(posted on 13-Nov-1999)
NOTE: I have not read all of the various "Seth" materials. No threat or bribe could force me to. I found the books to be uninteresting, unimaginative, and unengaging. They are a miasmic swamp of treacle that I had to slog through. A truly awful collection of works. I never wish to read them again. They provide no end of nebulous obfuscation and vague generalities. If you don't believe me, check out this site. On with the show.
A Personal Anecdote - or - There's A Seeker Born Every Minute
When I was still just a sprout back in Indiana, a callow youth of sixteen or so, I saw an advertisement in the local newspaper inviting me to attend a FREE seminar to learn a technique called Transcendental Meditation. This technique (read the ad) would help people experience serenity, increased creativity (the chief selling point for me), and a greater ability to handle Life's Problems. Being all screwed up in the head and looking for a get-enlightened-quick scheme, I attended.
I had been going through my mystical seeker phase back then. I had been exposed to the magical mystical media circus of the sixties, and had read the works of many of the luminaries of the time - Kerouac, Burroughs, Ginsberg, Richard (Ram Dass) Alpert, Alan Watts, Ken Kesey. These texts pointed to further reading: William James, Aldous Huxley, Wordsworth, Whitman, Emerson. The quest became eclectic and spread to include Edgar Cayce, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Blavatsky and Besant, the pathetic Aleister Crowley (of the Society of the Golden Dawn), and so on back through Western metaphysics to Plotinus, Plato, the Qabalah and the myths of ancient Egypt. It was a near fatal exposure to all the sources of that loosely organized movement called the New Age. And yet, through it all, my innate intuitive and learned rational abilities kept sending out alarm signals - something stunk in all of this. There is a distinct advantage to being a Hoosier boy or girl. Missouri may be the Show Me State, but in Indiana if you are not willing to bet good money on it, it can't be worth much!
The seminar took place in a rented business office, run by a pale and unhealthy looking young man, who looked even more pale and unhealthy under the fluorescent lights, who instantly gave me the creeps. We did not learn the technique. Instead, we were informed that we would receive our Personal Chanting Mantra once we returned the following day with a flower, a white handkerchief, and 50 simoleons. Not having any ready cash to hand, I asked my father for the fifty bucks. Naturally, he asked what it was for, and I told him. "Hell, no!" he said, "It's a scam! Do you know what the flower and handkerchief are for? They are offerings to a Hindu god! You want a mantra? I'll give you one. You want fifty bucks? Earn it!"
I was slightly annoyed with him, but only slightly, as the image of the pale, stupidly smiling, slightly vacuous and detached young man had given me some misgivings about the whole enterprise. I never attended the second session. At any rate, I learned how to meditate on my own, and it cost me nothing. It is simplicity itself - sit still and shut up.
Looking back on it now, I laugh. It is amazing how, the older I got, the smarter Dad became. Jeez, how did he know about Hinduism? How did he know about things spiritual and the opportunistic humbugs that lurk among the credulous? He only lived through the thirties, fought in a world war in the forties, lived through the beatnik fifties and hippie sixties, and read voraciously, so what did he know about anything?
I started examining the various claims contained within past and present "occult" works, and, having absorbed and evaluated them against other sources, rejected them in toto as a weakening philosophy - a metaphysics for slaves.
And so I turned a jaundiced eye upon this body of knowledge and the various proponents as being of questionable value and motives respectively.
One more anecdote should make this viewpoint clear.
In the early eighties I was living in Northern California, and once attended a Psychic Fair with my brother and sister-in-law (who, at the time, exhibited a faddish enthusiasm for such things). At one booth, a nice young lady in hippie garb and crystals entwined in her hair exclaimed "Oh my!" when I entered.
"What?" I asked.
"I have never seen such a powerful aura. You are the oldest soul I have ever seen!"
I was about to make a crack about "handjobs" but instead asked "When you say 'old', do you mean 'old' in an absolute sense, or in an Earth incarnation sense?"
"You have incarnated on Earth since the Beginning," she replied.
"Well, lady, then I must be a Major Retard. Thanks for the reading."
I was not going to give her the opportunity to stroke me any further. That would have required monies for a full reading - no doubt with a Kirlian photograph or the appropriately overpriced mineral fetish as a souvenir.
This attitude should be kept in mind as you read below. You have been forewarned.
Seth and Jane Roberts - or - "You're Living in the SIXTIES, man! Contemporize!"
My one and only personal exposure to Jane Roberts was an investigative piece on (as I recollect - my memory is fading) the CBS TV show 60 Minutes. There was a grainy black-and-white videotape of one of her ESP classes. There was Jane Roberts, throwing her thick glasses on a coffee table and speaking in a booming voice as someone named Seth. Another segment showed her speaking in a monotone robot voice as, I suppose, Future Seth. Again, the alarm bells went off. This was a very creepy person on the TV.
Who the hell is Seth? Well, Seth is a highly evolved multi-dimensional nonphysical energy being that Jane channeled from the early sixties through the mid-eighties. Set describes himself as "an intelligence residing outside time and space". This is all you need to know for now.
Oh, is this not good enough? Well then, Seth could also be viewed as a metaphysical metaphor of the rebellious sixties, finely crafted for the times. Seth promoted a postmodernist questioning of established authority and its dead-white-guy traditional Western philosophical views, with just the right amount of moderate hedonism and gee-whiz science fiction technojargon to spice and entice.
Far out!
See Jane Speak. See Seth Speak. Speak, Seth, Speak!
Were I to assign cynical motivations, then I would conclude that, like her contemporary, L. Ron Hubbard, Jane Roberts came to the realization that her fiction would sell better as nonfiction. Jane wrote a number of novels and poems. She also authored short works of science fiction, which were published in pulp journals such as the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction and Fantastic Universe. At the suggestion of her hubby Robert Butts, she wrote a book entitled "How to Develop Your ESP Power". A few years later she wrote two volumes based on 'channeled' material that are, for the most part, the foundation of modern New Age thought: "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul", followed by "The Nature of Personal Reality".
I would note that science fiction has a sad history of producing hokey new religions when the authors either come to believe their stories or decide to capitalize on own or borrowed fictions. And, quite frankly, these involved scenarios are generally quite bad science fiction -more talented and imaginative authors tend to stick to the trade. I note this phenomenon only to indicate a general trend rather than a specific accusation, and allow you to draw your own conclusions. I, obviously, have arisen at mine.
Was Jane a fraud or was she honestly convinced that she was experiencing something paranormal? To her credit, she always insisted that she was never certain whether Seth was a real spiritual being or merely an expression of her own subconscious desires and beliefs - a form of cryptomnesia. Still, to me, this looks like covering your bets, having your cake and eating it too. Since she gave no solid affirmation that any of these experiences were real, she could not be accused of fabricating a hoax. But then how are we to interpret the material from her performances?
This is mere speculation and rank opinion on my part and based on the source available to me. It appears she had a fairly miserable childhood and adolescence, having been orphaned and raised in a strict Catholic family - enough to screw anyone up! This life history would certainly cause quite a few unconscious desires to develop.
However, she does follow the standard formula found in most modern revelatory materials. She provides a convincing performance of early skepticism in her works ("I used to be just like you!"), but then this cautious skepticism is quickly dropped as she heads for the deep end, in the same style as Carlos Castaneda and Robert A. Monroe.
Could this be construed as intent to deceive rather than an honest depiction of a strange and mystical journey? New Agers will insist that any metaphysical teachings must stand on their own, regardless of the 'paranormal' credentials of the source. So, for the next portion of this essay, I will ignore the source and treat Seth as a real entity. Is he? Could be, could be, all I know is
Everything You Know is Wrong!
At least according to Seth. His main narrative themes are:
Free Will exists.
Everything has consciousness, or rather, consciousness is the fundamental basis of everything.
Time is simultaneous. The past, present (both current and alternate versions), and future all exist at once.
All people are good, worthy, and deserving of happiness.
You create your own reality (often abbreviated as YCYR).
Taken at face value it sounds quite attractive, but there is much more to this philosophy, indeed, whole volumes more, and much of the remaining philosophical framework is used to justify the above tenets. Let's look at how the philosophy is built upon some of these tenets, and then go back to the rationalizations.
Since we create our own reality, and since we are all good and happy entities, then the universe is good, safe, and playful - a happy playground in which to experience all manner of fun things. After all, we created it, and any experiences we have are of our own choosing. Since we call the shots, there are no accidents, and thus we cannot be victims of violence, either random or intentional, save by consensual choice to experience said violence. Thus death is not haphazard. In fact, death is ultimately nonexistent. Suffering is ultimately illusory. If you've got problems, they are your own damn fault. If other people have problems, they are their own damn fault. There are no victims. At first, this appears liberating and self-empowering. But is it?
Here we see a fundamental weakness in the philosophy.
If we adopt the detached academic attitude that death is illusory and that suffering is chosen, it fails to explain or clarify the truly awful and horrendous experiences that the 'universal playground' offers up.
Consider drug use and abuse. Seth goes into great detail and at great length why drugs, and specifically the drug of the time, LSD, are not necessarily a good thing. (Seth cannot call anything a bad thing as this would contradict the axiom that "deep down inside, everything that you do is right".) Seth said it did things to the ego before the ego was ready to experience them. It was also "a chemical", which somehow made it not a good thing. How can the ego be harmed by an idea (for according to the rules a chemical is an idea, as is an ego)? How can one idea influence another idea before he/she/it is ready to experience it? If it feels good do it! So why not become an alcoholic or a junkie or a meth freak?
Consider just one theme that most glaringly shows this philosophical flaw - child abuse. According to Seth, a child, or even better, an infant, that spends a brief but miserable portion of its life being, say, urinated and defecated upon, or beaten for crying, or burnt with cigarettes, or violated sexually, or locked in a closet chose to experience this existence. Indeed, the child's experience is only one facet of its 'multidimensional' personality - other facets in alternate worlds or in 'prior' lives may be victimizers, and so, in a sense everything is karmicly balanced.
Seth goes to great pains to deny that this existence is the result of any Karmic law, so there is no justification for this suffering, no past wrong to right. Physical reality is a constant and continuous creation of our thoughts. The abused infant, or rather the abused infant's higher self, thought itself into this fine mess for the experience.
Why then should we be concerned about the abused infant? Why should we express shock and disgust at its burn marks and broken bones, its mangled emotions and scarred personality? After all, we create reality, as did the abused child. So it would seem the only motivation to intervene is for our own benefit, to make ourselves feel better. But why? Physical reality is, after all, consensual and illusory. Why be responsible? Why not enjoy the experience instead? Well, this line of thought quickly slips into narcissism and from there it is but a short step to anarchic solipsism.
Anticipating this potential paradox, Seth introduces a new rule: "Thou shalt not violate". And before you ask Why Not?, he provides the rationalization: Love. Love is the means by which all being becomes manifest. Love is innate and it is the source of all inner, spiritual, innate emotions. It provides the impetus for all other innate feelings such as compassion and natural guilt. Now we see how we can avoid the pit of solipsism, and how we can avoid explaining the horrors of the world from a detached, unfeeling 'big picture' outlook, one that completely lacks compassion. We can avoid the marginalization of suffering through adopting an academic approach. To use the peculiar proselytizing textual style of zealots:
Which do prefer? LOVE or FEAR? CHOICE or FATALISM? LOVE And CHOICE explain all!
Does this type of outlook encourage empathy? Or disinterest? Does the addition of this new rule explain things better?
Consider the abused child again. The explanation is now that the entity has chosen to be an example to inspire compassion in others, or, is a martyr to show the abuser the error of its ways.
But if compassion and natural guilt are inner, spiritual, innate emotions, why do we need to learn about them? Why use the 'physical agony' as an object lesson for something we already have down pat?
There are many other contradictory statements contained within this philosophical framework which I have neither the time nor the inclination to examine. Every exotic subject is also covered - from UFOs to the irrational worldview of reincarnation.
Oh, heck, one more. I discovered this one on a New Age message board. I wish I had said it: Rational Questioner: "But on page 151&2 of The Eternal Validity of the Soul, he says: 'There is no time schedule, and yet it is very unusual for an individual to wait for anything over three centuries between lives, for this makes the orientation very difficult, and the emotional ties with the earth have become weak.' Now, if the entity is between lives, presumably time is irrelevant as we know it. And yet Seth implies that there is in fact the passage of time, otherwise how could the earth ties become weak?"
After a while, the examination falls into the same category as the question of Biblical inerrancy.
Suffice to say, my discussions with Sethians eventually end up with their saying "If we don't create our reality, then the universe is a random and chaotic place where things just happen, and we are all subject to being victims in this mindless existence. This belief makes much less sense than creating your own reality!" Those familiar with logical fallacies know this as a nice combination of Special Pleading and Begging The Question. It presents a random and chaotic universe as something bad, something to be avoided, and our only possible role in it as helpless victim (this does not follow). It then presents YCYR as making more sense. It does not make more sense. It is merely more attractive.
You Create Your Own Reality. No wonder your life sucks.
Of course, the whole idea about reality must be called into question. We are told (by one who perfectly regurgitates the words of Seth) that:
"You create your own reality physically by manifesting your thoughts as objects; and you create your own reality by creating situations and events, in conjunction with all others involved, thru your beliefs and expectation systems. Whatever situation you find yourself in--you took part in its creation along with all others involved. On a deep inner level, with all others involved as participants and witnesses, you have chosen to be in this event and have it physicalized."
The author's explanation is not entirely clear, nor of any help in dealing with reality in any meaningful context, but then this is the problem with 'created realities' and the contradictions contained are never defended, merely repeated.
This mechanics of this 'consensual' creation of reality are indeed inconsistent, for, on the one had, we are told that all of these events of 'physicalized' on a 'deep inner level', and yet this 'deep inner level' is also called 'All That Is' and apparently knows all that is. It is therefore a form of the omnipresent, omnisicent, omnipotent God argument, and suffers all the logical contradictions that this 'flesh is heir to'. I see no need to explore these inconsistencies when so many other philosophical sites exist that do so.
Old Age Wine In New Age Bottles - With A Little QM Sterno For A Kick!
Like the followers of her predecessor Edgar Cayce, many of Jane's admirers insist that she revealed knowledge far beyond her own educational background. They feel that the material she presented was entirely novel and unique - both in source and content. However, she was a literate and well-read woman, well versed in many occult texts and at least adequately acquainted with the current scientific literature of the time. Jane borrowed heavily from both occult and scientific texts. She was certainly familiar with the works of Carl Jung. She was undoubtedly also familiar with the same works I had read, especially of Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. I suspect she was also familiar with science articles that covered the various interpretations of quantum mechanics (QM) and relativity - especially the metatheory of Hugh Everett III.
Jung believed in astrology, spiritualism, telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, etc. Jung contributed two new occult notions: synchronicity and the collective unconscious. Synchronicity means "meaningful coincidences" linked by some acausal mechanism. Events have a similar meaning by their coincidence in time rather than through a causal (as in "law of cause and effect") sequence. He claimed that there is a synchrony between the mind and the phenomenal world of perception. The other notion was the metaphysical system of archetypes and the collective unconscious. Synchronicity provides access to the archetypes, which are located in the collective unconscious and are characterized by being universal mental constructs not grounded in experience. They are similar to Kant's a priori intuitions, or Plato's Ideas and Forms, in that they are not empirical - they do not originate in the world of the senses - but exist entirely within the mind. Jung maintained that his metaphysical notions were firmly grounded in scientific theory, but could not be tested through empirical observation. How convenient.
Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891) coined the terms 'astral body' and 'the seven astral planes'. She also expounded upon the mythical land of Lemuria, and created a link between the then-mysterious land of Tibet and the mythical Lost Continent of Atlantis. She was one of the co-founders of the Theosophical Society in New York in 1875. She claimed that our 'divine nature' could not be apprehended through the senses of the flesh, but only through intuitive insight, and only in this way could "the inner Self manifest on this physical plane", but that most of us do not realize this due to "willing ignorance". Her main treatise The Secret Doctrine had as its main theme the idea that the existence of our physical universe is made manifest through Spirit, and is but a small part of ultimate reality.
The material presented is hardly new. It can be traced back to 19th century German Transcendentalism, then to the Freemasonry of the Middle Ages, to Parcelsus, the Neoplatonists, the Alexandrian Gnostics, the early Christians, the Qabalah, Plotinus, Plato, and from thence back to the mystic Idealism of ancient Egypt and India. A wondrous accretion of cosmic debris through the ages!
Not new, but entirely new to "those condemned to repeat history": Americans. These New World Bohemians saw in all this not a historic progression of accumulated detritus (if they were at all aware that there was a history behind it), but instead an independent affirmation of newly discovered Truths - and always radioactively tagged with the convenient contention that only intuitive insight, not empirical observation, will reveal these notions to be true.
The interesting, and ironic, theme in the development of New Age thought is its reliance on the scientific principles and rational skepticism first used to refute much of Judeo-Christian doctrine. Of course it is a very selective reliance, for any scientific theory or collection of data that refutes New Age thought is rejected as 'biased' or 'the product of closed-minded propagandists'. There is simply no need, if you are a believer, for self-doubt, for external verification, or for external influences that would regulate or arbitrate these beliefs or the actions based on them. Of course, the risk is that the belief system folds in upon itself into solipsism. When Reason misbehaves and points out inconsistencies, Intuition says "Thank you (shut up!) for your input (go away!)".
As a result, much of the science that is used to justify New Age thought is either unconfirmed and exotic speculation or tired old theories now rejected by the current scientific establishment. However, there are some co-opted theories which have many proponents in the natural sciences, and these are used as a justification. This is perplexing, for their generous citation of scientific texts from which they borrow their authority is selective. Jane Roberts utilized this intellectual sleight-of-hand through her selective borrowing of certain theorems from quantum mechanics. Enter, stage right, into Jane's life one Hugh Everett III.
In 1957, Everett published a re-formulation of quantum theory that has come to be known as the many-worlds interpretation. Simply put, it postulates that the universe splits whenever an event occurs, so that all possible outcomes are played out in mutually unobservable alternate universes.
You flip a coin, and the world splits into a 'heads' world and a 'tails' world.
So where are these other what-if worlds? Why, they occupy the same space and time as we do! Why aren't we aware of these other worlds? They exist in different dimensions, but not the normal dimensions of space and time that we think of, rather, dimensions of a very esoteric mathematical something called Hilbert space - a 'pretend hyperspace' containing all possible outcomes for subatomic events. Unfortunately, a new piece of jargon was introduced into the language in the process - 'dimensional reality' - one that has been so abused and misinterpreted by the New Agers it is no longer amusing.
Unfortunately the theory is often presented in the form of, not many-worlds, but many-minds. Many-minds holds that we differentiate between worlds, that we have a choice as to which universe we are in. The two theories should not be confused, perhaps a mistake that Jane Roberts committed.
"This Theory Is So Bad It Is Not Even Wrong!" - Wolfgang Pauli
According to Seth, Reality is multi-dimensional, but can be generalized to two structures: Framework 1 - the physical universe, and Framework 2 - the underlying conscious template for physicality. The description for Framework 2 varies over the years, and even contradicts earlier versions. Framework 2 is an 'electrical-type universe' of 'electromagnetic consciousness' with 'varying densities and intensities and vibrations' consisting of Electromagnetic Energy Units. It is also full of Consciousness Units (apparently no relation to EEUs), and 'swirls'. Swirls are defined as experiences. The past, present, and future all coexist in these swirls and Framework 1 is connected to Framework 2 (as are we) through these swirls. New Agers often relate this nonsensical cosmology to the Bohm's implicate and explicate orders, and the swirls to Penrose's spinors, but basically it can all be traced back, in one form or another, to the ęther of Newton and Aristotle - whose existence is now long discredited.
As Pauli said above, the theory is so bad it is not even wrong. That is - it is so poorly conceived that it is not even testable to see if it is wrong!
Ultimate reality, if such a thing exists, has yet to be described adequately by anyone. There are still plenty of unknowns in the universe. Many theories have been proposed, but so far all are in some way incomplete. Does this mean that since existence has not been sufficiently explained all theories are equally correct and should be given credence? No. There are good theories and there are bad theories. What is the difference?
Quite simply, a good theory should provide a means for its own potential destruction. A theory that does not show how to destroy itself - to be tested and found wrong - is "not even wrong", it is just plain bad.
A sure sign that a theory is bad is when it is too explanatory. Far from providing no evidence, verification is found everywhere one looks. These theories will often explain why they are right under all possible outcomes - after the fact. They will, however, display no predictive power. A theory with a ready explanation for everything (and often, of course, involving lengthy explanations in order to prove its validity without verification) is not much more than a rationalization. Rationalizations are a sure sign that the original idea was poorly formulated. In other words, the theory is useless.
When, in the minds of supporters, a theory explains everything, when it is self-evident to the converted, when they feel that discovering it is more akin to a revelation rather than a clarification, when it appears to be more like religion and less like philosophy, then the best strategy is to criticize it. If the supporters cannot provide rational counter-arguments but instead insist that your understanding is too limited, or that it cannot be comprehended though reason alone, or attempt to disarm your criticisms by interpreting them within the framework of their theory, then there is evidence that it does a poor job at being an explanatory theory - which was its original purpose!
Conclusion
The Sethian philosophy is considered to be the cutting edge in metaphysics. It shows no signs of going away, for it offers many pleasant platitudes to satiate the insecure and feeble-minded. It offers certainty and meaning, and puts humans squarely in the center of the universe again.
In essence, it appeals to our most basic selfish and infantile fantasies.
Human stupidity is an awesome and powerful thing. The world has enough useless philosophical tautologies. We need not add to them.
Ned