Seth and Probable Worlds Theory

I thought I would get this down while it’s fresh on my mind.

I’ve mentioned the name “Seth” more than a few times in The Chrysalis. For those not familiar with this “Seth” he describes himself as “an energy personality essence no longer focussed in physical reality” and yet who, through the agency of a woman named Jane Roberts, was able to cross the boundaries between probable worlds and communicate, an achievement which he also explains in some detail.

The irony of Seth is this: his very reality proves and corroborates the theory of probable worlds (an infinity of probable worlds, in fact), yet the same people — with a few exceptions — who theorise about probable worlds and worlds without end don’t seem to take Seth seriously when he affirms it.

Well, I take Seth very seriously indeed, and believe him when he says that he and a few others have managed to penetrate the membrane or boundary conditions that separate probable worlds. And you’ld think a discovery like that would make the headlines in all the newspapers and scientific journals, wouldn’t you?  More astonishing than walking on the moon, even.

There is great irony in this. It reminds me of a story…

There once was a man who was so hungry for truth, so desperate to know the truth in fact that he locked himself away in a small room vowing not to emerge from his small room until he had discovered the truth. After a while, Truth (who is a woman) observed his devotion and was pleased, and taking pity on the man approached his door and knocked on it. “Go away! Scram!”, shouted the man. “I’m busy looking for Truth”. And Truth, being an honest and obliging spirit, duly left as commanded.

Now this “Seth”, from the overview of where he is, has an astonishing range of knowledge about physical reality and probable worlds, as you might expect from someone who has learned the trick of crossing over, and he explains the conditions necessary to do that. Nor is it necessarily all one way. William Blake seems to have had the facility to cross over, as did perhaps Robert Monroe (as recorded in his book Journeys Out of the Body). In fact, Seth insists we do it all the time, retrieving knowledge and inspiration from other probable worlds, but quite unconsciously and with far less skill.

Now, you might think there would be a headline in Nature: “‘Energy Personality Essence’ crosses frontiers of probable worlds!” Hooray! Our theory is neatly affirmed!

Yet it’s not a headline you’ll read. Seth remains a figure of “the occult”. And yet it’s hard to see what else might remove the theory of probable worlds from the realm of abstraction and speculation to the certain (or near certain) if not the testimony of those who have actually crossed over and have borne witness to its truth.

There have been a few science writers who have been bold enough to credit Seth with the inspiration for their musings — Michael Talbott in The Holographic Universe or Norman Friedman in The Hidden Domain spring to mind.

It’s my conviction that Seth is exactly who he says he is — an “energy personality essence no longer focussed in physical reality” and one who is greatly skilled in crossing the boundaries between probable worlds (and which, he insists, we will eventually also learn to do consciously ourselves).

So, where I think it is pertinent and relevant, I will cite Seth unabashedly as a definitive authority on the evolution of consciousness, the origins and structure of the physical space-time system, and the reality of infinite probable worlds.  And especially so when he insists that our continued existence as a species is not guaranteed in this probable world unless we make certain changes in our biological, psychological and social existence.

I believe him in that. Even if he is a “spook”.



4 responses to “Seth and Probable Worlds Theory”

  1. Scott Preston says :

    Actually, come to think of it, this is a good opportunity to further expand on what I am calling “empathetic epistemics” or “to know the thing you must become the thing you want to know”. For this is, in some ways, how Einstein proceeded, and why he credited imagination as being more important than knowledge.

    “When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.” ……Albert Einstein

    So, Blake and Einstein are in agreement on that.

    But in regards to the Seth material, here I want to note that the sceptical attitude or disbelief is completely inappropriate, and nothing — absolutely nothing — can be learned from the material if you approach it with that prejudicial attitude in advance. To appreciate the Seth material, you have to suspend disbelief or scepticism long enough to actually understand the material. Sincerity really matters here. Here’s why, and it’s a very important reason….

    Seth has said that the race may not endure unless certain changes (one can say “mutations”) are made to the human form (biological, psychological, spiritual), yet he never seems to really specify exactly what those changes might be, except for a few scattered references to some specific practices and exercises he recommends over the course of a half-dozen books or so.

    Actually, there is a very good reason for that. Seth already felt that pushing your awareness to his level — by sincerely adopting his “overview” of things while he explained it from his overview — was already transformative. To actually comprehend what he was saying, you had to, in a sense, become as he was and where he was as “an energy personality essence no longer focussed in physical reality”, and that meant stretching your awareness. In listening to him or reading his words, therefore, you were already engaged in what alchemists call “The Great Work”. But the precondition for that is the suspension of scepticism or disbelief, otherwise no change in perception can occur.

    So, this is truly empathetic learning — this openness or listening without prejudice aforethought. Your scepticism and disbelief might be warranted afterwards in reflection, but not in advance.

    That’s really the marvelous thing about the Seth material. It you approach it in the proper mood, you have to discard the narrow perspectivism of the private “point-of-view” and try to see things through Seth’s vision — assume his “overview”, and that means stretching. Seth believed that this alone would be deeply transformative and consciousness raising.

    The problem with the sceptical attitude become a habit of thought is that it eventually inhibits any kind of real learning at all. This was also Rosenstock’s great objection to Cartesianism and “the method of radical doubt”. It eventually suffocated itself and would become stagnant. His alternative to the formula “cogito, ergo sum” became therefore, “respondeo, etsi mutabor” — I listen, although I will be changed, so the emphasis shifts from thinking to listening, and real listening is empathic identification (otherwise it’s not listening, it’s just hearing).

  2. LittleBigMan says :

    Yes, this “proper mood” is truly essential to becoming receptive to the Seth Material. But, it seems to me that one cannot make the choice of being in this proper mood. My experience has been that only when the spirit of the universe taps one on the shoulders repeatedly and persistently – and almost at the expense of driving the person out of his/her mind – that this proper mood is created.

    Take the subject of the “probable worlds,” for instance. When Seth mentions it, I have no trouble accepting the existence of the probable worlds, because I have experienced events that are impossible – not highly unlikely – but impossible. Experiencing these very few events that one would not think of as possible had the effect on me of developing the notion that there are no impossible situations. These very few events happened years before I came across Seth’s work, and they were among many other experiences (e.g. Out-of-Body-Experiences since my teen years) that contributed in making me very receptive toward Seth’s revelations.

    The same is true about the teachings of don Juan Matus. By the time I read Castaneda’s work, I had experiential knowledge of about 40% of what don Juan had discussed at least once.

    Cumulatively speaking, I call these experiences as the tapping of the universe on one’s shoulders. I believe it was don Juan who also described “death” as tapping someone on the left shoulder when time was up.

    After I finished reading “Seth Speaks” for the first time, I was absolutely astounded as to why I had not heard of such a divinely enlightening work earlier. It had taken me decades to even hear about this body of revelations that every house on the planet should have a copy of……It is still a mystery to me as to the reason(s) why Seth’s liberating body of work has remained relatively so unknown among the masses.

    Not too long ago, I had a very well educated colleague, and a voracious reader, who was born and raised within 10 miles of Elmira, New York. he would’ve been a teenager when Jane Roberts passed. But he had never heard of who Jane Roberts was and had never heard of the Seth’s body of work. This is very bizarre!!

    In this following clip, Jiddu Krishnamurti takes “consciousness” as the “psyche,” and in that context, he professes that there is no such a thing as the evolution of consciousness. However, I have developed the understanding that consciousness expands through multi-dimensional existences it creates for itself. Thus, this expansion of consciousness can be taken as a kind of evolution. In any case, here he is in his own words on the evolution of consciousness:

    When I read the phrase “crossing over,” it immediately reminded me of the work of the renowned psychic/medium John Edwards and his program called “Crossing Over.” I used to watch the program every day back when I was in college. Here’s a recent program with him on the American show called “Dr. Phil.” His psychic readings begin at about minute 5. Before that, it’s just introductions.

    • Scott Preston says :

      I didn’t know that the Krishnamurti-Bohm dialogues had been videotaped. There is a book (I have it somewhere, still unread) of the dialogues as well as a web page that I just discovered

      This dialogue between Krishnamurti and Bohm reminds of a parallel encounter between Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli as explored by Arthur Miller in Deciphering the Cosmic Number. It also reminds of the dialogue between the Buddhist monk and the astrophysicist in The Quantum and the Lotus. I think I should post something about this dialogue.

      Krishnamurti is right, in one sense, and wrong in another. Consciousness indeed doesn’t “evolve” in the sense we understand “evolution”. Evolution means “unfolding”, and in that sense it corresponds to the Buddha’s image of the Lotus Flower. Gebser also doesn’t really state that consciousness “mutates”. It’s the structure of consciousness that changes, and that restructuration corresponds to Nietzsche’s “revaluation of values”. For Seth, evolution is value realisation, so you begin to see the connection between these things — Krishnmurti, Nietzsche, Seth, etc. Even though they may seem to contradict one another here and there, there isn’t much that separates Nietzsche’s “revaluation of values” from Krishnamurti’s “consciousness does not evolve” to Seth’s insistence that evolution is really value realisation.

      • LittleBigMan says :

        “It also reminds of the dialogue between the Buddhist monk and the astrophysicist in The Quantum and the Lotus. I think I should post something about this dialogue.”

        That would be wonderful and I look forward to it.

        Thank you for commenting on Krishnamurti’s discussion with David Bohm. I am new to the ideas of both men and it will take me a while before I can develop a sound grip on their views in light of Seth’s work. Not to mention that I haven’t finished my first book by Nietzsche: The Anti Christ. 🙂

        Thank you for mentioning The Bohm-Krishnamurti Project website.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: