I don't know anything about Michael Prescott, but I agree with what he says about the below part of Jane Robert's/Seth's teachings.


By Michael Prescott:
"My problem with Seth
Last time, I talked a little bit about the so-called Seth material channeled by Jane Roberts and how it relates to the idea of a holographic universe. But I have to say that I have trouble taking Seth altogether seriously. Communications issued in his name seem to vary considerably in quality, from provocative and scientifically respectable theories about the nature of reality to highly dubious and rather childish exercises in what appears to be pseudoscience.

Reading further in Roberts' 1970 book The Seth Material, I came across a good example of the latter. It's a passage in which Seth tries to explain the mechanism by which thoughts become things.

Thoughts and images are formed into physical reality and become physical fact. They are propelled chemically. A thought is energy. It begins to produce itself physically at the moment of its conception.

Mental enzymes are connected with the pineal gland. As you know them, body chemicals are physical, but they are the propellants of this thought-energy, containing all the codified data necessary for translating any thought or image into physical actuality. They cause the body to reproduce the inner image. They are sparks, so to speak, initiating the transformation.

Chemicals are released through the skin and pore systems, in an invisible but definite pseudophysical formation. The intensity of a thought or image largely determines the immediacy of its physical materialization. There is no object about you that you have not created. There is nothing about your own physical image that you have not made.

The initial thought or image exists within the mental enclosure. It is not yet physical. Then it is sparked into physical materialization by the mental enzymes.

This is the general procedure. All such images or thoughts are not completely materialized in your terms, however. The intensity may be too weak. The chemical reaction sparks certain electrical charges, some within the layers of the skin. There are radiations then through the skin to the exterior world, containing highly codified instructions and information....

Objects are composed of the same pseudomaterial that radiates outward from your own physical image, only the higher intensity mass is different. When it is built up enough, you recognize it as an object. At low intensity mass it is not apparent to you.

Every nerve and fiber within the body has an inner purpose that is not seen, and that serves to connect the inner self with physical reality, that allows the inner self to create physical reality. In one respect, the body and physical objects go flying out in all directions from the inner core of the whole self.  (pp. 121-122)

If we boil this down, Seth seems to be saying that our bodies exude chemicals through the pores of our skin, and these chemicals somehow coalesce into the physical objects around us. Now, I don't know about you, but I find this explanation preposterous. I don't even think it makes sense on the most basic logical level. Our bodies are themselves physical, so do these mysterious chemicals first form our bodies before proceeding to form the rest of our environment? And aren't the chemicals themselves physical? (It's not of much help to label them "pseudophysical" - this just muddies the waters even further.)

Beyond that, do we really believe that everything we perceive around us is produced by the emanation of chemicals from our own individual body? (Seth insists that each individual creates his own reality in toto, so we're not talking about a reality constructed by the combined chemical output of billions of humans; instead we have to imagine billions of separate realities.) If I stand on a high point in the desert where I can see for 50 miles, are the rock formations on the distant horizon created by chemicals exuding from my body at that moment?

Sorry. I'm not buying it."

Quote Recoverer: "It's not of much help to label them "pseudophysical" - this just muddies the waters even further."
Yes, lol, but it only works with this sentence. If I should make sense of it, I'd say we have
--this immaterial thought,
--then we have a mediating structure which is the pre-physical human body, which is the creator of physicality, ruled by our inner core,
--and finally we have the physical world, including our physical body, created by our pre-physical-body structure.

More or less, it's just another variation of mind-body duality. In the occult literature there's a huge stack of those stuff, and many of today's esoteric literature continues this. I don't think we will get much smarter from studying it.

Spooky

Quote:


Thats it spooky.  This is only one of many subjects explained in Seths books, and frankly its dead on the money.

Now, will it make us smarter?  Well, understanding this concept will definately allow the individual to better understand his or her life up until that point, and putting into practice the techniques given by Seth will allow them to change parts of their life and aspects of themself that are unsatisfactory from that point on.  I have come to this understanding and used similar techniques successfully long before reading Seth, this is how I know without a doubt it is the truth.

In fact, this may be one of the most important things any human could possibly know.

Philosophically, it's nothing else than the dispute between "realists" and "idealists", the realists are saying there is a world independently from being watched or not, while the idealists are saying the world is nothing but a creation, or extension, of the watcher.

As far as science goes, it's not appropriate to insist on one of these viewpoints, as they can't be verified nor falsified.

Even if you are a realist in the above meaning, you have to admit the world, as perceived by humans, won't be there if there were no humans.

Spooky

Yes, the viewpoint which tends more to the idealistic (in the above sense), not to the extreme though, has some merits I've found. Commonly, people who are trained in philosophy and meditation tend to that end, as it seems also this Seth quote is of that kind. Now what I often see as a flaw are those attempts to describe in handy details a process of reality-building, borrowing all those physical terms. Different levels of different dense "matter" with different "vibrations" with an unexplained "thought" or "will" going down and "forming" "matter" from the pure mind to the physical and such. I have nothing against the neo-platonic way to understand the world, in a symbolic, narrative way, but when it is sort of physicalized it loses it's potential. This is the way much knowledge has been misunderstood, as when it's taken literally-material, applying physical mechanisms to what should have been a philosophy of the mind (which is, well understood, including the physical).

Spooky

Very interesting thread for me.  I am hoping that I create my own reality and that I am am not a victim to some other's whim, and yet it is so hard to see how I would have created what I have in my life.  Then when I think that perhaps a bigger inner part of me did it, I cannot see a reason for it other than experiencing concepts that are already known but not tried out physically (not that physicality is physical).  Knowing intellectually how to ride a bicycle and then actually getting on the bicycle can be two different things.  When I read, "The individual and the Nature of Mass Events," I could see how hard it might be to put these concepts into words because in this focus IMO we usually see things as in either/or.  It is either this way or it has to be that way.  Maybe it can be both ways and a whole lot more.     Still Wondering.

Love,
SHSS

OutofBodyDude,  This sounds very encouraging and I am doing my best to change my negative beliefs.  This is truly the way I want my reality, created by my beliefs, thoughts, and emotions.  I have taken courses on it and read many other books on the subject.  I will keep at it.  Thank you.

You are right, Recoverer, it is a matter of getting to the source of the thoughts and changing the belief which causes them.  Affirmations are only useful when the person is free of conflicting beliefs regarding their stated desire.