The Problem of Seth's Origin: A Case Study...

Just on Dave's (Seth's) concept of mental constructs. Assuming this means that "heaven" (for want of a less controversial word) is a mental construct or a collective construct, I tend to think it isn't and that it is rather something elementary and substantial persisting with it's own laws and properties. 

My 'friend' who paid this "place" a visit (after a cardiac arrest) didn't seem to me to be describing something he'd created. It was there, another world beyond his wildest dreams and comprehension (OTT but true) but not something he could have conceived of.

I suspect I must me misunderstanding something ?

I think that once you accept that nothing exists outside of mind, that nothing is separate, then our individual participation in this great creative enterprise begins to be the only way to look at reality. The individual is uniquely valid while, at the same time, being a constituent part of the whole. I am at once a self and God (as are you, of course).

I think that once you accept that nothing exists outside of mind, that nothing is separate, then our individual participation in this great creative enterprise begins to be the only way to look at reality. The individual is uniquely valid while, at the same time, being a constituent part of the whole. I am at once a self and God (as are you, of course).

I'm prepared to (possibly) accept that nothing may exist outside of mind (I'm aware of the basic arguments)  but I'm not convinced, I have to add. I can't get around the notion of everything that "observes" being wiped out (for instance in Armageddon) but what is left, the physical matter still existing with no one left to observe it anymore. The physical remnants are still there in absence of anyone looking at it or thinking about it.   

I don't think reality is constructed with our minds, I think it has an independent existence whether or not I think it's there or not, if you see what I mean.

I think there are different applications of the idea. On an individual level we don't create the entire universe. What we create is our perception of it, the way we experience it, and events, including those in our own lives as well as impacting on others.

The larger reality - such things as heaven perhaps, would be a collective matter, not something we make as individuals, but we can certainly contribute to it. Who was it who suggested the universe was a great thought? Apparently Sir James Jeans: "The universe looks more and more like a great thought rather than a great machine."

Interesting, Typoz. I'm not quite sure what Jeans was getting at though. Did he really mean it literally or semi literally or some degree further back. To be honest, thoughts like this make me feel peculiar, just as I don't like to think about the size of the universe; I mean really consider it the way it is because it's enough to drive one insane.

Interesting, Typoz. I'm not quite sure what Jeans was getting at though. Did he really mean it literally or semi literally or some degree further back. To be honest, thoughts like this make me feel peculiar, just as I don't like to think about the size of the universe; I mean really consider it the way it is because it's enough to drive one insane.

Well, I don't think I really understand any of this either, Tim. I tend to have a sort of intuitive grasp of some small ideas, not necessarily arrived at by reasoning, more what I feel makes a bit of sense to me. The larger picture, I think it is bigger and more complex than I'm capable of imagining. Still, I have ideas which kind of make sense to me.

To be honest when sometimes I read long and complex explanations of things I'm not sure I find them useful, so I have to keep things simple.

I'm prepared to (possibly) accept that nothing may exist outside of mind (I'm aware of the basic arguments)  but I'm not convinced, I have to add. I can't get around the notion of everything that "observes" being wiped out (for instance in Armageddon) but what is left, the physical matter still existing with no one left to observe it anymore. The physical remnants are still there in absence of anyone looking at it or thinking about it.   

Fair enough, though I'm puzzled as to how this fits in with survival of consciousness as indicated by NDEs and so on. Do you think that not everyone survives?

Fair enough, though I'm puzzled as to how this fits in with survival of consciousness as indicated by NDEs and so on. Do you think that not everyone survives?

No, I don't think that, I think consciousness continues for everyone. But when scientists are talking about the universe, they are presumably not talking about the as yet unknown (or undiscovered) astral realms (or whatever one would like to call them). If every living creature in the universe (visible universe) was wiped out, that wouldn't wipe out all the matter that is formed into planets and stars as well, obviously 

It would still be there without anyone observing it, wouldn't it ? If it wouldn't be there, why wouldn't it ? I suppose one could say it's not there because there's no one to see that it's there... but that seems like a 'swizz' to me  

I'm puzzled by your question, Typoz, please could you elaborate,  I'm interested ?

No, I don't think that, I think consciousness continues for everyone. But when scientists are talking about the universe, they are presumably not talking about the as yet unknown (or undiscovered) astral realms (or whatever one would like to call them). If every living creature in the universe (visible universe) was wiped out, that wouldn't wipe out all the matter that is formed into planets and stars as well, obviously 

It would still be there without anyone observing it, wouldn't it ? If it wouldn't be there, why wouldn't it ? I suppose one could say it's not there because there's no one to see that it's there... but that seems like a 'swizz' to me  

I'm puzzled by your objection, Typoz, please could you elaborate,  I'm interested ?

Well it seems to me you're saying three things, if I can summarise briefly:

• Consciousness continues for everyone.
  
  
• Matter making up stars and planets continues to exist.
  
  
• It's possible there would be only matter but no consciousness.
  

Please forgive me for re-wording what I think you were saying. I don't understand your meaning. It seems contradictory to me. You say there is consciousness which survives, matter which survives, but sometimes there is only matter. I find it contradictory, I'm sure I missed something.


It's this bit:

It would still be there without anyone observing it, wouldn't it ?

Why wouldn't there be anyone there, I thought you said everyone survived?

Well it seems to me you're saying three things, if I can summarise briefly:

[ul]
[li]Consciousness continues for everyone.
[/li]
[li]Matter making up stars and planets continues to exist.
[/li]
[li]It's possible there would be only matter but no consciousness.[/li]
[/ul]
Please forgive me for re-wording what I think you were saying. I don't understand your meaning. It seems contradictory to me. You say there is consciousness which survives, matter which survives, but sometimes there is only matter. I find it contradictory, I'm sure I missed something.


It's this bit:
Why wouldn't there be anyone there, I thought you said everyone survived?

The consciousness (the consciousness of all life forms) has survived (in soul form) and gone into another plane of existence, the astral plane or whatever one wants to call it ? This astral realm is not visible from the realm we are currently in now. But this old physical realm, billions of stars planets is still there like an old abandoned house, just with nobody in it. 

Doesn't science say that it doesn't exist because there is no one there to observe it ? But why wouldn't the earth etc continue to exist even without any conscious beings in it doing the observing ?

It would still be there without anyone observing it, wouldn't it ?

Typoz said > Why wouldn't there be anyone there, I thought you said everyone survived?

Because everyone is now in the astral realm. That's where they are surviving. But the earth realm is still there with no one observing it, at least from the earth plane itself, that is.

OK, thank you Tim. I'm grateful for your clarification and explanations. I think there I will leave it since I understand your perspective now. My view is perhaps naive, at any rate, much simplified or even childlike, that's where I was missing your point before.

OK, thank you Tim. I'm grateful for your clarification and explanations. I think there I will leave it since I understand your perspective now. My view is perhaps naive, at any rate, much simplified or even childlike, that's where I was missing your point before.

Thanks, Typoz. I don't think your view is naive at all. Mine might be complete bollocks for all I know.