Puzzled that I missed that for so long, while I had checked and criticized Walsch's purported (fake) "Conversations with God" which was best seller when I was searching just after my deconversion from Christianity. But since I stumbled on your amazing story of creation which echoed some of the concepts I had developed myself on the foundations of mathematics and the metaphysical foundations of physics I had to catch up.
Let's start with Seth Speaks, ch. 1."...I can quite literally be called a ghost writer (...) I address an unseen audience. However, I know that my readers exist, and therefore I shall ask each of them, now, to grant me the same Privilege."That is something I naturally empathize with, since myself, like any author, also most often address an unseen audience. I also know that my readers exist, as Awstats shows me so, but I cannot see them. But I often happen to feel even more uncomfortable as I usually feel a big gap with most people, since I am usually despised by both skeptics (for my belief in the paranormal) and by spiritualists (for my rationalism and my disagreement with their usual teachings), and have so often the impression of just wasting my time like I was talking to walls when trying to debate with people or explain them things because of their low IQ (and I usually don't stumble either on the few who would have the IQ, as they usually went too far in their specialization and aren't there anymore to care about deep basic questions).
Some people even reportedly saw your stuff as the most mind-blowing stuff out there
on this planet. I understand them, but I personally wouldn't go that far. I mean it may
be a correct assessment in that particular field, that is, the field of metaphysics
(compared to other "channels" and the teachings of existing religions), but I personally
had other opportunities to have my mind blown by works in other fields (and of course I
may have missed more existing mind-blowing works,
as I'm not an erudite and I felt discouraged of trying to be one by the dominating dullness
around); I will come back on that later.
For now let me just mention one on the "opposite side" of that very field : the arguments of
the atheist blogger Greta Christina against Christianity and other religions and spiritualities.
In that way, which some of your followers might see as paradoxical, she did also genuinely
fulfill the very purpose which you insisted we are all here for on this planet : that of
developing our skills, personality and creativity, each in our own ways in our lives; and
also contributed to some growth of the personalities of her readers.
While her work may be read as arguments against all spiritualist metaphysics at all, it
also makes sense as signals of genuine challenges that spirituality needs to work on.
For example, her remark
on "The failure of religion to improve or clarify over time". Isn't there ?
I know that you have your whole original conception of "spiritual progress",
that it does not have to look linear, and remains somewhat different from
our usual conception of progress as we experience in science and technology, but...
"... this material with all my best efforts, and with yours (Rob & Jane), of necessity must contain distortions merely in order to make itself exist at all on your plane. I will never condone an attitude in which either you or Ruburt maintain that you hold undiluted truth through these sessions. Any material, to exist on your plane, must to some extent don the attire of your plane, and in the very entry to your plane it must be somewhat distorted. I must use phrases with which your minds are somewhat familiar. I must use Ruburt's subconscious to some degree. If I did not take advantage of your own camouflage system, then YOU would not be able to understand the material at this time. Inner data, even this, MUST make its entry through some distortion. We must always work together, but you must never consider me as an infallible source. This material is more valid than any material possible on your plane, but it is nevertheless to some degree conditioned by the camouflage attributes of the plane. "which Helfrich further commented saying it puts the responsibility of finding the truth on each one of us. Indeed. As you once said:
"I come here because it is fun. I have fun when I come here. I do not come here because I feel that I have any great responsibility for your beings or welfare. Who am I to set myself against the innate wisdom of your own individual being, or to take upon my invisible shoulders the great privilege or joyful responsibility for your behavior and destiny ?"The same motivation is bringing me to write this reply to you here. Searching for the truth is our task, a game we're down here to play. At least for those few of us down here naturally inclined to play that particular game, while the large majority of people visibly have their agenda filled with lots of much more childish games to play instead. As for so-called "skeptics", they seem involved in a rather strange version of this game, a quite distorted version of the scientific method which they claim to follow. They seem to view this game like a sort of competitive Mines game, where their opponents game would be over at the first mistake or even risk of mistake (as they skeptics decide to suspect from their own limited perspective), while their own strategy would be to keep their own game safe and therefore winning simply by abstaining from any significant exploration. So they may have genuine points observing things going wrong in spiritualist circles, but they fail to offer any defensible solution to the enigma.
"Some personalities, therefore, have never been physical. (...) In some systems for example, [consciousness] forms highly integrated mathematical and musical patterns that are themselves stimuli for other universal systems. I am not very well acquainted with these, however, and cannot speak of them with any great familiarity".In the same chapter, you told more quite interesting things:
" My environment, now, is not the one in which you will find yourself immediately after death. I cannot help speaking humorously, but you must die many times before you enter this particular plane of existence. (Birth is much more of a shock than death...) My work in this environment provides far more challenge than any of you know, and it also necessitates the manipulation of creative materials that are nearly beyond your present comprehension. (...) In my environment you would be highly disoriented, for it would seem to you as if it lacked coherency. "That is also something I understand very well and which I naturally relate with, since myself, just like many thousands of other mathematicians, physicists and IT specialists, are living quite similar experiences to yours in our respective fields of work. We never needed to go through any kind of death to reach there, however. Still as you describe, any lay people suddenly invited to these working environments bypassing the necessary training, would also be highly disoriented. To reach there requires a long training process on top of special innate individual skills. This training process has similar features, such as abandoning the naive assumption of the 3-dimensionality of space in favor of the exploration of many other kinds of spaces (perceiving the actual 4-dimensionality of our physical universe; exploring vector spaces, affine spaces and projective spaces which may have any dimension, and even infinite-dimensional spaces such as the case of Hilbert spaces and many others), as well as lots of other mathematical structures which do not even look like any kind of "space" at all.
Now one may argue against the relevance of this comparison of value, precisely by the
lack of accessibility of mathematical works, while the design of your work
was visibly bound by the constraint (which you took on yourself but whose justifications
I remain doubtful of), to make all of it accessible to a
wider audience (as far as it could be publicized, which decades later turned out to be
a major limit). Indeed it is such a pity to see those wonderful realms of mathematics
still only visible to so few people. This is why I undertook to develop
my web site on the foundations of mathematics and physics
to provide to a larger audience, as far as possible, a much more direct access to some
of the most amazing gems from those fields.
As for the quality of your material,
considering that my patience reading much of Seth Speaks might have been still
insufficient to grasp the depth of the more complete message you intended to provide,
I took the time to read further, especially browsing through a number of pages of
The Unknown Reality which was supposedly deeper and wider in its
exploration of reality with less obsession than The Nature of personal reality
on issues of supposedly more direct personal interests. But reading many pages
still did not succeed to give me much to discover, think about, decide to
agree or disagree. Comparing this with how some pure mathematics texts I
happened to look through could get my mind blown by amazing new concepts at
every page, or even paragraph, I must consider your work rather disappointing.
I was dismayed by your way of spending pages there ranting against the value of
modern science in general, and of mathematical skills in particular, and telling
nonsense about the conditions for theoretical science. This rather looks like an
ignorant despise against science and mathematical intelligence.
What do you really know about it ? How could you miss the fact that modern science
is actually the best illustration of your main message, that thoughts create
reality, and more precisely, scientific thoughts are among the most
powerful ones for changing and creating the world in which we live ?
I turned out to be very clear witness of these conditions and values of theoretical
science after extremely careful exploration and checking (so necessary for me
as conditions to dare contradicting the so widespread antiscientific "spiritual wisdom"
around).
You can have a lot of experience with many
realities, and in the physical one with the lives of thousands of people, this still
does not qualify you in reaching a proper understanding about the place of
science and the best ways for humans to do it, because this field has only
few good representatives down here, with whom you seem unfamiliar.
Perhaps, too much familiarity with lay
people who hate maths because of how bothering and boring it feels at school, may
have misled you. Likewise, you could be just making an honest mistake due to
your particular perspective which you once told a word about. I understand that while
browsing through the world you could stumble on a number of "unofficial scientists" in
your terms, i.e. cranks, and fall into
the trap of sympathizing too much with their paranoid, self-delusional endeavors where they
imagined that they were doing better science than real scientists (so you mistake them
as the "true" scientists which they fancy to be), just using "intuition", dismissing
mathematical skills. You could not dare to figure out that all their works and convictions
may have been nothing more than a huge... accident.
Or, I understand your rants could help a lot to get your Material
popular across a large public of proudly ignorant people and science
haters, but this is neither lucid nor respectful towards the real values of these fields.
No wonder, then, why your work could not reach respectability in the eyes of the minority
of the more serious thinkers and scientists who are known (for good reasons, such as their
success on a free market whose working principles ensure at least a partial rooting of success on
reality rather than mistaken ideology) as making the more useful contributions to the
progress of our world.
Among these are authors of mind-blowing works, whose existence I am aware of, though I am not really familiar with them : Milnor's works on topology ; quantum field theory ; Cohen's concept of forcing in set theory, as used in the proof of independence of the continuum hypothesis. (The concept of supersymmetry is also mind-blowing, but remains speculative for physics);
Hilbert gave a formulation of General Relativity by its Lagrangian in 1915, which may be considered a deeper theoretical achievement in the understanding of General Relativity than Einstein's field equation. Essentially, General Relativity was co-discovered by Hibert and Einstein. Einstein reported that the main difficulty was not to invent the theory but to mathematically check that it gives back Newtonian gravitation in non-relativistic approximation. Without Einstein on it, it may just have taken a couple of more years for Hilbert or anyone else to complete the job."If Einstein had been a better mathematician, he would not have made the breakthroughs that he did. He would have been too cowed. Yet even then his mathematics did hold him back, and put a kink in his intuitions. Often you take it for granted that intuitive knowledge is not practical, will not work, or will not give you diagrams. Those same diagrams of which science is so proud, however, can also be barriers, giving you a dead instead of a living knowledge. Therefore, they can be quite impractical." —UR1 Section 3: Session 701 June 3, 1974However you may have probed into Einstein's view about scientific thinking, that is only one view which misses the bigger picture. What more could he have discovered by trusting more his intuitions ? As concerns physics, we know now what was left to be discovered after him as there was no lack of other great scientists, and theoretical physics has been extremely successful, but all these further discoveries required very high mathematical skills.
"Einstein traveled within, and trusted, his own intuitions, and used his inner senses. He would have discovered much more had he been able to trust his intuitions even more, and able to leave more of the so-called scientific proof of his theories to lesser men, to give himself more inner freedom." —TES2 Session 45 April 20, 1964"
There is no sense trying to oppose intuition to proof. Mathematical expressions (proofs...) are no way a matter of lesser men, but they are the amazing adventure across some higher realities. In mathematical research, intuition is with respect to proof just what, in your terms, wish and desire are with respect to actualization, so they are necessary to each other. According to the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, intuition comes in the I/S opposition, and means global view (as opposed to sensing which means focusing on details), and is independent from the T/F dimension (rational thinking vs. feelings as a basis for judgement).
Special Relativity also had co-discoverers. Einstein's role there was mainly to popularize it, and
this had adverse effects as it was done too early, before Minkowski gave a better mathematical
formulation. Now this Einstein's focus on "intuitions" at the expense of proper mathematics, and
his popularity, had quite terrible long-term consequences, because of the bad habit of physics
teachers to passively copy their courses on official references instead of doing the serious work
of finding the really best mathematical formalism. And by the fault of Einstein's excessive
popularity, they took the bad habit of copying (the inspiration for) their Special Relativity courses
from Einstein's book on Relativity. I had read that book myself at the age of 13 and struggled about
1 year through its formulas until I "discovered" that they could be greatly simplified... a well-known
secret among theoretical physicists who know pretty well that all so-called mathematical
formulas of Special Relativity (the Lorentz transformation formulas, which are the main
fuss of Einstein's book) turn out to be completely useless and in dire need to be un-learned
when entering the realm of the relativity-based theories of physics (General Relativity,
relativistic mechanics and relativistic view of electromagnetism, and quantum field theory).
This poor quality I found in Einstein's book on Relativity, along my initiation to theoretical physics,
comes in contrast especially with Lev Landau's book on Classical Theory of Fields,
which I had the chance to be advised to read, and was great to get a clear unified
understanding of relativistic mechanics and electromagnetism in their tensorial formalism.
Yet physics teachers keep their habit of teaching Special Relativity in Einstein's way. What it
looks like : first making a fuss about so-called "intuitions" about space and time and supposedly
transcendental principles to which any laws of physics, whatever may be, should be subjected
with respect to super-stuff called "inertial frames of reference" (whose existence is actually
denied by General Relativity...). Then spend the rest of work persecuting the intuitions of space
and time we started with by going through some very complicated and non-intuitive
mathematical formulas. Namely in the course of Special Relativity I followed at ENS Ulm
(the most prestigious French scientific teaching institution), the teacher kept repeating
over and over again along his course how counter-intuitive all this stuff was, as if that
counter-intuitiveness was something to be proud of.
As opposed to the physicist Einstein's formulation of Special Relativity, the one brought by the mathematician Minkowski (see my own introduction to Relativity) meant, altogether and equivalently, more appropriate and natural intuition (one 4D geometry instead of distinct intuitions for time and space), better mathematics in the sense of better choice of mathematical formalism, much simpler formulas (looking as if it was "less mathematical"... in the eyes of non-mathematicians) and easier mathematical proofs. Because it is mathematically simpler, more intuitive and more logical to express a theory (Special Relativity) in its right own formalism, that is, in terms of its own directly meaningful concepts, than in the intuition and formalism of some other theory (Galilean space-time). Here at least, a choice of intuition is equivalent to a choice of mathematical formalism (the choice of the stuff supposed to make sense, to be given names as symbols used in the formalism).
As for quantum physics, beyond his initial useful contributions, Einstein's unfortunate role at later times and how this relates to the intuition vs mathematics debate is actually quite telling. Being not a good mathematician, Einstein focused on, and was very attached to, materialistic intuitions, that is the philosophical belief that matter should exist and work by itself, as opposed to other physicists who just let the mathematics speak by itself with no care for any "realistic" concerns. Being a good mathematician is the condition to really join the adventure of theoretical physics, appreciate the deep language, sense and elegance of Nature and be receptive to the message it has to offer, which it whispers and you can only hear by silencing your a priori "intuitions" and expectations, to focus on the deep logic and the elegance that emerge from the mathematical structure. Namely, the message that matter is not real by itself but only receives its reality from being observed by conscious (immaterial) observers. Einstein kept opposing this message over and over again because of his lack of taste for mathematical elegance, which let him focus on and value more his a priori "physical intuitions" for materialism. This again led to unfortunate historical effects, as reported by this introductory essay by Richard Conn Henry.As opposed to this, the interpretation of quantum physics which naturally accepts the fundamental role of consciousness to create reality (which became a minority because of lack of current representatives and the misunderstanding of its relation to the later discovered concept of quantum decoherence) is called the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation. Clearly Von Neumann and Eugene Wigner were great mathematicians. Von Neumann was co-discoverer, together with Lev Landau, of the definition of quantum state as "density matrix", and of its entropy (thus called the Von Neumann entropy), which are the implicit basis of my introduction to quantum physics focusing on the relevant aspects for the measurement problem and the debate on interpretations.
So, I believe it would have been a much better idea trying to reconcile spiritual people with mathematics than nurturing their despise of it as you did...."If you accept the possibility of the slightest, smallest, most insignificant accident, then indeed you open a Pandora's Box, for logically, there cannot be simply one small accident in that case but a universe in which accidents are not the exception but the rule. A universe in which, therefore, following logic..."Sorry, this in my vocabulary isn't called "logic" but "slippery slope fallacy". Now if you did not specify like this the reason for that conclusion of "there is no accident" as you did, I could still wonder from which special knowledge or other motivation you might have drawn that conclusion. But now that you explicitly present it as a pure matter of simple logic, which it cannot be, this directly shows to me that I can safely dismiss this conclusion immediately. By the way about the existence of accidents, what about the primitive, most concrete cases of use of this word, from which the philosophical use is drawn as a metaphor: who would seriously dare to dismiss all accidents as being no accident anymore on some deeper level ?
"[conciousness] has within it infinite sources of creativity, unlimited possibilities of development. But it has yet to learn the means of actualization, and must find within itself ways to bring into existence those untold creations that are within it. Therefore it creates varieties of conditions in which to operate, and sets itself challenges, some doomed to failure in your terms, at least initially, because it must first create the conditions which will bring new creations about."Now I'm going to add to this another logical reason why accidents must exist, even as a consequence of your own general framework of statements on the structure of reality (in case you didn't notice, or, if you were joking, to try un-hypnotizing a little bit your followers from that joke).
Unknown reality : "People will die when they are ready to, following inner dictates and dynamics. A person ready to die will, despite any medication. (...) The dynamics of health has nothing to do with inoculations. They reside in the consciousness of each being."How to explain the spectacular extension of life span which coincided with the coming of modern times ? How to explain the way genetic studies confirmed that better genetic factors of immunity in front of certain illnesses were selected during the periods of occurrence of those illnesses, but not in populations which were not subject to those illnesses, if not because these genetic factors were really influential in the chances to suffer those illnesses ? If, during the conquest of America by Europeans, large numbers of American natives died of European illnesses, which Europeans themselves could bear thanks to their many centuries of genetic adaptation, is it because these American natives were suddenly inspired by a desire to die to give space to European conquerors ?
Quote: "The over-population problem will teach you that if you do not have a loving concern for the environment in which you dwell, it will no longer sustain you..."Uh ? The over-population problem does not come from not loving enough, but rather from loving too much, and this in two ways; one of these is the dedication to sustain the survival of poor people in terms of nutrition and medical assistance. I do admit that there is still a third important factor in the equation however, but which you once insisted to reject from consideration as a possible solution, as you said "There is no justification for murder."
(Seth Speaks) "[after death] you learn to understand how your experiences were the result of your own thoughts and emotions and how these affected others"And vice versa ? If I have to admit that my choices could have the ability to affect the life of other people in ways which they did not always perfectly "deserve" or "need", whatever that might mean, then why should I be forbidden to also consider the possibility that my life could have really been damaged by the wrong thoughts or choices of others in ways which I never really deserved or needed ? There are cases when one is victim of the errors of others, not one's own. I dream of a world where pessimism leads to good luck while positive thinking, and even more especially the pride of positive thinking, humiliating victims of bad luck by teaching them positive thinking, leads to misfortune. Maybe if I dream of such a world carefully enough then I can realize it
""
"Your world is not in dire straits because you trust yourselves, but precisely because you do not. Your social institutions are set up to fence in the individual, rather than to allow the natural development of the individual!"
""
""Seth on a Conscious Creation Myth quote from The nature of the psyche
"In those terms there was a point where consciousness impressed itself into matter through intent, or formed itself into matter. That ‘breakthrough’ cannot be logically explained, but only compared to, say, an illumination – that is, a light everywhere occurring at once, that became a medium for life in your terms. It had nothing to do with the propensity of certain kinds of cells to reproduce, but with an overall illumination that set the conditions in which life as you think of it was possible – and at that imaginary hypothetical point, all species became latent."
session 797 "Your universe did not emerge at any one point, therefore, or with any one initial cell – but everywhere it began to exist at once, as the inner pulsations of the invisible universe reached certain intensities that “impregnated” the entire physical system simultaneously. In this case, first of all light appeared. At the same time EE (electromagnetic energy) units became manifest, impinging from the invisible universe into definition. "
" "Your whole civilization is immersed with the idea that the way to solve a problem -- any problem, private or worldwide -- is to exaggerate it, see its worst projection; and this, then, is suposed to make you take proper action. The approach unfortunately solves no problems, and only compounds them, whether the nation is trying to solve problems of energy, or social problems, or whether an individual is try to overcome a dilemma. You are so immersed in that method of problem solving, however, that it comes back to haunt you. At least you can be aware of it and alert. I will give you the answers to your questions, but they are not the way to solve your problem -- and against all conventional knowledge, reviewing the mistakes of the past does not lead to wisdom. When you become so worried, of course, you concentrate even further on the problem -- how bad it is, and what will happen if it becomes worse in the future....The belief is that if you frighten yourself badly enough through imagined projections and imagination, you will be frightened enough to change -- but the nation or the individual following that method does not change for the better, but compounds the original condition, concentrates upon it until it looms larger than before. Such methods cause panic, national or individual. ...Against all that conventional wisdom, what I have said sounds extremely simple, simplistic, Pollyannaish, until you try to do it. To solve a problem you begin to minimize its characteristics, diminish its importance, rob it of your attention, refuse it your energy. The method is the opposite, of course, of what you are taught. That is why it seems to be so impractical. "Indeed I saw some ideologists, especially left-wing activists, expect some problems to be better managed once they became disasters than before. I agree with you that such an expectation is rather stupid, as disaster induces panic and chaos which are not favorable to the creation of any intelligent solutions. However, reverse stupidity is not intelligence, so that while your advise to do the opposite may work in some cases, I disagree with the idea it would be best for all cases, as some problems are real and require intelligent solutions, themselves requiring carefulness of understanding, which can be harmed by both opposites of panic and ignorance (denialism). And at least one kind of problem has especially been worsened by ignorance attitudes towards it.
""About the concept of entities having several simultaneous incarnations at different times: others say the same. in French.
""https://www.fluentin3months.com/usa-clashes/
""Confirmation there : "I am often asked during dreamtime to help those crossing over. Often they are Japanese. I just end up leading a group to the Other Side, and there is a point beyond which I cannot pass. " by Matt Rouge
""
""Video of Jane Roberts, speaking as Seth in the second half