Thursday, April 25, 2013

Do we create our reality?

Recently someone lobbed the following at me: "I know that Seth says, 'You create your own reality,' BUT..." My response: "What Seth actually means is that we create the physical reality that we perceive, which is proven in quantum physics." And then I thought more on this, as I always do... And I realized that this particular Sethism, which has been used to characterize (and discredit) all of New Age philosophy, actually does, at times, seem to mean what it seems to mean: That we, from whole cloth, ex nihilo, create our world, and we are responsible for (or to blame for) all that results.

The careful philosopher will immediately recognize that if, indeed, the reality that we perceive is what we have in fact "created," we have no mechanism for proving otherwise. It is a completely self-contained and self-referential logical conundrum that has tripped many a wannabe guru and resulted in the wastage of much valuable camouflage time. So why did Seth keep saying it?

It's possible that "he" wanted the readers of the Seth material to begin to look beyond our narrow definition of "self" enough to wonder, "If I'm not consciously aware of creating my reality, is there a part of 'me' that I'm not consciously aware of that IS doing the creating?  Who or what is this other part of me, and how can become acquainted with it?" Perhaps this question mirrors what may have been the primordial First Question that reportedly birthed reality when All-That-Is asked, "Who am I, and who am I not?"

Monday, April 15, 2013

Books Three and Four of the Seth "Early Sessions" are out on the Kindle

It looks like they will all be published, which is quite remarkable... could it be that Seth is catching on?  I'm not sure that Seth in general resonated with the '70s and '80s.  I know that when I first picked up a Seth book--probably the late '70s--I immediately put it down.  I disagreed with the concept of "simultaneous lifetimes."  I could not wrap my mind around it; still can't, really, but at least I can entertain the notion better now.

But there is much good information in the "Early Sessions," and (unlike the bulk of psycho-babble that's out now) it corresponds to what is now evident in two paranormal fields that I personally consider valid: near-death experiences, and remote viewing. And published research into these two areas was nonexistent in the 1960s.  In other words, Jane Roberts could not have fabricated such detailed information.  There is something there, and we can still learn from it.

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Obama's brain-mapping initiative

What with war threatening to erupt in Korea and unemployment rising, many were probably left scratching their heads Tuesday at President Obama's brain-mapping initiative:

President Obama unveiled a decades-long project Tuesday designed to map the inner workings of the brain, seeking answers to such challenges as epilepsy, autism and Alzheimer's disease. "There's this enormous mystery, awaiting to be unlocked," Obama said during remarks at the White House. (USA Today)

It seemed to play to the stereotype of Democrats as being both frivolous and irrelevant.  Such a strange initiative. But I was reminded of something else. In "Seth Speaks," Seth predicts that during what is generally referred to as the "awakening of consciousness" in this century, "new areas will be activated in the brain to physically take care of them [expansions of consciousness]. Physically then, brain mappings will be possible in which past-life memories are evoked." The term "brain mapping" is both highly specific and evocative, and as far as I know, there has been no organized initiative to "map" the brain (beyond various neurological studies to identify specific parts of the brain and what physical effects are associated with them). Certainly this was not common scientific currency in the 1960s, when "Seth Speaks" was published.

So, what on the surface might appear to be another frivolous waste of government money, might actually have portent. Science is doing something now that, on an organized level, has never been attempted on a large scale: mapping the brain. A small blip on the media screen today, but twenty or thirty years hence, what will be the result?