Author Topic: The creation of the natural world  (Read 63 times)

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
Hi All,

Here's a new topic, the creation of the natural world.

How does this happen and who exactly creates it?

Any thoughts?

-jbseth


Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
jbseth, that is a good topic. Here is a starter:

"Directly, so to speak, beneath this personal material in the subconscious, is racial material which could be of great value to psychologists in their study of racial histories, and resulting psychological differences of the various races. Underneath this is material dealing with the species as a whole, with its background, evolution and inner knowledge. Beneath this, pure and simple, undistorted, there for the searching, absolutely free for the asking, is the knowledge inherent in the inner self pertaining to the inner universe as a whole, its laws and principles, its composition. Here you will find, undistorted, uncamouflaged, the innate knowledge of the creation of the camouflage universe, the mechanics involved, much of the material that I have given you, the method and ways by which the inner self as a basic inhabitant of the inner universe, existing in the climate of psychological reality, helps create the various planes of existence, constructs outer senses to project and perceive the various apparent realities or camouflages, how the inner self reincarnates on the various planes. Here you will find your answers as to how the inner self transforms energy for his own purposes, changes his form, adopts other apparent realities, and all this free for the investigation." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 2 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

From the Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/b2x7iqP

How I understand Seth is that the inner self of each individual is involved in the creation of the natural universe. To imagine that "God" created the natural world 15 billion years ago is nonsensical. Science may be just as deluded as Christian theology.

It seems to me that this topic is relevant to the topic of synchronicity. How I understand synchronicity is that an event in the external world occurs at roughly the same time as an event in one's own internal world, so that there seems to be a connection between the internal and the external. Although Seth does not use the word synchronicity very often, his ideas are entirely consistent with synchronicity. If the inner self of each individual is involved in creating the natural world, it is not at all surprising that coincidences occur between inner and outer events.

This is the story of Carl Jung's patient which gave him the idea of synchronicity:

"A young woman I was treating had, at a critical moment, a dream in which she was given a golden scarab (beetle). While she was telling me this dream, I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the window-pane from the outside. I opened the window and caught the creature in the air as it flew in. It was the nearest analogy to a golden scarab one finds in our latitudes, a scarabaeid beetle, the common rose-chafer (Cetonia aurata), which, contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt the urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment. I must admit that nothing like it ever happened to me before or since."

http://jungcurrents.com/synchronicity-the-golden-scarab-beetle
« Last Edit: August 01, 2020, 06:17:54 AM by Sena »

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
Hi Sena, Hi All,

In your Seth quote, it seems to me that, among others, Seth is making the following 2 points:

1) Beneath the subconscious, we’ll find the innate knowledge of the creation of the camouflage universe.

2) The inner self helps create the various planes of existence.


From this, I take it that within us, we do have the “knowledge” of the creation of the camouflage universe. However, having this knowledge doesn’t necessarily mean that we created it all, all by ourselves. “Others”, whoever they are, may also have had a hand in creating it.

Furthermore, even though the inner self “helps” create the various planes of existence, this also doesn’t mean that the inner self creates them all, all by themselves. Again, “others” also may have participated, whoever they are.



In regards to the creation of the natural world, I find the following Seth quote from NOPR, to be very intriguing. Especially in regards to both, “All consciousness creates the world” and the topics of both “feeling–tones” and “aspects” that he’s talking about here. 

This seems to get really esoteric and it’s not really clear to me what he means by these “aspects”.

Jane talks about "aspects" in her book "Adventures in Consciousness" but I'm not sure if her and Seth are both talking about the same thing.


NOPR, Ch1, S610:

All manner of insects, birds and beasts cooperate in this venture, producing the natural environment. This is as normal and inevitable as the fact that your breath causes a mist to form on glass if you breathe upon it. All consciousness creates the world, rising out of feeling-tone. It is a natural product of what your consciousness is. Feelings and emotions emerge into reality in certain specific ways. Thoughts appear, growing on the bed already laid. The seasons spring up, formed by ancient feeling-tones, having deep and abiding rhythms. They are the result, again, of innate creative aspects that are a portion of all life.

These ancient aspects lie, now, deeply buried in the psyches of all species, and from them the individual patterns, the specific blueprints for new differentiations, emerge.



-jbseth

Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
Quote from: jbseth
Furthermore, even though the inner self “helps” create the various planes of existence, this also doesn’t mean that the inner self creates them all, all by themselves. Again, “others” also may have participated, whoever they are.
jbseth, I agree that the creation of the natural world is a collaborative effort of ALL conscious entities, including animals and probably plants as well. Making species of animals and plants extinct may have dire consequences.

Seth is clear on this, but I wonder whether he said anything about plants:

Quote
NOPR, Ch1, S610:

All manner of insects, birds and beasts cooperate in this venture, producing the natural environment.

This is Seth on the consciousness of trees:

"To your way of thinking some lives are lived in a twinkling, and others last for centuries, as some huge trees. The perception of consciousness is not limited … I have told you, for example, that the consciousness of the tree is not as specifically focused as your own. To all intents and purposes, however, the tree is conscious of 50 years before and 50 years hence. Its sense of identity spontaneously goes beyond the change of its own form. It has no ego to cut the “I” identification short. Creatures without the compartment of the ego can easily follow their own identities beyond any changes of form. The inner self is aware of this integrity of identity, but the ego focused so securely in physical reality cannot afford this luxury." (from "The “Unknown” Reality, Volume Two (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts)

From the Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/4wJypND
« Last Edit: August 02, 2020, 02:53:14 AM by Sena »

Offline chasman

  • ***
  • Posts: 289
I am so curious about the origin of the Universe.
thank you for starting this thread jbseth.
and thank you and Sena for your interesting posts.

my understanding of the scientific currently accepted model, which is the Big Bang taking into account inflation is in this article:

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html

just talking about the first second, is wild, wooly and very busy. alot happens and its crazy sounding stuff, quite beyond comprehensibility.
from time zero until 10^-43 second, we don't have any idea.
then at time 10^-43 second, the Observable Universe begins to expand.
the details are in the article.
but here's some of it:

at that fraction of a second (which is a decimal point followed by 42 zeros and then a 1), the Observable Universe is a sphere which is 10^-35 meters in diameter.
also the temperature is 10^32 degrees C.
all of the energy and matter in our current Observable Universe was in that sphere at that time.

all of it.
does that sound possible to you?

then from 10^-36 to 10^-32 second, inflation happened. the OU (Observable Universe), expanded to the size of a grapefruit.
when the Universe was 1 second old, the OU was a sphere of 2 light years in diameter.
the expansion continues to the present. (spacious as it is    :)).

ok, thats the current scientific theory.
people who are way smarter than I, accept it as making sense.
I find it utterly mystifying.

my understanding of Seth's explanation (and I only know the tiniest amount about what he said, and I'm not totally sure of that), is that there was no beginning, as we normally think about time.
we create the Universe anew in each moment.

thats all for now.
peace,
Charlie

Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
Quote from: chasman
my understanding of the scientific currently accepted model, which is the Big Bang taking into account inflation is in this article:

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html

just talking about the first second, is wild, wooly and very busy. alot happens and its crazy sounding stuff, quite beyond comprehensibility.
from time zero until 10^-43 second, we don't have any idea.
then at time 10^-43 second, the Observable Universe begins to expand.
chasman, yes that website gives the "majority view" of the beginning of the universe. It is the current dogma. If anyone wants to pass an exam, they have to parrot the dogmatic view.
There are scientific objections to the big bang theory:

"It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there's no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply.
Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.
Some astrophysicists and cosmologists argue that scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Some cite the absence of exotic cosmic bodies that should have been the product of the big bang according to the theory."

https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm

Seth's version makes sense to me.

Offline chasman

  • ***
  • Posts: 289
awesome.
all very interesting.
thank you very much Sena!!   :)

Offline LarryH

  • ***
  • Posts: 421
Quote from: chasman
when the Universe was 1 second old, the OU was a sphere of 2 light years in diameter.
This suggests that elements of the Universe traveled a distance of 1 light year in 1 second. This must be another example of the laws of science not applying at that time.

Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
Quote from: LarryH
Quote from: chasman
when the Universe was 1 second old, the OU was a sphere of 2 light years in diameter.
This suggests that elements of the Universe traveled a distance of 1 light year in 1 second. This must be another example of the laws of science not applying at that time.
Larry, the laws of science are biased. In certain circumstance they decide not to act.

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
Hi All,

What I've always thought was interesting is that according to scientific theory, you can't go back and ask what happened 1 second before the big bang because time didn't exist until some time after the big ban occurred.

Now there's an idea that'll warp your mind.  :)

-jblair

Offline LarryH

  • ***
  • Posts: 421
Quote from: jbseth
time didn't exist until some time after the big ban occurred.
My understanding is that time was supposed to begin at the moment of the big bang. You can't have time not exist until "some time after", as that requires time to pass before time exists.

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
Hi LarryH, Hi All,

LarryH, I can't say that I disagree with you, because what you say here that makes sense to me.

However, what I seem to recall, and I'll openly admit that I could be wrong here, is that time didn't begin until some time after the Big Bang.

Now this time period between the Big Bang and Time starting, may have been incredibly short in duration, something like Chasmans comment that, after 10^-43 seconds, when the observable universe began, and that may have been the issue here.

-jbseth

Offline LarryH

  • ***
  • Posts: 421
Quote from: jbseth
Now this time period between the Big Bang and Time starting, may have been incredibly short in duration
It still doesn't compute. You cannot have "duration", no matter how short, before there is such a thing as time. The Big Bang, being the alleged first event, would be the beginning of both space and time, the beginning of spacetime.

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
Quote from: LarryH
It still doesn't compute. You cannot have "duration", no matter how short, before there is such a thing as time. The Big Bang, being the alleged first event, would be the beginning of both space and time, the beginning of spacetime.


Hi LarryH, Hi All,

Nice discussion here.

Yes. I hear what you are saying, but to be honest, there’s not a lot about quantum physics that makes much sense. It’s not at all like classical or Newtonian Physics.

All I can tell you is that up until perhaps 5 years or so, it’s always been my understanding that time started at the precise moment, the precise instant, that the Big Bang occurred.

Then, sometime, maybe 5 years ago or so, I came across a book, an article or something (this was not a Seth thing; it was something relating to quantum physics) that made me think that I wasn’t correct about this.

In the wikipedia below, there are several places where they indicate that during the initial phase after the Big Bang (the Planck epoch) the laws of physics, the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics do not apply and that space and time "lose their meaning". I suspect that this is what I came across.

If space and time both lose their meaning during this Planck Epoch, then I take this to mean that "time" has no meaning during this epoch. Does a time that has no meaning exist? Maybe, but I have no idea what kind of time that would be.




Extrapolating this cosmic expansion backwards in time using the known laws of physics, the theory describes a high density state preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning.[


However, the physical theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics as currently realized are not applicable before the Planck epoch, and correcting this will require the development of a correct treatment of quantum gravity.[17] Certain quantum gravity treatments, such as the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, imply that time itself could be an emergent property.[125] As such, physics may conclude that time did not exist before the Big Bang.[




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




-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):