Personally, I think Socrates downed the hemlock aperitif just to get out of having to follow his own little piece of advice. You ever try to “know yourself”? For me it’s been years, countless books and a lot of head-banging. Then, there was Seth.

You create your own reality – based on your beliefs.

Whoa… all of a sudden you don’t have to “know yourself” – you just have to know your beliefs. Practical. I like it. The only problem is, sometimes your beliefs can be hidden. Deep.

Right before I moved to Los Angeles I saw some of my hidden ones for the first time. I was about to call someone (of some importance, at least in my mind) and got so panicked that I had to hang up the phone. Later, wondering what just happened, I started listing randomly the thoughts that came to me as I was on the phone... and it was truly frightening:

“You’re kidding yourself.” “Who are you?” “You haven’t done anything” “Are you nuts?” “Why would he want to talk to you?” “He’ll hang up.” “You’re nobody”

It scared the hell out of me. Those thoughts were actually inside my head. Thoughts I never would have imagined, were inside my head. And the kicker? When all this came up, I wasn’t even calling the guy yet, I was calling the operator – to get his number! I’m a FREAK!

So I went off on my little Socrates chase, and really did learn a lot but it wasn’t until I found the Seth material that things finally started to fall into place. Those things I saw before weren’t thoughts – they were beliefs. And that’s what was creating my reality.

Then last year, after I was questioning/obsessing/pulling my hair out about women, a great friend said “You need to get to the bottom of what your beliefs are about them – and BE RELENTLESS!” Okay… obviously, she knew about Seth.

The word relentless is what got to me. It implied a system – that I could stick with – until I got an answer. Then I remembered these old mind-mapping techniques, used a lot for brainstorming. They came in many variations, but the one I like is where you write down a word (or subject) in the center of a sheet of paper, draw a circle around it – and then start writing down every thought that comes to mind. No rhyme, no reason – just write them down as quickly as they come.

For example, let’s take that other wonderful subject – Money. Write “Money” in the middle of a blank page and then draw a circle around it – a “bubble” – get it?

Now take the first thought that comes to you (about money) and draw a line off the “Money” bubble, write your thought, and draw a bubble around that. Then just go for it – writing out thoughts as quickly as they come to you – connecting each new thought/belief, to the bubble that produced it.

Once you begin your sheet, it could look something like this:

1. Never enough
2. I can’t have any
3. I’m always poor
4. Never enough
5. There’s NEVER enough
6. THERE’S NEVER ENOUGH!
7. I found $10 the other day
8. I suck

• a) I’ll never have it
• b) I keep screwing up
• c) I suck (yeah… see a pattern?)

Once you finish, you’ll end up with a sheet of paper with bubbles all over the place, each one connected back (with a line) to the subject that produced it. There’ll be many beliefs (bubbles) shooting off the main belief, then further clusters of beliefs around each of those. Some beliefs will strike a nerve, and you’re off to the races – that one belief spawning other beliefs, and trails of beliefs until you finally run out of steam.

Doing this for a particular subject, you essentially get a picture not only of the individual beliefs you hold around that subject – you can also follow the strings of bubbles out – to see “chains of beliefs” that have some pretty strong bonds between them.

What I Did:

I did the Belief Bubbling relentlessly, every night for two weeks straight. I could start one sheet with “Money”, Bubble it out, then start another sheet with another subject and do the process all over again. Or any of the individual bubbles that came up, I could then use that as the central belief/subject for the next sheet – and Bubble the heck out of it.

There might be some resistance at first but once I got into the flow of it, free-associating – everything happened pretty quickly. And a lot of time I got INTO it! Yelling at myself, or someone who “did me wrong”, or I might really rip into it and cram bubbles in all over the place as beliefs just came spilling out of me. And a lot of times there was this incredible exhilaration once I finished out a particularly “hot” subject. A primal scream – caught on paper.

Most of the times the Bubbling would stick to the subject I had in the middle of the page. But other times it would take off, with a life of its own, me just riding my subconscious as it got something pretty big off its chest!

And my sheets – were messy. Everything would start simple enough, but once I got going I’d be laying down bubbles all over the place – sometimes lines jumping over other lines, just so I could find room for another bubble way off to the side. And sometimes I would stop Bubbling so I could write an extended note to myself wherever I could find room. In other words when it worked, it was a game – and I played it.

1. Do 1 – 3 Belief Bubbles per night, every night, for 2 weeks straight.
2. Do each session for at least 5 minutes, and no more than 15.
3. Treat it like a game – because it is!
4. Use any kind of paper you have within reach – the key is to just get going! At first I used plain old printer paper, but eventually moved to an 11x14 inch artist’s sketchpad which gave me plenty of room to work.
5. As soon as you finish one, start the next one.
6. If you start a sheet and nothing happens after 3 minutes – leave it – and start another. Remember it’s just a game – and if it’s not fun, don’t do it. You can always come back to a particular subject later.
7. If you can’t come up with a subject to Bubble – pick one at random – anything – just get started.
8. Let whatever wants to come out, come out – even if it’s scathing, worshipful, or just plain frightening – run with it, because for the last time…
9. THIS IS JUST A GAME!

And what exactly is the goal? Nothing. Don’t try to change anything, don’t try to judge anything, don’t try to “do” anything. Just observe. The only objective here is to simply see your beliefs, one at a time. Individually. Alone. Why?

Because we’re self-healing. Really we are. Sometimes the simple act of seeing a belief, maybe for the first time, was enough to release it.

When I was done I could begin to see, accurately, what the contents of my own mind were. There were beliefs I didn’t even know I had, beliefs I’d forgotten about, and even incidences I’d forgotten about. However, the most important thing I could see was how everything was so connected. And that was the beginning, of pulling it all apart.

See the trick with beliefs is to look at them separately. Away from emotions, away from judgments, away from everyone else’s good advice. Then sitting there on the page, with a little circle separating it from everything else, they become things. Objects. Items. Creation machines I call them.

Imagine if you could step outside yourself and look down at every event you create in your life, from 150 feet up. If you had your Belief Bubble sheets, you could look down completely detached and watch as you create – what you believe.

Let’s say I found (created) a $10 bill. If I also believed that there was “never enough money”, I might then create a situation where my car needed $500 in repairs. In my own life it was actually funny. I would be right in the middle of “creating” an event, something I didn’t particularly like, and at the same time laughing at myself because I knew exactly the belief that was creating it!

The most powerful aspect of Belief Bubbling for me, beyond seeing my hidden beliefs, has been making the actual connection between a belief – and what I create. And as I said before, sometimes the simple act of seeing the belief was enough to release it. Of course some I’m still working on, and I’m sure there are others I don’t even know about yet. It’s a process.

Going Forward

It’s all very simple – unbelievably simple, really. The world is just this giant feedback mechanism, meant to show us, in physical, that which we believe. That’s all.

And really, that’s also what happens on a larger scale. All of those incredible, and instant images we see of hate and destruction, vengeance and “evil” are simply ourselves, telling ourselves as a society, that which we believe. Nothing more, and nothing less. Mass beliefs as Seth called them.

But the only way we can change any of that – wars, famine, poverty, hate – anything you choose – is to first look inside your own mind, and realize what you yourself believe.

The power is with the one. One person can change the world. Each person does. The fastest way we can help the world is to know the contents of our own minds, our own beliefs. Address that, and the world will follow.

So… what do you believe?

I Wonder
by Anu

how can you
my dear,
a thin green
single blade of grass
stand so tall and strong
without any support?

Some day
I'll know your answer
but for now I rejoice
in your elegance and wonder

Love
anu

Seth on the Speakers
compiled by Donald R. Johnson

Of the many subjects that Seth covered in his sessions, there are some that he did not spend as much time on as we might wish he had. Now and again, in SethNet, the subject of Speakers comes up. Sometimes a member will ask if Seth ever went into detail about the Speakers or if there is more info than what they have read.

So I have collected here all that Seth said about Speakers, except for passing references to them. Also, I do not yet have “The Early Sessions”, volumes 7 – 9 and I do not have the deleted sessions, yet.

Jane Roberts wrote at least one poem about Speakers. Robert Butts made many references to them in his notes.

All words below are from the Seth material:

From Seth Speaks, session 568:

(10:28.) The methods, the secret methods behind all of the religions, were meant to lead man into a realm of understanding that existed apart from the symbols and the stories, into inner realizations that would take him both within and without the physical world that he knew. There are many manuscripts still not discovered, from old monasteries particularly in Spain, that tell of underground groups within religious orders who kept these secrets alive when other monks were copying old Latin manuscripts.

There were tribes who never learned to write in Africa and Australia who also knew these secrets, and men called "Speakers" who memorized them and spread them upward, even throughout northern portions of Europe, in the time of Christ.

("Could you give a copy of one of those Speaker manuscripts in dictation?"

It is possible, and would take much time and excellent circumstances.

("Well, naturally I'd like to see it sometime.")

Offhand, the work involved could take five years, for there were several versions, and a group of leaders, each going in different directions, who taught their people. The world was far more ripe for Christianity than people suppose, because of these groups. The ideas were "buried" already throughout Europe.

(Pause at 1 0:36. "Buried" is the word Seth wanted here; I questioned him to make sure.

(A note: Seth has mentioned the speakers just once before. This happened quite unexpectedly in the 558th Session for November 5, 1970. The apropos portion of that session, which was held for friends in an effort to resolve certain problems, is given in the Appendix, with notes. Jane and I find the idea of the speakers most interesting. We'd like to learn more about this, and may make it a future project.)

Many important concepts were lost, however. The emphasis was on practical methods of living - quite simply - rules that could be understood, but the reasons for them were forgotten. The Druids obtained some of their concepts from Speakers. So did the Egyptians. The Speakers predated the emergence of any religions that you know, and the religions of the Speakers arose spontaneously in many scattered areas, then grew like wildfire from the heart of Africa and Australia. There was one separate group in an area where the Aztecs dwelled at a 'later date, though the land mass was somewhat different then, and some of the lower cave dwellings at times were under water.

(10:41.) Various bands of the Speakers continued through the centuries. Because they were trained so well, the messages retained their authenticity. They believed, however, that it was wrong to set words into written form, and so did not record them. They also used natural earth symbols, but clearly understood the reasons for this. The Speakers, singly, existed in your Stone Age period, and were leaders. Their abilities helped the cavemen survive. There was little physical communication, however, in those days between the various Speakers, and some were unaware of the existence of the others. Their message was as "pure" and undistorted as possible. It was for this reason however, through the centuries, that many who heard it translated it into parables and tales. Now, strong portions of jewish scriptures carry traces of the message of these early Speakers, but even here, distortions have hidden the messages. Take your break.

(10:44. Jane said that after my questions she felt herself "go back and back and back, " as she talked about the Speakers. (It is of interest here to note that a current Biblical reference work, in dealing with the very early history of Israel, has much to say about the "oral traditions" which preceded - and thus helped shape - the written word by many centuries. During this long oral period many distortions, omissions, etc., took place for a variety of reasons. Recent work has shown that the early gathering and writing of traditions dates from about the twelfth century B. C. This in turn led to the biblical books.

(Resume at 11 :02.)

Since consciousness forms matter, and not the other way around, then thought exists before the brain and after it. A child can think coherently before he learns vocabulary - but he cannot impress the physical universe in its terms. So this inner knowledge has always been available, but is to become physically manifest - literally made flesh. The Speakers were the first to impress this inner knowledge upon the physical system, to make it physically known. Sometimes only one or two Speakers were alive in several centuries. Sometimes there were many. They looked around them and knew that the world sprang from their interior reality. They told others. They knew (pause) that the seemingly solid natural objects about them were composed of many minute consciousnesses.

They realized that from their own creativity they formed idea into matter, and that the stuff of matter was itself conscious and alive. They were intimately familiar with the natural rapport existing between themselves and their environment, therefore, and knew that they could alter their environment through their own acts. Now I will end here for the night, and continue with the Speakers at our next session.

("Was Ruburt, or Jane, ever a Speaker?")

Ruburt was.

("Were you?")

I was indeed. There were two others that you know of. The one mentioned in class material (in the 558th session), and the other yourself. (This was a distinct surprise to me.) Now the Speakers themselves in the reincarnational process can also use or not use their abilities in any given life, or be aware of them. I bid you a fond good evening.

("The same to you, Seth. Thank you very much. ")

(Pause.) You must remember, as a postscript, that there have been millions of Speakers.

("Yes. " 11:13 P.M. Jane said she remembered Seth saying that both of us had been speakers. She'd had a quick, almost disbelieving reaction: "Now, that's just too pat. " Then she had felt Seth return with the mention of the millions as an answer, blunting any particular uniqueness in the fact that both of us had been speakers and were now producing the Seth material.

(After the session I wondered if the Seth material itself could be a distorted version of the speakers' messages. Jane said it might be possible. Actually, she felt, the speakers' material was probably more poetical.")

"SETH SPEAKS" SESSION 569. FEBRUARY 24. 1971. ...- 9:25 P.M. WEDNESDAY

Now-

("Good evening, Seth.")

Dictation: Generally speaking (smile), once a Speaker always a Speaker, in your terms. In some incarnations, the abilities might be used so powerfully that all other aspects of the personality remained in the background. At other times the capacities might be timidly used. The Speakers possess an extraordinary vividness of feeling and thought projection. They can impress others with greater import through their communications. They can move from inner to outer reality with easy ability. They know instinctively how to use symbolism. They are highly creative on an unconscious level, constantly forming psychic frameworks beneath normal consciousness that can be used both by themselves and others in dream and trance states. They often appear to others in the dream condition, and they help dreamers in the manipulation of inner reality. They form images with which the dreamers can relate, images that can be used as bridges and then as gateways into kinds of consciousness more separated from your own.

(9:30.) The symbolism of the gods, the idea of the gods on Olympus, for example, the crossing-over point at the River Styx - that kind of phenomenon was originated by the Speakers. The symbolisms and frameworks of religion, therefore, had to exist not only in the physical world but also in the unconscious one. Outside of your own framework, houses as such or dwellings as such are not needed, and yet in trance encounters or dream encounters with other realities, such structures are frequently seen. They are transformations of data into terms that will be meaningful to you.

After death, for example, an individual may continue to create these - masses of individuals may - until they realize that the frameworks are no longer necessary. The Speakers were not confined in their activities, therefore, to waking consciousness. In all periods of your time they went about their duties both in the waking and sleep state. Much of the most pertinent information, in fact, was memorized by trainees during the dream condition, and passed on in the same manner. These unwritten manuscripts therefore were also illustrated, so to speak, by dream journeys or field trips into other kinds of reality. Such training still goes on. The particular psychic or story framework may vary. For example, conventional images of the Christian God and the saints may be utilized by the Speakers, with all of this highly vivid. The dreamer may find himself then in a magnificent harem, or instead in a brilliantly illuminated field or sky. Some Speakers confine their abilities to the dream state; and, waking, are largely unconscious of their own abilities or experience.

(Pause at 9:40.) Now it is meaningless to call such dreams or dream places hallucinations, for they are representations of definite "objective" realities that you cannot perceive as yet in their own guise. The Egyptian religion was largely based upon the work of the Speakers, and great care was given to their training. The outward manifestations given to the masses of the people became so distorted, however, that the original unity of the religion finally decayed. However, efforts were being made then to map inner reality in ways that have not been attempted since. It is true that in the dream state and in some other levels of existence close to your own, there is strong individual play in the creation of images, and a magnificent use of symbolism, but all of this takes place, again, in an "objective" definite environment, an environment whose characteristics make such phenomena possible - a field of activity, then, with its own rules. Now the Speakers are familiar with those rules, and often serve as guides. They have at times worked within organizations as in Egypt, where they worked through the temples and became involved with the power structures. As a rule, however, they are far more solitary.

Because of the true simultaneous nature of time, they are, of course, speaking to all of your ages at once through their various manifestations. On occasion they also serve as mediators, introducing to each other two incarnations of one personality, for example. You may take your break.

(9:51 to 10:04.)

Now: The rules within physical reality say that objects appear to be stationary and permanent. The rules of other realities are often far different, however. The nature of mental activities will follow different lines, and "continuity" in terms of time will not exist. Perceptual organizations exist by the use of different psychological groupings. (Pause.)

From the outside, such systems would seem meaningless to you even if you were able to perceive them. You would not be able to observe the pivot points about which actions occurred. The very definite rules of that system then would be quite obscure to you.

Now the Speakers are familiar with the rules within many systems. Still, however, most of these systems in larger terms are somewhat connected with your own kind of reality. There are an infinite number of inner universes. Only the very highest, most developed gestalt consciousness can be aware of anything like their totality. In this larger context, then, the Speakers must be called local. There is something like a chart mapping many of the nearby systems of reality, and I hope some day in your terms to make this available. In order to do so, Ruburt must be trained somewhat more intensely. There are points of coincidence where under certain conditions entry may be made from one of these systems to the other. They need not exist separately in space as you know it, of course.

(10:19.) These are called coordination points, where one camouflage merges into the other. Some of these are geographical in your system, but in all cases, a tuning-in of consciousness is a necessary preliminary. Such entries can only be made in an out-of- body condition. Each individual in his dreams has access to the information possessed by the Speakers. There are adjacent states of consciousness that occur within the sleep pattern, that cannot be picked up by your EEG's- adjacent "corridors" through which your consciousness travels.

(An EEG, or electroencephalograph machine, traces brain wave patterns on graph paper.)

The higher centers of intuition are activated while physically oriented portions of consciousness remain with the body. The "absent" portion of the self cannot be traced through brain patterns, though the point of its departure and the point of its return may show a particular pattern. The "time out" itself, however, will not be detected in any way, the tracings showing only whatever characteristic pattern was being given immediately before departure.

Now this happens in every night's sleep. Two areas of activity are involved, one very passive and one acutely active. In one state this portion of consciousness is passive, receiving information. In the next stage it is active as it takes part through action - the concepts given it are then vividly perceived through participation and examples. This is the most protected area of sleep. The rejuvenating characteristics enter in here, and it is during this period that the Speakers act as teachers and guides.

(Pause.) This information is, then, often interpreted on return by other layers of the self such as the body consciousness and subconscious, where it is formed into dreams that will have meaning to these areas of the self and where general teaching, for example, may be translated into practical advice involving a particular matter. You may take your break.

(10:34 to 10:45.)

Now: There are several very definite stages of sleep, and they all perform various services for the personality. They are also signals for different layers of consciousness, realization, and activity. They are accompanied by some physical variations, and there are some variations having to do with age.

In our next chapter I will speak of these in some detail. For now it is sufficient to realize that specific steps, definite alterations, occur as consciousness is shifted from the exterior to the interior reality, and that these changes are not random; that consciousness leaves through a very predictable route to its many destinations. Through the ages the Speakers have taught dreamers how to manipulate in these other environments. They have taught them how to bring back information that could be used for the good of the present personality. According to the intent, present purpose, and development, an individual may be aware of these travels to varying degrees. Some have excellent recall, for example, but often misinterpret their experience because of conscious ideas.

It is very possible for one dreamer who is a Speaker, to go to the aid of another individual who is having some difficulties in an inner reality within the dream state. The idea of guardian angels of course is highly connected here. A good Speaker is as effective within one reality as he is within the other, creating psychic frameworks within physical reality as well as within interior environments. Many artists, poets, and musicians are Speakers, translating one world in terms of another, forming psychic structures that exist in both with great vitality - structures that may be perceived from more than one reality at once.

(Pause at 10:57.) End of dictation. Now you may end the session or ask questions if you prefer.

"SETH SPEAKS" SESSION 570, MARCH 1, 1971,
9:10 P.M. MONDAY

*Snipping of material about sleep*

10:26.) Now: These stages of consciousness are all apart of your own reality. A knowledge of them can be most useful. You can learn to "shift gears," stand aside from your own experience, and examine it with much better perspective. You can prepare questions or problems, suggesting that they be solved for you in the sleep state. You can suggest that you will speak with distant friends, or convey important messages that you cannot convey verbally, perhaps. You can bring about reconciliations, for example, at another layer of reality though you cannot do so in this one.

You can direct the healing of your body, telling yourself that this will be accomplished by you at one of the other levels of sleep consciousness, and you may ask for the aid of a Speaker to give you any necessary psychological guidance that is needed to maintain health. If you have particular conscious goals and if you are reasonably certain that they are beneficial ones, then you can suggest dreams in which they occur, for the dreams themselves will hasten their physical reality.

Now unconsciously you do many of these things. You often go back in time, so to speak, and "relive" a particular event so that it has a different ending, or say things that you wish you had said. A knowledge of one state of consciousness can help you in other states. In a light trance the meaning of dream symbols will be given if you ask for them. The symbols may then be used as methods of suggestion that will be tailored for you personally. If you discover, say, that a fountain in a dream represents refreshment, then when you are tired or depressed, think of a fountain. In another layer of reality, of course, you will be creating one.

(10:35.) In the most protected areas of sleep you are dealing with experience that is pure feeling or knowing, and disconnected from both words or images. As mentioned, these experiences are translated into dreams later, necessitating a return to areas of consciousness more familiar with physical data. Here a great creative synthesis and a great creative diversification takes place, in which any given dream image has meaning to various layers of the self - on one level representing a truth you have lived and on other levels representing this truth as it is more specifically applied to various areas of experience or problems. There will be a metamorphosis, therefore, of one symbol turning into many, and the conscious mind may only perceive a chaos of various dream images, because the inner organization and unity is partially hidden in the other areas of consciousness through which the reasoning mind cannot follow.

The unconscious and subconscious areas, however, are aware of much more of this information than the ego, for it receives only the minute residue of dream material as a rule. The Speakers therefore may appear within dreams as historical characters, as prophets, as trusted old friends, or in whatever guise will impress the particular personality.

(Pause.) In the original experience, however, the true nature of the Speaker is apparent. The production of dreams is as "sophisticated" an endeavor as is the production of the objective life of a given individual. It is simply living on different terms.

"SETH SPEAKS" - SESSION 578, APRIL 5 1971

*Snip*

("All right, question number two: Was the statement given by Jane, while speaking for you, correct, that there have been millions of Speakers? Or was this distorted?" See the 568th session, in Chapter Seventeen.)

It was not distorted. The Speakers are gifted according to their own characters, some having far more abilities than others, but all playing roles in the communication of inner data. In your ter.ms, therefore, some Speakers would be much more accomplished than others. For example, there have been a far smaller number of truly prominent Speakers than the number given.

There have been less than thirty great Speakers. Give us time here.

(Pause at 9:35. Jane's pace was quite slow.) The Christ entity was one. The Buddha was another. These Speakers are as active when they are nonphysical as when they are physical. The Christ entity had many reincarnations before the emergence of the Christ "personality" as known; as did the Buddha.

The greatest Speakers do not only translate and communicate inner data, but also go much further into these inner realms of reality than others connected with your physical system. They add, then, to the basic inner data. The greatest Speakers have not needed the intensive training necessary for most. Their unique combination of characteristics has made this unnecessary. (Pause. One of many.)

At another level, Emerson was a Speaker.

A man named Marbundu. . . . (My phonetic interpretation.) "Do you want to spell that?')

M-A-U-R-U-N-D-U, in Africa, 14 B.C. The Speakers, more than most, are highly active through all aspects of existence, whether physical ornonphysical, waking or sleeping, between lives or at other levels of reality. As certain physical data are carried along in the gene structure, so this inner information is codified within whatever psychological structures the Speakers may inhabit; but far more readily available than it is to other personalities. It needs, often, trigger points to release it, however. These can take place in either the waking or dream state, and they serve to open up the reservoirs of knowledge and make past training available.

I know that one of your questions has to do with a first Speaker.

("Yes. Number four: Is it possible to name, or describe, a first speaker?")

Now: In greater terms, there was no first Speaker. Imagine that you wanted to be ten places at once, and that you actually sent one portion of yourself to each of these ten places. Imagine that you could scatter yourself in those ten directions, and that each of the ten portions were conscious, alert, and aware.

You - being the ten of you - would be aware of existence in each of the ten places. It would be impossible to ask which of the ten arrived first, except to say that all began with the original who decided to visit the ten locations. So it is with the Speakers, who in the same way do not originate in the locations or in the times in which they may appear.

Do you have more Speaker questions?

("Well, that brings me to number three, which you've already been getting into: What is the original source of the Speaker data? Where did it come from, and when?")

The original source of the Speaker data is the inner knowledge of the nature of reality that is within each individual. The Speakers are to keep the information alive in physical terms, to see that men do not bury it within and dam it up, to bring it - the information - to the attention of the conscious self.

They speak the inner secrets, in other words. In some civilizations, as mentioned earlier in this book, they played a much stronger part, practically speaking. At times they were consistently, consciously and egotistically aware of this information. It was then that it was memorized. They realized it was always available at an unconscious level.

They imprinted it, however, upon the physical brain through the use of memory. There was always great interaction however between inner and outer existence for them, as there is today. Valid information gained in the dream state was memorized in the morning. One Speaker heard another's lesson in the dream state. On the other hand, pertinent physical data was also communicated one to another in the dream state, and both states were utilized to a high degree. (Pause.)

Do you have any more Speaker questions?

("Number five: Were any of the disciples speakers?'j

I will save that one for the religious chapter. It can be handled more simply.

("Number six: Can Speakers work with us while they are between physical lives?")

I believe that has been answered.

("Yes." See the data at 9:35. I was so busy writing I didn't realize the question had already been considered.)

They can, and do indeed. Both of you are being trained by other Speakers who are themselves between lives, this occurring in your dream states. The Speakers themselves obviously attain varying degrees of efficiency.

(And of course, the above data gives rise to more questions: such as who is training us? Have we known them in past lives, etc.? Not knowing what to do, I asked no questions. .. .)

The large amount of their work is done from a nonphysical state, earthly existences being somewhat like very important field trips.

(From "Seth Speaks", Appendix)

SESSION 558, NOVEMBER 5, 1970, 9:50 P.M. THURSDAY (This excerpt from the session contains Seth's first mention of the Speakers and their functions in the reincarnational process, and supplements the speaker data in Chapter Seventeen.

(The session came about because Ron B. and his wife, Grace, members of ESP class, requested help with a problem involving their family. After winding up some very interesting material concerning that situation, Seth launched into the Speaker data at about 11:15. All of us present were surprised. The term "speaker; " as Seth uses it, was as unknown to Jane and me then as it was to Ron and his family.)

We have known several people who were monks in a previous exis- tence. Now. (To Ron): In a life in the east before the time of Christ, 1200 B.C., you were a member of a body of men who belonged to an esoteric heritage. You were wanderers and traveled also through Asia Minor. You carried with you in your heads messages and laws that had been given to one of your kind in a time that was already nearly forgotten. These were codes of ethics. They originated from the time of Atlantis. Before that, these codes were given by a race from another star. This race had to do with the origin of Atlantis. The messages were put into words and language and written down at the time of Atlantis, but after that they were handed down by word of mouth.

Your people learned them from their elders, and they were called Speakers. You were a Speaker. This is why you find it so easy to call oth- ers your brothers. Now: Three men in particular who are under you (in the manufacturing plant where Ron holds a supervisor's position), were part of that original band of men. Your wife, your daughter-in-law and your son (all present this evening) were also members of that band. Your wife and your daughter-in-law, however, were brothers. Now give us a moment here. (Pause.)

You traveled through Asia Minor in a time of great turmoil, and wherever you went you spoke - which means you gave utterance to the ethics. It took you twelve years of training to memorize this code of ethics.

Now later the Essenes were involved. I am not sure of the word.

(The Essenes were one of the four known Jewish sects active in the Holy Land at the time of Christ. They were a peaceful, contemplative group. They aren't mentioned in the Bible. If Seth means that the Essenes were promulgating the speakers' codes of ethics in, say, the first century A.D., then this of course is a time many centuries later than Ron 's life in 1200 B. c.

(Ron's wife, Grace: "Seth, did we fulfill our purposes in that time?")

In that existence, yes. You must give me time. There was turmoil within the group, disagreement. There was disagreement over the mean- ing of the words that were recalled. The group became divided. One portion of the group traveled to the land we now call Palestine, and the other migrated, in the next century, appearing in southern Europe. There was a major distortion having to do with B-A-E-L (spelled). A group gathered together with Bael as their idea of God. You (Ron) were with the other group. There was a city in a jungle - M-E-S-S-I-N-I (spelled) as nearly as I can translate it In Asia Minor, and fragments of a past civ- ilization were then there. A new city was built which in its turn also dis- appeared. There were writings on rocks, however, as the old messages were once again put into written symbols. But your people were gone, and you are only now finding them again.

From My Own Source
by Michaela Sefler

From my own right

from my own source

I want to come to you

in perfect faith.

From the faith


that I have summoned

from the harmony
which I have learned.

Years I have toiled
to bring an offering

that I afford

in perfect modesty.

I believed in you,

let me know that you care,

count on me

like I count on you.

To meet you
you are here for me to behold;

on our own

and standing strong.

I hold you

so you hold me;

to know each other,

and still be free.

Michaela Sefler, is an inspirational poet, living in Montreal, Canada. She has two self-published compilations of poetry: Still True and A Fortress in My Heart and two published compilations, The Sun Is Hot, and Through the Ages. She enjoys learning ancient mysticism and spirituality through reading and meditation, as well as exercise and staying fit. She has a BSC in psychology. She has been featured in various journals and anthologies such as Prism Quarterly,Poetry Vibes, Best Poets and Prominent Voices in Poetry.She has been featured on various websites and e-zines and online journals. For more details or to purchase any of her books please visit her website.

Seth - "An Integral Conscious Creation Myth" Part 14 of 15
by Paul Helfrich

On Value Fulfillment (Causal Field, Involution)

“It cannot be called void or not void,
Or both or neither,
But in order to point it out,
It is called ‘the void’.” ~ Nagarjuna

We now complete our circle, so to speak, and return to the nondual field that exists “before the beginning,” yet constantly fuels the subtle and physical fields. Nondual means “not one, not two,” and reflects the inherent Unity and Consciousness that is omnipresent within all fields of All-That-Is. According to Ken Wilber,

“… the ultimate reality [causal field] is not something seen, but rather the ever-present Seer. Things that are seen come and go, are happy or sad, pleasant or painful – but the Seer is none of those things, and it does not come and go. The Witness does not waver, does not wobble, does not enter that stream of time. The Witness is not an object, not a thing seen, but the ever-present Seer of all things, the simple Witness that is the I of Spirit, the center of the cyclone, the opening that is God, the clearing that is pure Emptiness.

“There is never a time that you do not have access to this [causal] Witnessing awareness. At every single moment, there is a spontaneous awareness of whatever happens to be present – and that simple, spontaneous, effortless awareness is ever-present Spirit itself [All-That-Is]. Even if you think you don’t see it, that very awareness is it. And thus, the ultimate state of consciousness – intrinsic Spirit itself – is not hard to reach but impossible to avoid.

“And just that is the great and guarded secret of the Nondual schools.” (54)

In just this way, then, causal, subtle, and physical fields are simultaneous aspects of The One, of All-That-Is, and therefore accessible to all.

As part of his attempt to explain how they interact, Seth introduced a foundational creative force called consciousness units or CUs in The “Unknown” Reality, Vol. 1 (1977). However, that was preceded by his electromagnetic energy units or EEs in The Seth Material (1969) and Seth Speaks (1971). As we have seen, EEs are made up of CUs, but are predisposed toward physical constructions. Thus, their involutionary momentum is headed toward the physical field rather than causal field. In this sense they function as a mediating structure between CUs and quantum fields. Thus, we have generally presented CUs (causal), EEs (subtle), and quantum fields (physical) as the three fundamental aspects of involution and evolution in the Sethian model throughout.

CUs are nonphysical, no-thing, yet manage to create some-thing. They are not anthropomorphosized, yet create all humans. They are not animal-ized, yet create all animals. They are not plant-ized, fish-ized, or bacteria-ized, yet create all plants, fish, and bacteria. They are not quantumized, yet create all quantum fields. Seth uses the CU analogy to explain how Causal Consciousness simultaneously creates in causal, subtle, and physical fields. This explanation refutes Darwinian natural selection and Dawkinsian selfish genes as Primal Cause. Natural selection and genetic mutation are important constructions, however, they are secondary, not primary in this model.

Here’s more from Seth:

“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 [i.e., Causal]. 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.’

“That leads to the old inevitable questions: Do animals have souls – or do trees, or rocks? In line with the usual definition then, in your terms, this smallest unit would be ‘soul stuff’ [in the subtle field]. That viewpoint however is highly limited, for ‘above you,’ using that scale, there are other more developed organizations of these units; and so from that ‘more exalted viewpoint’ [i.e., causal field], you would seem to be junior souls indeed.

“So I prefer, here at least, to speak of these units of consciousness instead. Their nature is the vitalizing force behind everything in your physical universe, and others as well. 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 [i.e., causal, subtle, and physical fields]. 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.

“All probabilities are probed and experienced, and all possible universes created from these units. Therefore, there are realities in which the endless probabilities of one given event are probed, and all experience grouped about that venture.” (55)

Why did Seth compare CUs as a structural unit to atoms? Isn’t that just more reductionist thinking? Well, Seth said he was using “bridge works between concepts.” So we don’t want to get caught in just another reductionist trap, and reduce everything to CUs. However, we need to find organizing principles that integrate Consciousness back into the picture, and we moderns and postmoderns have a long history of theorizing about fundamental units or building blocks. So this is the cultural norm that Seth chose to begin with his CU analogy.

From an historical perspective, atoms were first postulated in the West as fundamental indivisible elements called “atomos” by premodern Greek philosophers Leucippus (5th century BCE) and Democritus (460-370 BCE). Modern nineteenth century chemists and physicists used atoms to label what they believed were just that. However, further research showed that atoms consisted of even smaller parts like electrons, neutrons, and protons, and further, that protons and neutrons are made of even smaller quarks. Modern physicists continue to wax about p-branes and m-strings in their search for the foundational quantum unit.

We also need to mention the pioneering genius of Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) who, after Copernicus (1473-1543), refuted the Aristotelian notion that the Earth was the center of the cosmos. However, unlike Copernicus, who speculated that the sun was the center of the cosmos, Bruno insisted that there was no center whatsoever. Unfortunately, Bruno’s ideas were not appreciated by The Church who had him burned alive as a heretic.

Moreover, Bruno intuited that Consciousness was both immanent and transcendent, consisting of what he termed monads derived from the Greek word “monos” which means ‘unit,’ ‘one,’ or ‘atom,’ and is traceable back to Pythagoras (ca. 569-475). Bruno speculated that there were three species of monads: God, the monad of monads (causal), souls (subtle), and indivisible atoms (physical). As such they are very similar to the three primary aspects of Seth’s CUs.

Bruno would influence the German philosopher Leibniz (1646-1716) whose Monadologie (1714) postulated that the foundational creative force of the universe exists in fundamental monads. Leibniz’s monads contain unique perspectives and are situated within an invisible source reality. Monads can perceive all other monads in some way, but only God can perceive all monads with simultaneous clarity.

Thus, Leibniz’s monads are very similar to Bruno’s monads, Aurobindo’s Consciousness-Force, and Seth’s CUs: all are metaphors that try to explain how the The One creates the many, and how Consciousness exists simultaneously as Primal Cause and physical matter. This speaks to the clarity and depth of Leibniz’s intuition in his attempts to bridge modern science and metaphysics in the early eighteenth century. In fact, both Bruno and Leibniz were early postmoderns in this sense, and way ahead of their times!

In summary, once we add Casual Consciousness back into the picture, we need a way to represent Primal Cause as the foundational creative force, and Seth’s CUs do just that. But again, CUs are not particles, and yet make particles possible, just as Consciousness is not a thing, process, or perspective but makes all things, processes, and perspectives possible. Also recall that Seth’s EEs are the mediating force within CUs that creates quantum fields. Thus, we really have a CU/EE/quantum simultaneity of Consciousness as energy-matter.

Further, Seth’s meditating EEs are similar to nonlocal, superluminal fields like tachyons mentioned earlier. Since they are faster than light, they are aspects of the subtle field. However, many physicists still believe that consciousness is only an epiphenomenon of quantum fields, so they tend to reduce everything to quantum fields, hence modern hamster wheel, the “reductio ad absurdum” of seeking a fundamental quantum unit. On the other hand, I’m not suggesting, and neither does Seth, that we reduce everything to consciousness, but instead, use CUs to conceptualize how consciousness, energy, and matter are holistically integrated. In other words, use CUs to show how Consciousness is simultaneously Primal Cause and quantum fields.

We can sense, once again, the innate paradox of All-That-Is at play in Seth’s CU analogy; “They are in all places at once,” reflects that All-That-Is is both immanent and transcendent, in the physical world and simultaneously not of it. The main point is that Seth used this analogy to show how Consciousness is Primal Cause, not quantum fields, and that It fuels as yet unknown involutionary and evolutionary processes. However, in terms of modern and postmodern sciences, CUs “will not be recognized because they will always appear as something else.” Thus, our current conceptions of quantum fields are still limited to only the physical aspects of a vast multidimensional structure that includes subtle and causal energy fields that are still empirically unknown. Sages in the premodern traditions have mapped these fields via subtle and causal states of consciousness, but modern and postmodern scientists have not as yet.

So, how will we postmoderns ever learn to recognize CUs for what they really are? Will something “bizarrely inexplicable” always lie behind the next empirical discovery, and around each evolutionary bend as we probe the subtle and causal fields? Perhaps, but current evidence strongly suggests that our collective cognitive capacities will evolve to the point where we can empirically map Seth’s CUs. Still, that will require authentic dream-art sciences that include a viable theory of consciousness, and epistemologies and praxis that integrate physical senses, reason, and inner senses. Nothing less will do!

All-That-Is as Holarchy

So how do we reconcile Seth’s CUs and EEs with other postmodern theories of consciousness?

We begin with a look at natural hierarchies. As we have seen, evolution has unfolded hierarchically in three major phases to date: the physiosphere, biosphere, and noosphere. Each transcends yet includes (Wilber) or preserves and negates (Hegel) the preceding phase. Still, the concept of hierarchy has taken a beating in some postmodern circles. For example, critics like Derrida, Foucault, and Eisler have shown how social hierarchies in religious, corporate, and military institutions are based upon unequal power distribution, and force of threat. In The Chalice and The Blade (1987) Riane Eisler calls these dominator hierarchies, and shows how they are indeed abusive. However, she also points out that there are healthy hierarchies called actualization hierarchies whose purpose is to optimally actualize potentials through transformation, growth, and increased depth. When transformation stops, growth arrests, and development grinds to a halt.

But there is more to consider. Within any hierarchical level there are nested spans of equivalence. For example, within the developmental stages of acorn, sapling, and tree, all acorns, all saplings, and all trees are developmentally equivalent. Within the span of any equivalence, then, we have heterarchy. Thus, these two nested elements – hierarchy and heterarchy – are simultaneously at work in all biopsychosocial development. Together, they form what social philosopher Arthur Koestler (1905-1983) called a holarchy in The Ghost in the Machine (1967).

According to Peggy Wright, a pioneering voice in feminist transpersonal studies,

“… holarchy is simply an ‘asymmetrical order of increasing wholeness.’ Each order of wholeness is a holon–‘that which, being a whole in one context, is simultaneously a part in another.’ Within a holarchy, ‘the elements of that level operate by heterarchy. That is, no one element seems to be especially more important or more dominant, and each contributes more or less equally to the health of the whole level’.” (56)

Dominator hierarchies are a type of social pathology that have wreaked havoc upon the noosphere and biosphere for thousands of years, as seen in Ken Wilber’s Up from Eden (1981). So, no one’s denying that. However, it’s critically important to properly situate the complex relationships between hierarchy and heterarchy – holarchy– to show their importance in the bigger picture. Dominator hierarchies are still found in most modern social institutions, whether capitalist or socialist. They are the legacies of premodern and modern conscious creation. The main problem is when social dominator hierarchies seek to make their own values the primary values for everyone, and in effect prevent, repress, or deny further growth and creativity, all in the name of God, money, patriotism, or whatever ideology. As such, pathological hierarchies need to be rooted out. Yet, according to Wilber, and I quite agree, the answer is not to invoke heterarchy, but actualization hierarchies that allow continued growth toward wholeness and fulfillment.

“Let us further note that, by Eisler’s own definitions, what dominator hierarchies are suppressing is in fact the individual’s own actualization hierarchies! – what she calls ‘humanity’s higher aspirations’ instead of its ‘lowest (basest) qualities.’ In other words, the cure for pathological hierarchy is actualization hierarchy, not heterarchy (which would produce more heaps and fragments, not wholes and cures).” (57)

Wilber goes on to point out there are also dominator heterarchies in which people “lose their distinctive value and identity in a communal fusion and meltdown. ... All values vanish into a herd mentality of the bland leading the bland.” (58) The result is often further fragmentation, repression, and alienation. The larger point is that we are evolving, individually and collectively, toward wholeness and fulfillment, and this involves simultaneous hierarchical and heterarchical relationships.

For instance, each stage of an actualization hierarchy, like the three major stages of evolution thus far, is defined in terms of increased complexity, optimized development, and transformation. Each stage transcends and includes its predecessors but not vice versa. This “not vice versa” is the key to understanding the natural direction of hierarchy in the physical field. If we destroy the noosphere, for instance, the biosphere will still exist because if we kill all humans, then lower mammals, fish, insects, plants, and bacteria would all still exist. However, if we destroy the biosphere, the noosphere is also destroyed. This is the “not vice versa” of natural hierarchical unfolding. Thus, subsequent stages are always more complex, more whole, and yet include key elements of every stage that precedes them.

In the noosphere, then, concepts like civil rights, women’s rights, animal rights, gay and lesbian rights, disabled rights, etc. are all postmodern attempts to promote actualization hierarchies that allow people to grow toward wholeness and fulfillment. So the ideal, then, is to design and nurture actualization hierarchies, and constrain dominator hierarchies and heterarchies wherever possible. But to throw out, deny, or otherwise marginalize all hierarchy, in terms of healthy development and fulfillment, is to throw out the modern baby with the postmodern bathwater. That’s a modern gem we very much need to keep in our postmodern theory of consciousness!

Moreover, all development begins at stage one and proceeds from there. Humans and animals didn’t poof into existence fully formed as some premodern creation myths maintain. They evolved over billions of years from physios, to bios, to noos. There is a natural order to development, too. Acorns turn into saplings, not butterflies. Saplings grow into trees, not potatoes. Trees grow into fertilizer, not infants.

Imagine, then, how this applies to the complexity of the current noosphere, and its worldview dynamics. There are roughly six billion people, all of which are at different physical, mental, and spiritual stages of development. Hundreds of people die and are born every second. Every new birth begins at stage one and develops from there. With any luck premodern grows into modern. Recent estimates (Beck/1996) are that approximately 70% of the noosphere is physically, mentally, and spiritually at premodern or modern stages. However, only 25% is near postmodern, and even less are at later stages.

Holons

Arthur Koestler coined the term holon as a unit of whole/parts that form any holarchy. For example, a human holon is a whole made up of cells, molecules, quantum fields, and CUs. A cell, in turn, is a whole made up of molecules, quantum fields, and CUs. By holonically situating any thing, process, or event within a holarchy, we can move beyond the modern reductio ad absurdum of fundamental parts. It opens the conceptual door beyond myths based on purely materialist or idealist conceptions of physical reality, because it includes both. Ken Wilber further developed these concepts in Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality (1995) where he applied holons and holarchy to the “Great Chain of Being.” His twenty tenets of holons provide a general outline of the intricate relationships within a holarchy. (59)

To summarize, holarchy consists of nested hierarchies (depths of unequivalence) and heterarchies (spans of equivalence). Proper use of hierarchy includes some kind of ranking guided by the principle of “not vice versa.” So ranking simply means that each properly identified wider hierarchical region becomes a superholon in relation to the previous subholon because they “transcend and include” their predecessors. For example, the following ranking or scale of depth occurs naturally in the physical field (Framework 1):

Physiosphere = quantum fields (Framework 1)

Biosphere = quantum fields + self-replicating cellular life (Framework 1)

Noosphere = quantum fields + self-replicating cellular life + self-reflexive awareness/triune mammalian brain (Framework 1)

Psychosphere = quantum fields + self-replicating cellular life + self-reflexive awareness/triune mammalian brain + subtle/astral bodies in waking state (Framework 1)

Linking means that within each hierarchical region we find holons of equal value that are crucial for overall systemic stability (i.e., no subholons or superholons). For example, the following links or spans of equivalence occur naturally in the physical field (Framework 1):

Physiosphere = atoms of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sodium, magnesium, gold, silver, etc. (Framework 1)

Biosphere = cells in viruses, plants, fish, birds, animals, etc. (Framework 1)

Noosphere = triune mammalian brains in humans (Framework 1)

Psychosphere = subtle/astral bodies in waking state in humans (Framework 1)

Seth’s CUs and EEs were coined around the same time as Koestler’s holons in the late 1960s. As we saw, Seth’s CUs are very similar to Bruno’s and Leibniz’s monads, and Aurobindo’s Consciousness-Force. They are also very similar to Koestler’s holons. According to postmodern philosopher Christian de Quincey (b.1949):

“There is more than a superficial resemblance, for example, between Leibniz’s monads and Arthur Koestler’s double-aspect Janus-faced ’holons’ – a concept that is gaining currency in modern holistic and systems theories, and also, most notably, in the hierarchic-integral evolutionary spiritual model developed by Ken Wilber (1995).” (60)

These concepts are all attempts to explain the complex relationships between Consciousness and physical matter. So Seth’s CUs are indeed holonic – causal and subtle whole/parts that form all physical whole/parts. However, CUs also function as the foundational “Whole/Part” that contains all knowledge of all “whole/parts.” When theorists talk about experience or perspectives going all the way up or down, like a möbius strip CUs are simultaneously the “bottom” and “top,” because all the way up or down is only a spatio-temporal metaphor that applies to the physical field and “particle focus.” Consciousness, and thus CUs, transcends yet includes the physical field.

Some may argue that Seth’s CUs are reductionist, taking the idea of physical building blocks into nonphysical fields. And that would be reductionist. However, CUs actually embrace the basic paradox of All-That-Is as Ground and Goal, Design and Designer, subholon and Superholon, immanent particles in the physical field and transcendent waves in subtle and causal fields. Thus, CUs are Seth’s attempt to explain how The One can simultaneously be the many, the Primal Cause of all manifestation as a nested simultaneity of causal CUs, subtle EEs, and physical quantum fields.

Still, we don’t wish to reduce all physical constructions to consciousness. That’s an extreme form of idealism to be avoided, one that has tended in premodern and modern forms to demean the physical field as some kind of illusion or hellish wheel of suffering to be escaped from. I support a middle way that situates all three basic fields as equally important, equally interpenetrated, and equally centers of the Kosmos.

Since we need to properly situate the basic elements within All-That-Is as Holarchy, the following list shows heterarchical linking and hierarchical ranking in terms of basic holonic relationships, and is meant to outline the basic involutionary and evolutionary processes within causal, subtle, and physical fields in terms of Seth’s CUs.

...CUs (consciousness units) are “Whole/Parts” (All-That-Is “before the beginning” as Primal Cause/Causal Field)

EEs (electromagnetic energy units/Subtle Field) are wholes made of parts (CUs/Causal Field)

M-strings (Physical Field/Physiosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-superposed quantum fields)

Electrons, neutrons, protons, etc. (Physiosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-superposed quantum fields called m-strings)

Atoms (Physiosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-electrons, neutrons, protons, etc.)

Molecules (Physiosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-atoms)

Liver cells, other cells, etc. (Biosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-molecules)

Livers (Biosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-liver cells, other cells, etc.)

Bodies (Biosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-organs, nervous systems, lymphatic systems, etc.)

Self-Reflexive Minds (Noosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-bodies with triune brains)

Souls-In-Flesh (Psychosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-self-reflexive minds)

Spirit (Theosphere) is a Whole made of Parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-souls-in-flesh)…

Once properly situated, we can begin to explore all sorts of holarchic relationships. For instance, the idea in the noosphere, again, is to promote social hierarchies and heterarchies that actualize, not dominate, promote growth, not repress it. Still, we also need to caution that holarchic theory can be distorted and misused, just like any theory (e.g. eugenics). Noospheric dominator hierarchies are so intelligent that they can talk the talk of actualization without walking the walk. Thus, on socio-political levels, holarchic theory must carefully and accurately situate all elements within a holarchy. Get it wrong and we unleash the next form of Social Darwinism, like that used by Nazi Germany, where hijacked ideals of equality, egalitarianism, and worldcentric rights were, in hindsight, unequal, tribal, and ethnocentric values masquerading as such.

Again, there is no need to marginalize authentic actualization hierarchy in the noosphere, since it is also found in the physiosphere and biosphere. It’s just that the noosphere allows for health and pathology within any stage of development, so when entire societies descend into hellish pathology, as in Nazi Germany, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Darfur, the effects are devastating. We still live in a time with weapons of mass destruction, that if misused could wreak unprecedented havoc way beyond Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So the noosphere deals with increased complexity that is orders of magnitude beyond the biosphere and physiosphere.

Moreover, we can now more clearly see how the noosphere, a tiny subfield of All-That-Is, and its frothy tapestry of simultaneous premodern, modern, and postmodern worldviews relates to the biosphere and physiosphere. It allows us to more clearly discern emergent trends across the globe, and better design educational, economic, military, political, scientific policies that promote optimal growth and fulfillment, not repression and fragmentation, because it factors in that everyone starts at stage one and develops from there. The deep structures of worldviews and stages of development are not going away, though their surface level manifestations will always morph to reflect overall life conditions. Premodern is the basis for modern to emerge, which in turn allows postmodern to emerge, and so on. The key, then, is to find ways to nurture larger percentages of the population toward postmodern worldviews via actualization holarchies.

We are beginning to see stratified or integral approaches that account for large numbers of people co-existing in premodern, modern, and postmodern worldviews. For example, in the pioneering work of psychologist Don Beck (b.1940), he used an approach called Spiral Dynamics in South Africa over a period of fifteen years to help the country move from the oppression of Apartheid into a more democratic system without civil war. Beck recently co-founded the Center for Human Emergence in Copenhagen to continue his work. Ken Wilber and colleagues at the Integral Institute in Boulder, CO are applying integral theory to education, finance, politics, art, spirituality, and more. They all account for the simultaneous stages of development that include premodern, modern, and postmodern worldviews. The core idea is learning to properly identify and work with their natural evolutionary momentum toward increased wholeness and fulfillment. Their goal is nothing short of replacing the failing United Nations.

In summary, Seth’s CUs and EEs are holarchic, a way to conceptualize how Causal Consciousness creates some-thing from no-thing through the action of involution as The Whole (CUs) becomes parts in the subtle field (EEs), which in turn, manifests as parts in the physical field (physiosphere) only to move toward Wholeness again through the action of evolution (theosphere). We talk about experience, processes, or perspectives going all the way down and inward to quantum fields, and then imagine EEs and CUs to be physically smaller, but that’s not the case. They are actually trans-physical, and thus more Whole, closer to All-That-Is in the “wave focus” of subtle and causal fields of consciousness. The “particle focus” manifest in the physical field is only the tip of the iceberg, however, the “submerged” aspects of these “icebergs” are nonphysical sources of infinite potential energy.

Clearly, we need to discover more about the workings of the subtle and causal fields, though as the Adams’ axiom suggests, as soon as we do, something “bizarrely inexplicable” will arise within All-That-Is. Such is the cat and mouse nature of Consciousness as it forgets and remembers itSelf through the sport of Lila, the dance of Maya, and the divine camouflage of All-That-Is. But this needn’t prohibit us in our pursuit of the knowledge quest, only temper any absolute claims that we will ever complete the so-called theory of everything. The Adams’ axiom parsimoniously expresses the paradox of why a complete theory of everything is impossible and really unnecessary. What we need is an integral theory of consciousness that contains adequate checks and balances to prevent the mistake of reducing consciousness to quantum fields, and vice versa, one that properly situates both within holarchy, or nested hierarchy and heterarchy, and move forward from there. The leading edge of integral theory continues to critique and develop Wilber’s innovative theory. For more information, see Frank Visser’s Integral World: Exploring Theories of Everything.

CUs and the Laws of the Inner Universe

From Seth’s earlier description of CUs as Primal Cause, we see that they are imbued with innate Universal Propensities, but the human word “law” is too narrow to describe them. Though Seth calls them “laws of the inner universe,” they are his attempt to describe Absolute Universal Truths. How do we define that? And how does our definition relate to the notion of the God of Abraham literally handing the ten commandments to Moses?

The latter is a premodern fairy tale used to invoke a patriarchal authority figure, God the Father, as the source of Absolute Truth. So much so, that the written scriptures were and still are considered God’s Law, and thus supercede any human-made law, completely ignoring the fact that humans are always required to interpret and implement said “Absolute Laws.” Seth refutes this belief system, like all postmoderns, who see it as the product of often regressive dominator hierarchies, namely, the Abrahamic monotheistic religions. And yet, as we saw, approximately 40% of the planet currently embraces this worldview, so we need to do our utmost to work within its healthy forms. In other words, the truths of premodern worldviews are a necessary rite of passage before modern truths can emerge, which in turn are necessary before postmodern truths can emerge, and so on.

In our postmodern definition, then, to be Absolute, Universal, and True, any Law must be translatable in some way to every field of consciousness. Therefore, they are not associated only with noospheric beliefs or concepts, but must function as innate propensities for all action within the causal, subtle, and physical fields, including physiosphere and biosphere to qualify as Absolute Universal Truth. As such, these Truths will appear to us as very abstract, because they must apply in some form within All-That-Is.

Therefore, Absolute Universal Truth is different than propositional truth. Propositional truth deals with objectively verifiable things from only third person perspectives within the noosphere. For example, two plus two equals four. This propositional truth does not exist in birds, fish, rocks, or quantum fields. So it’s easy to confuse propositional truth, truth with a small “t” with Absolute Universal Truth, or truth with a capital “T,” because an Absolute Universal Truth will apply across physios, bios, and noos, and subtle and causal fields. Thus, they will be innate within CUs since they are the foundational creative force within All-That-Is.

There are additional types of noospheric truth. For example, personal sincerity deals with subjective first person perspectives. In other words, am I telling you the truth, or am I lying? If I tell you I’m hungry or happy, you can check that out. But if I tell you I don’t care if you don’t invite me to your big New Year’s Eve party, I may not be accurately reporting my feelings, inadvertently lying to myself and thus to you. There are other types of noospheric truth that relates to different worldviews, but the main point is that they are not Absolute Universals when they apply to only the noosphere or the physical field. Again, Absolute Universals must apply in some form to physical, subtle, and causal fields.

As such, CUs are innately imbued with Absolute Universal Truths that originate beyond, and yet are reflected within noospheric beliefs and concepts. As such, they can’t be legislated or enforced, because they exist “before the beginning,” in the beginning, and right now. While we can list them in English, the words only represent these innate creative propensities toward all action. As a reminder, then, here is the complete list of Absolute Universal Truths or “laws of the inner universe” presented by Seth in The Early Sessions Book Two (1997). These represent the innate creative qualities, Absolute Universal Truths within CUs.

• Value Fulfillment
• Energy Transformation
• Spontaneity
• Durability
• Creation
• Consciousness
• Capacity For Infinite Mobility
• Changeability & Transmutation
• Cooperation
• Quality Depth

Though I have listed ten laws, one could argue that there are eleven or twelve in the Seth material, but this is not the point. We aren’t dealing with the amps in Spinal Tap! It’s less about numbers, and more about the qualities of innate action. These laws are qualitative aspects of All-That-Is, and to imagine that they could be perfectly formulated into any spoken or mathematical language is the path to distortion and inevitable delusion. As the Taoist saying goes, “The Tao which is written or spoken is not the true Tao.” So take them with a grain of salt.

In this context, then, value fulfillment is the Absolute Universal Truth that Seth focused on in his creation mythos. Value fulfillment is the divine propensity for action in which All-That-Is lovingly creates, develops, and nurtures every atom, ocean, and galaxy with the best intent of every aspect in mind. But why did Seth exclude the other laws of the inner universe in his musings in Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment? Well, he did briefly mention spontaneity and cooperation as we saw earlier, though didn’t refer to them as inner laws.

One answer is that this tale of the creation is not complete and finished. It never can be! It is not offered as a revelation from God in concrete terms, only in the sense that we each must create our own interpretations and meanings. Our postmodern Creation Myth is still in the process of emerging right now.

A second answer is that to include all ten laws of the inner universe in the context of this linear narrative would result in a hopeless maze of paradoxes that might overwhelm the rational mind. While his intent is to force the rational mind toward the transrational, he masterfully walks that fine line between intellect and intuition in his teaching style. As the aphorism goes, “the journey of a thousand miles begins with a step.” So Seth provides little bits at a time; puzzle pieces that hint at the deeper nature and mystery of the Puzzle.

Now, Seth’s laws of the inner universe also function as what Wilber calls involutionary givens. That is, these laws exist “before the beginning,” or before the Big Bang, and thus influence all evolutionary unfolding subsequent to the Big Bang. Wilber (b.1949) uses terms like Eros, Agape, and prototypes, Whitehead (1861-1947) called them eternal objects, Jung (1875-1961) called them archetypes, and Sheldrake (b.1942) uses terms like energy, form, causation, development, and creativity to represent involutionary givens as a priori influences, not just in evolutionary sequences, but “before the beginning” in involutionary sequences.

Again, Seth’s inner laws originate in the causal field within CUs, are translated into the subtle field within EEs “before the beginning,” and are then translated into quantum fields as an evolutionary telos or pull towards development, growth, and Wholeness. This is not to suggest that conscious creation – Sethian involution/evolution – is simply a wind-up, wind-down affair. Nothing is predetermined in any fixed way. Conscious creation as involution, cosmogenesis, and evolution all occur simultaneously. Thus, when we combine Seth’s inner laws with CUs and EEs, we get a general outline of how the causal, subtle, and physical fields interact “before the beginning,” in the beginning, and during the whole magnificent shebang.

In larger terms, then, value fulfillment, like all of the inner laws of the universe, forms a foundational creative force that transcends our beliefs systems of good and bad. Every thing, every action that occurs in our universe is fueled by the underlying action of value fulfillment. This includes illness, poverty, dis-ease, death and all the things we consider to be “bad,” as well as abundance, wellness, beauty, peace, and all the things we consider “good.”

When we ask questions like, “Why did God create a universe in which bad can occur?” or “Isn’t death a dis-ease that needs a cure?” or “If the universe of good intent why do bad things happen?” we still don’t understand the workings of value fulfillment. These inner laws, in order to qualify as Absolute Universal Truth, must apply in some form to All-That-Is: causal, subtle, and physical fields. They must express the basic paradox of All-That-Is and be simultaneously transcendent (involutionary) and immanent (evolutionary). Therefore, within the physical field they must also apply in some form to the physiosphere, biosphere, and noosphere. As such, there are differing ethical and moral translations of these inner laws throughout All-That-Is.

Thus, when we try to impose our noospheric translation as the only Absolute Universal translation, we have only succeeded in taking a noospherecentric approach that confuses its little slice of All-That-Is AS all that is. It completely misses the larger picture. The modern noosphere marks the first time, as English biologist Julian Huxley (1887-1975) marveled, where evolution became aware of itself. And the postmodern noosphere marks the first time that evolution remembered that involution, or Causal Consciousness, is still very much in play all along!

So, what, then, are the moral and ethical implications of CUs and the laws of the inner universe in the noosphere?

Sethics: the Emergence of Ethics and Morality in the Noosphere

The term Sethics was coined by J. C. Mackin on the Sethnet email list circa 1999 to describe a Sethian form of ethics. Though he didn’t articulate one, he coined the term and asked a lot of excellent questions that no one could adequately answer. So, I wanted to acknowledge his efforts that inspired me to look for answers to the difficult questions he posed.

Earlier in our conscious creation myth, Seth said that ethically, CUs “represent the spectacular foundations of the world in value fulfillment, for each unit of consciousness is related to each other, a part of the other, each participating in the entire gestalt of mortal experience.” Thus, he implied that this foundational unit is imbued with Absolute Universal Truths as we just defined them. By implication, that means that all ten laws of the inner universe represent Absolute Universal Truths, and further, that CUs are fueled by all these foundational creative forces.

So the first part of Sethics is to ask: “How do we apply Seth’s laws of the inner universe to the noosphere?” As we will see, we can do just that, along with additional concepts that Seth introduced earlier to help us out. But first, we need to define exactly what we mean by ethics and morals to reduce semantical confusion, because they mean different things in different worldviews, and ethics and morals are often interchangeable words.

In general, premodern morals are a code of conduct based on the divine revelation of “The Word of God” through accepted prophets of God. For example, the ten commandments of the Abrahamic religions delivered to Moses that influenced Judaic Talmudic law, Christian Canon law, and Islamic Sharia law. As such, these promote forms of moral absolutism that consider their moral codes as perfect and unchangeable. There is little or no difference between religious and secular laws. Thus, ethical behavior follows the dictates of these moral codes or you pay the price for any violations.

In general, modern moral theories cover a much broader range of ideas, from the moral absolutism of German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) categorical imperative based upon reason, not divine revelation, to English philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) whose utilitarian approach sought the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) and French philosopher Montesquieu (1689-1755) influenced the separation of Church and State in the American Constitution, which created federal, state, and local laws to guide moral behavior.

In general, postmodern moral theories embrace issues of even greater complexity and subtlety. They employ pluralism and contextualism that result in moral relativism. Absolute standards are less important than the requirements of a particular situation, and therefore, standards may vary from one situation to another, and even contradict each other. For example, Joseph Fletcher (1905-1991) formulated situational ethics to deal with issues like abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, eugenics, and cloning. Ken Wilber outlined what he calls a basic moral intuition in Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality (1995). He used a developmental and evolutionary approach to define morals as the values throughout the entire spectrum of premodern to modern to postmodern to post-postmodern worldviews. Ethics are those characteristics found within each general stage. So he defines moral and ethics as different things. Thus, regardless of the which worldview we hold, we still have a basic moral intuition (BMI) to “protect and promote the greatest [hierarchical] depth for the greatest [heterarchical] span.” (61)

Stages of Moral Development

Any postmodern moral theory must consider developmental research. For instance, Don Beck’s Spiral Dynamics (1996) identified eight major worldviews to date. Each has its own moral values that help to delineate them. Further, modern researchers like Lawrence Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan, Cheryl Armon, and others have mapped the hierarchical unfolding of moral stages. However, they didn’t worldviews or memes as organizing principles like Beck. Instead, they used different organizing principles, and numbers of stages, and so on, but all show some kind of general hierarchical unfolding. These and others are summarized in Wilber’s Integral Psychology (2000). (62) Taken together, then, Wilber details four general moral stages in all humans that we will follow:

1. egocentric (me)
2. ethnocentric (us)
3. worldcentric (all of us)
4. Kosmocentric (all beings in all fields)

Thus, following Wilber, morals are those values in toto (right and wrong, good and bad, healthy and pathological, etc.) that cover a spectrum – from egocentric to Kosmocentric. Ethics are the specific values held at each of the four stages. We can further divide each stage in early, middle, and late for more detail, but for purposes of introduction we will just go through the four main areas. As each stage progresses, ethics may or may not be defined as originating from a Deity, but each will embrace more people and situations, from just me, to my family or tribe, to my company, to my country, to my planet, to all sentient life anywhere and anywhen within All-That-Is. Thus, it is critical to factor in stages of development to our considerations, and we will return to them shortly.

Seth didn’t discuss morality in such precise developmental terms, instead he took a more general view. He first presented laws of the inner universe. As we have seen, these laws are Absolute Universal Truths that apply in some way to every field of consciousness within All-That-Is. In the noosphere, then, these principles will also apply in some form. However, Seth introduced additional concepts to anchor his view of noospheric morality. That is, concepts based upon the inner laws that apply in unique ways to humans.

In The Nature of Personal Reality (1974) Seth introduced the concepts of natural aggression, natural compassion, natural guilt, and violation in the context of free will and memory as they emerged in early humans. As we explore them, keep in mind that this book was written as a practical self-help book, one that would go on to become Jane Roberts’s all-time best-seller. As such, it is not an academic treatise that offers a complete moral theory. Still, we can discern some additional concepts that, together with the inner laws of the universe, form the foundations of a moral theory.

For example, Seth began session 634 with a discussion on the importance of the biospheric roots of physical aggression. They would serve as the foundation for the emergent noosphere to build upon.

“What is usually forgotten is the real nature of aggressiveness, which in its truest sense simply means forceful action. This does not necessarily imply physical force, but instead the power of energy directed into a material action.

“Birth is perhaps the most forceful aggression, in your terms, of which you are capable in your system of reality. In the same way, the growth of any idea into temporal realization is the result of creative aggression. It is impossible to try to erase true aggressiveness. To do so would obliterate life as you know it.

“Any attempt to impair the flow of true aggression results in a distortive, uneven, explosive pseudo-aggression that causes wars, individual neurosis, and a great many of your problems in all areas.” (63)

Further, with the noospheric emergence of what Seth called the conscious mind, which includes the outer ego, humans began to experience free will. What had previously been biospheric animal instincts were now “suggestions instead of rules.” As a result, the emotions of natural compassion and guilt emerged.

“[Animals]... have a built-in unconscious sense of unity with nature in which they know they will not be lost or immersed [when they kill each other].

“Man, pursuing his own way, chose to step outside of that framework – on a conscious level. The birth of compassion then took the place of the animals’ innate knowledge; the biological compassion turned into emotional realization.

“The hunter, freed more or less from animal courtesy, would be forced to emotionally identify with his prey. To kill is to be killed. The balance of life sustains all. He must learn on a conscious level then what he knew all along. This is the intrinsic and only real meaning of guilt and its natural [biospheric] framework.” (64)

Thus, as the early noosphere emerged from animal instincts into self-awareness, we inherited a biological and emotionally driven form of natural compassion and guilt – a natural type of empathy.

“Guilt is the other side of compassion. Its original purpose was to enable you to empathize on an aware level with yourselves and other members of creaturehood, so that you could consciously control what was previously handled on a biological level alone. Guilt in that respect therefore has a strong natural [biospheric] basis, and when it is perverted, misused or misunderstood, it has that great terrifying energy of any runaway basic phenomenon.” (65)

Thus, these new emotions of compassion and guilt went hand in hand with an innate sense of violation that intuitively fueled morality in the early noosphere.

“Natural guilt then is the species’ manifestation of the animals’ unconscious corporeal sense of justice and integrity. It means: Thou shalt not kill more than is needed for thy physical sustenance. Period.

“It has nothing to do with adultery or with sex. It does contain innate issues that apply to human beings [noosphere], that would have no meaning for other animals in the framework of their experience [biosphere]. Strictly speaking, the translation from biological language to your own is as given in this session; but the finer discrimination reads thusly: Thou shalt not violate.

“The [biospheric] animals do not need such a message, of course, nor can it be literally translated, for your [noospheric] consciousness is flexible and leeway had to be left for your own interpretation.

“An outright lie may or may not be a violation. A sex act may or may not be a violation. A scientific expedition may or may not be a violation. Not going to church on Sunday is not a violation. Having normal aggressive thoughts is not a violation. Doing violence to your body, or another’s, is a violation. Doing violence to the spirit of another is a violation – but again, because you are conscious beings the interpretations are yours. Swearing is not a violation. If you believe that it is then in your mind it becomes one.

“Killing another human being is a violation. Killing while protecting your own body from death at the hands of another through immediate contact is a violation. Whether or not any justification seems apparent, the violation exists.” (66)

While Seth leaves the interpretation up to us, we’ll explore this kind of postmodern relativism later, because it is easy to confuse and opens the door for all sorts of distortions. However, notice that the above excerpt is offered from a worldcentric perspective. It doesn’t privilege any single person (me), or group of people (us), but applies to all of us.

Seth next explored how the noospheric emergence of memory of past, present, and future produced an innate sense of natural guilt and violation.

“Natural guilt is also highly connected with memory, and arose hand in hand with mankind’s excursion into the experience of past, present and future. Natural guilt was meant as a preventive measure. It needed the existence of a sophisticated memory system in which new situations and experiences could be judged against recalled ones, and evaluations made in an in-between moment of reflection.

“... So controls were needed lest the [noospheric] conscious mind, denied full use of the [biospheric] animals’ innate taboos, run away with itself. Guilt, natural guilt, depends upon memory then.

“It does not carry with it any built-in connection with punishment as you think of it. Once more, it was meant as a preventive measure. Any violation against nature would bring about a feeling of guilt so that when a like situation was encountered in the future, man would, in that moment of reflection, not repeat the same action.

“I have used the phrase ‘moment of reflection’ several times because it is another attribute peculiar to the [noospheric] conscious mind and, again in your terms, is largely denied to the rest of [biospheric] creaturehood. Without that pause – in which man can remember past in the present, and envisage a future – natural guilt would have no meaning. Man would not be able to recall past acts, judge them against the present situation, or imagine the future sense of guilt that might result.” (67)

Thus, Seth outlines the biospheric basis for the emergence of natural compassion, guilt, violation, memory, and free will in the noosphere. As the self-aware outer ego emerged from animal instincts there was a basic moral intuition in play. Don’t kill more than you need to eat, don’t kill each other for blood sport. And yet, when that happened, there was no innate need for punishment. Natural guilt left alone prevented the recurrence, so no punishment was necessary. Also, natural aggression was intended to prevent violence, not encourage it. Through various aggressive postures and signals, further violence is often averted in the biosphere, for example, as seen with birds, dogs, and lions.

Seth then articulated the noospheric moral imperative that operates within all stages of moral development: “thou shalt not violate.”

“Thou shalt not violate against nature, life, or the earth. In your terms creaturehood, while striving for survival and longing for life, while abundant and rambunctious, is not inherently gluttonous. It follows the unconscious order that is within it even as there is a definite order, relationship and limit to the number of chromosomes. A cell that becomes omnivorous can destroy the life of the body.

“Thou shalt not violate. So the principle applies to both life and death.” (68)

And yet, we can begin to imagine how this imperative gets interpreted along the four general stages outlined earlier. Our sense of violation will be very different along a spectrum that ranges from egocentric to Kosmocentric. And with a little introspection, we can trace our own egocentric and ethnocentric development, and hopefully, worldcentric stance to better understand how naturally these stages unfold.

Finally, Seth hints that only through understanding natural guilt and violation will the species be able to continue on its evolutionary trajectory.

“Natural guilt is a creative mechanism, meant to serve as a conscious spur in the solving of problems that, in your terms, no other animals ever had. By taking advantage of it you leap still further through unknown frontiers, and break through into dimensions of awareness that were always latent since the birth of the conscious mind.

“Natural guilt, followed, is a wise guide that brings along with it not only biological integrity, but triggers within consciousness aspects of activity that must otherwise remain closed.” (69)

To summarize thus far, as early humans became self-aware, as memory, emotions, and free will developed, a biospheric sense of natural aggression, compassion, guilt, and violation evolved into a basic moral intuition in the noosphere. Since early humans lived in foraging groups made up of small families, there was predominantly a sense of me and us, and so egocentric and ethnocentric values predominated. In anthropological terms, this applies to the Paleolithic or Stone Age that extends back some two and a half million years. “Thou shalt not violate” meant that most would kill only what they needed to live, and if things occasionally got out of hand, natural guilt and innate violation provided checks and balances to prevent further violence.

Next, in session 636 Seth explored several additional concepts that further impacted early noospheric evolution as early humans emerged from early hominid instincts, namely, natural grace, reincarnation, karma, conscience, and artificial guilt.

Beginning with natural grace, Seth consistently claims that All-That-Is, and thus humans, hold innately good intentions. Fueled by Absolute Universal Truths based upon laws of the inner universe, physios, bios, and noos all exist in a natural state of grace.

“The state of grace is a condition in which all growth is effortless, a transparent, joyful acquiescence that is a ground requirement of all existence. Your own body grows naturally and easily from its time of birth, not expecting resistance but taking its miraculous unfolding for granted; using all of itself with great, gracious, creatively aggressive abandon.

“You were born into a state of grace, therefore. It is impossible for you to leave it. You will die in a state of grace whether or not special words are spoken for you, or water or oil is poured upon your head. You share this blessing with the animals and all other living things. You cannot ‘fall out of’ grace, nor can it be taken from you.

“You can ignore it. You can hold beliefs that blind you to its existence [i.e., repress or dissociate it]. You will still be graced but unable to perceive your own uniqueness and integrity, and blind also to other attributes with which you are automatically gifted.

“Love perceives the grace in another. Like natural guilt, the state of grace is unconscious in the animals. It is protected.” (70)

Again, we see a key difference between animal instincts in the biosphere and the self-aware free will of the noosphere. While natural guilt and grace are subconscious in the biosphere, they became conscious in the noosphere. However, as the noosphere continued to evolve, what we consider conscience today resulted from what Seth calls artificial guilt, a form of guilt dissociated from natural guilt.

“The dog does not recall joyful appreciation of his own state of grace from a past, nor anticipate a recurrence in any future. With the large freedom provided by the conscious mind, however, man could stray from that great inner joy of being, forget it, disbelieve in it, or use his free will to deny its existence.

“The splendid biological acceptance of life could not be thrust or forced upon his emerging consciousness, so to be effective, efficient, to emerge in the new focus of awareness, grace had to expand from the life of the tissue to that of the feelings, thoughts and mental processes. Grace became the handmaiden of natural guilt, then.

“Man became aware of his state of grace when he lived within the dimensions of his consciousness as it was turned toward his new world of freedom. When he did not violate, he was aware of his own grace. When he violated, it fell back into cellular awareness, as with the animals, but he felt consciously cut off from it and denied.

“The simplicity of natural guilt does not lead to what you think of as conscience, yet conscience is also dependent upon that moment of reflection that in a large measure sets you apart from the animals. Conscience, as you think of it, is caused by a dilemma and a misunderstanding of the conditions set upon your physical existence. Conscience arose with the emergence of artificial guilt.

“... Artificial guilt is still highly creative in its way, an offshoot made in man’s image as his conscious mind began to consider and play upon the natural innocent guilt that originally implied no punishment.” (71)

As the Paleolithic Age came to an end some ten thousand years ago, metal technologies replaced stone technologies, and early horticultural and agrarian economies replaced foraging economies. Human societies became more complex and supported more people. Early shamanic religions arose and artificial guilt began to become more of a factor.

“The conscious mind is endlessly creative. This applies to all areas of conscious-mind thinking. It is also the organizer of physical data, so natural guilt became the basis for all kinds of variations. These closely followed man’s religious and social groupings. The latter are also the result of the aware mind’s capacity to play upon, mix and merge, and rearrange perception and experience.

“Man is innately good. His conscious mind must be free, with its own will. He can, therefore, consider himself bad. He is the one who sets those standards in his own image.

“... If you find that you are berating yourself because of something you did yesterday, or ten years ago, you are not being virtuous. You are most likely involved with artificial guilt. Even if a violation occurred, natural guilt does not involve penance. It is meant as a precautionary measure, a reminder before an event.” (72)

So ideas of crime and punishment developed in time, but are relatively recent noospheric value systems. Seth then goes on to remind us of our existence in the subtle field, by saying that punishment makes no sense in the wider context of simultaneous time. All incarnations occur simultaneously from the inner ego’s perspective, and so Eastern interpretations of karma as punishment and cosmic debt are highly distorted. Keep in mind that The Nature of Personal Reality was published in 1974 during a time when many Eastern gurus were bringing variations of Hindu and Buddhist thought to the West, particularly the United States.

“I am placing these concepts within your time scheme because in your terms they were born out of it. But the fact is that all ‘time’ is simultaneous.

“In a simultaneous time, punishment makes no sense. The punishment as an event, and the event for which you were being punished, exist at once; and since there is no past, present and future, you could just as well say that the punishment came first.

“We have mentioned reincarnation hardly at all, here let me state that the theory is a conscious-mind interpretation in [outer egoic] linear terms. On the one hand it is highly distorted. On the other hand it is a creative interpretation, as the [noospheric] conscious mind plays with reality as it understands it. But in the terms used there is no karma to be paid off as punishment unless you believe that there are crimes for which you must pay.

“In larger terms there is no cause and effect either, though these are root assumptions in your [physical] reality.

“I use these concepts, again, because of their familiarity to you. In the world of time [physical field] they appear as real. We return once more to that moment of reflection, for it is here that both causes and effects first appear. Dimly, in your terms, it can be traced by observing the animals that even now roam the earth, for each in its own degree – far less than yours – shows that reflection. In some, for all intents and purposes, it does not exist at all. Yet it is there, latent.” (73)

By invoking simultaneous incarnations within nested physical fields, Seth points out that there is no natural reason for punishment of violations when we are fully in touch with our innate sense of natural guilt and violation. Further, Seth uses the concepts of multiple incarnations within simultaneous time in the subtle field to refute ethnocentric interpretations of karma, the so-called divine law of cause and effect. This “law” has been used in premodern Eastern cultures, for example, India, to enforce a class system of poverty called the “untouchables.” The social justification for their poverty and ignorance is that they are being punished for karmic violations in previous lives. There are similar ethnocentric beliefs in the West that the rich are materially well off because God favors them over those of lesser means. Yet, Seth repeatedly states that these are functions of beliefs in punishment and rewards, relative to the noosphere, but not based on Absolute Universal Truths like value fulfillment or quality depth.

If I am a scurvy knave in one lifetime or invent the cure for cancer in another, both lives enrich the inner ego and All-That-Is. There is no larger moral cause and effect between them in terms of the subtle and causal fields. However, every action does affect All-That-Is, and so this is not to suggest that we elevate child molesters to some kind of spiritually realized being. The difficult question is, “What to do with those who no longer are aware of their innate sense of natural guilt and violation?” We have the free will to do anything we wish. Yet, there must be some kind of guiding principles to help define postmodern definitions of criminal violation, and learning to take responsibility for those actions.

Being fully in touch with our innate sense of natural guilt and violation is a general way to define mental health or pathology within any stage of development. When people are able to self-correct a violation and recognize their natural impulses as inner deterrent, that is a form of mental health. We grow up, some faster than others, realize our mistakes and move on not to repeat our violations. However, when people become chronic violators and repress that inner deterrent, pathological behavior develops a powerful momentum. Of course, there is a large spectrum in-between.

As we saw, Seth covered a lot of ground and presented a general overview of the noospheric emergence of emotions, free will, and memory capacities from our biospheric hominid ancestors. He showed that there was an innate design in play, an experiment of consciousness unfolding. And since noospheric free will creates infinite possibilities, no single moral theory can cover them all. Thus, Seth provided a general overview that hints at the Design and Designers, but made no claim to present a complete moral system.

Overall, Seth listed four frameworks of consciousness, but morals are noospheric constructions unique to the physical field (Framework 1). The subtle field (Frameworks 2, 3, 4...) doesn’t construct reality via belief systems, thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. Though the laws of the inner universe guide all reality creation, moral qualities will be as different as each framework or field of consciousness. But we in the physical field create via beliefs, and an innate sense of guilt and violation that forms a basic moral intuition that develops in stages. And there’s extensive research to back this up (e.g., Kohlberg, Gilligan, Wilber, and others).

In noospheric terms, then, this means that any individual’s innate sense of guilt and violation begins in a very selfish, narcissistic, egocentric way (think children), but that widens its embrace to include tribal, clan, and family groups as “good guys” and others not of the tribe, family, or clan as “bad guys” (think teenagers and adults). It also perceives others’ gods who are not of our religion as “the devil,” and so on.

Some adults develop even further into a more worldcentric embrace, though this is a relatively rare occurrence in the past six thousand years. In the latter stage of worldcentric belief systems, we finally begin to conceptualize other as Self, so when we kill or marginalize other, we realize that we kill and marginalize part of our larger Self. However, it’s not until we reach this stage of development in physical terms that the thought of violence to solve problems is no longer a primary solution (there may be circumstances that require the lesser of two “evils” from a worldcentric moral view. For example, managing wildlife populations, dealing with religious fanaticism, euthanasia for the terminally ill, etc.).

Given all of this, what are we to do with chronic violators? What about sociopaths and psychopaths who don’t seem to have developed anything beyond a 2-year sense of violation (it’s still ALL about them, their drives, needs, and wants. FUCK YOU and anyone else. NObody tells me what to do... and on and on...)? A worldcentric moral view may not support the death penalty, because people can always grow up. It may support rehab and incarceration for the incorrigible. But in turn, a worldcentric moral view learns to deal with situations on a case by case basis. Circumstances change. What worked before may no longer be adequate. Adaptability goes hand in hand at this stage.

What about repeat sexual predators? There’s been a spate of cases in the past year in the U.S. Where’s their innate sense of guilt and violation? What about fanaticism that justifies murder, violence, and suffering to achieve hidden power agendas? The Islamo-terrorist is one variation making headlines these days. Their counterpart is the Judeo-Christian-military-industrialist. Both have tribal, ethnocentric, clan-based morality that justifies use of violence, though both aspire to worldcentric values. The former uses God’s Law to mean worldcentric (and it’s not), the latter uses Freedom, Liberty, and Justice for all (and it’s not).

There are no simple answers. The fact is that everyone is born at stage one and develops physically, mentally, morally, etc. from there. This current transition from premodern and modern toward postmodern worldviews, what some call a global shift in consciousness, is a collective attempt to accelerate large percentages of the population toward worldcentric morality where violence and murder are no longer acceptable means of problem solving by individuals or, more importantly, the state. Though there is no guarantee that everyone will reach these stages of development, it is plausible that large percentages of the population will in the not too distant future. That is, if we manage to avoid inflicting further catastrophic holocausts on ourselves.

We are in the midst of a transition between competing premodern, modern, and postmodern worldviews. Each contain different views of what constitutes God, a family, marriage, appropriate laws, and so on. The game is not about one winning and others losing, though that is still the dominant economic, social, and political dynamic in 2006. It’s more about learning how we each can develop to the best of our abilities, and promote healthy development in as many people as possible.

Postmodern Moral Relativism

We mentioned earlier that postmodern moral systems are relativistic and pluralistic. I outlined four basic stages of moral development that use different ethical values to interpret the innate sense of natural guilt and violation. This is a good example of a properly situated relativistic stance. One is not inherently better, just more complex and can solve problems the simpler ones can’t. However, each in turn will create problems that can’t be solved by the current level of moral thinking. This is what drives new development and new solutions, or else we regress, arrest, and move into the kind of collective senility pondered earlier by Teilhard de Chardin.

Now, a major problem with early postmodern worldviews is that they get lost in the complexity of holarchy. They think they are keeping all the factors properly situated, but when they get some wrong, it can have disastrous results. A good example of inappropriate moral relativism is to interpret Seth’s words to mean that since there are, in fact, no Absolute Universal Truths that when violated require punishment, then anything goes. I’m free to do what “the hell” I want. But as we have seen, that is an egocentric or ethnocentric interpretation. They take metaphysical concepts from Seth, or any other scripture, and reduce them to an egocentric interpretation that says that since there is no Absolute good or evil, then I am only responsible to my own self interests. And that becomes the utterly confused operating definition of high spiritual realization and personal growth. Here’s more from Ken Wilber.

“Now the problem is … that even if you’re at a worldcentric stage of development but you’re caught up in the postmodern pluralistic misunderstanding that nothing is better or worse than anything else, it leaves you open to egocentric invasion. In other words, if nothing is higher or lower, then anything I do is right. There can be no challenge to what I’m doing. That leaves us without any traction whatsoever. That is a broken moral compass in the worst possible sense, and that’s kind of what we have in this cultural creative, rampant pluralistic, rampant relativistic orientation. And it’s even inherently self-contradictory, because when people apply this pluralism, which claims there are no hierarchies [of right and wrong], they’re making a hierarchical judgment – they’re claiming that their judgment is better than others’. So that’s the sort of rampant self-deception that is called morality in our [early postmodern] culture.” (74)

It is a gross distortion of moral relativism when an egocentric interpretation claims that it is worldcentric, when in fact it is nothing more than egocentric. Properly situated in a holarchic context, we can more clearly see the spectrum from egocentric to Kosmocentric. But it demands that we develop our own consciousness and abilities to the fullest extent possible. And that takes time, effort, and capital. But to do anything less is simply not facing up to our responsibility to ourselves, fellow humans, and subtle and causal selves. Therefore, an understanding of holarchic personality that is nested within physical, subtle, and causal fields is critical to further refine the kind of authentic worldcentric awareness that leads toward Kosmocentric awareness. Not just to mouth the platitudes of liberty, equality and justice for all, but to do so in a way that promotes growth and fulfillment in the greatest number of people possible.

As such, read the following from Seth with the four basic moral perspectives in mind: egocentric, ethnocentric, worldcentric, and Kosmocentric. Also notice that Seth discusses good and evil in terms of the physical, subtle, and causal fields.

“Basically, all action is. Basically there is no evil action. All is unfolding. With the limited perceptions that the ego has itself adopted, the whole is not visible, and it sees what it will see. Within your field, within your moral field, you must indeed strike out against that which appears evil to you.

“... You see perhaps havoc within the physical field, and this is indeed to be faced and dealt with, and set straight, as aid is given to the victims of a hurricane. But you are familiar only with the results of action as they appear within the physical field, as long as you insist upon viewing your physical universe with the eyes of the [outer] ego-self; for the ego-self attempts to cut itself off from that action of which it is a part, and in so attempting it loses contact with this larger reality.

“This loss of contact applies only to the [outer] ego. It does not apply to those other portions of the self, and it is through the inner self, through inner consciousness [subtle and causal], that to some degree the nature of action can make itself known. And when it is made known it will be seen then – that which you call evil represents a falling short of value fulfillment in a particular, or in any particular, case. There are always, as I believe you realize, those who court injustice and persecution. There are always those who persecute. There are those who murder, and there are those who seek to be slain [because they are still in egocentric and ethnocentric stages of development].

“They seek each other out for many complicated reasons. This whole subject is difficult but I will not simplify matters, as I could. I would prefer to discuss it most thoroughly. Nothing here must ever be taken as a justification for evil, in humanity’s terms. For many practical reasons at this point... it is necessary that man fight against what he considers evil, for he strengthens himself immeasurably by so doing.

“It is also true however, in a completely different framework, that evil is of his own creation, at least evil as he thinks of it. And if a crime is to be assigned in humanity’s terms, often [not always!] the victim is as guilty as the murderer, in basic terms, in terms of guilt that no court can weigh.

“... The inner self, feeling itself part of action, is aware of facets of reality of which the [outer] ego is ignorant. It knows that roles can be reversed. There is so much here to be explained, and so many questions that must be answered. For I tell you, at the risk of being misunderstood grossly, that there is only one reality [All-That-Is], and value fulfillment, which you may, if you like, equate with goodness.

“There is no such thing as evil, except for the phantoms which man has made. He sees hate in his own heart, what he calls hate, which is but fear, so he projects it into another man’s face and says the man hates him; and he may slay the man. But the hate never existed, that is, what mankind thinks of as hate never existed.

“Hate is unreasoning fear. Fear is caused by lack of understanding, by a lack of value fulfillment. Hate is that which is not love. Love is fulfilled, or fulfilling, value fulfillment. It is action that knows itself, and that glorifies in its parts, that is separated to know itself, and in knowing itself is no longer separated.

“Hate is that which fears to join, and hence is separate, and that is all.

“If all men could learn to love, in terms of which I have spoken, then there would be no need for any kind of punishment within your field, and the word would vanish from your vocabulary.” (75)

In broad terms, then, Seth equates noospheric love and goodness with the Absolute Universal Truth of value fulfillment. But if there is no absolute evil action to be deterred by the threat of eternal hell fire, then what? Perhaps we could define the lack of value fulfillment, or its arrest, fragmentation, dissociation within the noosphere as a range of pathologies, certainly things to be avoided. However, and here’s the key, if we are fully in touch with our innate sense of natural guilt and violation, no matter what moral stage we find ourselves in, when we violate we will use that as a deterrent, and many people do this already. So we need to promote the development of basic moral intuition in children and adults, and take a stratified approach that accurately maps to authentic stages of development. Obviously, there is much work to be done.

Finally, Seth also hinted at how All-That-Is consciously creates in relation to our noospheric creation of good and evil.

“We do not have a static god, recreating hims