Library » Integral » Who is the “You” in You Create Your Own Reality? Part 2 of 3
By Paul M. Helfrich
helfrich@newworldview.com
Go to: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 |
|
In Part 1, we explored the basic “levels of selfhood” presented by Seth in The Early Sessions (outer ego, subconscious, inner ego, energy gestalts, and All-That-Is). The intent was to further explore the nature of the multidimensional Self that creates all of its reality. I also proposed the radical idea that most current definitions of conscious creation are ontologically inverted. That is, they promote the outer ego to a primacy that simply doesn’t exist within the wider ontology of All-That-Is, as defined by Seth and the perennial traditions (e.g. Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, Sufi, Kabbalah, Christian mystics, etc.). In Seth’s terms, the outer ego is itself a primary construction and thus nested within deeper mental structures and Frameworks of consciousness that all simultaneously create and co-create in nested fashion. Thus, the outer ego does create, but it creates secondary constructions within its own perspective and space-time continuum. Put another way, the inner ego creates multiple simultaneous outer egos as primary constructions, and they in turn, create secondary constructions through their perception, which includes physical and inner senses. The inner ego is causal in that it creates primary constructions, which in turn, exert a type of nested causality that results in secondary constructions. When we confuse secondary constructions for primary constructions, we commit what philosophers call a category error. It’s like saying that a gourmet chef and the delicious meal she cooks are somehow the same thing. However, one is primary and the other a secondary construction. So there’s an important ontological relationship between them that is easy to confuse. So what are the criteria by which we can discern the primacy or “secondcy” of any idea construction? Put in terms of All-That-Is, where do we each begin and end? Where does the world “outside” begin and end? Or is there only the clever, seamless illusion that inside and outside exist at all? Are there any boundaries besides those we strongly believe in? Though Seth provided only a rough outline – a “roadmap of the psyche” tailored for grass roots consumption in the 1970s, we can still make some interesting speculations based upon the exercises he offered over the years to test it out. For example, by using the seventeen Practice Elements in The “Unknown” Reality (1996) it is possible to discern different kinds of boundaries. And within those boundaries, we can we observe relative kinds of free will, choice, and value fulfillment. However, we also need to factor in the simultaneous physical, mental, and spiritual aspects of anything we define as a “self.” For example, don’t atoms and molecules have distinct boundaries? And don’t our cells have distinct physical boundaries? If we can transplant a heart, liver, or lungs, then wouldn’t they have discernable boundaries too? The idea that an atom, water molecule, liver cell, or heart has a discernable physical boundary is well within our modern scientific worldviews. But what about the mental aspects of atoms, water molecules, liver cells, and hearts? Couldn’t they also have a relative species of free will based upon some kind of mental awareness? And of course, this begs the most important question: if consciousness is causal, then doesn’t it follow that atoms, liver cells, and the like have conscious or spiritual aspects as well? In other words, we need to consider the nested relationships of cause and effect, free will and choice within body, mind, and spirit as a basic requirement for any viable theory of consciousness. To return to Seth’s “levels of selfhood,” even though he didn’t say this overtly, isn’t it possible that the inner ego or inner self is likewise a primary construction relative to yet another native focus of attention in another Framework of consciousness, an energy personality gestalt that has its own relative species of free will, choice, and value fulfillment? Seth stated in Part 1 that, “... At your level [Framework 1] the sieve of the subconscious is a necessity and that is one of the main reasons why Ruburt [Jane] dissociates during our sessions, even though his experience of inner reality is received secondhanded, so to speak, through me. “It is thinned out further by my own subconscious, because my inner and outer egos are not yet a complete unity, although I am, or my outer ego is, in direct contact with my inner ego on some occasions. Nevertheless my subconscious is not yet dispensed with but is still retained somewhat in the order of your archaic appendix.” [1] Seth hints that he, in turn, has a relative kind of outer ego, subconscious (translating), and inner ego structure, but on a different order or species than ours. Which begs the question of how deep do these nested structures exist before they break down into the nondual, infinite, formless be-ing of All-That-Is? The answer is we still don’t really know in any collective sense. Furthermore, toward what larger purpose did Seth present his “roadmap of the psyche” that outlined basic “levels of selfhood” and “levels of reality”? Don’t we find some variation of these maps in all cultures and epochs? We’ll return to this shortly. However, most people would agree that we – outer egos – have free will and make choices. But again, these affect and color our perception of secondary constructions and individual space continuums. This is another way to suggest that conscious creation as it has been defined in the past is really inverted. The outer ego’s perception is really the domain of secondary constructions, itself being a primary construction of the inner ego. To repeat: the outer ego’s perception and cognition result in secondary constructions. Therefore, the ontologically inverted definition of conscious creation confuses secondary constructions as being primary, when they are not. Again, who actually creates the primary construction? The inner ego. Who actually creates the inner ego? An energy gestalt. Who creates the energy gestalt? All-That-Is. But Who creates All-That-Is? No-Thing. The reason I harp on this and stretch the rational mind toward the transrational is to suggest that we’ve become comfortably numb with an inaccurate and ontologically inverted definition of conscious creation. Our outer ego is a primary construction of the inner ego, which in turn is a primary construction of an energy gestalt (Seth 2 for example), which in turn is a primary construction of All-That-Is, which in turn... you get the idea. The point is that we need to reorient ourselves and awaken to the direct experience of this authentic ontology of be-ing because that is “who” creates at all “levels” of All-That-Is. Conscious creation is a nested affair of primary/secondary constructions within primary/secondary constructions. For all we know in these nests may go on ad infinitum.... Now, let’s explore some other ways that Seth used idea constructions to explain paranormal and transpersonal phenomena. As mentioned in Part 1, the concept of primary in relation to secondary is only meant to ballpark us. There is really a spectrum of constructions depending on one’s innate perspective. For example, Seth casts the action of sexual reproduction in terms of a subdivision of primary constructions. Recall that in session 71 Seth said, “The cooperative aspects of consciousness construction form the whole fabric of your material universe. A subdivision of primary construction can be called the distortive mirror construction, which would include of course the physical construction of another physical being in birth.” [2] What other kinds of relationships between constructions are there? In session 253, Seth talks about apparitions, projection forms, and mass dreams in the context of primary and secondary constructions. For example, “So-called apparitions, again, are not unusual. They are more or less constant. Many of these apparitions exist in their own system whether or not you perceive them. Some apparitions are constructed [secondarily] by the perceiver and are basically caused by a telepathic communication [i.e. inner senses]. But all apparitions are not of this nature. All apparitions, however, to appear as or within the physical system, must be constructed [secondarily] by the perceiver [a primary construction] in the same manner that all physical objects are constructed [as secondary constructions]. “This does not mean that apparitions are only the result of such construction on the part of the perceiver. The perceiver constructs the pseudomaterial apparition as he constructs the physical image of his contemporaries, but in, or rather and in line with telepathic data that is received by or from the consciousness [relative primary construction] whose material image is being constructed. “You recall we spoke of primary and secondary physical constructions. These classifications apply regardless of the basic nature of the consciousness that is to be materially formed. An apparition constructed as a result of telepathic data, picked up by the perceiver in message form, will be constructed by him in precisely the same manner that an apparition will be constructed that is a reflection of a survival personality [another species of primary construction, or outer ego nested within the afterdeath Framework of consciousness[3].” [4] If we add Seth’s Frameworks of consciousness (“levels of reality”), we begin to sense how primary and secondary relationships may extend from Framework 1 perception into Frameworks 2, 3, 4. This covers a vast spectrum of psychological ground! Holons, CUs, and EEs There has been a lot of excellent theoretical work done since Jane’s passing in 1984 in the field of consciousness studies that sheds new light on Seth’s concepts. Let’s consider a theoretical concept intended to bridge micro and macro, outer and inner, and science and spirit. It’s called a holon. It’s a theoretical unit coined by social philosopher Arthur Koestler in 1967, several years before Seth introduced the concepts of EEs and CUs. [5] A holon is simply a whole made of parts that allows us to look at “vertical” and “horizontal” dimensions of being. Holons are very similar to the way Seth uses the word “gestalt.” They show the nested relationships between everyone and every thing, from body, mind, and spirit (vertical) to science, art, and morals (horizontal). An example of vertical holonic relationships would extend from m-strings, to atoms, to molecules, to galaxies, to solar systems, to planets, to biospheres, to people, etc. We can easily discern physical boundaries that make each of them a whole, and yet discern their parts. Each holonic whole transcends and includes its predecessor in linear and physical terms (Framework 1). That is, the building blocks come first, then atoms, molecules, galaxies, etc. in terms of Framework 1’s unfolding as we know it. Ken Wilber further developed Koestler’s metaphor and formulated the basic characteristics of holons, called the twenty tenets, in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: the Spirit of Evolution (1995). [6] He showed that there were various hierarchical relationships (vertical) that simultaneously occur within heterarchical relationships (horizontal). For example, holons of less to greater complexity occur in developmental stages in human development (vertical) in relation to holons of similar types that occur as people, water molecules, atoms, etc. (horizontal). So this is another way to distinguish between various primary constructions in addition to human beings. Systemically, these relationships are more aptly described as a holarchy – a multidimensional nest of relationships. According to developmental psychologist Mark Edwards, “As with Koestler, Wilber uses the holon theory to, ‘undercut the traditional argument between atomism … and wholism.’ For Wilber to incorporate holonic theory into [his] theoretical structure … was easy at one level because both theories were founded on the idea of hierarchical inclusion. The difference between them was that Wilber’s … framework was a way of seeing the whole developmental and evolutionary nature of all relative knowledge, experience and activity. Wilber took Koestler's holon to its logical end and, … saw the holon as a way of analysing all aspects and domains of reality. The subtitle of SES is ‘The Spirit of Evolution’ and to my mind the book is an attempt to bring evolutionary theory out of its traditional biological home and to apply to all levels of existence – from matter to spirit [my italics]. Wilber does this through the identification of the holon as his core explanatory device. This is the absolutely crucial part that holons play in his model.” [7] Seen in this context, Seth’s consciousness units (CUs), electromagnetic energy units (EEs), and primary/secondary constructions are holonic in nature. [8] I don’t believe that CUs were an attempt at reductionism, because within holonic theory, there is no stated irreducible unit or part that makes all wholes – energy-matter constructions – possible. They consist of holonic aspects that simply nest “all the way up and all the way down.” When we interpret Seth’s CUs as just a theoretical smallest unit, that is reductionist to the core. However, Seth uses this metaphor to integrate Framework 1 and 2 constructions all the way into the nondual domain of All-That-Is, which is consonant with “all the way up, and all the way down.” “We must unfortunately often deal with analogies, because they can form bridge works between concepts. There are units of consciousness, then, as there are units of matter. I do not want you to think of these units as particles. There is a basic unit of consciousness that, expressed, will not be broken down, as once it was thought that an atom was the smallest unit and could not be broken down. The basic unit of consciousness obviously is not physical. It contains within itself innately infinite properties of expansion, development, and organization; yet within itself always maintains the kernel of its own individuality. Despite whatever organizations it becomes part of, or how it mixes with other such basic units, its own identity is not annihilated. “It is aware energy, identified within itself as itself, not ‘personified’ but awareized. It is therefore the source of all other kinds of consciousness, and the varieties of its activity are infinite. It combines with others of its kind, forming then units of consciousness – as, mentioned often, atoms and molecules combine. “This basic unit is endowed with unpredictability. That very unpredictability allows for infinite patterns and fulfillments. The word ‘soul’ unfortunately has been so used in regard to your species that it becomes highly difficult to unravel the conceptual difficulties. Using usual definitions, you would call a soul the result of a certain organization of such units, which you would then recognize as a ‘soul.’ “… These units can indeed appear in several places at once, and without going through space, in your terms. Literally now, these basic units of consciousness can be in all places at once. They are in all places at once. They will not be recognized because they will always appear as something else. “Of course they move faster than light. There are millions of them in one atom – many millions. Each of these units is aware of the reality of all others, and influences all others. In your terms these units can move forward or backward in time, but they can also move into thresholds of time with which you are not familiar.” [9] “We will call the basic units of consciousness ‘CU’ – the letter ‘C,’ the letter ‘U’ –consciousness units. From them EE units are formed, and the first roots sent out into the world of physical matter.” [10] Our Integral Conscious Creation model is thus holonic, derived from Koestler, Wilber, Seth, Elias, Kris, and many others. It’s basic intent is to explain how conscious creation is the action of consciousness, in which No-Thing, creates some-thing. It outlines how the One (All-That-Is) becomes the many (energy gestalts, energy personality essence, and focus personalities, and all matter); how the many are all nested primary/secondary constructions, ad infinitum.... In this context, then, what Seth calls energy personality essence (inner ego/source self/entity/soul), in turn, is also created, but on a completely different level of reality, so much so that it can be considered another species of consciousness in relation to the outer ego. For example, Elias states that his native focus is Framework 4 [11] (he uses the term “Regional Area 4.” Seth never stated, in the extant published material, where his native focus was manifest.) In any case, this suggests that “we” are simultaneously nested within all Frameworks of consciousness in order to manifest within any Framework 1. Put another way, the “you” in “you create your own reality” exists within Frameworks 1, 2, 3, and 4 to some extent at all times and no-times. Why is this important? Because it helps explain causality in holonic terms, which is to say once again that conscious creation is a nested, multidimensional affair. It is also a way to understand the authentic implications and power of the statement that “we create our own realities.” “We” are the primary constructions (outer egos) who create our own secondary constructions of other primary constructions of similar primacy, while simultaneously nested within a different order or species of primary constructions (inner egos), who in turn create our own secondary constructions of other primary constructions of similar primacy. In other words, any holon in Framework 1 terms will have nested primary and secondary aspects. However, these primary/secondary distinctions are aspects of some species of duality. And, the metaphor ultimately breaks down within the nondual Ground of All-That-Is. Still we ask, “who” creates each nested level of primary constructions? Who is really the “you” in “Which you? Which world?” Apparitions, Thought-forms, Pseudo-forms, and Projections Seth gives additional examples in which he fleshes out additional ways that primary and secondary constructions exist within a holonic spectrum that nests beyond Framework 1. From Seth Speaks, session 540, “Such other existences and realities as just described [i.e. dream and afterdeath environments] coexist with your own, and in the waking state you are not aware of them. Now, often in your dreams you are able to perceive such other situations, but you often wind them into dream paraphernalia of your own, in which case upon awakening you have little clear memory. “In the same way in the midst of life, you dwell with so-called ghosts and apparitions [perceived as secondary constructions], and for that matter you yourselves appear as apparitions [secondary constructions] to others, particularly when you send strong thought-forms of yourself from the sleep state, or even when unconsciously you travel out of your physical body. “There are obviously as many kinds of ghosts and apparitions as there are people [i.e. a spectrum that goes much further than just primary and secondary]. They are as alert or as unalert to their situation as you are to your own. They are not fully focused in physical reality, however, either in personality or in form, and this is their main distinction. Some apparitions are thought-forms sent by survival personalities out of lingering deep anxiety. They portray the same compulsive-type behavior that can be seen in many instances in your ordinary experience. “… Now I am speaking generally. Again, there are exceptions where memory is retained, but as a rule ghosts and apparitions are not any more aware of their effect upon others than you are when you appear quite unconsciously as ghosts in worlds that would be quite strange to you. “(The combination of) thought, emotion, and desire creates form, possesses energy, (and) is made of energy. It will show itself in as many ways as possible. You only recognize the physical materializations, but as mentioned earlier in this book, you send pseudoforms of yourself out from yourself of which you are not aware; and this is completely aside from the existence of astral travel or projection, which is a much more complicated affair.” [12] Remember, consciousness creates within some type of nested primaryness or secondaryness. So we – an outer ego, primary construction, and body-mind – in turn create pseudo-forms. These psuedo-forms have a holonic (whole-part) integrity that makes them a nested primary construction, but on a different order, so this is a grey area. They are not body-minds, but a nonphysical construction that can be perceived as a relative kind of secondary construction by other body-minds/outer egos/primary constructions, or a nonphysical primary construction in relation to our Framework 1. And, astral projection forms are a somewhat more complicated affair! Again, Seth hints at a relativistic, holonic spectrum of nested primary and secondary constructions. Here’s more. “You appear in astral form in realities that are comparatively more advanced than your own. You are usually recognized because of your disorientation. You do not know how to manipulate. (Humorously). You do not know the customs. But whether you have a physical form or not, if you have emotions or feelings, these will take form. They have a reality. If you think strongly of an object, somewhere it will appear. “If you think strongly of being in another location, a pseudoimage of yourself will be projected out from you to that place, whether or not it is perceived and whether or not you yourself are conscious of it, or conscious in it. This applies (both) to those who have left your physical system and to those who are in it.” [13] This further hints at the mechanics of so-called bi-location where we create a projection form complete with a temporary outer ego to explore aspects of Framework 1, as in certain types of remote viewing, or other probable Framework 1s, and even Frameworks 2, 3, or 4. “All of these forms are called secondary constructions, for as a rule full consciousness of the personality is not in them. They are automatic projections. “Now, in primary constructions, a consciousness, usually fully aware and alert, adopts a form – not his ‘native’ one – and consciously projects it, often into another level of reality. Even this is a rather complicated endeavor, and one seldom used for purposes of communication. “There are other much easier methods. I have explained to some degree the way images are constructed out of an available field of energy [Frameworks of consciousness]. You perceive only your own [species of] constructions. If a ‘ghost’ [or ‘alien’ for that matter] wants to contact you therefore, he can do so through telepathy, and you can yourself construct the corresponding image [a secondary construction] if you desire. Or the individual might send you a thought-form [a secondary construction] at the same time that he telepathically communicates with you. Your rooms are full now of thought-forms that you do not perceive; and again, you are as much a ghostly phenomenon now as you will be after death. You are simply not aware of the fact.” [14] We, as primary constructions are still constrained by how many types of primary or secondary constructions we can actually perceive due to the development of our physical and inner senses. However, this is more a function of our current stage of development and our ability to use our inner senses. [15] “You ignore certain temperature variations and stirring of air as imagination, that are instead indicative of such thought-forms. You thrust into the background telepathic communications that often accompany such forms, and you turn aside from all clues that other realities exist quite validly with your own, and that in the midst of one existence you are surrounded by intangible but valid evidence. The very words ‘life’ and ‘death’ serve to limit your understanding, to set up barriers [boundaries] where none intrinsically exist.” [16] Well, we could say the same thing about primary and secondary constructions in general. But still, Seth’s point is to show that death is not the end or ultimate completion of existence. Again, these nested constructions can appear like an infinite onionskin, particularly within our present physical constructions where our sense of separation and boundaries appear quite extreme and solid! “... Some dead friends and relatives do visit you, projecting from their own level of reality into yours, but you cannot as a rule perceive their forms. They are not more ghostly, or ‘dead,’ however, than you are when you project into their reality – as you do, from the sleep state. “As a rule, however, they can perceive you [i.e. create secondary constructions] on those occasions. What you often forget is that such individuals are in various stages of development [Seth uses hierarchical “stages of development” in his model]. Some have stronger connections to the physical system than others. The length of time an individual has been dead in your terms has little to do with whether or not you will be so visited, but rather the intensity of the relationship. “As mentioned earlier, however, in the sleep state you may help recently dead persons, complete strangers, to acclimate to after-death conditions, even though this knowledge is not available to you in the morning. So others, strangers, may communicate with you when you are sleeping, and even guide you through various periods of your life. “It is not a simple matter to explain life conditions as you know them, so it is extremely difficult to discuss the complexities of which you are not aware. “The main point I want to make in this chapter is that you are already familiar with all conditions you will meet after death, and you can become consciously aware of these to some extent.” [17] Thus, Seth’s primary and secondary constructions are not intended as dry academic maps, but a clever way to explain basic metaphysical “levels of selfhood and reality” that include transpersonal thought forms, apparitions, projection forms, and the continuation of personality after death. Seen in this light, space-time and energy-matter are not the Primary Causal aspects of consciousness. Everything is conscious, but it’s a question of intensity and degree at various nested “levels.” For instance, m-strings, quarks, atoms, molecules, cells, organs, bodies, ecosystems, planets, solar systems, galaxies within Framework 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, to Primary Unity of All-That-Is. All-That-Is is an infinite pyramid gestalt of nested relationships as The One creates the many, who in turn are imbued with the ability to create nested, primary and secondary constructions. And yet, at some point in our development, the boundaries blur, the sense of separation diminishes, and some kind of realization, remembrance, enlightenment, or awakening occurs. Interestingly, Seth mentioned that, “All portions of All That Is do not recognize themselves consciously as All That Is. But know themselves mainly as individuals, not as the prime gestalt individual. When realization is reached at the highest level, then All That Is instantly creates new realities, and to some extent, you see, loses the conscious knowledge of its own identity. “The loss is always temporary and self-generated.” [18] The last line is really important. Our forgetting is “always temporary and self-generated.” Holy Shit, can’t you see the headlines? God has Alzheimer’s! So these primary and secondary constructions are intentionally Self-Generated all the way “up” and “down” our levels of selfhood and reality. And so we ask, yet again, since the outer ego is the “you” who co-creates its own space continuum and creates secondary constructions, who is the “you” who creates the primary constructions? Who is the “you” in you create your own reality? Which “you”? Which world? Primary and Secondary Experience Individual space continuums, primary and secondary constructions, etc., show how human perception works in Framework 1 terms. We can also extend these metaphors into the “unknown” reality of Frameworks 2, 3, 4, and All-That-Is. We’ve covered a lot of ground, and our poor outer ego has taken a beating, realizing that we are only a primary construction! And our free will, choice, and perception create secondary constructions. No wonder just thinking about a million dollars doesn’t magically deposit that in my bank account, create parking spaces, kill my enemies, solve world hunger, impose civil rights, women’s rights, gay and lesbian rights, or ban weapons of mass destruction! My outer ego and secondary constructions don’t always match other outer ego’s secondary constructions. In fact, oftentimes they are in conflict with one another. Remember the aphorism about five blind men who attempt to describe an elephant through only their sense of touch? Even though we are a primary construction, we are empowered to co-create a world of our choosing within the limits of our primacy. Thus, the outer ego has the power to create within the Self-imposed constraints of body/mind, brain chemistry, belief systems, expectations, emotions, physical, inner senses, and so on. And these limits can always be expanded. This is why personal development is so strongly stressed by Seth. “We have never told anybody to do anything, except to face up to the abilities of consciousness.” [19] “If you would momentarily put aside the selves you take for granted, you could experience your own multidimensional [holonic] reality. These are not just fine words that mean nothing. I do not harp to you about theory simply because I want to spout theory, but because I want you to put these ideas into practice. “… I have told you that there are Inner Senses as well as physical ones. These will enable you to perceive reality as it exists independently of the physical world. You must learn to recognize, develop, and use these Inner Senses. The methods are given in the material. But you cannot utilize the material until you understand it. “… You must, first of all, cease identifying yourself completely with your [outer] ego, and realize that you can perceive more than your [outer] ego perceives. You must demand more of yourself than you ever have before. The material is not for those who would deceive themselves with pretty, packaged, ribboned truths that are parceled out and cut apart so that you can digest them. That sort of material serves a need, but our material demands that you intellectually and intuitively expand.” [20] Now, let’s move on to an excerpt by Seth on primary and secondary experience. Seth discusses the subjects of fear and anxiety – all secondary constructions – co-created within mass events and collective co-creation. To be clear, primary and secondary experiences are not the same as primary and secondary constructions. Seth uses the terms “primary experience” and “secondary experience” to help us discern the difference between immediate, immanent threats and secondary, more distant threats that often lead to confusion, conflict, and unnecessary fear in modern and postmodern life. However, both result in secondary constructions. So we’re just going to explore some different kinds of secondary constructions. The following excerpts further explore the importance of the collective dimension of co-creation in light of primary and secondary experience. Keep in mind that it refers to the world of 1977, but is still applicable today. “Now: Physically your body has a stance in space and time. I will speak of primary and secondary experience. Let us call primary experience that which exists immediately in sense terms in your moment of time – the contact of body with environment. I am creating certain divisions here to make our discussion – or (with a smile) monologue – easier. Therefore, I will call secondary experience that information that comes to you through, say, reading, television, discussion with others, letters, and so forth. “The secondary kind of experience is largely symbolic. This should be clear. Reading about a war in the middle of a quiet sunny afternoon is not the same thing as being in the war, however vivid the description. Reading about the energy shortage is not the same as sitting in a cold house. Reading about the possible annihilation of mankind through nuclear destruction or other stupidities, while you are sitting calmly enough in your living room, is obviously far divorced from the actuality described in an article. “At the levels with which we are concerned, the body must primarily react to present, immediate, primary existence in space and time. At other levels it is equipped to handle many kinds of data, in that I have mentioned before the precognition of cells. But the body depends on the conscious mind to give it a clear assessment of precise conditions of the space and time it occupies. It depends upon that knowledge. “... If you are safely ensconced in a comfortable room, in no present danger, your senses should accurately convey that information. Your conscious mind should assimilate it. It should be an easy enough accomplishment to look around you and see that you are in no danger. “Your conscious mind is meant to give your body an assessment of what I will call cultural conditions, for there are sophistications and specifications that in your terms consciousness alone can assess. If, under conditions naturally safe in the terms of primary experience, you become overwhelmed by unsafe signals from secondary experience – that is, from your reading or whatever – you show a lack of discrimination. You are not able to differentiate between the physically safe present situation, and the imagined, which is perhaps unsafe, calling forth the alarms of danger. “The body mechanisms become highly disoriented. The signals to the body are very contradictory, so that after a while, if such conditions continue, you can no longer tell whether you are in actual danger or imagined danger. Your mind then forces your body to be in a state of constant alert – but more unfortunately, you train yourself to ignore your direct, sensual feedback in the present moment. “Your body then might say you are safe, and your senses show you that no danger is present – yet you have begun to rely so upon secondary experience that you do not trust your creature reactions. “Because of man’s great gift of imagination, however, the alarm signals not only invade a safe present moment, but go jangling into the next one and the one following, and are endlessly projected into the future. To whatever extent, and in whatever fashion, each individual is therefore robbed of his or her belief in the personal ability to act meaningfully or with purpose in the present. “The body cannot act tomorrow, today. Its sense data must be clear. This resulting feeling of powerlessness to act leads to a state of hopelessness of varying degrees – and that mood does not tie itself to specific details, but pervades emotional life if it is allowed to. To whatever degree, the condemning, critical material too often becomes self-prophesying – for those who put merit on it allow it to cloud their reactions. “… Whatever your scientists think, your body and your consciousness and your universe spring constantly into actualization. Therefore, through cultivating the dear experience of your own consciousness and being with time and with the moment as you feel it, you can draw upon the greater vitality and power that is available. “To do this, rely upon your immediate sense data, not secondary experience as described. That primary sense data, while pinpointed in the present, providing you with the necessary stance in time, still can open up to you the timelessness from which all time emerges, can bring you intuitive intimations, hinting at the true nature of the ever-present coming-to-be of the universe. “That kind of experience will let you glimpse the larger patterns of man’s creativity, and your part in it. You have been taught to concentrate upon criticisms and faults in your society; and in your times it seems that everything will work out wrong – that left alone the world will run down, the universe will die, man will destroy himself; and these beliefs so infiltrate your behavior that they organize much of your experience and rob you of the benefits nature itself everywhere provides in direct primary experience. “Often then you ignore your senses’ reality in the world – the luxurious vitality and comfort of the daily moment – by exaggerating the importance of secondary experience as defined for this discussion.” [21] This is a key idea, namely, the exaggerated importance of a distant (secondary) vs. immanent (primary) threat. The political implications are significant, too. For example, politicians use distant threat overseas to justify activism, idealism, and even war, while others simply focus upon the immanent environment in their native country. Obviously, there’s a wide spectrum in-between. Neither is better or worse intrinsically. However, problems arise when folks impose their sense of distant threat on others, and confuse it, masquerade it as an immanent threat for political, economic, and social gain and hegemony. Again, these are all valid secondary constructions, but we attach different values of better/worse based upon our ethical and moral belief systems. So the effect of our belief systems on our perception (i.e., secondary constructions) has a huge impact on the collective psychic politics in any moment point. “You must trust your sense data in that regard. Otherwise you confuse your psychological and corporal stance, for the body cannot be in a situation of safety and danger at the same time. It wastes its resources fighting imaginary battles. “To some people wars, poverty, murder, treachery, corruption, are primary experience, and must be dealt with – as requiring immediate action. The body must react. Such persons are beaten up, or robbed. Those are immediate sense data, and in one way or another they do react. However feebly, their point of power corresponds immediately with the point of danger. “You cannot react physically in the same way to projected or imagined dangers [i.e. secondary constructions of distant threats as opposed to immanent threats]. There seems to be no possible reaction. You are frustrated. You are meant to deal with your immediate, primary experience, and in so doing you take care of your responsibility. You are able to take action in your own experience, and therefore affect others. You do not have to be ignorant of wars in other corners of the world, or close your eyes. But if you allow those experiences to overcloud your present, valid intersection with reality, then you speak and act from a position not your own, and deny the world whatever benefits your own present version of reality might allow you to give.” [22] When we begin to obsess on secondary experience (distant threats) at the expense of primary experience (immanent conditions) it is possible to end up completely dissociating from primary experience. This dissociation serves to perpetuate ‘negative’ secondary experiences. Seth never says to close our eyes or ignore distant threats, but to keep it in a balanced perspective, integrated into, not dissociated from primary experience. “The natural creature-validity of your senses must remain dear, and only then can you take full advantage of those intuitions and visions [secondary constructions] that must come through your own private intersection [primary construction] with space and time [Framework 1]. “In those terms, the ever-actual integrity of nature everywhere surrounds you. It represents your direct experience. It offers comfort, creativity, and inspiration that you only impede if you allow secondary experience to supersede your daily moment-to-moment encounter with the physical earth.” [23] Even though the “point of power” is in the Now, it is possible to use that power to dissociate from primary experience and create unnecessary problems! This concept is even more relevant to our present 24-hour, 7-days-a-week media access via the Internet, email, cell-phones, cable channels, in addition to conventional newspapers, books, and magazines. We now get news from Mars rovers – hundreds of millions of miles away – within twelve minutes, and it goes right onto a web page of newspapers, NASA, and other science sites! Our perception (secondary constructions) of global events continues to shrink as we blur the lines between what was secondary experience twenty-seven years ago into our primary experience today. Seth repeatedly mentioned that the individual was his main focus, as seen in his best-selling self-help book, The Nature of Personal Reality (1994). However, he also delivered an entire book whose focus was collective co-creation, The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events (1995). This was to show how individuals form complex social systems and relationships, how collective secondary constructions co-create at the cultural level. Mass Events was intended as a sequel to The Nature of Personal Reality as an effort to connect individual and collective co-creation. Individual reality creation seems complex enough, particularly in light of the spectrum of consciousness that spans outer ego, subconscious, inner ego, energy gestalts, and All-That-Is. Yet, emerging sciences like systems theory, chaos theory, autopoiesis, spiral dynamics, integral psychology, etc. have begun to explore how billions of people co-create economics, politics, art, science, and morals – the accoutrements of culture. This leads us to the conclusion, again, that there is no conscious creation without conscious co-creation. [24] Conscious creation is holonic because we are holonic beings. Philosopher Ken Wilber calls this “agency in communion.” Each primary construction has its own boundaries, agency, and autonomy, but exists in communion with a vast array of simultaneous primary constructions. This is another way to see how conscious creation involves endless relationships between primary and secondary constructions in Framework 1, 2, 3, 4 terms. Again, since the outer ego is the “you” who co-creates its own space continuum and secondary constructions, Who is the “you” who creates the primary constructions? Who is the “you” in Which you? Which world? I-I-I Seth’s said that he spoke for all of our inner selves. Thus, he simultaneously spoke for both the outer and inner ego in all his books. His magnum opus, appropriately called The “Unknown” Reality (1996), further explores the unknown processes involved in nested reality creation. For example, Seth referred to himself as a bridge personality – a temporary outer ego or primary construction, when he came through Jane. Thus the Seth we know is really a temporary outer ego that we can relate to, but it is a unique translation of the nonphysical inner self into the guise of the physical self we are accustomed to. I would like to propose a simple
way to summarize these basic “levels of selfhood” presented in the Seth
material: I-I-I. Each “I” represents an ontological level of selfhood that can be conceptualized as the irreducible minimum necessary construct for reality creation. Interestingly, this occurs not only in the Seth material, but within all the nondual traditions. Each “I” has its own type of nested free will, choice, and value fulfillment that work in concert. Together, these foundational aspects point out the overall “you” in “you create your own reality”: Ø I = All-That-Is (nondual singularity) Ø I = inner ego (e.g. God of Jane/Seth) Ø I = outer ego (e.g. Jane) We can split this into as many subdivisions as necessary, so it’s not a rigid threesome, but this trinity elegantly expresses the basic minimum. Also, note that “in between” each “I” is some kind of mediating structure or translation processes, as we have seen, so it’s also a five-part structure. Ø I = All-That-Is (nondual singularity) Ø SUBconscious (mediating processes, energy gestalts, Seth’s “inner ego” relative to below) Ø I = inner ego (e.g. God of Jane/Seth’s “outer ego” in relation to above) Ø subconscious (mediating processes) Ø I = outer ego (e.g. Jane) I-I-I create my own reality. That sentence more accurately expresses the nested nature of multidimensional, holonic personality. Yet, for all practical purposes, the outer ego remains a focus of exploration and creativity. Let’s remain grounded in that. However, the idea behind this series is to help push into the “unknown” reality of the inner “I”, because as every perennial wisdom tradition already knows, it is a stepping-stone that leads to the eventual realization of the nondual “I”. This gets lost sometimes in many interpretations of the Seth material, but awaits those with the intestinal fortitude to seek it. In other words, when this material was originally given, it was primarily a way to open people to the inner self. So it’s no accident that Seth included 17 Practice Elements, as mentioned earlier to awaken aspects of the inner “I”. This is the closest thing to a system of yoga in the Seth material. Most of the other exercises were tailored for Jane, Rob, and students during in the 1960s and 1970s. However, they are still viable, and can be incorporated within postmodern integral practices. In this sense, the Seth material has not been used as a nondual dharma teaching in any collective sense. Most students used it for personal development during the heyday of the human potential movement that explored dozens of systems. However, it’s important to point out that the nondual is included in Seth’s maps, and only lying latent for those who seek it. So I propose to use I-I-I create my own reality as a reminder about the nested nature of reality creation, and its nondual source (All-That-Is) in the context of multidimensional, holonic personality. The following, then, is a very general summary of I-I-I.
As mentioned earlier, there is no conscious creation without conscious co-creation, no agency without communion. This applies “vertically” to I-I-I as well as “horizontally” within each Framework of consciousness. We’ve explored the “vertical” or ontological relationships throughout this series. Earlier, we explored the “horizontal” relationships as six billion focuses of energy personality essence co-create secondary constructions through primary and secondary experience in their own space-time continuums. (Say that ten times fast J.) Put another way, creation and co-creation occur in multiple, simultaneous nested contexts. All of which contribute to our everyday perception. The basic idea of our I-I-I map, then, is to serve as an authentic reminder of the nature of selfhood and reality. Therefore, the goal is simply to “face up to the abilities of consciousness,” to literally be all we can be within the constraints and boundaries of our primary selves. A Middle Way While, the Seth material is a transcendental body of work, its purpose is not to deny the flesh in terms of the “ascending” perennial traditions that end up devaluing the “descended” material world. Nor is it intended to perpetuate the idea of “the sinful self” that says we are all flawed creatures from birth or trapped in an endless cycle of reincarnations and suffering. Nor is it a purely “descended” tradition that glorifies only the five senses at the expense of the inner senses. It is a middle way, opening to door toward the remembrance of Self, developing psychic abilities, balancing intellect and intuition, physical and inner senses, while nurturing healthy body/minds and pursuing maximum value fulfillment on individual and collective levels. “Though I may emphasize the importance of inner reality in this book, therefore, I am in no way denying the great validity and purpose of earthly experience. “Any exercises in this book should help you enrich that experience, and understand its framework and nature. None of the exercises should be used to try to ‘escape’ the connotations of your own earthly reality. “... You are presently little aware of the dimensions of consciousness – your own or those seemingly ‘beneath’ your own [I-I-I].” [25] Who-Who-Who is the “You-You-You” in You Create Your Own Reality? I-I-I! In Part 3, we’ll explore some notable critiques of YCYOR and channeling as new paradigm, as well as offer some ways to put theory into practice and explore the “unknown reality” of I-I-I directly. Appendix 1 – Index of Material on Constructions in The
Early Sessions, Books 1-9 (With special thanks to Gregory Polson, Bob Proctor, and Susan Williams)
|