A new book on Seth's metaphysics : "Nursery of the Gods"

[wadihicham]

I would like to report a new book (in two volumes) on the metaphysics of Seth:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BPB149B4?ref_=dbs_p_mng_rwt_ser_shvlr&storeType=ebooks
 
From what I have read so far, it is very interesting and I would be delighted to discuss it if the opportunity arises.

[inavalan]

I couldn't find anything about the author or his books beyond what's offered on amazon.

Do you have any quotes you liked, or want to discuss?

[wadihicham]

Ok, here is a starting point :

Discussing the Action concept in relation to Identity, Enegy and Consciousness, he quotes Seth:

It is the individual upon whom all else rests, and it is from the basis of the individual that all entities have their existence, and from which all kinds of evolutions spring 

Then he adds:

And just as the wave function collapses into an individual particle when a consciousness observes it, action collapses into a particular identity when it becomes conscious of itself. Consciousness enters into the picture at precisely the same point in both cases, playing the critical role of initiating the transformation of both action and the wave function into discrete units.

Any comment on that ?

[inavalan]

Ok, here is a starting point :

Discussing the Action concept in relation to Identity, Enegy and Consciousness, he quotes Seth:

It is the individual upon whom all else rests, and it is from the basis of the individual that all entities have their existence, and from which all kinds of evolutions spring 

Then he adds:

And just as the wave function collapses into an individual particle when a consciousness observes it, action collapses into a particular identity when it becomes conscious of itself. Consciousness enters into the picture at precisely the same point in both cases, playing the critical role of initiating the transformation of both action and the wave function into discrete units.

Any comment on that ?

Thanks for those quotes. It seems that the author understands reality quite differently than I do.

Browsing the amazon samples, I noticed that the author quotes from Roberts' books indicating the publishing year and the pages, but not the name of the book; that seems unusual to me.

I am with Nikola Tesla on science:

• "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence."

[Bora137]

the wave function collapses into an individual particle when a consciousness observes it



wadihicham (apols my quoting rubbish)

From what I understand from those that understand it this is what quantum theory says. Moreover not just a particle but a chair or a mug or whatever. I think it's starting to eat into the already collapsing theory of everything - currently held together with dark matter sticking plasters

[wadihicham]

I am very enthusiastic about these two volumes, I plan to read them and would be happy to discuss about. Seth's thinking constitutes a metaphysical system that deserves serious work to be even slightly understood, and I hope this book is a way to get started.

Here are the chapters of the two books, introduced each time with a quote from seth :

• The Problem with Paradigms
  

  New ideas are not accepted easily. When they take fire however, they literally sweep through the universe.
  
  Cobban, James . Nursery of the Gods: The Consciousness Paradigm, or the Science of Seth (p. 1). Édition du Kindle. 

• What Exactly is Materialism?
  
• The Evidence From Quantum Physics
  

  The physicists have their hands on the doorknob.
  

• Evidence From Psi (ESP) Research
  
  

  The study of so-called extrasensory perception is now considered an isolated, bizarre domain, unrelated to other fields of knowledge... The pieces to the puzzle are at mankind's fingertips, but he has put together an awkward, ill-fitting miniature model universe of a puzzle with which he is afraid to part.
  

  
  
• Evidence From Near Death Experiences
  
  

  It will be shown that personalities continue to exist after physical death, and then it will not seem so strange that those such as myself can communicate.
  

• Towards a Consciousness-Based Paradigm - An Introduction to Seth's Metaphysic
  
  
• Complexity Science, Autopoiesis, and Bringing Forth a World
  
  
• The Senses are Lovely Liars
  

  Your most pragmatic scientist is even now forced to admit that solid objects are not solid; and the interesting sidelight of this fact must be that your faithful, tried and true, so-called dependable outer senses are in reality lovely liars, since the eyes see a chair as solid while the chair is not solid at all. The outside senses are therefore fabricators of the most delightful sort.
  

• 
  Earth as a Training System
  

  Humanity dreams the same dream at once, and you have your mass world. The whole construction however is like an educational play in which you are the producers as well as the actors... The whole self is the observer, and also a participator in many roles.
  

• The Training System and Deep Time
  

  You are learning to be co-creators. You are learning to be gods as you now understand the term.
  

• 
  The Ego Experiment
  
• 
  Hiding in Plain Sight: The Ego Through History's Pages
  
  
• 
  Towards a New Mythos
  
  

[Bora137]

It's mountain of evidence but still the positivist materialist paradigm persists. The trouble with paradigms is you don't know you're in one because everything you see appears to confirm it.

[wadihicham]

Bora137, that's right, but the evidence is of an experimental/experiential nature. What is needed is a theory, an understanding about the nature of reality. Seth books help a lot, but work is still needed in order to understand correctly.

[Bora137]

What I don't understand is there are tens of thousands of nde reports, are all these people supposed to be lying? And how disrespectful it is to not believe someone else's experience.

[strangerthings]

• What Exactly is Materialism?
  

I do not seem to find if this has been answered so I will ask.

What do you mean by this question?

Materialism?
Or Materialization?

If the latter then what does ²CM=E do?

I am certainly not a wizard but it is curious to me. I do not have access to this book you refer to. However the word in question seems odd with quantum material. It is an "ism".

Welcome to the forum 

[wadihicham]

Hi Strangerthings,

In his second chapter, "What Exactly is Materialism?" the author try to clarify and debunk what he calls the "western creed", which he summarizes as follows:

I BELIEVE — in the material universe — as the only and ultimate reality — a universe controlled by fixed physical laws — and blind chance. I AFFIRM — that the universe has no creator — no objective purpose — and no objective meaning or destiny. I MAINTAIN — that all ideas about God or gods — enlightened beings — prophets and saviors — or other nonphysical beings or forces are superstitions and delusions —. Life and consciousness are totally identical to physical processes — and arose from chance interactions of blind physical forces —. Like the rest of life — my life — and my consciousness — have no objective purpose — meaning — or destiny. I BELIEVE — that all judgments, values, and moralities — whether my own or others' — are subjective — arising solely from biological determinants — personal history — and chance —. Free will is an illusion —. Therefore, the most rational values I can personally live by — must be based on the knowledge that for me — what pleases me is good — what pains me is bad —. I AFFIRM — that churches have no real use other than social support — that there are no objective sins to commit or be forgiven for. I MAINTAIN — that the death of the body — is the death of the mind —. There is no afterlife — and all hope of such is nonsense.
 

Of course as you said part of the debunking comes from QM and parapsychology

[Deb]

Interesting books... or maybe curious is a better word. Two reviews from Canada, possibly friends or family members of the author. I also could find no information from him, even from Barnes and Noble and Goodreads. No ratings on those. I wonder if he wrote it under a pen name? There were a couple of James Cobbans that turned up. Both deceased now.

Nice though that someone else would come along and try to prove that Seth and current physicists are right.

The "western creed" is pretty depressing. I know a lot of religious people that think would totally disagree with it. I'm glad I share Seth's view of reality.

[wadihicham]

Deb,

Here is what the author tells us about himself in his book :

After a career working in Information Technology, James Cobban left gainful employment to set out on his own path. He backpacked around the world, built a cabin in the woods (following Thoreau's advice), became an artist, painting oils of the places he'd visited, moved to a lovely mountain town in Mexico, adopted a dozen rescue dogs and cats (plus one opossum), and read widely, always seeking to understand reality. He now lives in Nova Scotia, with his wife Rebecca, and their furry crew of Mexican misfits.
 

[Deb]

Here is what the author tells us about himself in his book :

Thank you! So it seems he's just a regular guy that found Seth. I was curious enough to buy the Kindle version, both volumes for $2.99. I imagine he'll talk about how he came across the Seth materials in the books. Hopefully I'll have time to read this weekend!

[wadihicham]

Deb,

I hope you will enjoy it and that it will be an opportunity for exchanges on the forum.

[strangerthings]

I can deal with having a cabin in the woods lol

Seth, cabin, me and my whatever

Yups

[James]

Hi all,

I'm the author of "Nursery of the Gods," and I'd be glad to join a discussion of Seth's metaphysic, or answer any questions about my own take on Seth's philosophy, as described in the books.

Someone mentioned that they couldn't find any information about me, so here's a little about myself, and how I came to the Seth Material.

When I was fourteen, I came across Seth Speaks in my school library. That was in 1977. I checked the book out and when I began to read it I realized that I already agreed with everything Seth said. It was as though Seth was describing a reality that already felt familiar to me, but that I could never have put into words. I continued to read the Seth books as they came out, and even went to Elmira to visit Jane and Rob a few years later, in 1981. I didn't realize at the time how ill Jane was (she would soon become hospitalized), but she was gracious enough to spend a half-hour talking to me, an unknown teenaged stranger. I only knew that Jane, and her work with Seth, were historically important, and I wanted to meet her in person if I could.

I studied philosophy and psychology at university, but found those subjects lacking, and deeply disappointing, when compared with Seth's philosophy. I later learned that both of those subjects are heavily influenced by a philosophical stance called "materialism," which states that matter is the basis of all reality, and that consciousness is an epiphenomenon arising from matter. Materialism is about as opposed to Seth's philosophy as it's possible to get, and dominates scientific thinking.

I put Seth aside for a number of years while I made my way through life, working in IT, but would occasionally re-read one of his or Jane's books, and was always searching for evidence that would back up Seth's ideas. When Rick Stack published all the early, private, and ESP class sessions, I took the opportunity to read through all of the material, and found that the larger picture of Seth's philosophy that emerged from the complete record accorded well with the scientific evidence that I had been slowly piecing together over the course of my life.

I realized that Seth's philosophy, in all its detail, was spread throughout the 30 or so volumes of published material, and not that easy for a casual reader to put together. Of course, the main Seth books provide a good overview, but I thought it would be a good idea to present Seth's complete metaphysic, or theory of reality, in one place. Hence the "Nursery of the Gods" books. I also wanted to place Seth's ideas within the framework of modern scientific thought, showing where science and Seth overlap. I spent the last ten years or so writing those books, and have some ideas for future books, if I live that long!

Although the philosophical stance of science is officially materialistic, and therefore hostile to Seth's contention that consciousness creates reality, Seth readers will be pleased to know that the actual evidence produced by science, as well as the anomalies that science knows about but cannot explain, support all of the main features of Seth's philosophy.

I wrote the books in a way that I thought might appeal to my fourteen-year-old self, who wasn't aware of the scientific concepts the books discuss, nor of Seth's complete philosophy. No scientific knowledge is needed to read the books, and I hope they're written in a way that is easy to follow. I wanted to show that Seth's ideas are very much alive in the real world, if you look for them. They're out there, but usually hidden by an overlayer of scientific-materialism, which obscures them from view.

Anyway, I'm glad to have found this post, and would be happy to discuss the books, or Seth's ideas, with members of this forum.

You can find the books on Amazon, if you're interested. I've kept the price low - $2.99 for the e-book - because I don't want cost to be an impediment to the spread of Seth's ideas. Enjoy!

[Deb]

I'm the author of "Nursery of the Gods," and I'd be glad to join a discussion of Seth's metaphysic, or answer any questions about my own take on Seth's philosophy, as described in the books.

Well I had no idea! I know you've posted here before but I never put two and two together. Looking back at your profile, you actually joined in 2016. THEN I searched for your name in Mary Dillman's files and found you'd corresponded with her and she had a draft of your book! While I'd purchased your ebooks a while ago, I have not yet had the chance to read them. I made a major move last winter and have been also busy with the Seth Research Project stuff, so my time has been limited. But I will read them. And will certainly get back to you with questions. 

[wadihicham]

Hi James !

I am very pleased to learn that you are participating in the forum. I read your books a few months ago. I especially enjoyed the first volume because you attempted to clarify the foundational concepts of Seth's philosophy. For example, the notion of action, identity, simultaneous time... It's actually after this that I started reading the Early Sessions.

If you agree I'would be happy to start a discussion/questions about Seth's metaphysics based on your books.

[James]

Hi Deb. Yes, I joined in 2016, but then got busy with writing my book and sort of disappeared from social media for a few years. I think it was Mary who recommended your forum to me in the first place. She was a great help to me with my research, and is sorely missed. I've begun looking through all the various topics posted here, and am looking forward to a fun time reading peoples' posts. I've already downloaded a PDF file you posted about a missing air force pilot that Jane helped to locate - that should be a good read! I also look forward to reading up on your Seth Research Project - that sounds very worthwhile. It's important work that you are doing here, helping to keep Seth's material alive, and forming a community of people with a shared interest in Jane/Seth's work.

[James]

Hi Wadihicham,

Yes, I'd be happy to take part in a discussion, or answer any questions about my take on Seth's philosophy. I think it's important to have these discussions. If the Seth movement is to have any legs going forward, I think it would be useful to clarify its foundational concepts in a way that everyone can more or less agree on. Then the discussion can broaden to include other topics.

[wadihicham]

Thank you James,

So let's start maybe with the spacious present. How do you understand this concept ?

Do you think that spacious present is static ? If (as I do) it is not, should we not conclude that time exists, maybe not our human time but a universal one.
How do you understand that past present and future are simultaneous ? Does that mean that all possibilities exist in the spacious present and that we collectively (or maybe individually) chose at each (universal) time which timeline to manifest (mirror our beliefs the best) ?

[James]

You've picked a difficult topic to start with!

If I follow you, I think you are essentially correct.

I think the spacious present, and the whole concept of simultaneous time, is one of the most difficult of Seth's concepts for us to get our heads around. The topic of time in general deserves a book of its own. As part of my research for "Nursery," I read through the entirety of the Seth material (twice!), coding it by subject matter. I ended up with a file on Time that is 89 pages long. One day, if I have "time," I would like to condense all that material into a comprehensive essay on Seth's concept of time.

In the meantime, I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.

I don't think the spacious present is static. I don't think it can be. According to Seth, no part of All That Is is static, and action must act; it can never be still.

So here is our first dilemma in understanding simultaneous time from our human viewpoint. If all events are happening at once in the spacious present, then to a universal observer like All That Is, say, all events might be thought to appear completed, or static, since they can all be viewed in their entirety. But that is not the case, Seth says, because no event is ever complete. All That Is itself is never complete. All events are action, and the only limitation on action is that it must act. The concept of infinity is involved here, since events are continuously morphing, changing, evolving, and projecting themselves into probable futures as well as probable pasts, and this never ends. All That Is, Seth says, multiplies itself at microseconds.

It's interesting to note that near death experiencers often comment on the lack of time in the after-death environment. Their description of existence in a state of timelessness, where all events are happening at the same "time," but where everything nevertheless makes sense, accords well with Seth's concept of the spacious present.

To begin to answer your second question, having to do with how each of us chooses our own pathway through the thicket of probable events that are available in the spacious present, I'll present two quotes that jumped out at me when I opened my file on Time. They happened to be the first and last entries in that file, which somehow seems fitting - the alpha and omega, Ouroboros eating his tail.

I'll start with the last entry in my file, which is actually a quote from Norman Friedman's Seth-based book "Bridging Science and Spirit":

"each action," writes Friedman, "in the future can be represented by a series of probabilities. One probability is selected, and that becomes our future. Seth says that we can look at the past in a similar manner. There are probable pasts just as there are probable futures. We select only one version of events as our past and ignore the others."

The first entry is from Jane's manuscript "The Universe as idea Construction," where she wrote:

"Physical time is the apparent lapse between the emergence of an idea in the physical universe (as a construction) and its replacement by another.  The past is the memory of ideas that were but are no longer physical constructions. The present is the apparent point of any idea's emergence into physical reality. The future is the apparent lapse between the disappearance of one idea construction and its replacement by another in physical reality."

So we are poised in a moment-point where the vast array of available probable events are narrowed down to just those that we accept as present experience (and yes, our beliefs and expectations help determine which events get selected). We are only aware, consciously, of our own probable line of events, but other sequences are experienced by what Seth terms "probable" selves (this is an example of All That Is multiplying itself at microseconds, as each event involving a decision is a bifurcation point, reality thereafter expanding along two divergent paths). The entity, or soul, is aware of all the events experienced by all of its probable and reincarnational selves.

Time, as Seth said in the 433rd session, "is an aid, organizing experience along certain lines. To a large extent it limits perception, and is a protective device. You are learning to handle perception and experience, and time gives it to you in slow and small doses. The doses become larger. Finally you can sample experience without these limitations. Nontime represents the freedom to do so."

I hope this helps a little. It's a big subject, isn't it, and difficult to condense to a few lines. Which reminds me of something Seth said in the 14th session: "you have no idea of the difficulties involved in explaining time to someone who must take time to try and understand the explanation."

Cheers.

[wadihicham]

Thank you very much for your answer. Apologies for possibly beginning with the most challenging topic, but I believe it will naturally encompass many of the other significant aspects.

What you say about timelessness during a near-death experience reminds me of the following quote :

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

Another quote (a long one !) that is very interesting about time and spacious present is the following (TES2, session 54):

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

This quote holds significant relevance to your idea of "becoming gods" (the seeds of a tree) and with the concept of value fulfillment, which seems to be related to what Time really is (the forest is constantly expanding).

In your book you say:

Value fulfillment is the striving to achieve the highest quality of expression possible for each and every smallest portion of All That Is, a loving intent to bring each individual to fullest flower, but to do so in a way that most benefits all other individuals. "Your closest approximation of the purpose of the universe can be found in those loving emotions that you have toward the development of your children, in your intent to have them develop their fullest capacities..."

I'm far from understanding what Seth is trying to tell us here. Here is what I think I understand :
time doesn't exist as a dimension (nor space by the way). Only a changing now exists. What I call my individual past exists in my memory and can change in the next now moment (a kind of Mandela effect). What I call a past or (future) life of mine is also occurring Now. This is possible because consciousness is multidimensional and organized in the manner of a fractal. A past life of mine is related to me through our common entity. It is maybe like playing internet video games. An entity would be a team, I'm playing a 2023 role at the same time an other member of my team is maybe playing a 1650 role and an other one is playing a 2999 role. The entire game would be the spacious present. In truth we are all the same consciousness, the separateness being an illusion caused by the multidimensional nature of the one consciousness (God, all that is). The successive Nows of the game being chosen in order to maximize value fulfillment.

Hope I'm clear ? I would be curious to know you take on this.

Regards,             

[James]

I think your internet game analogy is a good one. Have you read Jane's Oversoul Seven books? They might give you another way of coming to grips with simultaneous time. In them she deals with the idea of an entity (Oversoul Seven) who has several simultaneous existences in different eras of time. The individual personalities living in the different times are unaware of each other, but are all aspects of Oversoul Seven. Oversoul Seven is himself learning, and is being insructed by a teacher, Cyprus, who stands in relation to Seven in somewhat the same way that Seven stands in relation to his various physical personalities. In the same vein, Seth said that Seth Two stands in relation to him as he stands in relation to Jane. All identities are learning and growing, and will become conscious of more of reality as their understanding grows, and this will contribute to the overall expansion and value fulfillment of All That Is. Each of us, Seth said, can be thought of as eccentric versions of All That Is, growing towards a conscious identification with that immense source.

I guess none of this really helps to understand simultaneous time or the spacious present. The idea of growing or developing, or the fulfillment of values, implies time. The idea of an event itself implies time, and it seems well-nigh impossible to conceive of any event taking place without the involvement of time. And yet all those NDEers report a complete absence of time in the after-death environment, and a reality where everything is happening at once, and that this somehow still makes sense to them. It is only after resuscitation that they run into difficulty explaining their experience, since human language cannot contain or convey such a reality. I must confess that I've pretty much given up trying to understand time or timelessness. The evidence from NDEers convinces me that Seth's material on a nontime environment or spacious present is accurate and undistorted, but I think I will have to wait until after death to really understand it. The camouflage is just too strong to see past in this reality, at least for me.

[LarryH]

For me, it helps to think about the way time seems to be when I am dreaming. I can go back and repeat an event or instantly change my perceived location. I can slow things down. It is not that "there is no time" so much as that I am not stuck in "clock time". It is more manipulatable and plastic, more controllable. Events still happen in whatever order serves the dream's purpose. I am reminded that, while NDE experiencers say that in that experience, there was no time, they still often describe sequential events: "First, I floated above my body, then I was moving down a valley or through a tunnel, then I met my deceased loved ones, then I met my guides, then I experienced every emotion, positive or negative, that I had caused in others." That last one, the compressed but complete experience of every emotion caused in others, seemingly in an instant, is certainly a description of time being different, but still an event in a sequence.

[wadihicham]

Hi,

James, I appreciate your response. I agree that, in the end, it surpasses human comprehension. However, my aspiration is to enhance the clarity of Seth's text as much as possible. For instance, the quote where he draws an analogy with a forest to illustrate the concept of a spacious present. I've read it over ten times, only to be left frustrated. This tendency is characteristic of Seth's style; it possesses multiple layers, making it enjoyable to read yet challenging to grasp. I find myself pondering why it is like that. But I like puzzles, so I'm content with the situation.

LarryH, very interesting. unfortunately for me my dreams are more linear in time
Here is a quote from the book "Dying to be me" by Anita Moorjani:

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

It's in accord with what Seth tells us about simultaneous time. My (human) understanding of that is that time doesn't exist. It's an illusion made possible by the multidimensional nature of consciousness. 
 

[James]

Hi Larry, you're right, near death experiencers do describe the events that took place in serial terms, but there are a couple of points worth mentioning.

The near death experience appears to be divided by the tunnel experience into two main parts. Before the tunnel experience, events are always connected with the here and now, so normal time is involved. People report seeing doctors work on their bodies, or hear conversations from the waiting room in another part of the hospital. But after moving through the tunnel, the NDE becomes more profound, and this is when people report encountering a no-time environment. They are quite insistent about this, and express frustration that they cannot relate their experience using words. It's not that their experiences happened in a linear fashion, even a compressed or more plastic linear fashion, but that language itself cannot convey the timeless environment they experienced. If their experiences were strung out in time in some sort of linear fashion, then they would have no need to insist on calling it a no-time environment, and language should be adequate to describe their experience, but that is not the case.

An excerpt from "Nursery of the Gods":

"Words, Seth says, hide as much as they reveal, and the truth of any experience can never appear completely
undistorted when words are used. The experience of time during a near death experience, for example, cannot be conveyed using words. All events are experienced as happening at once during the period of clinical death, rather than being strung out in a linear sequence, and yet people report that there is no confusion in dealing with simultaneous events; everything makes sense even though it is all happening at once. The difficulty arises only later, after resuscitation, when they attempt to disentangle events and translate them into terms of language, with its linear time sequence. "It's simply too much for human words," reported one of Van Lommel's subjects. "The other dimension, I call it now, where ... time and place don't exist. Our words, which are so limited, can't describe it... The frustration at not being able to put it into human words is immense.""

That said, your experience with time during dreams is interesting. Maybe you're approaching something like the no-time environment in your dreams, where the strict limitations of earthly time are lifted. Your dreams also sound a bit like the life review reported by NDEers, where they can re-live every event, emotion, or thought that they had during life. They can re-visit events in any order, watch them as an observer, or re-live them as a participant. So some sort of feeling of time, as we understand it, must be involved in the re-living, but they are not trapped in time like we are. Interestingly, it can take many hours, or even many days, to recount the experiences that took place during an NDE that may have lasted only two or three minutes of our clock time. It makes me wonder if it's not so much a no-time environment in literal terms, but some sort of freer experience where apparent time-sequences can be experienced if we want, but don't necessarily have to be.

[wadihicham]

Hi,

There is also the life review that has a connection with time. As you wrote in your book James:

It is not only one's own actions that are examined or re-experienced; the NDEr feels the emotional impact that his or her words and actions had on others, and experiences the feelings and thoughts that others experienced during the original events. If your words have hurt someone, you will feel what they felt from their perspective. It is not merely as if your life is being replayed in fast-forward, but that every moment is available to be relived, as a spectator or as a participant, in as much depth as needed to gain an understanding of why you acted as you did, and to accept responsibility for your actions.

I find it particularly interesting that one can re-live events of one's life from other's point of view literally becoming them. It reminds me of Stanislav Grof . He wrote in "Realms of the Human Unconscious" (very interesting book by the way):

the subject feels a complete identification with another person and loses to a great degree the awareness of his own original identity. This identification is total and complex; it includes the body image, emotional reactions and attitudes, psychological characteristics, facial expression, typical gestures and mannerisms, postures, movements, and even the inflection of the voice.

Apparently identification can even occur with animals plants, groups and even with Creation !

Here is an example:

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

Maybe, the notion of individuality is a mirage. We are all manifestations of "God". This entity crafts every event and can revisit any moment from any perspective. The vastness of the spacious present mirrors its consciousness.

Regards, 

[James]

The quotes from Grof are interesting, and remind me of how Seth described his journey from his reality to ours (or to any other "plane" of existence). From Session 15:

"You are yourselves aware of other planes to some degree, and to some degree you can communicate with them as you communicate with your cat. Imagination allows you to enter into these planes, as when you imagine what another animal's life would be. When I say I visit another plane you can imagine the following experience.
Pretend that you not only understood your cat's concept of time to some degree, but could also experience his sense of time through the cat itself. In doing this you would in no way bother, inhibit or annoy the cat. He would not be aware of your presence and in no way could this be represented as any sort of an invasion.
Imagine further that you actually experienced the feeling of such a furry coat, and all the other feline equipment from the inside. Purely as a spectator this would loosely represent an analogy to my traveling to other planes. It follows that I could not travel to higher planes than my own, where more acute senses than mine would instantly perceive me. This sort of thing does not as a rule go on in your plane. Even with your limited senses you would perceive my presence, though my plane is further developed than yours. So you see that the laws operate in such a manner that we are more or less kept in our place. Controls are applied. You have also seen that your cat can sense me to some extent when I am in his environment, so we do not get away with much. On many planes we are fully visible to others on that plane. To some we are invisible, and to us some are invisible."

Regarding identity, and the idea that individuality is a mirage, it gets more complicated. On the one hand, yes, we all share the same source in All That Is, and are all therefore connected to each other at the deepest level. But identity or individuality is nevertheless a real thing, and your identity is inviolable. "All That Is," said Seth, "therefore 'lost' a portion of itself in that creative endeavor [Seth is talking about the creation of reality here]. Yet all individuals remember their source, and now dream of All That Is, as All That Is once dreamed of them. And they yearn toward that immense source, and yet to set it free, to give it actuality through their own creations. The motivating force is still All That Is, but the individuality is no illusion. And you create for the same reason, and within all of you is the memory of that primal agony — that urge to create and free all probable consciousnesses into actuality." (ES9, p. 29)

[wadihicham]

Hi,

This brings us to a very complicated and central aspects of Seth's teaching : Action, consciousness , Identity and the three dilemmas... 

It's not clear for me, for example how do you understand the following (TES3, session 138) ?

Identities may be termed action which is conscious of itself. For the purposes of our discussion, the terms action and identity must be separated. However basically no such separation exists, for an identity is also a dimension of existence, action within action, an unfolding of action upon itself; and through this interweaving of action with itself, through this reaction, an identity is formed.

Based on my limited grasp, action seems to be the process of moving from a state of non-existence to existence, essentially manifesting something into reality. Is that correct? If so, how can this manifestation process be self-aware? Is this related to the complementarity between subject and object, where an object only exists in relation to a subject and vice versa? What does action within an action mean ?

You've discussed this on your book, so it's great to have the opportunity to discuss it with you  !

 
 

[James]

Wow, my friend, you really dive into the heart of the matter and ask the toughest questions! You've outdone yourself this time.

Action is a complex issue, as you know, and is at the heart of Seth's metaphysic. It's not easy to summarize, and Seth returned to action again and again, gradually building up his description of it over many years. In my book I compared action to a complementarity composed of action, identity, and consciousness. This seemed to me a helpful way of conceptualizing action, but there are many nuances - too many to fit into this comment.

I will try to answer your questions, but it might also be helpful to give the chapter on action and complementarities a second reading.

You are correct in your description of action as "a process of moving from a state of non-existence to existence, essentially manifesting something into reality." Action is the translation of inner vitality into the camouflage of a given reality system, as well as being the camouflage itself. But action also involves the concepts of identity and consciousness.

According to Seth, all three terms - action, identity, and consciousness - are part of the same thing. They are a complementarity, in other words. The trouble with complementarities, from our human perspective, is that we can only understand the parts in isolation from each other. This is why Seth said that "For the purposes of our discussion, the terms action and identity must be separated. However basically no such separation exists."

The complementarity itself lies outside of physical reality. Seth's term for that complementarity is "inner vitality," but we can never see or touch inner vitality itself from our position in physical reality, we can only see its physical manifestations.

From our perspective, action, or inner vitality, seems to break apart into three distinct things, though they are really all aspects of the same thing. Those three things are action, identity, and consciousness. Seth describes identity as action acting upon itself, forming a kind of enclosure within itself in which a protected and organized whole - a self- can be formed.

You ask how this process can be self-aware. A good question! Not even Seth seems to really know how that can be, or maybe he found it impossible to describe using words. He was limited to using concepts that were at least somewhat familiar to Jane, and the subjects of action, identity, and consciousness take us well outside of what most people find familiar.

It may be the case that we simply cannot conceive of the true nature of certain aspects of reality while our consciousness is atuned to physical reality. Seth said these ideas aren't really beyond our grasp, but that it would take a significant stretching of our consciousness to understand them. It's an ongoing effort, but worth it, I think. I applaud your effort. My book is really just my own effort to understand Seth's ideas, and cast them in terms that I hope might help others to make sense of them. Even for Seth, though, consciousness is "an almost miraculous state, made possible by what I choose to call a series of creative dilemmas."

Here's an excerpt from my book where I discuss the three dilemmas, but I've gone on long enough, and I think I will have to end it here:

   "We have already briefly encountered the three dilemmas of creativity, which together result in a state of tension that is itself creative. It is this state of creative tension which gives rise to action, and it is in this state that we have our existence. In the language of complexity science, this state corresponds to the boundary at the edge of chaos, which is itself a state of tension between stasis on one side and chaos on the other. It is on this boundary that all complex systems and emergent behaviour spontaneously arise and have their existence.
    The first dilemma is that which exists when All That Is struggles to express or actualize itself, but cannot completely do so. There is always an unexpressed part – the "more" in "the whole is more than the sum of its parts." The probability wave of an electron is an example of this dilemma in our reality – it cannot completely materialize itself in physical existence because it contains every possible version of the electron, but only one version can be materialized in physical reality. The vast potential of the probability wave cannot be realized in physical reality, and neither can the vast potential of any other event, nor of All That Is itself. "In the dilemma of what I can only call cosmic creativity," commented Seth, "there are always potentials seeking for expression. No single event actualizes all of its possibilities." 
   The second dilemma is that of identity. "Identity," states Seth, "because of its characteristics, will continually seek stability, while stability is impossible. And this is our second dilemma. It is this dilemma, precisely between identity's constant attempts to maintain stability, and action's inherent drive for change, that results in the imbalance, the exquisite creative by-product that is consciousness of self. We have a series of creative strains. Identity must seek stability while action must seek change, yet identity could not exist without change, without action, for it is the result of action, and not apart from it but a part of it."
   It bears repeating that consciousness enters into both quantum theory and Seth's theory at the same point: the point where the wave function collapses into a particle in the former, and where action collapses into an identity in the latter. Quantum particles can be thought of as individual-ized waves, and identity can be thought of as particle-ized action, and both are intimately bound up with consciousness.
   The third dilemma also involves identity, but arises when identity attempts to separate itself from action to form an ego, and to see action as something apart from itself. This attempt is doomed to fail for the same reason that identity cannot achieve stability: it is itself formed of action. The attempt to do so, however, results in a new kind of psychological platform – the ego-self. Human beings fall into this category..."

[wadihicham]

Thank you very much James!!

I'm trying to REALLY understand the metaphysics of Seth. Your book is the only reference to my knowledge that has assisted me in this endeavor. I know my questions are challenging and require effort and time to answer. I hope I'm not bothering you too much; if that's the case, please let me know, and I'll stop with such questions.
In the meantime, I'll reread sessions 136 to 138 and meditate your idea of interpreting the Action-Identity-Consciousness triplet as complementarity, and I'll return to you for my feedback.

Regards,

[James]

Keep asking questions, and I'll answer if I can. Trying to understand Seth's metaphysic is a worthwhile pursuit, one that can occupy a lifetime.

I came across the following in my notes on action that might help explain the concept of action acting upon action to produce identity. Maybe I should include it in my book:

   Just as matter acts upon matter in physical reality, forming from itself chemical compounds like H2O at one level, and trees or sculptures on another, so action acts upon action in non-physical reality, forming identities.
   The comparison with matter concretizes action, providing a way to better understand the abstract notion of action acting upon action. The comparison with a sculpture might be the most apt, since it so clearly brings consciousness into the process. The sculptor's chisel and his block of marble are composed of matter. The act of sculpting is matter (the chisel) acting upon matter (the marble), but the chisel is guided by the consciousness of the sculptor, who brings his own purposes to bear. In our physical system, matter acting upon matter is a physical manifestation of action acting upon action. In the case of matter, a sculpture may result, in the case of nonphysical action, an identity (or an event, or even a whole reality system) may result.

Cheers.

[James]

BTW, checking my file on Action, it looks Seth discusses the topic in at least 46 different sessions, with most of the sessions between 135 and 146 discussing action. Those would be worth your while reading. Action is a big topic; my file on action alone is book-length, at over 64,000 words.

[wadihicham]

Hi,

I've spent quite a bit of time over the last two days reading and rereading sessions 136 to 142. All the concepts are interrelated, and ideally, one would need to read all of Seth's books first to begin to make sense of it. Fortunately, the Seth search engine is a huge help. The idea of creating files by concepts, as you are doing, is an excellent one. Here's what I believe I've understood:

Seth says (TES3 session 138) :

We will further consider this evening the nature of identities. In our earlier discussions concerning the nature of matter, we made it plain that each individual created any given material object, through use of the inner senses, and following certain rules which were mentioned.

Given that an Action is the move from potentiality/inner vitality to actuality/manifestation, it seems that any materialization/idea construction is intrinsically linked (that is to say, complementary) with a self (a conscious identity).

Each self (conscious identity) is at the origin of actions and  actions are at the origin of selves. In session 142:

There are selves within selves. Each self is interwound with all others, and yet each self, being composed of action, has within it the powers of action toward change, development, expansion, and the drive toward fulfillment.
Herein also lies the freedom of each self: not being limited. We have spoken in the past of capsule comprehension. It is indeed a characteristic of action, indivisible from action, equally interwoven within it.
Therefore each portion of action is aware of its simultaneous experience within all levels. Again, action carries itself along. Each self is therefore aware of its previous gestalt affiliations. Now. Identities may or may not have egos. An atom is an identity—"
.....
Therefore each portion of action is aware of its simultaneous experience within all levels. Again, action carries itself along. Each self is therefore aware of its previous gestalt affiliations. Now. Identities may or may not have egos. An atom is an identity—

....

The inner self could be called, then, the nucleus, the original point of action from which all the other emanations that form the whole self began.

I suppose that All-that-is is the source self at the origin of the very first action during His famous agony.


It seems that there are two kinds of identities, those with consciousness and those without. For example in session 137:

The chair created then by any given individual, and perceived by him, is an identity in that it exists at any given time, without any exact duplication.

I guess that an identity is conscious (meaning is a self) if and  only if it can be the source of new actions thus giving rise to perceptions.

It is maybe in that sense that action acts upon itself giving rise to consciousness. In session 142:

The self then, being action which has formed itself into gestalts of pattern perceptions, by which it knows itself, this self changes constantly.

I notice an analogy with dreams:
The transition from a regular dream to a lucid dream is similar to what an action is (from a non real potentiality to a real actuality).
Out-of-body experiences or identifying with a character during a dream resembles the creation of an ego (a self that perceives other actions as external to it).

It also seems to me that actions, although independent of our linear time (since they occur in the spacious present), define the real/absolute time because it is through them that the spacious present grows.
All our physical reality past present and future exists simultaneously because actions are within the spacious present but all is constantly re-created because each action initiates the next one.

Not sure at all about all this but it starts to make some sense for me. Indeed there is, as you say a complementarity Action-Identity-COnsciousness because Action, selves and perceptions are like chicken and egg.

Regards,

[wadihicham]

Hi,

Here is a testimony (Excerpted from a French book recounting the experience of an awakening) that I wanted to share because in my opinion it illustrates the concept of action and its link with identity, consciousness, self and perception :

Until one evening when, in the midst of a pain crisis, the impression of a separate self, of a person to whom something is happening, disappeared again completely, giving way to pure, centerless, infinite Consciousness that is absolutely Present to what is being. As if perception shifted, changed its point of view, moving from the impression "I am experiencing a situation" which implies a conscious center with the world around it, to "the situation that is being experienced" as a whole, consciousness encompassing what makes up the scene in its entirety, without isolating a supposed central element. Exactly as if we became the space of the room, all objects in it appearing of equal importance, including our physical body.
....
The next morning, my perception returned to its usual position: that of a center with a world around it