Ariel Thoo, A reader on “Fans of the Seth Material (Jane Roberts)” Facebook recently posted the following:
I think Seth told us the second way …am I wrong?
This prompted me to communicate thoughts I have been working on lately.
Fortunately for me, the video is in English.
At first reaction, one might think Seth supports the video’s 2nd proposal of parallel universes. In actuality realities are constructed by each of us individually. My own constructions are primary and your primary constructions become secondary constructions when I reflect upon them.
Even though I hear of your constructions telepathically, My constructions are NEVER the same as yours when I attempt to recreate them (my secondary constructions) in my own primary construction. In essence, we have parallel realities (or physical universes when our subjective primary constructions are projected in to physical matter). But the video is going the wrong direction because reality is NOT out there, it exists ONLY within the mind and the “out there” perspectives are always projections of the observers.
To see this direct and to the point from Seth, reference Seth-ES2-Session 69. To understand the concepts study the sessions on matter particularly sessions 60-70.
Per my reading and understanding, we essentially travel in time anytime we reflect subjectively upon the linear events of our framework 1 camouflage reality. I believe this is what happens when we engage in what Seth calls psychological time.
In the question of which comes first, as with all questions regarding causation and the concept of causal relationships (such as are noted in considering the chicken and the egg paradox), it is best to recognize: causality and time only exists within our space time constructed perspectives. These paradoxes are only psychological constructions that we construct psychologically when we cast, project, or otherwise chose to perceive ourselves as objects experiencing a psychological event originating from outside of us.
Reality is a Psychological Construction
Perceiving experience as originating outside by definition allows us to distinguish our “selves” as individuals, unique and apart from the universe of all events. In actuality, every experienced event is a part, portion or event occurring within the whole of “All Events”, “All that Is” and “All that is experienced“ .
Perceiving the “Self“, as an object that we’re inside, gives us a perspective that allows us to break down an experience into component parts allowing us to more fully contemplate the individual event as resulting from an action having both cause and effect experienced.
Yet when we choose to contemplate further upon the chosen action perspective, we find we are compelled to recognize all actions by definition must have objects or actors that caused the experienced effect and so our psychological construction finds the chicken to cause the egg.
Yet when we choose to contemplate further upon the chosen action perspective, we find we are compelled to recognize all objects by definition must have objects or actors that caused them as experienced effects and so our psychological construction finds the egg to cause the chicken.
And finally, to resolve the “First Cause” paradox we usually find a God to create them both. Many today choose to NOT believe in God to suggest the “First Cause” evolved with out cause from a spontaneous ‘first emerging’ event, but never answer, from where cameth that emerging event.
Alas at this point we usually conclude our constructions are fully constructed or at least sufficient for our purposes and we are only left with the “First Cause” or “Where did God come from?” paradox to remind us that we are NOT really outside of the events we experience as reality and they are NOT really outside of us the observers of that reality.
In actuality, being mere psychological constructions, objects appearing as though they have cause and effect relationships in truth always come into physical existence at the same moment coinciding with the first psychological observation that so constructs them in that relationship.
In conclusion, there IS NO “time travel paradox“ just as there is NO “which comes first? Chicken or Egg” paradox. There are only the limitations imposed by limited constructions. While they are entertaining, they are straw men or straw monsters constructed for us to dance with and to then tear down in a contemplation that leaves us the richer for having done so.
We are limited by the time travel paradox, like all limitations, only by failing to reflect upon the fuller understanding of our true psychological reality. We have our beings within a fuller reality and it is from within it that we each individually project and create physical reality for our own subtle contemplation, recreation and amusement.
Belief, the final frontier
Alas, contemplating: Do I believe the above? I find myself asking: Do I find such thought consistent with my view of reality?
Someone might suggest I am objectively forced to recognize a question imperative:
From whom came the psychological event before I projected it into objective perspective and I perceived the physical reality to more fully comprehend it?
I have but one reply:
The answer can not be fully expressed because paradox is inherent within the nature of all attempts to objectively express subjective thoughts, experiences or beliefs.
Paradox is inherent within ALL objective or external expression. To mentally perceive any subjective awareness as “external” invokes the paradox whether expressed physically, verbally or only mentally. The paradox is inherent within any “Externalized” perspective and is the nature of all perspectives of duality, for you can NOT have an external without internal, an inside without an outside, a back without a front or a top without a bottom.
To illustrate; while I might have suggested above that the question of “First Cause” looming behind all creative physical expression is answered by recognizing the subjective origins of all expressions, in actuality, to express awareness of our subjective nature poses as part of a objective expression offers no better final “First Cause” response than suggesting an external God or first emerging event answers the paradox. The paradox is a feature inherent with external perspective.
Once you attempt to contemplate, express or describe the subjective as a characteristic or event behind or being external to any experience, you find you have objectified the components identified and you find the external perspective or duality paradox again lies within the expression.
However, it might also be well be recognized; one can not make objective expression without also giving evidence or substance to the self as individual making expression. It might even be said that individuality and uniqueness are ONLY known through expression. Even that one does not even exist except in creative expression for it can be successfully argued that no tree falling in a desert of silent makes a sound, if there are none to observe it.
While we might think no one can reasonably dispute – Cogito ergo sum – Latin for: I think, therefore I am, as famously expressed by René Descartes. The same can NOT be stated unequivocably of objective reality. It does NOT necessarily follow:
I think in physical Reality, therefore I am in physical Reality.
We can only state with certainty:
I think in subjective psychological Reality, therefore I am in subjective psychological Reality.
And If I am within psychological reality, then
I exist and have my being within subjective psychological reality.
I exist as being, unique, individual, thinking and observing, NOT apart, separate or outside the psychologically experienced event of observing experientially via cognitive awareness of those observations.
While I feel such events ONLY require objectification in order to be expressed, we only know our selves as individual and unique when we observe our attempts to form personal expressions of them.
Are we entertained? What’s in your wallet? What does your credit card permit you to create?
Believe it 2 realize it!