob and his probable self don’t closely resemble each other. On the other hand, the Rob who did meet with one of his friends some night and the probable Rob who didn’t, do closely resemble each other.

While it appears that Seth never gave us any examples of the probable selves that closely resemble Rob or Jane, he does say that some probable selves do resemble us more than others.


I’m not completely sure that this is what Seth meant in regards to probable realities, but maybe (maybe) this is what he was getting at.


- jbseth

 

With Quick-Reply you can write a post when viewing a topic without loading a new page. You can still use bulletin board code and smileys as you would in a normal post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.
Name: Email:
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image
Type the letters shown in the picture:
Twelve divided by two (word):