cooley@nmtvax.UUCP (04/15/84)
In "The Nature of Personal Reality", the self is regarded as a
small, three-dimensionaly realized portion of a greater entity (the
multidimensional soul). Reality is the by-product of thought. Time is
simultaneous, leaving reincarnational "karma" a mute point. Both the
past and future are alterable and all probable realities exist. There
is no such thing as fate since a prediction of the "future" is only a
prediction of a probable "future" which may be altered at any time (both
beore and AFTER the event "happens").
I would like to hear from others who have read this book (or others
by same author) or any interested in this topic.
Michael Cooley
Socorro, NMkissell@flairvax.UUCP (Kevin Kissell) (04/17/84)
(sigh)
I read TNoPR several years ago, and while I found it to be entertaining
and occasionally exasperating reading, I would not consider it to be
good philosophy. Seth/Roberts cleverly remove themselves from the possibility
of serious debate by rejecting consensual reality with the "thought
creates reality" argument. The critcisms I am about to level will not
disturb Seth fans in the least, because, after all, they are only cogent
in *my* reality, while they can be safe and everwarm in their solipsistic
bubbles.
Seth/Roberts observations on the nature of time (as I (mis)understand them)
are pretty sloppy. It is perfectly reasonable to advance the viewpoint that
space-time can be rotated in the mind's eye along one of the space axes, so
that "past" and "future" events appear simultaneous. One can then even assert
that causality as we commonly concieve of it is merely an illusion born of
the sequential way in which we experience events in time. X does not cause
subsequnt Y if X and Y are viewed as integral parts of a single inseperable
event. It seems to me that Seth/Roberts is missing her own point by asserting
that causality works *backwards* in time. (Except, perhaps, in an antiuniverse,
but enough of that.)
The appeal of Seth/Roberts seems to be based on the desperate need for people
in this society to feel in control of their lives. These books hold out the
promise that everyone can have everything they want once they understand the
reality they can create. In addition to being incitement to psychosis
(not a crime yet, thank Bog), this notion is subversive to notions of social
responsibility. After all, those who are poor/crippled/dying are as much in
control of their realities as any of us, so they must *want* to be that way.
And Ronnie and Constantin can't blow up *my* world if *I* don't want 'em too.
Right?
Kevin D. Kissell
Fairchild Research Center
Advanced Processor Development
uucp: {ihnp4 decvax}!decwrl!\
>flairvax!kissell
{ucbvax sdcrdcf}!hplabs!/