{"id":1685,"date":"2014-12-17T14:54:54","date_gmt":"2014-12-17T20:54:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/believeit.us\/?p=1685"},"modified":"2014-12-21T16:09:02","modified_gmt":"2014-12-21T22:09:02","slug":"time-travel-and-time-travel-paradox","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/believeit.us\/?p=1685","title":{"rendered":"Time Travel and Time Travel Paradox"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ariel Thoo, A reader on “Fans of the Seth Material (Jane Roberts)” Facebook recently posted the following:<\/p>\n

I think Seth told us the second way …am I wrong?
\nhttps:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=nAfk-MMVjVg#t=7m10s<\/p>\n

This prompted me to communicate thoughts I have been working on lately.<\/p>\n

Fortunately for me, the video is in English.<\/p>\n

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.
\nEven 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.
\nTo see this direct and to the point from Seth, reference Seth-ES2-Session 69<\/a>. To understand the concepts study the sessions on matter particularly sessions 60-70.
\nPer 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.
\nIn 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\u00a0construct psychologically when we cast, project, or otherwise chose to perceive ourselves as objects experiencing a psychological event originating from outside of us.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Reality is a Psychological Construction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Perceiving experience as originating outside by definition allows us to distinguish\u00a0our “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” <\/em><\/strong>and “All that is experienced<\/em>“<\/strong> .<\/p>\n

Perceiving the\u00a0“Self<\/strong>“, as an object<\/em> that we’re inside, gives us a perspective that allows us to\u00a0break\u00a0down an experience<\/strong> into component parts allowing us to more fully contemplate<\/em> the individual event <\/strong>as resulting from an\u00a0action<\/strong> having both cause and effect experienced. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Yet when\u00a0we choose to\u00a0contemplate further upon the chosen action<\/em> <\/strong>perspective, we find we are compelled to recognize all\u00a0actions by definition must have objects or\u00a0actors that caused the experienced effect<\/em><\/strong> and so our psychological construction finds the chicken to cause the egg<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Yet when\u00a0we choose to\u00a0contemplate further upon the chosen action<\/em><\/strong> perspective, we find we are compelled to recognize all objects\u00a0by definition must have objects or\u00a0actors that caused them as experienced effects<\/strong><\/span><\/em> and so our psychological construction finds the egg\u00a0to cause the chicken<\/span>.<\/p>\n

And finally, to resolve the “First Cause” paradox we usually find\u00a0a God to\u00a0create them both. Many today choose to NOT believe in God to\u00a0suggest the “First Cause” evolved with out cause from a spontaneous ‘first emerging’ event, but never answer, from where cameth that emerging event.<\/p>\n

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?”\u00a0paradox<\/strong> <\/em>to remind us that we\u00a0are NOT really outside of the events we experience as reality and they are NOT really outside of us the observers of that reality.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, there IS NO “time travel paradox<\/em>“<\/strong> just as there is NO “which comes first? Chicken or Egg”<\/em><\/strong> paradox. There are only the limitations imposed by limited constructions. While they are\u00a0entertaining, 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.<\/p>\n

We are limited by the\u00a0time travel paradox, like all limitations, only by failing to reflect upon the fuller\u00a0understanding of our\u00a0true psychological reality. We have our beings within a\u00a0fuller reality and it is from within it that we each individually project and\u00a0create physical reality for our own subtle contemplation, recreation and amusement.<\/p>\n

Belief, the final frontier<\/strong><\/p>\n

Alas, contemplating: \u00a0Do\u00a0I\u00a0believe the above? I find myself\u00a0asking: Do I\u00a0find such thought consistent with my\u00a0view of\u00a0reality?<\/p>\n

Someone might suggest\u00a0I am objectively\u00a0forced to recognize a\u00a0question imperative<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

From whom came the psychological event<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0before I\u00a0projected it into objective perspective and\u00a0I perceived\u00a0the\u00a0physical reality to more fully comprehend\u00a0it?<\/p>\n

I\u00a0have but one reply:<\/p>\n

The answer can not be fully expressed because paradox is inherent within the nature of all attempts to\u00a0objectively\u00a0express<\/strong> subjective\u00a0thoughts, experiences or beliefs.<\/p>\n

Paradox is inherent within ALL objective<\/strong> or external\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>expression. To mentally perceive any subjective awareness\u00a0as “external” invokes\u00a0the paradox whether expressed physically, verbally or only mentally. The paradox is inherent within any\u00a0“Externalized<\/em><\/strong>” 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.<\/p>\n

To illustrate; while I might have\u00a0suggested above that the question of “First Cause” looming\u00a0behind all\u00a0creative physical expression is answered by recognizing the\u00a0subjective origins of all expressions, in actuality, to express awareness of our\u00a0subjective nature poses as part of a objective expression offers no better final “First Cause” response\u00a0than\u00a0suggesting\u00a0an external God or first emerging\u00a0event answers the paradox. The paradox is a feature inherent with\u00a0external perspective<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Once you\u00a0attempt to contemplate, express\u00a0or describe the\u00a0subjective as a\u00a0characteristic or event behind or being external<\/em><\/strong> to\u00a0any experience, you find you have objectified the components identified and you find the external perspective<\/em><\/strong> or duality paradox<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0again lies within the expression.<\/p>\n

However, it might also be well be recognized; one can not make objective expression without also giving\u00a0evidence or substance to the self as individual\u00a0making expression. It might even be said that individuality and uniqueness are\u00a0ONLY known through\u00a0expression. 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.<\/p>\n

Objectively:<\/strong><\/p>\n

While we might think no one can\u00a0reasonably\u00a0dispute –\u00a0Cogito ergo sum –\u00a0<\/strong>Latin for:\u00a0I think<\/b>,\u00a0therefore I am, <\/b><\/strong>as\u00a0famously expressed\u00a0by Ren\u00e9 Descartes. \u00a0The same can NOT be stated unequivocably of\u00a0objective reality. It does NOT necessarily follow:<\/p>\n

I think<\/strong> in physical\u00a0Reality<\/em>, therefore I am <\/strong>in physical\u00a0Reality<\/strong>. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

We can only state with certainty:<\/p>\n

I think<\/strong> in subjective psychological\u00a0Reality<\/em>, therefore I am in\u00a0subjective psychological\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Reality<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n

And If I am<\/strong> within psychological reality, then
\nI exist and\u00a0<\/strong>have my being within subjective psychological reality<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Subjectively:<\/strong><\/p>\n

I exist as being,\u00a0unique, individual, thinking and observing, NOT apart, separate or outside the\u00a0psychologically experienced event of observing experientially\u00a0via\u00a0cognitive awareness of\u00a0those\u00a0observations. <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

While I feel such events ONLY require objectification in order\u00a0to be\u00a0expressed, we only know our selves as individual and unique\u00a0when we observe our attempts to form\u00a0personal\u00a0expressions of them.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Are we entertained? What’s in your wallet? What does your credit card permit\u00a0you to create?
\nBelieve it 2 realize it!<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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? https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=nAfk-MMVjVg#t=7m10s 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1685","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-beliefs-form-reality"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/believeit.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1685","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/believeit.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/believeit.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/believeit.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/believeit.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1685"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/believeit.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1685\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1698,"href":"https:\/\/believeit.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1685\/revisions\/1698"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/believeit.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1685"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/believeit.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1685"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/believeit.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1685"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}