The Early Sessions: Book 7 out on the Kindle

I'm still on Book 3. Book 3 is a tough read. Anyone who thinks that Jane Roberts "free-associated" this material ought to take a gander at this book. I can imagine Robert Butts patiently and somewhat bemusedly transcribing Seth's intricate discussions of atoms, inner and outer realities, idea construction, the existence of the physical body within multiple realities. You cannot make this stuff up. This will be a book that I will have to re-read (again) much later. However, Book 3 does introduce a seminal and (in my opinion) important idea: that an electrical counterpart to our physical universe exists "nearby."  This electrical plane is the described as the closest non-physical reality to ours and in fact intermingles with the physical. Per Seth, our physical manifestation of electricity is a weak echo of the actual power of this reality; the electricity that we've managed to harness in our world is merely a shadow of the electrical realm. It is this realm that is the most immediate after-death state.  Dreams are electrical in origin, and their electrical signature is "translated" into images that we recall as a dream.

I regard this as a significant idea because it is theoretically testable; unlike vague ideas of an "astral realm," the idea of an "electrical realm" is one that we can (somewhat) wrap our minds around; and it may explain a very some puzzling paranormal phenomena, one that I've experienced all my life: street lights (and other lights) turning off when I approach... As well as the frustrating problem that I had as a child of not being able to wear a mechanical watch without it dying. It also explains the apparent ease with which the newly dead and the earth-bound are able to record voices on our electrical equipment, turn on and off lights, radios, doorbells, fire alarms, and even, occasional, power televisions even when unplugged. A simple idea, to be sure, but one that I've never seen discussed anywhere else.

A temporarily suspension of my self-imposed exile from"Coast"

I visited the "Coast" website, but it was for a good cause: Joe McMoneagle, who was interviewed by the estimable George Knapp. I discovered this by accident on McMoneagle's blog. I'd Googled "The Ultimate Time Machine" to see if I could figure out why my blog entry on the book keeps getting hits. Basically, 90% of my readership is due to my mentions of Joe McMoneagle or David Paulides. I suspect that this is because both gentlemen are infinitely more interesting than I am.

Well, what have I missed on "Coast"?  Let's see.... Rosemary Ellen Guiley discussed dream visits from the dead. She's good. Who else? Carla Wills-Brandon discussed deathbed visions. I might give her my first listen.  And there's also Richard Bach.  A few good shows, scattered here and there.  The rest is dreck.

The universe as a mathematical simulation

An interesting scientific article. It's my personal belief that our perceived universe is actually created / crafted / designed, rather than simply a product of a random number generator. Leaving out all the baggage that's associated with creationism--for any scientist, now, to posit such a possibility is quite a shift. Is it just me, or is this huge?  I grew up in a world with an unbridgeable gulf between the religionists, on one side, and the objective scientists on the other.  One of the touchstones of traditional science is that while it's okay to admire a creation, speculation about who created the creation was streng verboten (arguably, for good reason, what with religionists blowing up their enemies at the slightest provocation).

My personal opinion, based on experience and research, is that, yes, our world is created, but it would be more accurate to say that it's co-created. To paraphrase Robert Monroe, "someone, somewhere," laid down the template, but there is something within us that throws up the drywall, the nails, installs the carpet and roof.

The fact that I'm seeing an increasing number of mainstream scientific articles that happen to agree with my mystical viewpoint suggests a pendulum swing. It makes me glad to have stuck around long enough to be vindicated somewhat.

Does mental illness exist?

I can't help noting an article published by The Guardian and linked at unknowncountry.com questioning, in general, whether "mental illness" is a valid clinical diagnosis. The gist of the unknowncountry commentary is that, no, there isn't really such a thing. People aren't mentally ill; they're just creatively different.

As I've opined extensively in the past, this is the 800-pound gorilla in the paranormal room: people who fit the clinical diagnosis of mental illness tend to appear on sites and talk radio shows devoted to the paranormal (and the right-wing).

My personal experience is that there IS such a thing as the classic diagnosis of mental illness, and that those who are mentally ill truly are unable to function in our consensus reality. At all. They can't communicate; they can't work; they can't perform even the most elemental tasks of self-sufficiency.

If anything, the United States lives in profound denial of the problem of mental illness. And we see the consequences daily: in our leagues of homeless, in our mass homicides, in our exploding prison population.

On a less consequential level, mental illness-denial contaminates any discussion of metaphysical topics and prevents any serious, rational investigation into what (I believe) to be valid, extraordinary experiences.  Scientists won't touch it, and I don't blame them.

The mentally ill are people who truly warrant our help, support, and treatment. Not, necessarily, our belief.

Re-re-reading for the umpteenth time..

Robert Monroe's "Far Journeys" (which I consider to be his best book).  I'm convinced: there's a there there. One thing of note, in the thirty or so years when I first read it: His description of a parallel astral area next to, and slightly out of synch with, the physical, populated with those who don't know that they're dead. This realm is vividly described in many NDE accounts... In fact, it's largely an NDE touchstone. Other authorities--notably Michael Newton, who looks at the process from the other end (regression hypnosis)--downplay the idea. I lean toward the Monroe hypothesis, largely because it makes more sense, and it explains a plethora of "paranormal" phenomena. Otherwise, his descriptions dovetail with other researchers, particularly in the various staging areas associated with death and rebirth.  I would actually like to do a textual comparison on the two accounts. I think it could be veridical (particularly since I doubt that the esteemed Dr. Newton has subjected himself to the Hemi-Sync process).

Life Before Life: A nugget from Volume 3 of Seth's "Early Sessions"

It is easy to become blasé about some of the early Seth material because much of it has been mainstreamed in New Age and metaphysical circles.  However, I stumbled upon the following, which I immediately recognized as significant, due to one important fact:

Now, since we are thinking in terms of archeological layers, we would continue to express ourselves along those lines. So. Directly beneath personal subconscious you will find upon examination either through hypnosis or applied association, a layer dealing with the period before this life, and after the life before this one.

Since this period was to some degree at least free of camouflage, from it communication can be received dealing with the entity's knowledge of itself, and of uncamouflaged reality. From this undifferentiated gap of experience between camouflage existences, valuable information may be received dealing with the reality which exists behind, and independent of, matter.

From this focus position communication may be set up between personality essences no longer in the physical field, and those still in it, provided that those still in it are able to remove focus from the ego to this particular level. It is from this focus point then that communication between what is termed the living and the dead may take place. The necessary focus point may be achieved through trance, hypnosis or self-hypnosis, or through certain other disciplines.

Basically, Seth is saying that if you hypnotize someone, you can extract information about that person's past lives and "between life" state.  Nowadays, you can't throw a rock in a bookstore without hitting a book explicating "life after life" or "life before life."  However, these concepts were unknown in 1964, when the above was dictated.  As far as I know, the first popular, mainstream book that purported to examine conscious existence "between lives" was Helen Wambach's "Life Before Life" (which I bought in 1981).  The method by which she compiled her data was a sort of group hypnosis.  No one, apparently, had thought to use hypnosis to obtain this data--and publish the results in the mainstream--until then.  Michael Newton, of course, perfected the process and published his classic studies beginning in the 1990s.  The point is, it's extremely unlikely that Jane Roberts could have articulated such a process in 1964.  Not only do I believe that this is a validation of the Seth material, I also think it validates Dr. Newton's work.

Seth's "Early Sessions" volumes 5 and 6 are now out on Kindle

I always download these books when they are first offered. Maybe it's a throwback to my pre-digital fear that somehow they will become sold out. Or maybe I fear that they will vanish. I have seen some Kindle editions offered at Amazon.com, then withdrawn. (Case in point: "The Cygnus Mystery.")

In any case, I continue to highly recommend these books to any Seth fans out there (and there are probably more than a few). Have Seth's ideas succeeded in changing the world yet, as Seth predicted they would?  I'm tempted to argue "no," yet, somehow, through some vector, "his" ideas are becoming widespread--mostly in the "New Age" community, but also in the esoteric realms of "edge" science.  Generally every New Agish sort of book that I've perused makes a nodding reference to "Sethian" ideas, albeit without reference and in a distorted fashion.

And there are some interesting tidbits. Near the end of Book 2, which I am finishing up, Seth compares / contrasts Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, and counterintuitively gives Freud more credence. He also notes that Jane Roberts is reading "Cayce," stating that "many" of Cayce's observations are "extremely valid."  This could be none other than Edgar Cayce, and to my knowledge, this is the only reference to Cayce in Seth's writings.  Which causes me to wonder: what did Seth think of the whole Cayce channeling phenomenon?  (His opinion of the various contemporary "reincarnations" of Cayce might be easier to predict.  But I'm no prophet--not even a sleeping one.)