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?"

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.

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?

Working toward a validation of Seth's "inner senses"

I've read most of the Seth books multiple times over many years, and I always have the disconcerting experience of reading each book again as if I've read it for the first time... The books hold a different focus, depending on the stage of life that I happen to be at.

Now is no different.  What stands out for me now in my re-current reading of "The Early Sessions" (and the "official" corresponding book, "Seth Speaks") is the persistent emphasis on the "inner senses." It seems to be the core theme of both books, and Seth repeatedly drives home the importance of using our "inner senses."  Previously, I've glossed over these discussions... I considered them too esoteric, too remote from any practical experience, but I now believe that Seth's descriptions can finally be validated, fifty years after their first transcription, by contemporary NDE accounts.

A full discussion of what Seth means by the "inner senses" is well beyond the scope of this blog... but to summarize what I think Seth means, "inner senses" are those perceptive mechanisms that are associated with our whole self--both the part that is physically incarnated (the subconscious), as well as those aspects of our greater self that reside outside our physical system.  Our physical senses mimic to some extent the functions of the inner senses, but they are narrowly focussed on observing (or, more correctly, building a representation of) the physical world.  (A good summary of Seth's treatment of the inner senses can be found here.)

My primary interest in the subject is in validation--is there any evidence in existing reports, outside of the Seth books, that documents the use of these senses?

I think that there is, at least concerning the "first" inner sense, referred to as "inner vibrational touch" (which is a woefully inadequate description of the actual experience). Those who have had vivid OOBEs likely are quite familiar with this sense; Seth describes it as such:

I will go into it more deeply but you may call it the first inner sense.  It involves immediate perception of a direct nature, whose intensity varies according to what is being sensed. It involves instant cognition through what I can only describe as inner vibrational touch. This is, if you will excuse the pun, touchy, since I want to avoid any implication here of sloppy sentimental emotionalism; and the word vibrational is not the best. This sense would permit our man to feel the basic sensations felt by the tree, so that instead of looking at the tree his consciousness would expand to contain the experience of what it is like to be a tree. According to his proficiency, in a like manner he would feel the experience of being the intervening grass and so forth.  He would in no way lose consciousness of who he was, and he would perceive these experiences, again, somewhat in the same manner that you perceive heat and cold. In your camouflage pattern you must adapt yourself to the effects of heat and cold, but our man in the inner world would not be under any such obligation. I am speaking now only of our first inner sense.

By this first inner sense, the comatose patient undergoing a near-death experience is able to "see" the operating room theater, the instruments that the physicians are using, perceive the thoughts of the nurses, sense the fear of relatives gathered outside, and look beyond walls and doors of the room and see not only the physical environment in intricate detail, but also the underlying "astral" environment (lights, music, vivid landscapes) that coexists with the physical.

Such is, in fact, what Anita Moorjani describes in "Dying To Be Me":

In this near-death state, I was more acutely aware of all that was going on around me than I’ve ever been in a normal physical state. I wasn’t using my “five biological senses," yet I was keenly taking everything in, much more so than if I’d been using my physical organs. It was as though another, completely different type of perception kicked in, and more than just perceive, I seemed to also encompass everything that was happening, as though I was slowly merging with it all. * ** As my emotions were being drawn away from my surroundings, I started to notice how I was continuing to expand to fill every space, until there was no separation between me and everything else. I encompassed—no, became—everything and everyone.

I would like to explore further this first "inner sense" but for now, I am willing to go out on a limb and argue the following:  If Ms. Moorjani's account is correct (and I can't find any reason to assume that it isn't), she describes the operation of the first "inner sense," fifty years after it was first explained by Jane Roberts--before NDEs were part of the cultural landscape. While it's not impossible that Jane Roberts "free-associated" her way through a detailed description of an esoteric experience that would not be explicable until years later, I'd rather think that she didn't.  Seth's description of a sense that he clumsily calls "inner vibrational touch" is simply too strange, too obscure to have any contemporary meaning then; but it does now, to students of NDE accounts.  

"Seth cultists"

I've finally found the source for Tom Dark's quotation of Seth referring to New Agers as "imbecilic personalities" and their gatherings as "psychic sideshows."  (Arguably, I would have found it sooner had I looked for it sooner.)  The content was included in an unpublished Seth session that the "Reality Change" publication refused to print. (I remember being somehow associated with "Reality Change" in the '90s, and I received some unpublished sessions along with a certificate signed by Robert Butts, for joining the organization.) This session may already be published now in the multi-volume sessions and notes.  This earthiness is not uncharacteristic of Seth's unedited talks that are revealed in these non-published sessions; still, I hope it's published eventually, because I can't agree with it more.

The major "paranormal" shows tend to shun Seth scholarship for some reason. I remember only one "Coast" show devoted to Seth.  This is probably because Seth scholarship has nothing in common with the New Age or the paranormal, and paranormal investigators somehow intuit this.

I stumbled upon this while trying to find information on Sue Watkins' "25th Anniversary Edition" of "Conversations With Seth."  I have the paperback; I'd like the Kindle version. But for some reason, it's been split into two parts.  Has material been added to this "deluxe edition" sufficient to warrant the extra cost?

Still enjoying my self-imposed exile from paranormal radio

and missing it none. I think that I listened more or less out of habit. It's amazing how improved my outlook on life has changed... akin to the subtle improvement that I noticed when I stopped watching television a decade or so ago.

But I have a significant quote from the first book of Seth's "The Early Sessions": "I have spoken of your plane rather than of your planet because earth is one of the planets that contain[s] many planes."

This is why I continue to be fascinated with the Seth material when everyone else abandons it in exasperation--one of those blink-and-you'll-miss-it money quotes that packs volumes into a single sentence.

What Seth is suggesting is that there are different types of planets in our immediate vicinity.  Some contain only "one plane," whereas others are multi-dimensional.

Earth is one of those physical planets that just so happen to have the more complex gestalt of "many planes."

What are the single-plane planets? Mars? What are the *other* multi-dimensional planets (since Earth is only "one of" them)? What does it mean to live on a planet of "many planes"? Do those inhabitants experience bleed-throughs from the other planes? 

Of interest to "Sethians"...

The first two volumes of The Early Sessions have just come out in Kindle format.  I bought the paperback versions a while back (paying a pretty penny for them, since they were obtainable only from the publisher). Why are they notable? They flesh out and extend many of the dialogs that ultimately went into the early Seth books, and putting these early sessions in full context makes them a bit more comprehensible and easier to digest.  I am hoping that ultimately all of the Seth material is ebooked, for an important reason--I can finally find what I'm looking for, and not rely on the memory of what I might have read twenty or so years ago. And more often than not, any memory of what I read long ago is quite different from what I discover to actually be there.  Very strange, and very puzzling--there's never any sense of déjà vu with the Seth stuff; I'm always reading it like it's the first time I've seen it.