Jane Roberts, Seth and the matrix (not the movie)

Started by Sena, September 03, 2021, 01:36:36 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sena

September 03, 2021, 01:36:36 AM Last Edit: September 03, 2021, 01:54:14 AM by Sena
I found this interesting article by someone called Keith Hill:

https://medium.com/illumination/jane-roberts-and-the-seth-phenomenon-56d61ad0021f

Some extracts from the article:

QuoteJane Roberts discovered that most of her readers were convinced Seth was an independent spirit. They thought he had a human personality like us, he just didn't have a body. Accordingly, the feedback Jane received from the public was that Seth was a spirit identity, separate and independent of her, who spoke through her.
Jane was uncomfortable with this interpretation. She wasn't convinced Seth was a spirit at all, at least not in this simple sense. But when she said this to her readers many were offended — it suggested to them that Jane didn't "believe" in Seth the way they did.
Actually, she didn't. Yet neither did she have a clear alternative concept of who or what Seth might be.
Jane's open approach resonates with me.
Normally, we think of identity in local terms, that our "I" is here in our body, looking out at the world through our head. So if another identity (like Seth) spoke through Jane, her readers' explanation was that it must be a non-local identity entering Jane's local "I", and communicating through her. In this model, Jane and Seth are conceived of as discretely existing identities.

Yet there is another model that could explain what was happening. This is the model of a matrix.
In mathematics, a matrix is an array of quantities, usually listed in rows and columns, that are manipulted by specific rules. As a result the array is perceived as a co-joint whole. Socially, a matrix consists of multiple chains of relation, order or command that run through a single individual. A large business may also be thought of as a matrix, which is formed from many individuals bound together by a range of interlinked tasks, imperatives and chains of responsibility.
Applying these notions of a matrix to personal identity offers a model of identity as a complex form......If we are a reincarnationist, past life identities may be added to the mix.

All these elements — and, potentially, many more besides — co-join in a complex matrix that shapes who we are as a human identity. What are the rules that hold the matrix's various elements together? Presumably, to answer that we need to understand what consciousness is, and how it "glues" together all these elements to form the "I" we consider ourselves to be.

The matrix model, then, offers a way to consider identity as a more diverse and multiple entity than the traditional notion of a single soul or spirit, or the non-spiritual "me-in-a-body" allows. Jane Roberts, while not specifically referring a matrix, certainly consider the relationship between herself, Seth and her husband Robert to involve much more than three discrete identities talking to one another.
At this point, I am taking this discussion in another direction. For some time I have been channelling the thoughts of a formerly human identity. It says it is constituted of many human individuals, each of whom have completed their cycle of incarnations on Earth. They have now blended into a single identity, in which form they offer perspectives on human existence, combining somewhere close to a million human lifetimes of experience with their current non-embodied view of human activity.

Regarding the "Seth phenomenon", no straightforward interaction of one simple identity with two other simple identities was involved. Instead, it involved the interaction of three individual matrices that, on non-physical levels, were connected in complex ways.
Socially conditioned biological presence [i.e. Jane and Robert] was certainly the means via which the matrix identities expressed themselves. This led to discussions, group meetings, and the writing of books. But these physical outcomes were literally the tips of icebergs of their interactions, most of which were unperceived then, and inevitably still remain so.
In order to understand your own identity, what you need to do is delve into the matrix of who you are. Currently, the term multidimensional is popular for labelling the self. [The term seems to have been first used by "Seth"]. Yet this word does not, and intrinsically cannot, convey the complexity of what a matrix identity involves. For you to be incarnated in a human body, much, much more activity has taken place than you can observe.

In the Seth material, Seth makes reference to the fact that identities created the environment on Earth for themselves and others to incarnate and utilise for the evolution of their identity. This is the case. For you now, living in a body, everything you are working with is available because others before you — a long time before you — created the appropriate conditions.

This article does not mention the Sethian concept of the "Entity". I wonder whether Keith Hill's "matrix" is actually synonymous with "Entity"?
Like Like x 2 Love it! Love it! x 3 View List

Deb

Great find Sena, thank you! I followed the link, saved the article and then ended up taking a look at Keith Hill's author page. He's an interesting guy. This topic and the "Borderline" one sort of flow into each other. BTW Keith has authored a couple of books. One is along the lines of the multidimensional self concept, "Learning Who You Are: A Introduction to Experimental Spirituality." The other is "The New Mysticism: How scientific and religious paradigms are being overturned by daring explorers revealing hidden aspects of reality."

His use of the word matrix in your quote made me think of ATI and entities, but also of Seth using an analogy of interlocking wires to try to explain multidimensionality.
Like Like x 3 View List

Kyle

September 03, 2021, 07:13:20 PM #2 Last Edit: September 03, 2021, 07:20:30 PM by KylePierce
Sena, thanks for the find, I'm reading some Kindle samples and it's pretty intriguing writing.  :)

For one thing, Keith Hill in his "New Mysticism" book starts out writing about Carlos Castaneda, who I was just writing to you about on the other thread. So that's a funny coincidence.
Like Like x 1 View List