Mod+ I Think I've Found An Answer.

Kamarling said:
That's what I thought too - otherwise I probably would not have risked posting here. If there's one thing that Dillinger is achieving with his series of questions, it is demonstrating how little things have changed and how repetitious the skeptical arguments tend to be.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I told him that directly, but he brushed it off. His tendency to always answer in a way that is just ambiguous enough to keep them saying the same things over and over does not help.

On topic... How do we define "good"? Stealing is good for the thief if he is starving, but bad for the merchant that is trying to support his family.
 
E.Flowers said:
On topic... How do we define "good"? Stealing is good for the thief if he is starving, but bad for the merchant that is trying to support his family.
Click to expand...
I hope it's okey to burst in...
I think the question you pose shows the shortcoming of several ethical systems.
The only ethical system that makes sense to me is situation ethics: good=love (=to wish the best for someone). (Although Tom Campbell would probably use the word "lowering the entropy of the system"...) From this perspective the act of stealing is neither good nor evil in itself, but has to be seen from the intentions of the person stealing. This might make evaluating the actions of people harder, but I think it fits perfectly well in a world view where everything is subjective by its very nature.
 
Mr Opti said:
I hope it's okey to burst in...
I think the question you pose shows the shortcoming of several ethical systems.
The only ethical system that makes sense to me is situation ethics: good=love (=to wish the best for someone). (Although Tom Campbell would probably use the word "lowering the entropy of the system"...) From this perspective the act of stealing is neither good nor evil in itself, but has to be seen from the intentions of the person stealing. This might make evaluating the actions of people harder, but I think it fits perfectly well in a world view where everything is subjective by its very nature.
Click to expand...

I have to agree, there are always hidden variables and we are talking about us, who live a relatively straight forward life. Just imagine how difficult it would be to really discern if a conciousness that works at the universal-scale is inherently bad or good because we perceive that the world is "unfair".
 
E.Flowers said:
I have to agree, there are always hidden variables and we are talking about us, who live a relatively straight forward life. Just imagine how difficult it would be to really discern if a conciousness that works at the universal-scale is inherently bad or good because we perceive that the world is "unfair".
Click to expand...
That's a nice twist :)
Yes, I agree.

Although, understanding and knowing can sometimes be quite different things. It's my opinion that we can never understand that kind of larger scale consciousness (even though I think we might be part of it), but I do think that we can experience it. And by experiencing it we get something deeper than understanding how things work. When experiencing unconditional love, we are transformed by the experience. We still probably won't be able to explain the problem of suffering, but we will look at the problem from another perspective which won't make us pose the same questions regarding it. It seems to me this can be seen as an after-effect of many NDEs.

I also think this is pretty well illustrated in the book of Job. Job goes through tremendous suffering and tries to understand why all this is happening, but fails to do so. The people around him try to explain why all this is happening, but none can come up with a satisfying answer. At the end of the book God talks to Job. God doesn't explain anything really about why everything has happened, and yet Job gets all the answers he needs. I think Job is deeply affected by the meeting with God, and that this changes his perspective completely.

Tom Campbell talks quite a lot about the difference between the thinking level and the being level. If I get him right, he thinks that on the being level it's all about acting and evolving in either the love-direction or the fear-direction. (I would say that it's really TRUST and FEAR (lack of trust) that are opposites and that good (love) and evil (lack of love) are natural consequences of trust and fear, but maybe this is a minor issue...)
I like Tom Campbell's view that consiousness is evolving. And I think that his way of explaining why love will win in the long run is quite persuasive (love lowers the entropy of the system and thus gives the system greater stability while fear increases the entropy making that system impossible to hold together in the long run...) Now, if that is true, then it would be no surprise that experiencing a deeper level of consiousness would more often than not be an experience of love. And after experiencing the love of life/the universe/god/Consciousness, one would have a much easier time to trust that everything will work out, which in turn will make it easier to live in the moment without the answers to many of the why-questions...

So, although I think that Tom Campbell's work primarily focuses on understanding how things fit together (very much thinking level), I think that for me he has provided an intellectual framework for a mystical approach (if that makes any sense...)

I haven't looked into Jurgen Ziewe much (didn't know about him at all before this thread), but he seems to me to point in this same direction.
 
OK I am 40% of the way through the book, and I am beginning to get a slightly better picture of Seth's approach.

Steve said:
I really don't think that Jurgen attempts to answer questions like the ones you have posed. He may have his own ideas about God but I think he will keep those to himself. I mentioned God in a post to him and he said something about God being much misunderstood.
Click to expand...
Seth seems to be saying that a lot of ideas are grossly distorted in what he calls physical reality (or 3-dimensional reality).
In particular he wants to play down the idea of evil a lot - attributing apparent evil to misunderstanding. He refers at one point to Christ with the implication that he was 'invented' as part of some sort of project!

As far as God is concerned, he certainly doesn't want to thrust Him to the forefront of what he is saying - as would be typical of a religion. He also comments that the Christian concept of Heaven would be 'dead' because nothing would really happen! I think a lot of us can agree with that, and perhaps that feeling has contributed to the whole materialistic movement over time.

Above all, Seth paints a very complex picture of the reality 'out there'. This is something that I have felt for a long time listening to all the phenomena discussed here on Skeptiko and elsewhere. Even just looking at NDE's, they obviously cover a range of phenomena and ideas. This also seems to correspond with Jurgen Ziewe's website - which paints a very complex picture.

Seth also says that reality is created by part of our being, and that after death, some people create a heaven or hell round themselves for a while (because that is what they firmly expected to happen after death), before they are rescued by others.

It is a very interesting metaphysical viewpoint, rather turgidly delivered. As to whether Seth, Jurgen Ziewe, or Tom Campbell are to be believed, it is impossible to be sure. It is interesting however that what they say seems to correspond roughly, and make at least some sort of sense!

I still have 60% to go!

David
 
I wrote to Tom Campbell once, asking if he had ever read Seth. He confirmed that he had and that there are many points of convergence. But Tom is a physicist and he likes to frame his worldview in a way that makes sense to him, as we all do. A Sufi mystic might frame reality in different terms but are they saying essentially the same thing? Again, there is much subjectivity and, David, you will notice that Seth is at pains to stress the importance of subjectivity. Pity that subjectivity has become yet another taboo in our modern world.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Taboo-Subjectivity-Towards-Consciousness/dp/0195173104
 
I'm about a third of the way through Jurgen's new book. It's raising as many questions as it's answering! I've typed out three paragraphs which give some insight as to how he thinks :

As usual I immediately focused on the floor in front of me, which was strewn with leaves on a sandy ground, until I could distinguish every detail with incredible clarity. I keep being amazed by the super-fine detail and questioned the belief some people maintain that what we see in the Out-of-Body state are simply our thoughts and our own fantasy projections. Studying such astonishing minutiae, obviously I cannot subscribe to this belief at all and can only assume that people who explain Out-of-Body experiences as fantasies have never actually had the experience or taken the trouble to look at our non-physical reality close up.

Who or what makes all this? A world as real in every detail as our physical reality, and yet not physical at all, or if so it is a physicality subject to laws we don't yet understand or a parallel dimensional reality we normally have no access to ? None of our sciences have paid any attention to this phenomenon so far and it is still seen by many as delusional.

It's safe to say that with regard to understanding our own consciousness and its complex working environments we haven't yet risen out of the dark ages. Not surprisingly, as it is only since 1879 that we invented psychology. For the moment consciousness is boldly dismissed as a result of neurone activity within our brains which vanishes when the brain dies. The consideration that we might be occupying multiple dimensions and could possibly access these via shifts in consciousness seems way out of reach for serious consideration. Though the ways some scientists attempt to put it into a pathological box strikes me as negligent.
 
E.Flowers said:
On topic... How do we define "good"?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether this was directed at me (because I raised questions re evil), but in any case, I answered somewhat at length in another thread.

E.Flowers said:
Stealing is good for the thief if he is starving, but bad for the merchant that is trying to support his family.
Click to expand...

I think that at this level it becomes nuanced and subject to context. Some relevant context might be:

  • Is the thief starving because s/he knowingly and willfully wasted all his/her money on gambling?
  • Is the merchant rich because s/he has been exploiting others, especially either the "thief" him/herself, or others like him/her?
  • In general, what is the nature of the socio-economic system in which this "theft" occurs? Is it one which in general is exploitative, in which the tendency is that "the poor get poorer and the rich get richer"? And how do both the merchant and the thief fit within this system?
  • Does the merchant (and his/her family) have more than enough, and is the thief (and his/her family) genuinely, and through no fault of his/her own, lacking to the point of starvation?
  • Would the theft genuinely cause the merchant to suffer, or could the merchant readily bear the burden of the loss?
  • Would the success of this theft encourage others to do the same, potentially breaking the merchant's ability to cope?
  • What other options are open to the thief?
  • Etc etc.
 
Last edited:
Well I am about 60% of my way through Seth's "The Eternal Validity of the Soul", and I have rather ground to a halt with that for now - it is so dense and rather repetitious. A lot of ideas seem to be discussed in a very abstract, general sort of way.

I am hoping that Norman Friedman's "Bridging Science and Spirit: Common Elements In David Bohm's Physics,
The Perennial Philosophy and Seth" will help to make it all a bit more concrete. I had already noticed some contact with physics ideas - particularly the concept that there are all sorts of parallel 'worlds' that he calls 'probable worlds'.

Does anyone know if Seth ever deals with the interesting fact that quantum mechanical probabilities are quite subtle - the maths of the wave function are such that two probabilities can cancel each other out (I can go into details if that would help). It is important not to lose sight of this in qualitative descriptions.

However when Seth delves into science a bit more seriously, I get a bit worried. Remember that this book was written in the 1970's, and he implies that his explanations relate to current science (which hasn't changed that much in many ways since). Seth seems to like to talk about atoms as if they were really fundamental in the way the ancient Greeks conceived of them. This feels a bit weird.

He also vaguely attributes all sorts of electromagnetic couplings that worries me - I mean such interactions are very physical, and he seems to be describing a world that transcends the physical.

Hopefully some of you will contribute your ideas about Seth!

David
 
lighter_than_air said:
Yes, but what is it about a thief that makes him steal bread in the first place? And why is that necessarily good?
Click to expand...

Are you asking me or E.Flowers? If me, then I don't think stealing bread is "necessarily" good, but it might (at least in theory) be defensible. I think that a (the?) fundamental moral principle is that avoidable harm should be avoided. If you are genuinely starving, and genuinely have no other option but to steal bread to continue living, then it's not really an avoidable harm, and so I would say that unless the theft caused an even worse harm (than starving to death), then it would be morally defensible. Not "good", just morally defensible. As for what it is about a thief that makes him steal bread in the first place: I would hope that it is simply that unless he does so, he is going to starve to death. The only real question left is how a person could get to that point of not being able to support him/herself, and whether there ever could, genuinely, be no other option than theft.

What do you think?
 
It is more than 30 years since I read the books (I recently bought a Kindle version of Seth Speaks but have not looked at it yet). I think the Friedman book might help put the science stuff in perspective but I wasn't really looking for specifics. As I said before, I was quite disappointed when the descriptions delved into detail but I put this down to the possibility that Jane does not have the scientific vocabulary or background. I was never convinced about the EE units and Consciousness Units (CU), both of which are supposed to be smaller in scale than electrons and other particles.

For me, the attraction was in the big picture view. A concept of God as "All That Is" was precisely how I had begun to think back then. Simultaneous lives instead of linear reincarnation was something else that made sense. A gestalt soul made up of all the reincarnational personalities. A higher self as a counterpart - or super-self - existing at the same time and being connected to the physical self. An explanation of why we experience good and bad and how we create these experiences through free will and choice. Karma explained as a balance where a harmful negative can only be mitigated by a healing positive instead of the popular view (at the time) of karma being a form of retribution.

Sorry I can't help with the science, David. I hope that, like me, you can find something of value in the book.
 
Kamarling said:
It is more than 30 years since I read the books (I recently bought a Kindle version of Seth Speaks but have not looked at it yet). I think the Friedman book might help put the science stuff in perspective but I wasn't really looking for specifics. As I said before, I was quite disappointed when the descriptions delved into detail but I put this down to the possibility that Jane does not have the scientific vocabulary or background. I was never convinced about the EE units and Consciousness Units (CU), both of which are supposed to be smaller in scale than electrons and other particles.
Click to expand...
Jane was supposed to turn Seth's ideas into text, so this is certainly possible. Physics does have the concept of the Planck length, which is very very small, 1.6 x 10^(-35) metres, but I don't think it is linked to any definite physics - maybe string theory.
For me, the attraction was in the big picture view. A concept of God as "All That Is" was precisely how I had begun to think back then. Simultaneous lives instead of linear reincarnation was something else that made sense. A gestalt soul made up of all the reincarnational personalities. A higher self as a counterpart - or super-self - existing at the same time and being connected to the physical self.
Click to expand...
These attracted me too - and the idea that we communicate with the other parts of our consciousness in dreams. Sleep and dreams seem too important to life not to have a really central role somehow!
An explanation of why we experience good and bad and how we create these experiences through free will and choice. Karma explained as a balance where a harmful negative can only be mitigated by a healing positive instead of the popular view (at the time) of karma being a form of retribution.
Click to expand...
I think that may be further into the book.
Sorry I can't help with the science, David. I hope that, like me, you can find something of value in the book.
Click to expand...

I wish EthanT was still about!

David
 
I finished reading 'Vistas of Infinity' today. I think everyone who has ever seriously thought about consciousness and reality should read this book.
I found it a bit difficult to read every account that Jurgen describes in full, trying to describe in words things that go beyond language is almost impossible.

As I said in an earlier post it raises as many questions as it answers, but in my view they are only questions of detail. I think this book is a gem but doubtless many on the forum would argue until the cows come home over it. I believe Jurgen Ziewe and I think that this book goes a long way towards answering many of the big questions.
 
Steve said:
I finished reading 'Vistas of Infinity' today. I think everyone who has ever seriously thought about consciousness and reality should read this book.
I found it a bit difficult to read every account that Jurgen describes in full, trying to describe in words things that go beyond language is almost impossible.

As I said in an earlier post it raises as many questions as it answers, but in my view they are only questions of detail. I think this book is a gem but doubtless many on the forum would argue until the cows come home over it. I believe Jurgen Ziewe and I think that this book goes a long way towards answering many of the big questions.
Click to expand...
I read his first and enjoyed it. I just put "Vistas" on my kindle. I will give a read. Thanks.
 
Far.From.Here said:
I read his first and enjoyed it. I just put "Vistas" on my kindle. I will give a read. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Started it last night. It sounds like he has had a classic "enlightenment" or opening experience following the writing of the first book. Sounds as if he would be a good candidate for batgap.
 
Far.From.Here said:
Started it last night. It sounds like he has had a classic "enlightenment" or opening experience following the writing of the first book. Sounds as if he would be a good candidate for batgap.
Click to expand...

Funny that you should mention batgap. It's a question that I put to him this very morning. That's partly why I like what he says so much, it seems to bring it all together in one TOE, in a way that I 'get' ! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top