Description

Several things will stand out on the first reading of these texts:1.) The sense of self-empowerment this book intends to bring to its readers is the first thing one might notice. Consciousness makes reality, including the physical world. You are responsible for the world you inhabit. There is no victimization, you chose the scenario you are currently living through. This reminds one of a remark of Nietzsche: “Siamo contenti? Son dio ho fatto questa caricatura!” (‘Are we content? I am the god who has made this caricature!’) – But, according to Seth we create badly; that is, we make what we did not intend to make. – That is why we incarnate, to learn how to create responsibly. It would seem that the only rule for Seth is don’t do anything that brings forth consequences you don’t want to face.2.) According to Seth there is, at the deepest level, no Time. It is an illusion that we (souls incarnating in the material world) have agreed to live by. By ‘no time’ Seth means that everything is happening simultaneously. Technically, one could perhaps say that every instant is endless, but one must immediately add that every instant brings forth new instances. Or, to put it another way, the absence of Time must not be construed to mean that there is not an accumulation of experience. Also of note, since there is no time one can have ‘backwards’ reincarnations – that is, you or I could elect, in our ‘next life’, to reincarnate in the Renaissance!3.) Creativity is a key concept (if not the key concept) for Seth. At one and the same time the Whole is Itself and It is also changing. Everything happens simultaneously (there is no time) but the contents of this ‘everything’ is always increasing. In a formula one could say that Being = Becoming + Creativity. In fact, this Creativity seems to demand that ALL possible occurrences will somewhere occur. In other words, everything that can happen will happen; even if only in some alternate (or probable) Reality.4.) Obviously, as with all reincarnation theories that I am aware of, Seth teaches that we are all immortal. However, one must understand precisely what immortality means for Seth. The appearance of Seth II is wonderfully illuminating in this regard. Seth II (who appears in the ‘Seth Material’) is a ‘later’ (or possible) development of Seth himself. But so alien is the Seth II consciousness to the Seth consciousness that Seth II will say that he has never physically incarnated! But of course Seth freely speaks of his previous incarnations. Thus one is perhaps forced to conclude that for Seth ‘immortality’ means becoming what you absolutely are not. Just think how alien ‘Seth 10,002’ will be to Seth and Seth II! Or, in other terms, would Alexander the Great recognize himself in my cup because it contains an atom that was once in his body?5.) From the above (i.e., becoming, creativity) it follows that there are countless ‘realities’ that are ontologically Real. One has the ‘reality’ one makes. Obviously, one should avoid making fearfully or stupidly. The centrality of the individual consciousness (or soul) is paramount in Seth. According to Seth, the Truth is truly within because we are all ‘Gods’. But since we are all experiencing gods our ‘truths’ continually evolve. This eerily reminds one that Nietzsche speaks of the ‘truth’ of perspectivism but, of course, he does so in a non-supernatural manner.6.) Seth’s view of what one hesitantly calls ‘physics’ is, to many readers of Seth, similar to the ‘many-worlds’ interpretation and indeterminacy of quantum physics. In Seth’s multiverse there are other (probable) selves, alternate pasts and futures, many physical universes and (for Seth) many spiritual realities.7.) Note also that there are many hierarchies in Seth; not only are their probable selves (instances of the soul in other reincarnational dramas) but there is also an ‘oversoul’ that stands above the the various probable souls inhabiting different realities and learns from their experiences and also, more or less gently, directs this experience too.This book represents (as far as I, an outsider, can tell) the bleeding edge of ‘new age’ speculation. In it, the author (Seth and/or Jane Roberts) introduces a new way of looking at the problem of cosmogenesis. We are all Gods: but this is no mere pantheism; we are all creative gods! Thus even now we all create our reality. Actually, it is better to say realities. Seth teaches that there are ‘alternative’ pasts and ‘probable’ futures that actually exist even though none of us ever have or ever will inhabit them. Such is the plenitude of Being for our author(s)! But this echoes, however obliquely, an ancient insight: as Parmenides said so long ago – there isn’t anything that is not. I know, one is tempted to sneer at the sheer naiveté of all this. But one hears echos of the history of philosophy throughout the books of Seth. For instance, it was the German Idealists who first stepped beyond pantheism by insisting that Substance must also be active Spirit. Seth merely adds that Spirit must always be God. And what of us? We incarnating souls (Spirits) are now necessarily ‘Gods’ in training, or so Seth maintains. We are learning, by incarnating in the sublunary (i.e., material) world, to Create responsibly. One does come away, however, wondering exactly what responsibility might mean to Seth. Given the fact of the ‘plenitude of Being’ there is, strictly speaking, no evil. The spaciousness of the All-That-Is (a term of art in the Seth lexicon that more or less means All/God/Whole) has room enough to Willingly contain anything. To be sure, each existent entity has to deal with the consequences of what it makes – but, strictly speaking, consequences, no matter how unpleasant, are not an evil. Consequences are an educational tool! Indeed, since Seth also teaches that there are probable selves (other instantations of ourselves) living entirely different lives in other realities one wonders whether evil, and its responsibility, has any meaning at all… So, if it is an ontological necessity that every possibility be realized what could the term ‘evil’ possibly mean? One comes away from the books of Seth (or Roberts) feeling that morality has been replaced by ontology, and the moral imperative -do unto others as you would have them do unto you- has been replaced by an ontological imperative – just do something. The plenitude of Being requires our continual active creation! – Which means that, for Seth, the only ‘Evil’ is the Nothing of non-Being cum non-activity. The position of Seth can thus be said to be an inverted Buddhism…