2021 and Covid

[jbseth]

Hi All,

It seems to me that here in the US, many people celebrate the "New Year". We seem to make a big deal of it. Each year, New Year's Day, January 1st, is a national holiday. This is a good thing too because quite often, people spend New Year's Eve, by staying up past midnight, having parties, watching various shows on TV and waiting to see when the "big ball" will drop in Times Square, New York. Then at midnight, there's usually a lot of people who celebrate and set off fireworks. Generally, it's a happy time. A time for celebration.

Along with this, typically, in the last week of December many magazines and news stories, spend some time reflecting on the events that have occurred in the last year, including a list of all those people who have died.  In the case of hard years, like 2020, it's also a time to brush the dust of the previous year's events off of our proverbial "shoulders" if you will and look forward to the coming New Year, in the hope that things will either get better or be better.


Each year, at this time, I also find that this to be a great time to reflect upon some of Seth's most powerful teachings.

1. You create your reality.

2. An infinite number of probable realities, probable pasts and probable futures, all exist now.

3. The point of power is in the present.



At any point in time, we can make use of Seth's teaching. However, I find that New Year's Day, is also a great time to think about this. 



Here's the thing.

Right now, we can dwell upon the probable future that we wish to experience this year. We can, using our imagination, pull from the present, the probable future that we wish to experience this year. We can do this in such a way that it becomes the reality that we will reflect back upon, at the end of December, of this year, 2021.

For example, right now, we can "envision" for ourselves, that at the end of December, 2021, we could be saying, "Oh yeah, that's right. During 2020, we had that Covid problem, didn't we."  "I forgot all about that, since it's been gone now for quite some time."


Now sometimes along with this, it can also be helpful, to "imagine" some ways that these events could actually come to pass. While this step isn't necessary, it can definitely be is helpful, in that it can make the probable future more "believable", and believability is very important here.

For example, recently, I've been hearing stories about a new strand of Covid.  One of the things that I do hear from the scientific / medical community about viruses, is that they can and do mutate and change. In this way new strands can and do come about. Another thing that I understand about viruses, perhaps only from Seth, is that viruses that are harmful to humans can mutate into those that aren't. Thus, a virus can mutate and become non-harmful to humans.



Given all of this then, can you imagine the following:

- That during the early part of this year, 2021, a new strand of Covid will evolve?

- That this new strand will become the dominant strand?

- That this new dominant strand will not be harmful to us humans?

- That by the last week of December, 2021 we will have completely forgotten about Covid, because it disappeared?

- That there is a probable reality that exists, right now, where these are the events that occurred in 2021?

- That right now, we can draw this probable reality to us, by the power of our belief?


If you believe in these things that Seth says, then respectively, I ask you to assist me in pulling this probable reality into our joint reality, such that, at this time next year, Covid will have been a forgotten memory.

"We" are the people who can change our world. All we have to do is believe it.

-jbseth
 

[Deb]

Count me in for visualizing the end of Covid in the near future, I've been doing that.

As far as the new strain, I actually read an article the other day that it's probably good news. It had to do with viruses mutating into something that may spread more rapidly, but less deadly. Along the same lines of what you say about viruses mutating and becoming non-harmful to humans.

So for those willing to consider a different scenario than what the main stream media is saying:
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/510368-covid-strain-new-mutation-authoritarianism/

"I explained the school of thought that says that seasonal respiratory viruses, like the one that causes Covid, evolve to become less dangerous as they spread through a population. This is because respiratory viruses always have thousands of variants, some that increase the deadliness and some that reduce it. The deadliest ones sicken or kill their hosts quickly, before they have a chance to spread it to other people. But the least deadly ones, which cause no or mild symptoms, can hitch a ride in their hosts to many people who they can then infect and multiply. Thus, natural selection favours the mildest, most contagious strains."

It's also worth taking a look at his July article that he mentioned in this one. There are a couple of quotes, one of them being from Lawrence Young, a professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick.

"The current work suggests that, while the Spike D614G variant may be more infectious, it is not more pathogenic. There is a hope that as the SARS-CoV-2 infection spreads, the virus might become less pathogenic."

Another from Edward Feil, a professor of biology and biochemistry at the University of Bath. Writing in The Spectator, he explained how predicting the future spread of a virus – even an active one of which the DNA sequence is known – isn't feasible:

"It is near-impossible to predict the future trajectories of virulence and transmissibility of emerging pathogens." However, he does begin by citing the common wisdom that any competent biology student should know: "a new pathogen [...] will evolve over time to grow more benign and live in amity with its host."

Natural selection aside, the Sethie  me thinks that due to consciousness being in everything, virus logic would dictate that if they kill all of their hosts, they would also be killing themselves—into extinction.

Viruses are interesting, hard for me to understand because they are not living organisms. Yet they are driven and find a way to "reproduce."

[leidl]

Now sometimes along with this, it can also be helpful, to "imagine" some ways that these events could actually come to pass. While this step isn't necessary, it can definitely be is helpful, in that it can make the probable future more "believable", and believability is very important here.

Hello all!  Jbseth, you make a great point, that imagining a plausible pathway to a specific event can foster our ability to believe deeply and free of ambivalence.  In my own experiments with the conscious choosing of beliefs, sometimes I can feel my psyche resist.  It isn't always clear to me why this resistance arises, but often it's a sign that I've bumped into other beliefs which contradict the new, consciously chosen belief.  Other times I wonder if I am trying to believe something that conflicts with an unfolding mass event that is actually bringing about a positive change, and the value of the event just isn't visible to me yet.

For this reason, I wonder what the best phrasing is for our chosen beliefs about 2021, so that we don't interfere with the positive reasons we created the pandemic in the first place.  Maybe something like "I believe our species is now learning and growing quickly from the Covid experience, and at this very moment we are ready to step into a reality where the virus no longer causes us harm."  Thanks Deb and jbseth for pointing us toward a plausible path to a post-pandemic reality...I'm with you on this! 

[Sena]

I need to examine my feelings towards the virus. Hating the virus could be dangerous. Covid 19 is a manifestation of All That Is.

[jbseth]

For this reason, I wonder what the best phrasing is for our chosen beliefs about 2021, so that we don't interfere with the positive reasons we created the pandemic in the first place. 

Hi leidl, Hi All,

I've been wrestling with the sentence above, because I believe that this comment (to not interfere with the "positive" reasons we created a situation in the first place) can be a very slippery slope idea. Here's an example of what I'm talking about.



Consider a woman who lives with a boyfriend who is physically abusive to her.  Let's say that for the sake of argument, she unconsciously chose to become involved with this man, so that she could learn that she need not allow herself to be physically abused by anyone.


People do have many different ways of learning things? One is to be exposed to a situation that hurts us, such as in touching a hot stove. However people also learn things by just mentally reasoning them out?  I don't necessarily have to touch a hot item, to know that it can burn me. If I feel a lot of heat coming from some item, I leave it alone.


If this woman was someone you cared for deeply, perhaps your sister for example, or a really good friend, would you do nothing to interfere with the "positive" reasons that she created this situation in the first place?  Wouldn't you at least try to talk to her about it and if you could, try to get her to a safe place (both mentally and physically) so that she could try to figure this all out either on her own or with help from you and her friends, without being physically abused in the process.


When I think about this, I think that there are definitely times when it is OK to interfere with the "positive" reason that someone or many people may have created a certain situation.  Especially when not doing so may bring more harm to people. It is along these lines, that I think it is definitely OK for us to end this Covid mass event situation in 2021, if we can.



Here are some related thoughts from Seth.

In "Seth Speaks", Chapter 20 is titled "Questions and Answers". In this chapter, in Session 580, Rob asks Seth the following question, which is Question Twenty One,

"How do you account for the pain and suffering in the world? "

In response to this, Seth says that we all have access to a large amount of creative energy. Along with this, he also said the following:

"I have mentioned before that everyone within your system is learning to handle this creative energy; and since you are still in the process of doing so, you will often misdirect it."

Along with this, in this same session, Seth also says this:

(9:48.) Illness and suffering are not thrust upon you by God, or by All That Is, or by an outside agency. They are by-products of the learning process, created by you, in themselves quite neutral. On the other hand, your existence itself, the reality and nature of your planet, the whole existence in which you have these experiences, are also created by you, using the abilities of which I have spoken.

Illness and suffering are the results of the misdirection of creative energy. They are a part of the creative force, however. They do not come from a different source than, say, health and vitality. Suffering is not good for the soul, unless it teaches you how to stop suffering. That is its purpose.


-jbseth

[Sena]

For this reason, I wonder what the best phrasing is for our chosen beliefs about 2021, so that we don't interfere with the positive reasons we created the pandemic in the first place.

leidl/jbseth,
Thanks to jbseth for highlighting this part of leidl's post which I had not fully appreciated on a first reading. I agree that whenever something is created, it is created for positive reasons, although we may well be unconscious of those reasons. What could be a positive reason for creating the Covid 19 pandemic? It could be to shake the human race out of its complacent neglect of spiritual teachings such as those of Seth. If that is the case, the pandemic will end when a considerable proportion of the human race has become more spiritually aware. Otherwise there is a risk of an even more deadly virus.

[LarryH]

Elsewhere here, I have listed several possible reasons for our creating this mass event. I will not repeat them for the third time. But speaking in the context of the U.S., there have been several areas of social neglect obvious to many in this country, but sadly not obvious to a significant percentage as well. These have to do with our wildly expensive and dysfunctional healthcare system, our history of racism, our neglect of the environment, and our current political polarization. The pandemic has served to make all of these problems more obvious. We could have addressed all of these problems. We have all been told not to touch the hot stove. We haven't learned. The pandemic is us en masse touching the hot stove. Maybe we will learn.

Look at some other countries where similar problems do not exist. Their experience of the pandemic is in many cases quite different.

The U.S. has 4% of the world's population and over 24% of the world's confirmed cases.

[Deb]

While we Seth people know that events such as the pandemic serve purposes on both mass and individual levels, we all have opinions as to the greater meaning of this event, but at this point I feel we can only experience the "why" on our individual levels. Meaning, while we all have our own opinions of what's wrong with people, our countries, the world in general, I don't think we will understand the purpose or effect of covid on the mass event level until some time in the future—and can look back on the event and what was learned from it.

While I've been very unhappy with the way this whole situation has been handled, my life has personally not been deeply affected other than on a level of concern, inconvenience, and distress from what other people have gone through. Aside from that, this event has actually improved some situations in my life, and presented new opportunities.

Maybe not what most people want to hear.

We all deal with diversity in different ways. We all have different lessons to learn. I think this has been a good time for people to self-examine.

I guess what I'm saying here is don't feel any pressure from anyone to explain the reasons behind the virus on both an individual and mass level. The individual reasons are personal, the mass level is yet to be revealed. There are no right or wrong answers.

[leidl]

Hello all!  I hope your New Year is off to a fine start.

If this woman was someone you cared for deeply, perhaps your sister for example, or a really good friend, would you do nothing to interfere with the "positive" reasons that she created this situation in the first place?  Wouldn't you at least try to talk to her about it and if you could, try to get her to a safe place (both mentally and physically) so that she could try to figure this all out either on her own or with help from you and her friends, without being physically abused in the process.

jbseth, I mentioned that while I'm basically on board with the idea of visualizing Covid's exit, I want part of the visualization to be that we don't need the virus anymore, because we have made the positive shift the pandemic created the space for us to make.  We don't need the pandemic anymore.

If I had a friend or sister in an abusive relationship, I would not pressure her to leave, because of my concern that doing so would deepen her sense of powerlessness.  It would confirm her belief that others shape her life for her.  I would ask her if she thought she was in danger, and listen to her.  My goal would be to show the friend that she does in fact have insight and creative power.  It has taken me a long time to understand that creating an enjoyable life for myself takes no more creative energy or willpower than creating a miserable one; either outcome simply flows from my beliefs effortlessly. 

Illness and suffering are not thrust upon you by God, or by All That Is, or by an outside agency. They are by-products of the learning process, created by you, in themselves quite neutral.

Yes, this is a great quote!  I would refrain from telling the friend that she created the situation she is in, probably, because once again, it would undermine her belief in the good of her creative power.  But it may be helpful to her to think of her situation as a neutral one, rather than a bad one.  After all, many of us turn our negative experiences into springboards for massive learning and growth, in which case those springboards are neutral at worst, and possibly quite good!  Pandemics, abusive relationships--same principles apply.  This sounds callous, but I don't mean it that way.  I've been in some interesting relationships, and continue to work on my perspective on them.

I don't see myself as opposing your point of view, jbseth--I am not suggesting turning our backs on believing that it is time for the pandemic to make its exit.  I just want to be sure we've learned all we can, so we don't need to re-create this beast or something even worse, as Sena mentioned.

Look at some other countries where similar problems do not exist. Their experience of the pandemic is in many cases quite different

Yes, I agree, Larry.  South Korea and China appear to be handling the virus well, but my guess is they are working on figuring out some other issues, or they wouldn't be in this reality with us, right?  Some of us burn our hands on the stove repeatedly, some of keep singeing our eyebrows at the campfire while roasting marshmallows (that's me)... we humans like our lessons slow, thorough, and repeated many times.  :-)

When I think about this, I think that there are definitely times when it is OK to interfere with the "positive" reason that someone or many people may have created a certain situation.  Especially when not doing so may bring more harm to people. It is along these lines, that I think it is definitely OK for us to end this Covid mass event situation in 2021, if we can.

"Interfering with the positive reason" makes me nervous, jbseth, but I fully support your other comments.  Maybe I'm slower than most, but I've been in relationships that weren't good for me, and someone talking me out of them would not have lessened my suffering.  Women, people with burnt hands, people who sit too close to the campfire--they need to be listened to.  They need to tell their stories.  Make their own discoveries. Hopefully they will realize their own power, as we all are beginning to.  I'm not saying I think you're part of the patriarchy, jbseth--I don't.  My guess is that you are a loving husband, and supportive of the women in your life!  :-)  Your desire to show abusers and this virus the door is coming from your good nature, and I am with you on this!  But everything in its season. 

[LarryH]

While we Seth people know that events such as the pandemic serve purposes on both mass and individual levels, we all have opinions as to the greater meaning of this event, but at this point I feel we can only experience the "why" on our individual levels. Meaning, while we all have our own opinions of what's wrong with people, our countries, the world in general, I don't think we will understand the purpose or effect of covid on the mass event level until some time in the future—and can look back on the event and what was learned from it.

Deb, I have personally been affected by the pandemic in manners similar to you - minor inconveniences, concern for others, along with some benefits. But nobody can deny that the mass event has laid bare the fragilities in our society. We are learning tough lessons as a society, and changes will come or are in the process of coming. If we do not learn, it does not mean that the mass event's related purposes did not exist, it means that we will continue putting our hands on the hot stove until we do learn.

Seth: "The environment in which an outbreak occurs points at the political, sociological, and economic conditions that have evolved, causing such disorder. Often such outbreaks take place after ineffective political or social action—that is, after some unified mass social protest—has failed, or is considered hopeless."

and: "The epidemics then serve many purposes—warning that certain conditions will not be tolerated. There is a biological outrage that will be continually expressed until the conditions are changed."

and: "These are the reasons also for the range or the limits of various epidemics –why they sweep through one area and leave another clear."

[jbseth]

Hi leidl, Hi All,

I think that you are I are probably a lot closer to being on the same page here than it may appear.


I'm with you, if my sister was in an abusive relationship, I wouldn't tell her that she created it. Nor would I pressure her in any way to leave. That's got to be her choice.

My experience with this kind of thing is that if the person really doesn't want to leave, then often they won't. In addition to this, sometimes after they do leave the situation, they'll go right to it.

I would however, talk to her to find out where she's at and what she wants to do.


After talking to her, if I found out that she really did want to leave, then I'd do whatever I could to help her. If she wanted to leave, I certainly wouldn't do nothing to help her so as to not "interfere" with the "positive" reasons why she created this negative event in the first place. 

This is generally what I was thinking and what I meant when I said:

It is OK to interfere with the "positive" reason that someone or many people may have created a certain situation.


-jbseth

[leidl]

jbseth, I'm glad to hear we're basically in agreement and can move forward...regular citizens are excellent models for legislative bodies.   

If she wanted to leave, I certainly wouldn't do nothing to help her so as to not "interfere" with the "positive" reasons why she created this negative event in the first place.

Yes, her desire to leave is the guiding factor in this scenario.

It still isn't clear to me that the globe is ready to leave the virus behind in the way our friend may be ready to leave her abuser, though.  I'm still trying to get my mind around the predominant "positive reason" for the virus in the first place.  Good insights on this topic are found in this thread, and I've been pondering on what might tie them all together. 

I wonder if it is that in recent decades, maybe since the end of the WWII, individual egos have gradually been strengthening.  When we find our sense of identity in individuated, temporary selves that will one day appear to die, we have to put a lot of energy in defining ourselves against others in order to feel strong.  Instead of finding our primary identity in All That Is, and seeing, for example, both robber and robbed as playing equally important aspects of a dance that exists beyond good and evil, we adopt ideas about our own "goodness" and the "evil" of others.  Othering is an engine that not only creates suffering in the masses, but threatens our existence as a species.

Larry and Deb both mentioned having benefited personally from the pandemic, and I feel this way too.  But my country (the U.S.) and many others are as divided by politics, religion and race as they ever were.  I host a discussion group in my town made up of agnostics, and recently we tried to agree on a topic for the next meeting.  I suggested exploring the topic that science is the new dogma, and has underlying assumptions just like religion has.  This suggestion was met with lots of awkward looks.  Most post-religious people now see themselves as people of science, and take comfort in being able to define themselves against the nutty superstitious types.  :-)  While I've worked hard on my perspectives on race and gender, I'm still prone to certain kinds of othering.  I still think in binary ways regarding politics and religion, for example, despite not wanting to.  A monstrously difficult pandemic might truly unify us, help us see that we all play both the robber and the robbed, and that we are all necessary and inherently valuable aspects of the all.

(I'm not sure why my quote of jbseth above is listed as a quote of Larry; perhaps the universe is making the point that in some sense we are one consciousness with many mouths, and it doesn't matter too much which words come out of which mouth.  We are all channels for the same ALL. )

I do spend time each day believing for the end of the pandemic; the end of its usefulness.  But as long as I'm dividing people into groups by political party, etc., and seeing some groups as more valuable than others, essentially I am one of those reaching for the hot stove.  My beliefs are conflicted, in other words, and I am hindering our efforts to end the pandemic as much as I am helping them. 

Not something to be proud of, exactly, but I do feel good about my increasing level of self-awareness. 

[Sena]

It still isn't clear to me that the globe is ready to leave the virus behind in the way our friend may be ready to leave her abuser, though.  I'm still trying to get my mind around the predominant "positive reason" for the virus in the first place.  Good insights on this topic are found in this thread, and I've been pondering on what might tie them all together.

I wonder if it is that in recent decades, maybe since the end of the WWII, individual egos have gradually been strengthening.  When we find our sense of identity in individuated, temporary selves that will one day appear to die, we have to put a lot of energy in defining ourselves against others in order to feel strong.  Instead of finding our primary identity in All That Is, and seeing, for example, both robber and robbed as playing equally important aspects of a dance that exists beyond good and evil, we adopt ideas about our own "goodness" and the "evil" of others.

leidl, profound thoughts. I'll read your post again tomorrow.

I host a discussion group in my town made up of agnostics, and recently we tried to agree on a topic for the next meeting.  I suggested exploring the topic that science is the new dogma, and has underlying assumptions just like religion has.  This suggestion was met with lots of awkward looks.

You are brave, leading a discussion group made up of agnostics!

[jbseth]

I host a discussion group in my town made up of agnostics, and recently we tried to agree on a topic for the next meeting.  I suggested exploring the topic that science is the new dogma, and has underlying assumptions just like religion has.  This suggestion was met with lots of awkward looks.

Hi leidl, Hi All,

I can definitely see how you might be a minority in your atheist group, in saying that science is the new dogma.  I'm sure there are "some" atheistic / scientific types, who'll have no idea what you are talking about.

As I'm sure you probably know, Seth has a lot to say about this in Part 3 of NOME.

-jbseth

[T.M.]

Most post-religious people now see themselves as people of science, and take comfort in being able to define themselves against the nutty superstitious types.  :-) 

Hi All,

Hi leidl,

I think that's a big part of the problem.  Everyone thinks everyone else that doesn't agree with them, is a sheep, nutter, wrong. I think it's the day and age of projection as a norm. I really hope society as a whole can stop doing so much of that, come together and find a solution to many problems.

[Sena]

I wonder if it is that in recent decades, maybe since the end of the WWII, individual egos have gradually been strengthening.  When we find our sense of identity in individuated, temporary selves that will one day appear to die, we have to put a lot of energy in defining ourselves against others in order to feel strong.

leidl, I think this phenomenon goes back further than WWII, probably to 1859, when Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Many people think this is a scientific document but it is not. It is the Bible of the religion of atheism.

Your reference to death here is very relevant, because according to Darwinism death is the end of consciousness. It is the fear of death which has made Covid 19 into a big problem. If every person who catches the virus believes that it is their own choice whether they live or die, there woud be no reason to fear the virus.

[LarryH]

If every person who catches the virus believes that it is their own choice whether they live or die, there would be no reason to fear the virus.

I have no fear of the virus, but I do have enough sense to go inside when there is a lightning storm. I have no fear of being hit by a car, and I attribute that to the fact that I look both ways when I cross the street. This is in contrast to the idea that one should not bother to look both ways if they will only die if they have chosen it. Additionally, I prefer comfort over discomfort, and this alone is sufficient for me to avoid exposing myself to a virus that could make my life miserable for weeks or months, independent of the potential for dying from it.

Session 828: "Men in those times protected themselves against storms, and yet in the same way they did not begrudge the storm its victims. They simply changed the alliances of their consciousnesses from the identification of self-within-the-flesh to self-within-the-storm. Man's and nature's intents were largely the same, and understood as such. Man did not fear the elements in those early times, as is now supposed."

This quote makes a distinction between fear and common sense. If one is to view himself as self-within-the-storm-of-a-pandemic, one need not fear the pandemic, but can still have the common sense to protect himself against it.

[leidl]

It is the fear of death which has made Covid 19 into a big problem. If every person who catches the virus believes that it is their own choice whether they live or die, there woud be no reason to fear the virus.

"Men in those times protected themselves against storms, and yet in the same way they did not begrudge the storm its victims. They simply changed the alliances of their consciousnesses from the identification of self-within-the-flesh to self-within-the-storm. Man's and nature's intents were largely the same, and understood as such. Man did not fear the elements in those early times, as is now supposed."

Really helpful posts!  I know these ideas have been discussed before here, but the information is hitting me in a different way, shining light on a broader landscape.  The slightly different focus taken by each of us reminds me of comments by Seth or Elias on how the different intents in the different families of consciousness result in different expressions of the same truth...all valid.  An astute reader could probably identify the family of consciousness we each come from, just from reading a couple of key comments from each.  Loving the concept of the self-within-the-storm.  And also the idea of describing Origin of Species as the "Bible of the religion of atheism" to the discussion group I mentioned above. 

[Sena]

And also the idea of describing Origin of Species as the "Bible of the religion of atheism" to the discussion group I mentioned above. 

leidl, I would like to be a fly on the wall when you do that! The scientific method has three components:
(a) Observation
(b) Hypothesis
(c) Experiments to verify or disprove the hypothesis.

Charles Darwin did (a) and (b), but NOBODY has done a valid experiment.

[Deb]

@leidl over the years here I've been bringing up Bruce Lipton. He's a retired cellular biologist that was working with stem cells back in the 60s/70s and was purely science until he had some a-hah moments in his career. Of course anyone who bucks traditional science gets automatically labeled a heretic (no surprise that heretic has religious connotations), but he may be someone to toss around in your group.

His book Spontaneous Evolution explores the idea that evolution is not merely survival of the species, but involves conscious evolution. He talks about Darwin, and there were some eye-openers there for me since I was raised with Darwin's survival theories. Apparently Origin of the Species was not his creation—he conveniently stole it from someone else. I can't remember the complete back story on that situation, but he was not who we think he was. I have the book on audio, if you're curious I'd be happy to share, if even just a little bit to give you an idea of what the book is like. I have to say he's a bit annoying as a narrator, but it's also charming at the same time in that he's so excited and enthusiastic about his work.

He does give an example or more of experiments to verify his hypotheses, one of them having to do with bacteria that were not able to digest (I think) lactose. The bacteria were isolated and were fed only lactose... and they changed their dna in order to have the ability to digest the lactose and survive. Well, that's the best I can recall, it's been several years since I've read the book. Maybe it's time to listen again.

He's also right in line with Seth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lipton

[leidl]

Thank you, Deb.  You mentioned Lipton in a thread I participated in when I first showed up, but he got lost in the shuffle.  I listened to one of his youtube videos this morning, and he seems to have been rejected by mainstream science for the crime of actually doing science.  Sigh.  The fact that he has a background in cell biology will carry weight with a couple of members of my group, though.  I like his can-do attitude; he makes taking charge of one's belief system seem quite achievable.  He's got a list of modalities to help with belief change on his website: https://www.brucelipton.com/other-resources#belief-change

Lipton's wikipedia page says that he decided to leave mainstream science and speak directly to the less-indoctrinated masses: "I realised the message is more important for the average person than it is to argue in the halls of science."  Since his intent is to help us help ourselves, I'm glad he's stopped wasting his time butting his head against the hallowed halls.  But challenging the dogma of the halls from within them needs to be done as well.  Donald Hoffman is doing that.  And personally, I like the work of Bernardo Kastrup a whole lot.  He has a background in science but has moved into philosophy, with the goal of challenging reductive materialism.  Scientific American publishes his essays regularly--really encouraging.  Some on this board might find Kastrup interesting. 

Thanks for the reminder on Lipton--I'm going to look closer at his website, specifically the modalities that support belief change, today.