[notime] akinetochronism Digest, Vol 6, Issue 12

[Andy W]

Sorry but this guy Daniel Schroder? is an absolute  cretin & that's putting it mildly! thought this was suppose to be a serious discussion platform? have unsubscribed 
P.S. good luck Sue & Robert

andy

> From: akinetochronism-request at robsworld.org
> Subject: akinetochronism Digest, Vol 6, Issue 12
> To: akinetochronism at robsworld.org
> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:12:56 -0600
> 
> Send akinetochronism mailing list submissions to
> 	akinetochronism at robsworld.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://robsworld.org/mailman/listinfo/akinetochronism_robsworld.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	akinetochronism-request at robsworld.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	akinetochronism-owner at robsworld.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of akinetochronism digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. South Beach Science 8/24/10 - Dreams IV: Ecks vs. Sever
>       (Daniel Schroder)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:12:27 -0500
> From: Daniel Schroder <dan.schroder at hotmail.com>
> To: No such thing as time or motion discussions
> 	<akinetochronism at robsworld.org>
> Subject: [notime] South Beach Science 8/24/10 - Dreams IV: Ecks vs.
> 	Sever
> Message-ID: <BLU180-W29E814031D4CFBFD97EE739CAD0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are going to want to sever my carotid artery after you see the length of this email.  Environmentalists: do NOT print!  Others: feel free to print for reading on the bowl, just make sure you have a fresh ream of paper in the printer and promise not ream me out later, as you have been sufficiently warned.  I have actually shortened this to about 25% what it was going to be, and you are still going to overdose.  You thought we were doing a 5-part topic to meekly bow out on parts 4 and 5?  In the business, it's called a crescendo...in our orchestra of string theory, it is only appropriate to kick things up a notch.  And as enough faithful readers have expressed a high tolerance for Crystal Seth, let's just go balls out and see where it gets us.  (It is getting you to the part 5 Inception finale on Friday.)  No offense if you don't finish this by then, or ever.  
>  
> Sorry if my Intelligent Design post was less than stellar...I realized how little value I actually contributed after reading Rainn Wilson's (Dwight Schrute's) tweet earlier today:   
> I'm all for science when it doesn't conflict with my political or religious views. rainnwilson 1 hour ago
>  
> Couldn't have (and didn't) say it any better myself.  Let's finish the ultimate segue by thoroughly investigating the cleanup hitter's first full-length feature on Dreams: Dreams, ?Evolution,? and Value Fulfillment, Vol. 1 - and taking the long, long, winding scenic route to dreams that stops at the "before the beginning" diner and the "in the beginning" motel inn.  Let's dream ourselves into existence, AGAIN!
>  
> Read the entire book at your own risk, but for those who are curious:
>  
> Dreams, ?Evolution,? and Value Fulfillment, Vol. 1 
> by Jane RobertsIn this first volume of Dreams, ?Evolution,? and Value Fulfillment, Seth takes us on an odyssey to identify the origins of our universe and our species. He revisits the concept of ?consciousness units? that form the basis of all energy and matter, and charts a conscious, self-aware universe that is constantly recreated by our own thoughts, dreams, and desires. Illuminating the part that humans play in the greater scheme of things, he suggest that we are alive not only for the continuation of the species, but to add to the very quality of life itself. Other fascinating topics include:
> the origins or ?before the beginning? of our universe in which Divine Creativity ? All-That-Is ? manifested individualized consciousness 
> 
> we, the human race and all species, literally dreamed ourselves into existence via aspects of our psyche called Sleepwalkers 
> the belief system known as ?evolution? is a gross distortion 
> the role dreams play in the creation of language and technology 
> the relationship between genetic heritage and ?reincarnation? 
> more on ?consciousness units? (CUs) and ?electromagnetic energy units? (EEs), the building blocks of our universe 
> how creativity provides a link with the source of all existence 
> the true power of the imagination, and the importance of broadening its scope 
> a discussion of ?value fulfillment? ? or the yearning to enhance the quality of life as a fundamental desire in all life formsRob Butts chronicles for the first time the intensely personal story of Jane Roberts?s worsening health problems, which slowed Seth?s dictation of the work and eventually led to her death. Stimulating and provocative, this long-awaited book answers crucial questions about the entire significance of Seth?s system of thought.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> My comments will be in bold.  The Brougham is gassed up (the Prius is in the shop), and away we roll:   
>  
> Seth on ?Before the Beginning? (8)
> Dreams, ?Evolution,? and Value Fulfillment, Vol. 1, Session 883, October 01, 1979:
> ?You live your lives through your own subjective knowing, to begin with, and I will try to arouse within your own consciousnesses memories of events with which your own inner psyches were intimately involved as the world was formed ? and though these may appear to be past events, they are even now occurring.  Well that should make them much easier to recognize, then.  Whew!
> ?Before the beginning of the universe, we will postulate the existence of an omnipotent, creative source. We will hope to show that this divine subjectivity is as present in the world of your experience as it was before the beginning of the universe. Again, I refer to this original subjectivity as All-That-Is. I am making an attempt to verbalize concepts that almost defy the edges of the intellect, unless that intellect is thoroughly reinforced by the intuition?s strength. So you will need to use your mind and your own intuitions as you read this book.  Sounds fun, as long as QuickBooks isn't involved.
> ?All-That-Is, before the beginning contained within itself the infinite thrust of all possible creations. All-That-Is possessed a creativity of such magnificence that its slightest imaginings, dreams, thoughts, feelings or moods attained a kind of reality, a vividness, an intensity, that almost demanded freedom. Freedom from what? Freedom to do what? Freedom to be what?
> ?The experience, the subjective universe, the ?mind? of All-That-Is, was so brilliant, so distinct, that All-That-Is almost became lost, mentally wandering within this ever-flourishing, ever-growing interior landscape. Each thought, feeling, dream, or mood was itself indelibly marked with all of the attributes of this infinite subjectivity. Each glowed and quivered with its own creativity, its own desire to create as it had been created.  Have no idea what that meant, but it sounded beautiful.
> ?Before the beginning there existed an interior universe that had no beginning or ending, for I am using the term ?before the beginning? to make matters easier for you to assimilate. (That same infinite interior universe exists now, for example.)  So the "interior universe" has ALWAYS existed - got it.
> ?All-That-Is contained within itself the knowledge of all existences, with their infinite probabilities, and ?as soon as? All-That-Is imagined those numberless circumstances, they existed in what I will call divine fact.  Wow.  And people thought John Lennon's Imagine was powerful.
> ?All-That-Is knew of itself only. It was engrossed with its own subjective experiences, even divinely astonished as its own thoughts and imaginings attained their own vitality and inherited the creativity of their subjective creator. [Those thoughts and imaginings] began to have a dialogue with their ?Maker.?  He better not be calling God self-centered!
> ?Thoughts of such magnificent vigor began to think their own thoughts ? and their thoughts thought thoughts. As if in divine astonishment and surprise, All-That-Is began to listen, and began to respond to these ?generations? of thoughts and dreams, for the thoughts and dreams related to each other also. There was no time, so all of this ?was happening? simultaneously. The order of events is being simplified. In the meantime, then, in your terms, All-That-Is spontaneously thought new thoughts and dreamed new dreams, and became involved in new imaginings ? and all of these also related to those now-infinite generations of interweaving and interrelating thoughts and dreams that ?already? existed.  Told you we would get to dreams at some point.
> ?So beside this spontaneous creation, this simultaneous ?stream? of divine rousing, All-That-Is began to watch the interactions that occurred among his own subjective progeny. He listened, began to respond and to answer a thought or a dream. He began to purposefully bring about those mental conditions that were requested by these generations of mental progeny. If he had been lonely before, he was no longer.  Think Nine Inch Nails' Closer.
> ?Your language causes some difficulty here, so please accept the pronoun ?he? as innocuously as possible. ?It? sounds too neutral for my purpose, and I want to reserve the pronoun ?she? for some later differentiations. In basic terms, of course, All-That-Is is quite beyond any designations having to do with any one species or sex. All-That-Is, then, began to feel a growing sense of pressure as it realized that its own ever-multiplying thoughts and dreams themselves yearned to enjoy those greater gifts of creativity with which they were innately endowed.  Innately endowed...that's what she said!
> ?It is very difficult to try to assign anything like human motivation to All-That-Is. I can only say that it is possessed by ?the need? to lovingly create from its own being; to lovingly transform its own reality in such a way that each most slight probable consciousness can come to be; and with the need to see that any and all possible orchestrations of consciousness have the chance to emerge, to perceive and to love.  God is great, God is good, and we thank him for our food.
> ?... All-That-Is, then, became aware of a kind of creative tumult as each of its superlative thoughts and dreams, moods and feelings, strained at the very edges of their beings, looking for some then-unknown, undiscovered, as of then unthought-of release. I am saying that this mental progeny included all of the consciousnesses that [have] ever appeared or will appear upon your earth ? all tenderly couched: the first human being, the first insect ? each with an inner knowledge of the possibilities of its development. All-That-Is, loving its own progeny, sought within itself the answer to this divine dilemma.  May I tenderly couch Ms. Mexico as an example?
> ?When that answer came, it involved previously unimaginable leaps of divine inspiration, and it occurred thusly: All-That-Is searched through the truly infinite assortment of its incredible progeny to see what conditions were needed for this even more magnificent dream, this dream of a freedom of objectivity. What door could open to let physical reality emerge from such an inner realm? When All-That-Is, in your terms, put all of those conditions together it saw, of course, in a flash, the mental creation of those objective worlds that would be needed ? and as it imagined those worlds, in your terms, they were physically created.  The beginning!
> ?[All-That-Is] did not separate itself from those worlds, however, for they were created from its thoughts, and each one has divine content. The worlds are all created by that divine content, so that while they are on the one hand exterior, they are on the other also made of divine stuff, and each hypothetical point in your universe is in direct contact with All-That-Is in the most basic terms. The knowledge of the whole is within all of its parts ? and yet All-That-Is is more than its parts.  Worlds = Big Bangs?
> ?Divine subjectivity is indeed infinite. It can never be entirely objectified. When the worlds, yours and others, were thus created, there was indeed an explosion of unimaginable proportions, as the divine spark of inspiration exploded into objectivity.?  Sure sounds like a Big Bang. 
> ?The first ?object? was an almost unendurable mass, though it had no weight, and it exploded, instantaneously beginning processes that formed the universe ? but no time was involved. The process that you might imagine took up eons occurred in the twinkling of an eye, and the initial objective materialization of the massive thought of All-That-Is burst into reality. In your terms this was a physical explosion ? but in the terms of the consciousnesses involved in that breakthrough, this was experienced as a triumphant ?first? inspirational frenzy, a breakthrough into another kind of being.  Inspiring, indeed.
> ?The earth then appeared as consciousness transformed itself into the many facets of nature. The atoms and molecules were alive, aware ? they were no longer simply a part of a divine syntax, but they spoke themselves through the very nature of their being. They became the living, aware vowels and syllables through which consciousness could form matter.  Whoa...that almost made sense.
> ?But in your terms this was still largely a dream world, though it was fully fashioned. It had, generally speaking, all of the species that you now know. These all correlated with the multitudinous kinds of consciousnesses that had clamored for release, and those consciousnesses were spontaneously endowed by All-That-Is with those forms that fit their requirements. You had the birth of individualized consciousness as you think of it into physical context. Those consciousnesses were individualized before the beginning, but not manifest. But individualized consciousness was not quite all that bold. It did not attach itself completely to its earthly forms at the start, but rested often within its ?ancient? divine heritage. In your terms, it is as if the earth and all of it creatures were partially dreaming, and not as focused within physical reality as they are now.  Ding ding ding!  I like it!  Our souls (and all souls ever, everything ever is happening at once) existed, but as the earth and scientific evolution were taking their sweet billions of years progressing, we were on the sidelines, "partially dreaming."  
> ?For one thing, while individualized consciousness was within the massive subjectivity of All-That-is, it enjoyed, beside its own uniqueness, a feeling of supporting unity, a comforting knowledge that it was one with its source. So in the beginning of [your] world, consciousness fluctuated greatly, focusing gently at the start, but not quite as willing to be as fully independent as its first intent might seem.  Fresh out of God's womb.  Aww schucks.
> ?You had the sleepwalkers, early members of your species, whose main concentration was still veiled in that earlier subjectivity, and they were your true ancestors, in those terms.  Let's hear more about these sleepwalkers!  
> Session 884, October 03, 1979:
> ?Even though this book is being dictated within time?s tradition, therefore, I must remind you that basically that tradition is not mine ? and more, basically, it is not yours either.  I was never one for tradition, anyway.
> ?I used the term ?before the beginning,? then, and I will speak of earth?s events in certain sequences. In the deepest of terms, however, and in ways that quite scandalize the intellect when it tries to operate alone, the beginning is now. That critical explosion of divine subjectivity into objectivity is always happening, and you are being given life ?in each moment? because of the simultaneous nature of that divine subjectivity.?  The beginning is NOW, people!
>  
> I did not write any of these summaries/comments sections, and I am a sucker for charts and graphs, so I left them in...shout out to Aldous Huxley!!!
>  
> Summary of Concepts:
> (Reminder: All-That-Is means Causal Consciousness as used in the Foreword, and is a substitute for the baggage-laden ?God?).
> ? Seth opens with a reminder that we each perceive the world through our own ?subjective knowing? and an appeal to use our intellects ?thoroughly reinforced by the intuition?s strength ... as [we] read this book.? In other words, our subjective knowing and intuition utilize first person perspectives (I/We) and our intellect utilizes third person perspectives (It/Its). All four perspectives provide important subjective and objective insights into this creation story.
> ? ?Before the beginning? All-That-Is contained the infinite thrust of all possible creations. In physical terms, the potential for galaxies, solar systems, planets, ecosystems, species, genders, etc. ? all things, all processes ? have ALWAYS existed in latent form within some kind of nonphysical field.
> ? ?Before the beginning? All-That-Is created nonphysical ?generations? of thoughts and dreams. These thoughts and dreams had such creative vitality that they manifest their own ability to think and dream. As such, they yearned for other states of being. Thus, ?before the beginning? also includes the creation of an intermediary field, a subtle ?dreamtime? that ?preceded? the creation of the physical field (to borrow an Aboriginal creation myth term from Australia. More on this later).
> ? Though Seth employs the pronoun ?he?, All-That-Is is genderless, being the source of all genders. ?It? is too neutral for Seth?s purposes here and ?she? is being saved for other references.
> ? Seth calls our early, nonphysical ancestors ?sleepwalkers.? ?Before the beginning? they were created by the thoughts and dreams of All-That-Is. ?Before the beginning? they functioned in an intermediary field or ?dreamtime? that ?preceded? the creation of the physical field.
> Seth closes with a reminder that there is no beginning or end to Consciousness, though by design there are beginnings and endings in the physical field.
> Comments:
> Merriam-Webster?s Collegiate Dictionary defines paradox as:
> ?1. a tenet contrary to a received opinion, 2a. a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true, 2b. a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true, 2c. an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises, 3. one that possesses seemingly contradictory qualities or phases.? (9)
> Seth?s ?before the beginning? provides a great example of what I call ?the Zen of Seth.? The Zen aesthetic promotes the use of paradox and contradiction to force the intellect (rationalism) out of the box of five-senses-only perception (empiricism) to include our deep intuitions (mysticism). So Seth sometimes uses contradictory statements to make us think about what he?s really saying ?beneath? his words. This is called ?subtext? and is an element found in many premodern, perennial wisdom teaching styles.
> According to writer Aldous Huxley:
> ?The subject matter of the Perennial Philosophy is the nature of eternal, spiritual Reality; but the language in which it must be formulated was developed for the purpose of dealing with phenomena in time. That is why, in all these formulations, we find an element of paradox. The nature of Truth-in-Fact [All-That-Is] cannot be described by means of verbal symbols that do not adequately correspond to it. At best it can be hinted at in terms of non sequiturs and contradictions.? (10)
> The key paradox at this point in our story is All-That-Is experienced a Primordial Birth Agony as The One became The One-In-Many. In the subjective moment point that All-That-Is conceived a way to release the building tension of Its divine creativity, our physical universe simultaneously manifest in ?an explosion of unimaginable proportions, as the divine spark of inspiration exploded into objectivity.? Thus, some kind of Big Bang literally occurred. (We?ll return to these important points later.)
> 
> To further understand the paradox of Seth?s ?before the beginning? we need to develop our deep intuitions (inner senses) to experience our own remembrance of these events. Seth stated that we all hold the ?memories of events with which [our] own inner psyches were intimately involved as the world was formed.? A Zen koan asks, ?show me your Original Face before your mother and father were born.? Likewise, do you remember your Original Face ?before the beginning??
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
> Seth on ?In the Beginning?
> Dreams, ?Evolution,? and Value Fulfillment, Vol. 1, session 884, October 03, 1979.
> ?Once again, in terms of your equations, energy and consciousness and matter are one. And in those terms (the qualifications are necessary) consciousness is the agent that directs the transformation of energy into form and of form into energy. All possible visible or invisible particles that you discover or imagine ? meaning hypothesized particles ? possess consciousness. They are energized consciousness.  Energy = Matter = CONSCIOUSNESS
> ?There are certain characteristics inherent in energy itself, quite aside from any that you ascribe to it, since of course to date you do not consider energy conscious.  CONVINCE ME
> ?Energy is above all things infinitely creative, innovative, original. Energy is imaginative. (Any scientists who might be reading this book may as well stop here.) ZING!  I am not assigning human traits to energy. Instead, your human traits are the result of energy?s characteristics ? a rather important difference. Space as you think of it is, in your terms, filled with invisible particles. They are the unstated portion of physical reality, the unmanifest medium in which your world exists. In that regard, however, atoms and molecules are stated, though you cannot see them with your [unaided] eye. The smaller particles that make them up become ?smaller and smaller,? finally disappearing from the examination of any kind of instrument, and these help bridge the gap between unmanifest and manifest reality.  I love when this stuff jibes with string theory - we can nod and pretend we understand!
> ?For the terms of this discussion of the beginning of [your] world, I will deal with known qualities for now ? the atoms and molecules. In the beginning they imagined the myriad of forms that were physically possible. They imagined the numberless cells that could arise from their own cooperative creation. Energy is boundless. It is exuberant. It knows no limits. In those terms, the atoms dreamed the cells into physical being ? and from that new threshold of physical activity cellular consciousness dreamed of the myriad organizations that could emerge from this indescribable venture.  A myriad of notes, an infinite number of universes, continue...
> ?Again, in actuality all of this took place at once, yet the depth of psychological experience contained therein can never be measured, for it involved a kind of value fulfillment with which each consciousness is involved. That characteristic of value fulfillment is perhaps the most important element in the being of All-That-Is, and it is a part of the heritage of all species.  WTF is value fulfillment?
> ?Value fulfillment itself is most difficult to describe, for it combines the nature of a loving presence ? a presence with the innate knowledge of its own divine complexity ? with a creative ability of infinite proportions that seeks to bring to fulfillment even the slightest, most distant portion of its own inverted complexity. Translated into simpler terms, each portion of energy is endowed with an inbuilt reach of creativity that seeks to fulfill its own potential in all possible variations ? and in such a way that such a development also furthers the creative potentials of each other portion of reality.  Glad we used simpler terms, or we might have gotten a bit lost there!
> ?In those terms, then, there was in the beginning an almost unimaginable time in which energized consciousness, using its own creative abilities, its own imagination, experienced with triumphant rambunctiousness, trying out one form after another. In the terms you are used to thinking of, nothing was stable. Consciousness as you think of it turned into matter, and then into pure energy and back again.
> ?Subjectivity still largely ruled. Like an adolescent leaving home for the first time, individualized consciousness was also somewhat homesick, and returned often to the family homestead ? but gradually gained confidence and left finally to form a [universe].  The universe is just a crazy dorm room.
> ?Now because All-That-Is contains within itself such omnipotent, fertile, divine creative characteristics, all portions of its subjective experience attained dimensions of actuality impossible to describe. The thoughts, for example, of All-That-Is were not simply thoughts as you might have, but multidimensional mental events of superlative nature. Those events soon found that a transformation must occur, if they were to journey into objectivity ? for no objectivity of itself could contain the entire reality of subjective events that existed within divine subjectivity. Only in that context could their relative perfection be maintained. Yet they had yearned before the beginning for other experiences, and even for fulfillments of a different nature. They sensed a kind of value fulfillment that required of them the utilization of their own creative abilities. They yearned to create as they had been created, and All-That-Is, in a kind of divine perplexity, nevertheless realized that this had always been its own intent.  Our individual souls are all growns up.
> ?All-That-Is realized that such a separation would also allow you to bring about a different kind of divine art, in which the creators themselves created, and their creations created, bringing into actuality existences that were possible precisely because there would seem to be a difference between the creator and the creations. All-That-Is is, therefore, within each smallest portion of consciousness.  In the immortal words of Rush: I will choose freewill!
> ?Yet each smallest portion of consciousness can uniquely create, bring into being, eccentric versions of All-That-Is, that in certain terms All-That-Is, without that separation, could not otherwise create. The loving support, the loving encouragement of the slightest probable consciousness and manifestation ? that is the intent of All-That-Is.  I knew Jesus loved me!
> ?All-That-Is knows that even this purpose is a portion of a larger purpose. In terms of time, the realization of that purpose will emerge with another momentous explosion of subjective inspiration into objectivity, or into another form. In deeper terms, however, that purpose is also known now, and to one extent or another the entire universe dreams of it, as once cellular consciousness dreamed of the organs that it might ?form.?  I was lost two levels of purpose ago.
> ?I want to stress that I am speaking here not so much about a kind of spiritual evolution as I am about an expansion. We will for now, however, confine ourselves to a discussion of consciousness in the beginning of the world, stressing that the first basis of physical life was largely subjective, and that the state of dreaming not only helped shape the consciousness of your species, but also in those terms served to provide a steady source of information to man about his physical environment, and served as an inner web of communication among all species.?  DREAMING helped shape the consciousness of our species.  And you thought this was all off-topic!
> Session 886, December 03, 1979.
> ?Now: In the beginning, there was not God the Father, Allah, Zoroaster, Zeus, or Buddha.
> ?In the beginning there was instead, once more, a divine psychological gestalt ? and by that I mean a being whose reality escapes the definition of the word ?being,? since it is the source from which all being emerges. That being exists in a psychological dimension, a spacious present, in which everything that was or is or will be (in your terms) is kept in immediate attention, poised in a divine context that is characterized by such a brilliant concentration that the grandest and the lowliest, the largest and the smallest, are equally held in a multi-loving constant focus.  Think Bible/poorest, lowliest among you...
> ?Your conceptions of beginnings and endings make an explanation of such a situation most difficult, for in your terms the beginning of the [universe] is meaningless ? that is, in those terms (underlined) there was no beginning.  Meaningless I tell you!
> ?The [universe] is, as I explained, always coming into existence, and each present moment bring[s] its own built-in past along with it. You agree on accepting as fact only a small portion of the large available data that compose any moment individually or globally. You accept only those data that fit in with your ideas of motion in time. As a result, for example, your archaeological evidence usually presents a picture quite in keeping with your ideas of history, geological eras, and so forth.  Even circles look like spheres on TV because we want them to.
> ?The conscious mind sees with a spectacular but limited scope. It lacks all peripheral vision. I use the term ?conscious mind? as you define it, for you allow it to accept as evidence only those physical data available for the five senses ? while the five senses, of course, represent only a relatively flat view of reality, that deals with the most apparent surface.  Thank goodness we have six senses, then.
> ?The physical senses are the extensions of the inner senses that are, in one way or another, a part of each physical species regardless of its degree. The inner senses provide all species with an inner method of communication. The cells then, possess inner senses.  (Nodding when it shifts back to the cellular level.)
> ?Atoms perceive their own positions, their velocities, motions, the nature of their surroundings, the material that they compose. [Your] world did not just come together, mindless atoms forming here and there, elements coalescing from brainless gases ? nor was the world, again, created by some distant objectified God who created it part by part as in some cosmic assembly line. With defects built in, mind you, and better models coming every geological season.
> ?The universe is formed out of what God is.
> ?The universe is the natural extension of divine creativity and intent, lovingly formed from the inside out ? so there was consciousness before there was matter, and not the other way around.
> ?In certain basic and vital ways, your own consciousness is a portion of that divine gestalt. In the terms of your earthly experience, it is a metaphysical, a scientific, and a creative error to separate matter from consciousness, for consciousness materializes itself as matter in physical life.?  So consciousness and dreams have been around before physical stuff we care about was around.  Every night, we dabble in the spacious present, where we used to spend some serious time back in the day.  Sticks and stones might break our bones but this world is just one tiny shared iteration anyway.  Dreaming helped shape the consciousness of humans - it is something we all "share" in more ways than one.  All we need now is some heavy drugs and Ellen Page.   
>  
> Summary of Concepts:
> ? This is the book where Seth finally bludgeons to death the phrase ?in your terms.? But seriously, as Aldous Huxley helped explain in the previous segment, Seth is severely constrained by English?s propensity to cast concepts into linear objects and processes. I never cease to be amazed at the tenacity and consistency in which Seth explains concepts based in spacelessness and timelessness to an audience ensconced in space and time.
> Seth opens with a reminder that ?in the beginning? of our physical universe E+M=C (energy and matter = Consciousness).
> ? Physical energy and matter as Consciousness are infinitely creative, innovative, original, and imaginative though our modern sciences do not operate under that assumption. However, Seth does not assign human traits to energy and matter, but instead human traits are made possible by their fundamental characteristics.
> ? In the beginning, then, physical atoms and molecules dreamt of more complex structures ? cells ? and explored myriad probabilities in which to best create them. Thus, matter preceded the emergence of simple cellular life, which in turn dreamt of ways to create even more complex biological forms. (Seth skips any mention of the formation of galaxies, solar systems and planets at this point. But key hierarchical relationships exist between the development of energy-matter as atoms, into molecules, and eventually cells that we?ll explore later.)
> ? In the beginning, value fulfillment guided the experimentation of atoms and molecules. Value fulfillment is an innate quality of Consciousness ?that seeks to fulfill its own potential in all possible variations ? and in such a way that such a development also furthers the creative potentials of each other portion of reality.?
> ? In the beginning, Consciousness as atoms and molecules still dreamt about all of the myriad forms they could manifest. But the inner world, the ?dreamtime,? was still more familiar. So physical energy and matter were very unstable.
> ? There is an innate intention and purpose to our young physical universe. However, only so much can be actualized in physical terms in any given time. So there is always a balancing act that nurtures the development of all species as things develop in a cooperative fashion. There will be ?another momentous explosion of subjective inspiration into objectivity, or into another form.?
> Knowledge of this innate intention and purpose within All-That-Is exists on some level now, since everything exists simultaneously within a ?spacious present.? Our entire universe still dreams of it. And Seth hints not so much at some kind of spiritual evolution as some kind of ?expansion.? (This may be a reference to the present emergence of postmodern worldviews on a global scale.)
> ? Again, there is no real beginning in terms of linear time, but a spacious present in which Consciousness experiences nested orders of perception (fields of consciousness) that support and nurture the emergence of our physical universe (Framework 1).
> ? Our physical senses provide a flat view of reality limited to physical surfaces. However, they are extensions of our inner senses. Thus, every form of energy and matter uses inner senses that work ?outside? of space and time (nonlocal). The inner senses are part of a vast inner communication between all species. Our cells also use inner senses.
> ? Seth closes with a reprise of his opening thoughts that physical energy and matter are Conscious. (This is a good example of what we discussed in the Foreword about Consciousness desperately trying make a comeback in postmodern worldviews and myths.)
> Comments:
> ? In summary, Causal Consciousness exists ?before the beginning? of our physical universe. In the beginning, then, the Big Bang was ?caused? by the dreaming nature of All-That-Is.
> ? Seth mentioned that ?... In the beginning, there was not God the Father, Allah, Zoroaster, Zeus, or Buddha.? Notice that he invokes recent premodern religious icons that still dominate today. They extend back approximately 3,000 years and superceded earlier Great Mother and Great Goddess figures that reach back tens of thousands of years to the dawn times of humanity.
> Various scholars (Campbell, Whyte, Eisler, Wilber, Pagels, etc.) point out how the Judeo-Christian-Islamic father gods managed to repress the feminine Great Goddess principle to such and extent so as to dissociate it. The result was a pathological imbalance in the monotheistic religions that have led to more human suffering in the name of God the Father than anything that preceded it. The expansion that Seth refers to may include the integration of the Great Goddess principle into emerging postmodern myths.
> Again, in the Foreword I mentioned that Consciousness is desperately trying to make a comeback in postmodern myths and worldviews. We can now add that the feminine principle, as an element that has been dissociated on a mass scale over the past 3,000 years, is also desperately involved in this postmodern comeback. The feminine principle is further reflected in the use of emotions, intuitions, and first person perspectives ? additional qualities repressed in premodern and particularly modern worldviews. Again, we?re exploring a balance and inclusion of both masculine and feminine qualities.
> ? Finally, over 800 sessions preceded this ambitious attempt at a creation myth. As such, the laws of the inner universe, of which value fulfillment was the first presented, were first published in The Early Sessions: Book Two of the Seth Material (1997). I suspect he chose to focus on value fulfillment for simplicity?s sake and ease of story-telling. Still, we can apply all these innate qualities of All-That-Is to this conscious creation myth. For example, Seth uses consciousness throughout, and hinted at cooperation and energy transformation in this excerpt. He briefly mentions spontaneity later.
> Value FulfillmentEnergy TransformationSpontaneityDurabilityCreationConsciousnessCapacity For Infinite MobilityChangeability & TransmutationCooperationQuality DepthThough a detailed review is beyond the scope of this essay there is more information available. [Follow this link to Seth?s Laws of the Inner Universe .]
> 
> 
> FAST FORWARDING TO SLEEPWALKERS!! FAST FORWARDING TO SLEEPWALKERS!!  I have deleted over 15,000 words.  Leaving you with Sleepwalkers (pt.1), without snarky commentary.  An extra credit reading assignment.  Continue to overdose on Crystal Seth at your own risk...
>  
> Sleepwalkers Part 2, Inception, and MORE coming on Friday!!!!
> South Beach Peace- (on the off chance you are still with me down here, congrats on getting this far!)
> 
> 
> Seth on ?The Ancient Dreamers (The Sleepwalkers)? (pt.1)
> Dreams, ?Evolution,? and Value Fulfillment, Vol. 1, Session 893, January 07, 1980.
> ?For what would seem to you to be eons, according to your time scale, men were in the dreaming state far more than they were in the waking one. They slept long hours, as did the animals ? awakening, so to speak, to exercise their bodies, obtain sustenance, and, later, to mate. It was indeed a dreamlike world, but a highly charming and vital one, in which dreaming imaginations played rambunctiously with all the probabilities entailed in this new venture: imaging the various forms of language and communication possible, spinning great dream tales of future civilizations replete with their own built-in histories ? building, because they were now allied with time, mental edifices that automatically created pasts as well as futures.
> ?These ancient dreams were shared to some extent by each consciousness that was embarked upon the earthly venture, so that creatures and environment together formed great environmental realities. Valleys and mountains, and their inhabitants, together dreamed themselves into being and coexistence.
> ?The species ? from your viewpoint ? lived at a much slower pace in those terms. The blood, for example, did not need to course so quickly through the veins [and arteries], the heart did not need to beat as fast. And in an important fashion the coordination of the creature in its environment did not need to be as precise, since there was an elastic give-and-take of consciousness between the two.
> ?In ways almost impossible to describe, the ground rules were not as yet firmly established. Gravity itself did not carry its all-pervasive sway, so that the air was more buoyant. Man was aware of its support in a luxurious, intimate fashion. He was aware of himself in a different way, so that, for example, his identification with the self did not stop where his skin stopped: He could follow it outward into the space about his form, and feel it merge with the atmosphere with a primal sense-experience that you have forgotten.
> ?During this period, incidentally, mental activity of the highest, most original variety was the strongest dream characteristic, and the knowledge [man] gained was imprinted upon the physical brain: what is now completely unconscious activity involving the functions of the body, its relationship with the environment, its balance and temperature, its constant, inner alterations. All of these highly intricate activities were learned and practiced in the dream state as the CUs [consciousness units] translated their inner knowledge through the state of dreaming into physical form.
> ?Then in your terms man began, with the other species, to waken more fully into the physical world, to develop the exterior senses, to intersect delicately and precisely with space and time. Yet man still sleeps and dreams, and that state is still a firm connective with his own origins, and with the origins of the universe as he knows it as well.
> ?... In a fashion those ancient dreamers, through their immense creativity, dreamed all of life?s creatures in all of their pasts, presents, and futures ? that is, their dreams opened up the doors of space and time to entities that otherwise would not have been released into actualization, even as, for example, the units of consciousness were once released from the mind of All-That-Is.
> ?All possible entities that can ever be actualized always exist. They [have] always existed and they always will exist. All-That-Is must, by its characteristics, be all that it can ever be, and so there can be no end to existence ? and, in those terms, no beginning. But in terms of your world the units of consciousness, acting both as forces [waves] and as psychological entities [particles] of massive power, planted the seeds of your world in a dimension of imaginative power that gave birth to physical form. In your terms those entities [particles] are your ancestors ? and yet [they are] not yours alone, but the ancestors of all the consciousnesses that make up your world.?
> Session 894, January 09, 1980.
> ?Basically, there are no real divisions to the self, but for the sake of explanation we must speak of them in those terms. First of all you had the inner self, the creative dreaming self ? composed, again, of units of consciousness, awareized energy that forms your identity, and that formed the identities of the earliest earth inhabitants. These inner selves formed their own dream bodies about them, as previously explained, but the dream bodies did not have to have physical reactions. They were free of gravity and space, and of time.
> ?As the body became physical, however, the inner self formed the body consciousness so that the physical body became more aware of itself, of the environment, and of its relationship within the environment. Before this could happen, though, the body consciousness was taught to become aware of its own inner environment. The body was lovingly formed from EE [electromagnetic energy] units through all the stages to atoms, cells, organs, and so forth. The body?s pattern came from the inner self, as all of the units of consciousness involved in this venture together formed this fabric of environment and creatures, each suited to the other.
> ?So far in our discussion, then, we have an inner self, dwelling primarily in a mental or psychic dimension, dreaming itself into physical form, and finally forming a body consciousness. To that body consciousness the inner self gives ?its own body of physical knowledge,? the vast reservoir of physical achievement that it has triumphantly produced. The body consciousness is not ?unconscious,? but for working purposes in your terms, [the body] possesses its own system of consciousness that to some extent, now, is separated from what you think of as your own normal consciousness. The body?s consciousness is hardly to be considered less than your own, or as inferior to that of your inner self, since it represents knowledge from the inner self, and is a part of the inner self?s own consciousness ? the part delegated to the body.
> ?[Each] cell, then, as I have often said, operates so well in time because it is, in those terms, precognitive. It is aware of the position, health, vitality, of all other cells on the face of the planet. It is aware of the position of each grain of sand on the shores of each ocean, and in those terms it forms a portion of the earth?s consciousness.
> ?... Thus far in our discussion, we still have only an inner self and a body consciousness. As the body consciousness developed itself, perfected its organization, the inner self and the body consciousness together performed a kind of psychological double-entendre.
> ?... The best analogy I can think of is that up to that time the self was like a psychological rubber band, snapping inward and outward with great force and vitality, but without any kind of rigid-enough psychological framework to maintain a physical stance. The inner self still related to dream reality, while the body?s orientation and the body consciousness attained, as was intended, a great sense of physical adventure, curiosity, speculation, wonder ? and so once again the inner self put a portion of its consciousness in a different parcel, so to speak. As once it had formed the body consciousness, now it formed a physically attuned consciousness, a self whose desires and intents would be oriented in a way that, alone, the inner self could not be.
> ?... [The outer ego] is the self that looks outward. It is the self that you call egotistically aware. The inner self became what I refer to as the inner ego. It looks into that inner reality, that psychic dimension of awareness from which both your own [outer ego] consciousness and your body consciousness emerged.
> ?You are one self, then, but for operating purposes we will say that you have three parts: the inner self or ego, the body [sub]consciousness, and the [outer ego] consciousness that you know.
> ?These portions, however, are intimately connected. They are like three different systems of consciousness operating together to form the whole. The divisions ? the seeming divisions ? are not stationary, but change constantly.
> ?... To one extent or another, these three systems of consciousness operate in one way or another in all of the species, and in all particles, in the physical universe. In your terms, this means that the proportions of the three systems might vary, but they are always in operation, whether we are speaking of a man or a woman, a rock or a fly, a star or an atom. The inner self represents your prime identity, the self you really are.
> ?... The body [sub]consciousness is therefore given a superb sense of its own reality, a sureness of identity, a sense of innate safety and security, that allows it to not only function but to grow in the physical world. It is endowed with a sense of boldness, daring, a sense of natural power. It is perfectly formed to fit into its environment ? and the environment is perfectly formed to have such creatures.
> ?The entities, or units of consciousness ? those ancient fragments [particles] that burst into objectivity from the vast and infinite psychological realms of All-That-Is ? dared all, for they joyfully abandoned themselves in space and time. They created new psychological entities, opened up an area of divine creativity that ?until then? had been closed, and therefore to that [degree] extended the experience and immense existence of All-That-Is. For in so abandoning themselves they were not of course abandoned, since they contained within themselves their inherent relationship with All-That-Is. In those terms All-That-Is became physical also, aroused at its divine depth by the thrusting of each grass blade through the soil into the air, aroused by each birth and by each moment of each creature?s existence.
> ?All-That-Is, therefore, is immersed within your world, present in each hypothetical point, and forms the very fabric from which each portion of matter is created.?
>  
> Summary of Concepts:
> ? In the beginning, the world and everything in it ? valleys, mountains, oceans, the sky, and every species of organic life ? was guided by the cooperative group dreams of every type of consciousness involved. Endless probabilities were explored and a mental framework created that began to include probable pasts, presents, and futures. This stage of development lasted for ?eons.?
> ? Causal Aspects of All-That-Is that Seth calls consciousness units (causal field) translated their inner knowledge via the dream state (subtle field) to create all physical forms (physical field). ?... these highly intricate activities were learned and practiced in the dream state.? Thus, the subtle field was a hotbed of creativity that paved the way for the emergence of the physical field.
> ? Every inner self (including sleepwalkers) has and will always exist in some latent form within All-That-Is. Only a small percentage of this latency can be physically manifest in any given time. All-That-Is strives ?to be all that it can ever be, and so there can be no end to existence ? and ... no beginning.? Thus, Seth describes the causal (wave) and subtle (wave) fields in terms of eternal qualities (no beginning or end) in relation to the physical (particle) field, which by design has beginnings and endings.
> ? CUs, acting both as forces (waves) and as individualized consciousness (particles), are the ancestors of every type of consciousness that make up our world. Thus, the sleepwalkers are the ancient dreamers working in the subtle field who created our universe and human beings.
> ? As the ancient dreamers experimented with various species and the ecosystem, they began to develop human body consciousness. There was a period lasting for eons in which the subtle and physical fields were not yet stable enough for physical reproduction and mating to be required. (In other words, the dreamtime ?preceded? sexual reproduction in the physical field, and didn't require sex as we know it. Once the first cellular life physically manifest, however, physical sex was required for reproduction.)
> The inner self is that subtle field aspect of the sleepwalkers that dreamed, ?translated,? and consciously created physicality. We did such a great job in this process that, as we came to rely more and more on our physical senses, all of the amazing calculations and manipulations of energy needed to maintain a physical body began to recede into the background of the subconscious. In this sense, the subconscious had to stabilize before the outer ego could emerge.
> Eventually we no longer needed to be consciously aware of growing our hair, digesting our food, or healing a cut. All of these issues had to be figured out in the Overall design before they could became ?automatic.? Our body consciousness, which became part of the subconscious, then, represents the knowledge of the inner self ?translated? into physical form.
> ? There is no aspect of All-That-Is ? causal, subtle, or physical ? that is unconscious. All aspects exist in simultaneously nested fields created by the wave/particle nature of CUs. And that is a loaded statement!
> ? There were three additional functions designed by the sleepwalkers so that humans could emerge. However, the apparent divisions between them are seamless.
> 
> inner self (inner ego, ?wave focus?)body consciousness (subconscious mediating layer, ?wave and particle focus?)outer ego (pre-egoic, ?particle focus?)These functions broadly occur in every thing and process in the physical field. Though the relationships may vary, they always operate in any quantum field, galaxy, planet, rock, plant, animal, or person. (This is another very important deep structure at play in all energy-matter. More on this later.)
> ? Seth closes with a reminder that All-That-Is worked together in a massive, simultaneous, cooperative venture of the highest creative expression possible. We simultaneously, as Causal Consciousness (CUs), as sleepwalkers (EEs), and finally as physical creatures (quantum fields) saw through wave and particle ?eyes? that it was good! (or should I say God? :-)
> Comments:
> ? In this segment, Seth focused on the emerging physical field. He outlined the basic ?order of play? or stages of development in sequential, physical terms. For example, ?The body was lovingly formed from EE [electromagnetic energy] units through all the stages to atoms, cells, organs, and so forth.? So there were atoms first that evolved into cells, which in turn evolved into organs, bodies, and nascent outer egos. And yet, Seth continues to explore our origins from the paradoxically simultaneous Causal (CUs) and subtle (EEs) fields. And this is exactly what makes this a postmodern creation myth. (More on this later.)
> ? Finally, a note on semantics up to this point: EEs, electromagnetic energy units, inner selves, sleepwalkers, ancient dreamers, source selves, and energy personality essences are ontologically equivalent. So these terms describe related aspects of the subtle field and may be used interchangeably.
> 
>  
> ? Robert F. Butts, All Rights Reserved.
> 
> 
>  		 	   		  
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://robsworld.org/pipermail/akinetochronism_robsworld.org/attachments/20160216/2423d73a/attachment.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> akinetochronism mailing list
> To post message: akinetochronism at robsworld.org
> To unsubscribe: akinetochronism-unsubscribe at robsworld.org
> List information: http://robsworld.org/mailman/listinfo/akinetochronism_robsworld.org
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of akinetochronism Digest, Vol 6, Issue 12
> **********************************************
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://robsworld.org/pipermail/akinetochronism_robsworld.org/attachments/20160216/3f568a0f/attachment-0002.html>