Probable Selves Show Up in Mainstream Science and Literature: Seth Explains, Part 1

One complaint that I’ve heard about the Seth material is that Seth’s claims about the nature of reality are too farfetched and the explanations too complicated. I don’t agree with the assessment that Seth’s ideas are implausible. However, a lot of the detail is difficult to grasp. It has taken me many years to get clear on some of the ideas, and each time I revisit the material, I seem to grasp a little bit more.

I’ve been aided along the way by other source material, most notably, from quantum physics, at least to the extent that I can understand it. The channeled material of Elias is also helpful in that he often elaborates on topics that Seth introduced but for which Seth didn’t give exhaustive detail. The Elias material is interesting because Elias doesn’t dictate books, like Seth did, but answers questions posed by people who attend the sessions. A lot of those people ask the same questions I would ask if I could. (Here is a link to the Elias Forum where you can search the transcripts by topic:

Occasionally, illumination will come unexpectedly, as recently happened when I read a popular novel. The book was the first novel of a young, British author, Laura Barnett, called The Versions of Us. I have no idea whether Ms. Barnett is familiar with the Seth material, but her book brought a particularly perplexing concept—probable selves—to life for me.

I won’t spoil the story for you, but it is safe to give you the basics. The story revolves around two main characters, Eva and Jim. They are Oxford University students who meet by “chance,” when they are 19. Barnett writes three different versions that all begin at this meeting point. From there, three “probable” versions of each of them spin off into different probable realities. The author follows the main characters throughout their entire lives, showing us how their choices affected them in each alternative timeline–an interesting, though not entirely original conceit.  More surprising, however, is the way Ms. Barnett includes incidents which suggest that these divergent timelines (or probable selves) continue to influence one another.  This is a concept I recognized from the Seth material, though I’d never seen it explored exactly this way in popular media.

So what are probable selves? Seth says that each probable self is a portion of your soul, which comprises many, many probable versions in our physical reality system, as well as many more versions in the reincarnational system. Every time we reach a choice-point, that is a moment where we are about to make a decision that will move our lives in a different direction–a probable self will spin off to follow “the path not taken.” In The Versions of Us, for example, Jim asks Eva out after they meet. In two of the versions she acquiesces, but in one she does not. This choice is significant because Eva is already in a relationship with someone else when she meets Jim, so going on a date with another man could initiate a meaningful change in her relationship.  Two probable realities are generated by her decision to date, or not to date, Jim.  Seth says, minor choices that don’t create major life changes do not cause a new probable self to form. Continue reading[..]

Cooperation Beats Competition, Pun Intended: Seth Explains Why–Part 4

evenWhen we left off at the end of Part 3, human consciousness had developed enough to be firmly focused in the physical. We discussed how natural guilt–an internal checks and balances system to prevent violation against others–had gone awry. At this stage, tribal myths and cultural stories as well as various pagan religions arose, which attributed both good and bad events to outside forces. For example, a drought could be due to an unhappy storm god. So could a flood, for that matter. What made the storm god unhappy was something people had done. They were guilty, in other words, and the gods would punish them for their transgressions. These myths involved an intrinsic understanding of nature; its just that the people projected the inner knowing onto exterior reality.

Seth says that these mythologies were an attempt by humanity to regulate itself without natural guilt. They represented beliefs that were shared by peasants and the wealthy alike. Humans projected all kinds of feelings and fears onto these spirits, gods, and goddesses, and even on the natural world and its creatures.

. . . There was a spectacular range of good and bad deities, with all gradations [among them], that more or less ‘democratically’ represented the unknown but sensed, splendid and tumultuous characteristics of the human soul, and have stood for those sensed but unknown glimpses of his own reality that man was in one way or another determined to explore. (Dreams, ‘Evolution,’ and Value Fulfillment, Volume 2, p. 400)

Eventually–over many centuries–these pagan religions gave way to the monotheistic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Jehovah and the Christian version of God brought about a direct conflict between the so-called forces of good and the so-called forces of evil by largely cutting out all of the intermediary gods, and therefore destroying the subtle psychological give and take that occurred between them–among them–and polarizing man’s own view of his inner psychological reality. (Dreams, ‘Evolution,’ and Value Fulfillment, Volume 2, p. 400)

These organized religions which emphasized evil, sin, guilt, and punishment, served to separate people even further from their own inner guides and inherent connection with All That Is.  We were here on Earth and God was someplace else, completely removed. Even some of the Eastern philosophies, like Buddhism, taught that all of reality was nothing but illusion and should be rejected for some future state of nirvana.

All such dogmas use artificial guilt, and natural guilt is distorted to serve those ends. In whatever terms, the devotee is told that there is something wrong with earthly experience. You are therefore, considered evil as a self in flesh by virtue of your very existence. (The Nature of Personal Reality, p. 235)

So, we can see that as evolution proceeded, the memory of our cooperative relationship with all of creation diminished. I don’t want to leave you with the impression that Seth criticized these developments. He described them as understandable steps in the development of human consciousness. All mythologies and religions, he said, gave meaning and some organization to people’s lives. Myths were the basis for their societies, whether tribal or civil, and they were the basis of knowledge and participation in the world at those times.

Seth is an equal opportunity critic of worldviews. For example, he mentions how early civilizations often believed that illness was sent by evil spirits who had to be mollified with various gifts or incantations. This seems ridiculous to us now. But Seth says,

It is easy enough to look at those belief structures and shrug your shoulders, wondering at man’s distorted views of reality. The entire scientific view of illness, however, is quite as distorted. It is as laboriously conceived and interwound with ‘nonsense.’ It is about as factual as the ‘fact’ that God sends illness as punishment, or that illness is the unwanted gift of mischievous demons. (Dreams, ‘Evolution,’ and Value Fulfillment, Volume 1, p. 204)

On that note, let’s talk about the waning of the religious worldview and the rise of the scientific one.

Continue reading[..]

Cooperation Beats Competition, Pun Intended: Seth Explains Why–Part 2

You will remember from previous posts or from reading the Seth material yourself, that a nonphysical, hidden reality preceded physical reality. Every possibility or probability that could ever exist was thought of all at once by All That Is and became “Divine Fact” in a different framework–one that is completely mental, not physical.

Before anything that is part of our physical world becomes physical, Seth says, it passes through various stages. The most important thing to know about these stages is that what propels them into being is consciousness. Everything is made up of consciousness.

Consciousness is the agent that directs the transformation of energy into form and of form into energy. (Dreams, ‘Evolution,’ and Value Fulfillment, Volume 1, Amber-Allen, 1986/1997, p. 137)

Seth describes consciousness units or CUs as the “building blocks” of matter. Fifty years ago we were all taught that the atom was the smallest building block of matter. Today, most physicists think of some yet undiscovered sub-atomic particle as the smallest building block of matter. Seth claims that ultimately humanity will realize that consciousness units are what they have been searching for.  You can read a bit here about the physicists who have already come around to this idea:

Seth says that CUs act as both particle and wave at different times. When CUs act like particles, they experience their reality from the center of those forms, they focus on unique specifications, and they become individual. When they act like waves they do not set up boundaries for themselves and they can be in more than one place at a time. Think of a vast ocean in relation to a drop of ocean water to get an impression of this concept. And Seth says that CUs act as both particle and wave (or matter and force) all the time. So literally everything in our reality, even space, is made up of consciousness and results from consciousness.

Metaphysically, they [CUs] can be thought of as the point at which All That Is acts to form [your] world–the immediate contact of a never-ending creative inspiration, coming into mental focus . . . the CUs represent the spectacular foundations of the world in value fulfillment, for each unit of consciousness is related to each other, a part of the other, each participating in the entire gestalt of mortal experience. (Dreams, ‘Evolution,’ and Value Fulfillment, Volume 1, p. 170)

This word, “gestalt” is one that Seth uses frequently. A gestalt is a unified whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Seth says that CUs all have a propensity for exploring possibilities and they form into units of all sizes based on the qualities that are significant to them.

Certain units would settle upon various kinds of organization, find these significant, then build upon them and attract others of the same nature. So were various systems of reality formed. The particular kind of significance settled upon would act both as a directive for experience and as a method of erecting effective boundaries . . . The units can and do intermix, yet because of the propensity for selectivity and significance, whole groups of them will ‘repel’ other whole groups, thus providing a protective inner system of interaction. (The Unknown Reality, Volume 1, Amber-Allen, 1977/1996, p. 48)

Continue reading[..]