Mike's commentary · Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, Session 888

The "Introduction" and "Key Points" for this chapter were summarized by an AI editor based on the main text below; they are not things Mike said during the lecture. The main text comes from Mike's commentary, and the blockquotes are Seth's original words (the parts Mike read aloud).

Introduction

This chapter continues the account of Dr. G's visit. Seth points out that people can only locate events within the range of their perception, and cannot precisely locate the microscopic, the macroscopic, or time that cannot be seen; the observer and the observed change each other, time and space are psychological attributes, and the universe did not begin at a particular point in space and time. The latter half enters Chapter 3, explaining that cells, electrons, and the like possess instantaneous communication and fields of consciousness, which form the background of the body's stability, and pointing out that the conscious mind is only one part of a broader psychological spectrum.

Key Points of This Chapter

• People can only locate events that fall within the range of perception, and cannot precisely locate the microscopic, the macroscopic, and the invisible aspects of time.
• The observer and the observed are part of the same event, each changing the other, and this interrelationship exists at every level of reality.
• Time and space are psychological properties, products of the universe; the universe did not begin at a particular point in space and time.
• Cells, electrons, and the like exist in instantaneous communication and fields of consciousness, and the stability of the body depends on these usually ignored background activities.
• The conscious mind is only one kind of consciousness, and only because of the limits of human activity range and psychological spectrum does it appear to be the only intentional consciousness.

Main Text

Hello everyone, I am Mike. Today I will continue sharing Session 888 of Volume 1 of the Seth book Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment.

This session began at 9:04 p.m. on Monday, December 10, 1979¹. Rob said that on the previous Saturday evening, Dr. Gai (let us call him by this pseudonym for now) came to visit. He is a psychology professor at a well-known university nearby; Rob did not say which school, nor did he give his real name. He had written to Jane on November 16², and when Jane returned Dr. Gai's call, he said that someone called Dr. Gan (another pseudonym) had instructed him to contact Jane. Dr. Gan is a professor in the sociology department of a university in the Midwest, and he had asked Dr. Gai to go see Jane and undergo some tests of psychic abilities. These two scientists had not yet met each other. The meeting that day was very pleasant; Dr. Gai knew some important figures in the field of parapsychology, and both Dr. Gai and Dr. Gan were deeply interested in witchcraft.

Through Jane, Seth delivered several beautifully organized little essays to Dr. Gai -- Seth made some very brief points about how he was able to relax so that the psychic signals that interested him so much could come through. Strangely, Dr. Gai had not brought a tape recorder, and we do not use one either. So, for the first time in a long while, the Seth material came through and vanished just as quickly -- it ended as the conversation ended. Neither of them recorded it, and Rob did not take notes either. This was a strange experience for us; they rarely do this, almost never.

Seth also discussed with Dr. Gai the practice of witchcraft and the motivations behind it. And in return for Seth, as the three of us sat around the table in the living room, Dr. Gai performed his own little magic tricks for us, which greatly surprised and intrigued us. As Jane said afterward with regret, Dr. Gai did not say a single word about his reaction to Seth -- that is, what he thought of the whole thing -- although I observed that, like many people, he was completely absorbed in Seth's personality -- that is, when Seth came through Jane, he was fully absorbed. Jane said, I guess he will write to Dr. Gan. We did not ask Dr. Gai what he wanted to do, and as far as that matter was concerned, we did not even ask him what exactly Dr. Gan had sent him to investigate about Jane and Seth -- or even about me. Dr. Gai left us a book, written by a scientist about a famous medium, which we were supposed to return to him as soon as we finished reading it.

This was something that happened in the middle of the session. Then Seth came through and began the main content of this session. He directly said good evening and did not mention this matter at all. Seth is someone who knows very clearly what he wants to do; he focused on the transmission of the book and paid no attention to other topics. He is often able to return to the theme of an event even after they have interrupted the sessions for two or three months. And even while transmitting such an abstract theme, he is able to keep his logical thinking exceptionally clear, advancing step by step. Let us see what he said.

You Can Only Locate What You Can Perceive

He said:

You can only correctly locate an event that falls within your range of perception in some way.

What he means is that we humans want to locate something. What does "locate" mean? It means when it happened and where it happened. But we can only locate the part we can perceive -- the larger part of it and the smaller part of it, you cannot perceive either.

Let me give a simple example. For instance, the position of our solar system in the Milky Way changes periodically, but we humans have no perception of it. The solar system revolves around the Milky Way, but its motion is not a fixed circle; rather, it is a kind of elliptical, eccentric orbit, so its distance from the center of the Milky Way is sometimes closer and sometimes farther, changing periodically. How large is this cycle? The entire cycle is 26,500 years³, something like that. Such a large cycle, we humans cannot perceive it, and the changes that occur within this large cycle, we humans cannot perceive them.

We can only perceive what we humans are capable of perceiving, such as solar flare eruptions -- roughly every 11 years or so, sunspots may enter a period of heightened activity⁴, and so on. Even more microscopic things we also cannot see, such as magnetic storms and solar wind radiation -- these we also cannot see or feel.

Moreover, up to this point, everything we have been talking about is still within the three-dimensional world -- the Milky Way, the position of the solar system, solar storms, all of these are still within the three-dimensional world, let alone the existence of multiple dimensions and many higher levels of dimensions; the events that occur in those dimensions are even more beyond our perception. Let us not even talk about those multi-dimensional worlds, probable worlds, and unknown realities; let us just talk about things in the three-dimensional world, and humans can still only perceive things within the scale range that they are capable of perceiving.

In other words, what scale range of things can we humans perceive? In terms of the size of objects, it is roughly at the level of millimeters, or a level slightly smaller than millimeters -- changes at the scale range of 10 to the negative third or negative fourth power, our human naked eyes can see and feel. As for large things, for example, 10 to the third, fourth, or fifth power, that is, the distance range of one kilometer, ten kilometers, one hundred kilometers, one thousand kilometers, we can also feel. But if it is too large, we cannot feel it; for example, scale changes beyond one thousand kilometers, basically you cannot feel the change -- it is not that you have no sense of distance, but changes at such a large scale are imperceptible to you. Let alone one hundred thousand kilometers or several light-years -- do not even think about it.

You cannot precisely locate microscopic and macroscopic time.

We humans are quite interesting: we cannot see microscopic things, nor can we see macroscopic things; we can only see this middle zone that our own sensory systems can perceive -- neither too large nor too small. Things that are too large and too small, we cannot see either. You might say, that is not right, the universe is so vast and I can see it? If you study astronomy, you know that the universe you can see occupies only -- I do not know how to describe it -- a size so small it can basically be ignored, utterly negligible.

You cannot precisely locate invisible time.

We have no way of locating things we cannot see, right? Whether they are from other dimensions, or within this dimension but larger than our scale range or smaller than our scale range, we cannot see them.

You and It Are Not in the Same Time Frame

Because even if your precise instruments could perceive them, they still would not meet within the same time frame.

This sentence is very mysterious. He is saying that your instruments can perceive those things you cannot see—such as electron microscopes and radio telescopes—but you still do not meet within the same time frame. What does that mean? The universes you see with a radio telescope or the Hubble telescope are all things that are already so many light-years, so many thousands of light-years, so many tens of thousands of light-years away. When you perceive that thing today, when you detect it, it is already something that happened tens of thousands of years ago, hundreds of millions of years ago. You see it, but it is not happening in the present. It is not like someone makes a movement right in front of you and you see it immediately—no, it is too far away from you. The movements you see were all made tens of thousands of years ago, hundreds of millions of years ago, billions of years ago.

You and it have not met within the same time frame. What you see is its afterimage, its shadow, a projection of it. It is like your phone recording a family video, and after tens of thousands of years it is seen by later humans—that kind of feeling. Did you see it? Yes. Are the two of you in the same time and space? No, you are not in the same time and space.

So can you really call that seeing? Is this seeing the same as the seeing you ordinarily understand? You think you have seen it, you want to locate it, but it may already no longer exist—according to your time, in the present it may already have ceased to exist long ago, yet when you look at it now, it is still perfectly fine.

The Observer and the Observed Are Part of the Same Event

He says:

I want to discuss this concept briefly, so that later we can discuss the location of the universe.

Haven't you humans always wanted to know from what point the universe began? Because the Big Bang would give a point where the universe exploded, a point relative to our galaxy or the entire system of galaxies. All right, let's discuss what positioning is all about, and how you humans do your positioning.

Any event that you perceive is only a portion of the true extent of that event.

All events that you humans can perceive are only a portion of that event -- exactly how large a portion is uncertain. Not to mention that it is projected from multidimensional space-time; even within this one space-time, you can only perceive the middle portion of the event's extent. What is too large and what is too small, you cannot perceive. That is the first point.

The second:

The observer and the observed are part of the same event, each changing the other.

He is talking about the first issue of scale, and the second is no longer about scale but about the wholeness of the event. You observe something, and you think that what you observe is the observed event -- you think you are an observer, observing an event, that the event exists objectively, and that you as an observer are outside it. But in fact, from a larger perspective, the very act of you observing an event is itself also an event, right?

Let me give an example. Someone else gets into a car accident, and you get out to look. You are a bystander to the accident. You think the accident is an event, and you are a bystander, that it has nothing to do with you, that you are merely observing the accident. But then a news reporter with a camera comes to film it, and he films the accident along with the bystanders and the onlookers gathered around it. He says that an accident occurred somewhere and the scene was chaotic -- in this, are you not also participating as part of the accident event? And this reporter reporting the matter is yet another event.

From a larger perspective, you are watching television, and on the television the reporter is reporting the accident, and within the accident there is a you standing there observing the accident. Every person feels that they are outside the event, yet every person in this is within a larger event. It is not the case that when you observe something you are outside it -- that is only your assumption. The fact is, you are always within a world; you cannot be outside a world.

Let's continue. You feel that you are merely looking at this matter, but does this event actually have an effect on you? Of course it does. For example, if you witness a traffic accident, you might immediately become much more cautious when driving -- and this may prevent another event that could have happened to you. Are you also affecting others? If you witness a traffic accident and you are a warm-hearted person, and you see one person bullying another, you go up to help. You might even get into an argument with them, or a physical scuffle -- then are you not deeply participating? Are you not also changing the other party?

You say, no, I am objective, I do not participate, I am only observing. For example, I am a media reporter, I do not participate in the event, I only observe the event. Then how many media reporters have ended up getting beaten? How many media reporters have lost their lives because of interviews? A person goes to interview an event as a bystander and ends up losing their life -- look at reports from around the world: journalism is a high-risk profession, and how many people have sacrificed their lives for it. And how many events have changed because of reporters' coverage? Can you say that this bystander or observer has not changed the world? They mutually change each other.

This Interrelationship Always Exists

In any system of reality, or on any level of activity, this interrelationship always exists.

He made an absolute statement: in any system of reality — whether three-dimensional, five-dimensional, whether tangible or intangible — and on any level of activity, as long as there is activity, this interrelationship always exists. What interrelationship? That the observer and the observed are always interacting.

For example, in a certain sense, even an electron knows — this "knowing" is in quotation marks, not the kind of knowing humans have — that through your instruments, it is being observed.

Even an electron can know it is being observed, isn't that interesting? If you know the wave-particle duality experiment — the famous experiment in quantum mechanics — then you know that depending on whether the observer is present or not, the experimental result is completely different. When there is an observer, it displays a particle state; when there is no observer, it displays an energy wave state. This is the famous wave-particle duality⁵.

There is a relationship between the electrons within the instruments themselves, and the electrons that the scientist may be trying to isolate for observation.

The instrument you use to observe electrons, no matter what kind of instrument, is itself built of matter, right? Since this material instrument is material, it is composed of atoms, and within atoms there are also electrons. You use this instrument to observe the object being observed — the object being observed is an electron, and what makes up this instrument is also electrons. Do you say there is no connection between these electrons?

He said, let us set that aside for now, and there is also — let us tentatively call it — the collective unconscious of all electrons, which forms the entire event that is, as it were, outside the electron the scientist is observing. This is getting more and more esoteric. Setting aside for the moment the question of interactions among electrons, I will just tell you: do all electrons also have something called a collective unconscious of electrons? Or call it the collective subconscious. We all know Jung told us that humans have a collective subconscious — also called the collective unconscious, either is fine. So do all electrons have a collective unconscious of electrons?

Then does this collective unconscious of electrons encompass everything in the material world? The entire material world is composed of atoms, and within atoms there are electrons, so are they all influenced by this collective unconscious of electrons? Does it influence the entire material world? So the scientist observing that electron — he only says I am observing the behavior of this electron, but apart from this act of observing the electron, all other things — and of course including this act itself — is this entire world not influenced by the collective unconscious of electrons?

Isolation Is the "Reality" You Want

Within the scope of your activities, you want to be able to properly determine and identify an event, to project it in space and time, and the only way to do that is to isolate certain portions of events that are much larger or much smaller, and to regard an extremely specific set of rules for a thing as true.

What he means is that you humans always want to pin something down, always want to determine, within the framework of space and time, at what time and at what place an event occurred — from the universe at large, down to our daily lives, down to the microscopic world, you always want to pin it down, even wanting to determine the position of an atom or an electron. That is our scientists' favorite thing to do. Certainty is the foundation of science. If you tell them something is uncertain, science cannot accept it.

But science has run right into — how should I put it — a brick wall. In quantum mechanics, it clearly tells you that there is an uncertainty principle⁶. What is the uncertainty principle? It is the most fundamental principle discovered in quantum mechanics. In the field of quantum mechanics, uncertainty means it is never certain. You can only know one thing about a particle — either you want to know its angular velocity. Angular velocity is rotation; anything that rotates has an angular velocity, which is its speed. When it rotates, it has energy; the rotation of any object carries energy, which we call kinetic energy. Electrons are in motion, atoms are in motion, all have kinetic energy. The Earth is also in motion, the solar system is also in motion, all things in the universe are in motion, and motion means kinetic energy.

And at the level of quantum mechanics, the most amazing thing is this: if you want to determine its kinetic energy, you cannot determine its position; if you want to determine its position, you cannot determine its energy. You can only choose one of the two. This is a very amazing thing. At first, scientists simply could not accept this fact, but after countless mathematical deductions and verifications, including laboratory demonstrations, the result was always the same. What finally emerged was the electron cloud — that is, the probability of an electron appearing in certain regions can be determined, but the specific position of a particular electron at a particular time is very hard to determine.

Seth says, I am not talking about these esoteric things. I am simply telling you that when you humans want to pin something down within a range of space and time, you can only set aside all those parts that are much larger or much smaller than that event, and isolate them — these we will not consider, we will only consider this event. That is to say, you cut away all the parts involved in the whole event, keeping only the portion you want to observe, and then you say, yes, this is correct, this is real. But you have clearly cast all the rest aside.

If you still do not understand what he means, let me give you a simple example, and you will understand the complexity and subtlety involved. When you study the motion of an atom or an electron, besides considering it within its own scale, do you not have to consider that this atom or electron is on the Earth? The Earth itself is rotating, the Earth is also revolving around the Sun, the Sun is revolving around the Milky Way, and the Sun itself is also rotating. If you took all of that into account when calculating the motion of this electron — of course you would have to, because the electron is operating within this very environment. But in actual experiments, we cannot take these into account, because at this microscopic level, we assume that the macroscopic influence on it is negligible.

And when you consider the trajectory of a planet, you do not consider what makes up the inside of that planet — never mind the atomic level — you do not even consider the influence of the rocks that make up the planet on the planet itself. Rocks are composed of atoms and molecules, and there is motion inside them as well, but when you consider things at the planetary level, you do not take that motion into account, because you cannot calculate the influence of the countless particles that make up this planet on the planet as a whole. You can only abstract the entire Earth into a perfectly round sphere with a center of mass — the center of its mass — and then turn it into an abstract model to do your calculations.

To put it simply, what Seth wants to say is this: when you consider an event or observe an event, you are giving up other events that occur at scales larger and smaller than it, events that are closely related to it. You only regard it as true under specific circumstances and under specific rules. You have not taken into account the whole environment and the whole world.

Light Is Both Wave and Particle

He paused again, then said:

Light is defined as either a wave or a particle.

Light itself is sometimes viewed as a wave, sometimes as a particle. Why view it as a particle? We say light is made up of photons. Yet when we study light, we are told that light is an electromagnetic wave. So is light made up of photons, or is light an electromagnetic wave? Scientists tell you that both states exist simultaneously.

In many other instances, it is the same way: both states exist simultaneously.

For example, consciousness can be defined as either a wave or a particle, because it can operate as either one, and thus appear to be either one.

You can define consciousness as either a wave or a particle, because it can operate as either one, and thus appear to be either one.

Even though its true definition must also include the creativity that forms itself into such forms.

This part is a bit more convoluted. He is saying that if you want to define consciousness, it is very hard to define. Consciousness itself, even if you can define it as either a wave or a particle, you must also state that consciousness possesses the ability to exist as both wave and particle simultaneously -- and this ability itself is also part of consciousness. I possess the ability to exist in both wave and particle states simultaneously, and this ability is also part of my consciousness. When you study consciousness, you cannot simply say it has the attributes of a wave or the attributes of a particle; you must also say that it simultaneously possesses the attributes of both wave and particle, and that the very ability to do so is itself also an attribute of consciousness.

The Point at Which the Universe Began

You cannot precisely locate the beginning of the universe.

You cannot pinpoint exactly which point the universe began from -- it cannot be located.

Because that beginning is at once too large and too small to be contained in any of your definite statements.

You always want to explore exactly at which point the universe was born, and he says there is no way, because the universe is for you at once too large and too small -- you see, these two concepts exist simultaneously. The point at which the universe began is for you at once infinitely large and infinitely small, and it cannot be contained in any of your definite statements. You cannot even speak of it, so how can you define it?

Although in that definite statement everything would be neat and complete.

Although you could use a language, use a Big Bang theory, to depict it, even quite neatly. But it would be meaningless.

You operate with incredible nonchalance in the theater of time and space.

He says that whether you are defining the universe, or defining these positions and the relationship between time and space, it is as if you are in a theater of time and space -- remember his metaphor, it is within a theater -- within such an illusion of time and space, you operate in a nonchalant manner. Because you have ignored all of that important information, assumed only a single premise, and then conducted your research within that assumed information. The results of your research have no meaning once you step outside this theater; they only have meaning within this theater of time and space of yours. Just like a magic trick, it only has meaning in a specific setting.

Time and space are each the result of psychological properties.

Neither time nor space is an objective reality; both are your psychological properties.

When you ask how old the universe is, or how old the world is, at that point you have already confirmed time as an almost absolute property.

He says that when you ask when the universe originated, where it began, by asking these two questions you have in fact already inwardly assumed that time and space are absolute existences, and that the universe was born at a certain moment relative to them. But he says that in fact the universe is the absolute existence, while time and space are things belonging to your psychological categories. Whether they themselves objectively exist is also rather meaningless -- from a relatively objective standpoint, they are actually your subjective psychological experience.

And your problem is that only by stepping outside the scope of ordinary experience can you find the answer. Because within that experience, you are always brought back to beginnings and endings, to moments that come in sequence, and to a time within which there is no evidence of any other source.

How to put this in an analogy? He says you always want to seek the answer, yet your answer is always outside this world, but you always want to seek the answer within this world. You will never find it. It is as if, within the theater of time and space, you want to find the answer, yet the answer is clearly outside the theater. Only by stepping out can you know how this theater was built, how this illusory place of time and space was constructed. But you cannot step out; you always want to seek the answer within this theater of time and space, so how could you ever find it? Because no matter how you search, you cannot escape the limitation of time and space.

The Physical World Is Unique

The physical world as you know it is unique, existing within a particular scale, and is part of a larger universal world.

So our world is unique, existing within a particular scale, and is part of a larger universal world. In terms of its importance to the universe itself, it is an indispensable, vital component, and it is an innate part of that universe. Our physical world is part of the universe.

Yet it is also entirely its own reality, and that reality depends upon every form of life and every kind of perception that composes it.

This line is quite profound; you need to savor it carefully. It is part of the universe, and it is also its own reality. It is not that being part of the universe makes its own reality unimportant. Our entire physical universe is part of the greater universe, but saying it that way makes it sound as though there is a universe outside this universe. Actually, there is not. There is just this one universe; this thing transcends the limits of language, so just understand it that way.

We can understand this physical world as part of a multidimensional, multi-layered world; that makes it easier to grasp. The world of our dimension has its own reason for existing; it is an indispensable and important part of the whole universe. And then it has its own reality -- remember, the reality of this physical universe is not the reality of the whole universe; it is only one part, one facet, of the reality of the whole universe. Suppose the reality of the whole universe is 26-dimensional, then the reality of our world is only three-dimensional -- the 26 dimensions is just an arbitrary example I made up; do not dwell on it, just understand it in that way.

The Gestalt of the Divine Being

He says this three-dimensional universe has its own perceptivity, every life has its own perceptivity, and the perceptivity of every life combined together is the cognition of this reality as a whole.

It is a creation of consciousness, a unique manifestation that arises from within that sacred gestalt of being.

This physical world of yours, this three-dimensional physical world, is also a creation of your consciousness. It is a unique manifestation that arises from within that sacred gestalt of being — that Gestalt thing. That Gestalt encompasses everything, and our physical universe is one unique manifestation within it, within a particular scale that allows us humans to perceive and understand it.

That sacred psychological gestalt has such an unimaginable scope that its entire reality cannot appear in any one of its own worlds.

How big is it, really? Its scope is so unimaginable — you cannot even imagine it — that its entire reality cannot appear in any one of its own worlds. This sacred gestalt is too vast; no world in which it exists can fully display it. So if you want to see the truth of the universe, you will never see it, because no single reality, no single dimension, no single world, no single space-time can contain this gestalt being of such sacred, such unimaginable scope.

Remember, this "bigness" is not bigness in the spatial sense. You could also say it is too deep, you could also say it is too broad, you could also say its dimensions are beyond counting — however you say it works — these are all limitations of human language. In short, this sacred being is infinite, and the manifestation of any dimension has its limitations, so it cannot display the entirety of its own reality.

Space and Time Are Psychological Attributes

Once again:

Space is a psychological attribute, and so is time.

This has been said before. So:

The universe did not begin at some particular point in time, or at any particular location in space.

The universe was not born at some place or some point in time or space.

Instead, space-time is a product of the universe. For in truth, all space and all time appear simultaneously.

You see, there is another problem here: the moment you say "simultaneously," are you not dragging time into it again? But there is no way around it; you can only understand it this way. In a spacious present, all time and all space are contained within it, and they appear to be simultaneous. As for how to understand this simultaneity, you cannot use your concept of time to understand it. If you use the simultaneity of time to understand it, you fall back into the trap of time again. You can only say that from the perspective of time, they appear to be simultaneous. That is to say, when you stand from the perspective of space-time and look at them, they are produced simultaneously. But that "simultaneously" of his transcends the category of our time.

The Location of Dreams

Let us continue:

You cannot accurately or precisely locate the position of consciousness.

Can you define where your consciousness is located? You cannot define it. He paused for a long time, then continued:

When you are dreaming, you cannot precisely locate the position of your dream.

Where does your dream take place? It seems you can determine the position of the chair beside you, the cabinet, even your bed while you are dreaming, but—

Inner locations are real, and meaningful activity can occur within them.

You can know the position of your bedside table, the chair beside you, the table, even your bed can all be defined, but the location of the dream alone you cannot define; you do not know where it is. Yet in that place whose specific physical location you cannot define, so many real things are happening—how many real things happen in the dream state. You cry and you laugh, so of course it is meaningful. You cannot define its precise location, yet what happens within it is meaningful.

Your physical space exists in the same way, except that it is a psychological attribute shared by the group, but at some point in the beginning this was not so.

Where does your present sense of space come from? It is a group attribute, a shared psychological attribute shared by the group. Can you understand this point of his? We say such-and-such a place, in such-and-such a place—so where exactly is that place? It is a psychological attribute, and it is collective. For example, we all know where the airport is; everyone agrees on that. But for someone who has never been to the airport, how do I describe the airport to you? You only have a concept; you really do not know where it is.

Let me give another example. You take a plane to a city, fly for ten hours, and land. Can you know exactly where you are? You do not know; you only know you flew for over ten hours. If you can also sleep on the plane, you know even less how you got to that place. But once you arrive, everyone says, ah, this is Paris, and you say, ah, I have arrived in Paris. If the moment you get off the plane everyone says you have arrived in Uganda, then you say, ah, I have arrived in Uganda. Can you understand what he means? This is a psychological attribute, taught bit by bit from childhood. Your sense of space, your sense of distance, are all a psychological attribute shared by the group; everyone thinks this way, so you think this way too.

Space at the Beginning of the Universe

But when the universe first began—don't lose track of the theme, Seth has been talking about the beginning of the universe—at the beginning of the universe it was not like this. He said in the last session that at the beginning of the universe, time could be long or short, fast or slow, just like in your dreams. At the beginning of the universe there was a psychological time, and space was also a psychological space, and that sense of space was not as clear and definite as our present cognition of the world. At the very beginning of the universe:

Physical space had the characteristics of the space you now know in dreams.

The characteristics of dream space—remember, not the same—characteristics, the nature is the same. Don't say that at the beginning of the universe it was dream space, the same as dream space. It says here that it had the same characteristics as dream space, don't confuse the two.

It had a quality called privacy. Our dream space is private; your dream space is yours, and others cannot enter it. Of course, except for people at a higher level, who can sometimes break into your dreams, but for ordinary people, they cannot enter other people's dreams. Dreams are a private space.

And only gradually, in those terms, did it become publicly shared.

At the very beginning of the universe, this sense of space, like dream space, was a kind of private space, entirely subjective. As it gradually developed, it became something publicly shared, something belonging to the psychological attributes of the group, and it became the space we have today.

How did our present space come about? It is a group psychological attribute, and one that is shared by the group. People have to share it with each other; if you don't share it, you don't even know where your space is. Seth's wording is extremely precise: "a psychological attribute shared by the group." In other words, if you were dropped somewhere, with no one to share anything with, no phone, no GPS, no contact with any surrounding information, no interaction with others, no sharing—I want to ask you, do you know where you are? You don't know. Blindfold yourself, have someone take you to some space, and tell me where you are. You don't know where you are. Space is that kind of magical thing.

In other words, you need to communicate with others, you need the support of external information, you need these group events and collective influences, before you know where you are. So many questions cannot be pursued too deeply; once you pursue them deeply you discover, oh, so that's how it is. Time has the same kind of attribute.

This Chapter Ends

What would such a world be like? What was this world like at the very beginning? And how can you connect it to the world you know? How did the world at the start of the universe, and the world you see now, become what it is today? These are questions to be discussed in the next chapter and beyond.

So he says, this chapter ends. In other words, he split Session 888 into two parts, one placed at the end of Chapter 2, the other at the beginning of Chapter 3. Seth often uses this approach in this book. So we will follow his chapter divisions and continue guiding everyone through this book as usual.

Wishing everyone a magical and wonderful day.

Sleepwalkers in the World of Early Trance States, the Awakening of the Species

We continue sharing Seth Book Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, Volume 1, Chapter 3, titled "Sleepwalkers in the World of Early Trance States, the Awakening of the Species." This section is actually the latter half of the previous Session 888, with the first half placed at the end of Chapter 2. So right at the start, Seth says Chapter 3 begins, and he even reads the title aloud directly.

You have taught yourselves to respond only to certain neural patterns, and to ignore those alternate ones that have now become merely background activity. Yet the impetus of those millions of neural stimuli that you consider biologically real is indeed supported by this background activity.

Seth says that we humans respond only to certain neural patterns, and automatically choose to ignore other neural patterns. And those ignored neural stimuli and neural response patterns are treated as background activity -- as if they were unimportant. Yet the millions of neural stimuli that you seriously study in biology -- their impetus, the energy behind them, their power, their source -- all come from that part you ignore, those neural stimuli and neural response patterns that you do not seriously perceive and do not respond to.

To put it simply and plainly. Today our cognition and feelings, our neural response patterns, are our sensory perceptions. Seth puts it rather abstractly, but the meaning is this: our feelings and experiences today selectively respond only to these and not to others. And the things you actually respond to are precisely the result of those things you do not respond to. To put it even more simply: all the stimuli of your outer senses today -- eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, the sensations and stimuli of these five senses -- are generated by the inner senses. Those stimuli of the inner senses are all ignored by you, and the reason you have outer senses at all is precisely because you have inner senses.

Those other background stimuli are now very difficult for you to identify, but they have always been in the hinterland of your waking consciousness, beneath your usual associations, like mutterings in a dream.

You no longer recognize the inner senses, but those background stimuli are the source of your present senses, the origin of your present senses. Yet you have already treated them as something like dream talk -- mutterings in a dream. So unimportant. Would you care what someone says in their sleep? Would you think sleep-talking is important? No, you would just laugh it off.

Neurologically speaking, you tune in only to one portion of your body's reality, and are unaware of that great, or minute, but clamorous communication that is ever flying about in the precise, delicate, yet vital world of the cells.

This passage continues an idea from the previous session: our human perception and cognition of our own world can only remain within the scale that we are able to perceive. In terms of size, for example, from ten to the positive fifth power to ten to the negative fifth power⁷, with the unit being meters -- positive fifth power meters is several hundred kilometers, negative fifth power meters is zero point zero something millimeters. Within this range, we humans all have perception; beyond this range, we cannot perceive. And in those parts you do not perceive -- the most subtle communication between cells -- you cannot perceive it, but it does not cease to exist just because you cannot perceive it. It truly exists in the world of the cells, flying back and forth between cell and cell.

In your terms, electrons can predict.

Essentially it is not called prediction, but we humans think of it as prediction -- responding to something in the future is called prediction. But actually, because past, present, and future all exist within cells and quanta. You feel it is prediction; for us humans it is prediction. Your cellular consciousness can also predict. From our human perspective, past, present, and future are linear time, and when it responds to something in the future, we consider that a predictive response. Actually it is not, but from the human perspective it is.

The relative permanence of your body in time is dependent upon the remarkable behavior of electrons in their handling of probabilities.

Your body can exist, can survive, can exist for a relatively long time in relation to time, mainly because of the remarkable behavior of electrons in their handling of probabilities. What probabilities? Those underlying minute communications that you cannot perceive -- the communication between those tiny particles measured in electrons, atoms, and cells. They maintain such a huge body as yours existing in this time for decades, nearly a hundred years, all dependent upon the remarkable behavior of tiny electrons in their handling of probabilities.

The stability of the cell, and its reliability in the physical environment, is dependent upon its innate properties of instantaneous communication and instantaneous decision.

For cells, there is no past, present, or future. Neither at the electronic level nor at the cellular level is there any such thing; there is only a spacious present. It communicates instantly and decides instantly regarding what happens within this spacious present -- this is its innate property. But remember, this "instantaneous" -- instantaneous communication and instantaneous response -- is not the "instantaneous" we humans understand in the sense of time. It is instantaneous in the time of that spacious present, operating your body at that point of simultaneity where present, past, and future all exist at once. Because it responds instantly and decides instantly at such a point of simultaneity where present, past, and future all exist at once, it can bring about the result that we humans, within the category of time as we understand it, experience the body as exhibiting continuous stability.

It sounds quite convoluted. Simply put: for cells, there is no human concept of time, no past, present, or future; they simply communicate instantly and respond instantly. But the "instant" in which they exist spans all of present, past, and future time -- in other words, it transcends time. Yet what it brings about for us humans in the three-dimensional world, from the angle of time, is the feeling of a body that exists constantly for decades. This is entirely the result of the innate property of cells being unable to sense time. So you cannot use the angle of time to consider the working operations of cells, electrons, and atoms. They have no such concept; they operate only in the present, responding instantly and deciding instantly -- this is their innate property.

Can you understand Seth's meaning? It is not responding to the future, nor is it that the past causes today, nor is it predicting what will happen in the future. For the existence of a cell, it simply lives in its own present, responding immediately to instantaneous communication and the information that communication brings. And this "instantaneous" is not the instantaneous of the three-dimensional time you understand; it is that eternal spacious present.

Each cell is in communication with all other cells, and through fields of consciousness, with all other liaisons. In the fields of consciousness, each entity of whatever degree takes part.

Here Seth introduces a term: fields of consciousness. Each cell is in communication with all other cells, and through fields of consciousness, with all other conscious entities -- cells, atoms, molecules -- all consciousnesses are joined together into a common field of consciousness. In this field of consciousness, no matter how small, no matter how large, every entity takes part. Takes part in what? Takes part in what it wants to do, and while doing well what it wants to do, also accomplishes others. In our human terms, each conscious entity lives in its own present, each one is instantaneous communication and instantaneous response, with no past and no future. So many spiritual practitioners tell you to "live in the present" -- that means living in this field of consciousness. Living in the field of consciousness means instantaneous response and instantaneous communication. It is that simple.

At one level, your cells obey the laws of time.

What does "obey the laws of time" mean? You live for several decades and then cannot live any longer; you live to one hundred years old, one hundred twenty-five years old⁸, and then cannot live any longer -- cells must obey this time law of ours. Why cannot they be immortal? They have their laws, right? Very strange. On the one hand, cells obey the laws of this illusory time that we humans can perceive, and are influenced by it; but at other levels, they violate it. On the one hand obeying time, on the other hand not obeying time. Is it mind-bending? It is that mind-bending. So our cells are very miraculous.

All of these communications are part of the human portion of reality. They exist completely beneath what you think of as normal consciousness, and they are the result of psychological activity.

Seth says something very interesting here: the communication between cell and cell is all part of the whole of this person you call "human." You cannot say that only the consciousness of the brain is consciousness; the communication between cell and cell is all part of the whole of this person. And they exist completely beneath what we consider normal consciousness, operating at the level of the subconscious, the inner consciousness, the inner world, or the inner self. They are the result of psychological activity, and cannot be captured by our consciousness. So it is very normal that you do not know of their existence, because they are not within the category of your consciousness.

Seth goes on to say that in the beginning -- he means the beginning of the universe -- you were aware only of that kind of psychological activity, and it was still useful. You may not understand this sentence.

It was not composed of small particles, but quite the contrary, of small units of consciousness that gradually built themselves into larger ones. But a small unit of consciousness, you see, is not less than a large unit, for each unit of consciousness contains within it the innate heritage of All That Is.

Looking at this Seth material, by this book it is getting shorter and shorter, because Jane's health was poor, and the material could not be transmitted for too long. But although it is short, the essence is being condensed, and every sentence is worth pondering, worth pondering repeatedly.

What does Seth mean? Continuing from above: your cells live in the present, respond instantly, communicate instantly, and this communication itself is also part of your existence as a person. But this communication escapes your conscious control; it is more like the result of a kind of psychological activity.

Then he says, at the very beginning of the birth of this universe, you did not yet have a physical body, and when you did not have a physical body, you could only perceive that kind of psychological activity. At that time cells had not yet truly been born; there were only cells in dreams -- the forms and shapes of cells in imagination, but there was no physical cell. So at that time you could only perceive that kind of psychological activity, but this psychological activity was also useful. Without this psychological activity, there would be no subsequent physical birth of cells, and no physical body of ours.

Wherein lies its usefulness? This is what is explained next: they are not small particles, small grains; quite the contrary, they are small units of consciousness, and then they will compose themselves into larger units. This involves a gestalt function of consciousness: consciousness always begins from small units -- the consciousness of atoms becomes the consciousness of molecules, the consciousness of molecules becomes the consciousness of cells, the consciousness of cells becomes the consciousness of tissues, the consciousness of tissues becomes the consciousness of organs, and the consciousness of all organs finally integrates into the consciousness of a person.

Remember, small units of consciousness will compose themselves into larger units of consciousness. The smallest unit of consciousness is called a unit of consciousness (CU); this is the smallest unit of consciousness. But this smaller unit of consciousness can become a larger unit of consciousness, and larger units of consciousness will compose even larger units of consciousness -- just as CUs compose the most basic particles, and the most basic particles compose atoms and electrons, and atoms and electrons compose molecules. Every level is a unit of consciousness, just at different levels. Then they gradually compose even larger units of consciousness, and finally compose the entire universe.

But you must understand that the size of this unit of consciousness is not like how we humans perceive particles. It is not that a small unit of consciousness is like a small grain of sand, and finally builds into a unit of consciousness as large as a building, and therefore the building-sized unit of consciousness is more advanced and much larger than the grain-of-sand unit of consciousness. Seth says this is not how it should be understood. At the level of units of consciousness, there is no concept of size. Although small units of consciousness will compose large units of consciousness, within every smallest, smallest unit of consciousness there is the innate heritage of All That Is. That is to say, within any tiniest, tiniest, tiniest unit in the universe, the information of the entire universe is contained. The smallest contains the largest universe; how can you speak of its size? There is no way to speak of it.

To say that this small unit of consciousness is incomplete, and only by composing together, level by level upward, from small to large, finally composing the entire universe -- it is not like that. From a certain angle it is like that, but from a certain angle it is not. Because any tiniest unit that composes this universe also contains all the consciousness of the entire universe within it. This in itself is like a paradox, and cannot be understood by human consciousness.

What is All That Is? All That Is is the process of the creation of all consciousnesses. The tiniest unit of consciousness has the innate heritage of All That Is, meaning that all the processes of all the creations of All That Is -- call it information, all of it is information -- are contained within this smallest unit of consciousness. When it comes to this kind of place, there is no way to describe it in language.

You think of the conscious mind you know as being the only kind of consciousness, possessing deliberate intent, aware of itself as itself, and capable of understanding logic and symbols.

You think that the human conscious mind is the only consciousness in this world, and that nothing else has consciousness. Your conscious mind possesses intent, can be aware of itself as itself -- that is, the conscious mind can know itself; every person, every reader present knows that they are themselves. This is the function of the conscious mind, having a sense of self-cognition. And you think that only humans have this characteristic, with the ability to understand logic and symbols.

It is only because of your particular range of activity, and because you can locate events only within a particular psychological spectrum, that it appears to be true.

Why do you have this feeling? It is because you have a particular range of activity. What is a particular range of activity? Let me give an example so you can understand: because of the limitation of our human size, we can only understand those things within our scale. If you could become as small as an atom, you would understand that atoms are also conscious, and that they communicate with one another. But you cannot become that small, and because it is too tiny it is ignored by you, and you think atoms have no consciousness -- just as you think ants have no thoughts, because they are too small. But if the volume were proportionally the same, if you were as large as an ant, you still could not build an ant nest as good as theirs. You would then know that from that angle, your intelligence is not even as good as an ant's. They have no blueprints, no organizational forms as you understand them -- no referendums, no management, no managers, no zodiac signs. But spontaneously and automatically, they can build a very complex ant nest.

So Seth's meaning is this: because of your scale, you are not an ant, not a cell, not an atom, and even less a star, the sun, the moon, or the earth. You cannot understand from those levels -- those larger than you and those smaller than you, you cannot understand either. So you think they have no consciousness, and the reason is the limitation of your scale, the limitation of your range of activity, which restricts you.

Including this word "psychological spectrum," there is a very deep explanation. Just like our light, we only see visible light, which is only a very, very narrow point in the entire spectrum. We all know now that if the entire spectrum were spread out, our visible light occupies only a very, very small, impossibly narrow little point. But it is this one little point that constitutes our entire world; our entire world cannot do without light. In Genesis it says God said, "Let there be light." God said there must first be light⁹. Why? Because without light there is nothing at all. But what we call light is only a very narrow, very narrow little strip of the entire family of light -- assuming the family of light is a very wide spectrum -- our visible light occupies only a very narrow little strip of the spectrum. Our human psychological spectrum is similar, a very narrow, very narrow little strip; you can only understand that very narrow part.

Beyond this, beyond ultraviolet, within infrared, you cannot perceive any of it, because you can only understand it through light. In other words, you can only understand this world through a little strip as narrow as visible light psychologically, and all the other parts are beyond your range of understanding. That is why you have this kind of cognition, this kind of view of the world. But it is not that because you have such a narrow spectrum, the world is this way. Other species in the world, other kinds, atoms, molecules, have their own psychological spectra, and they can communicate with one another. But because of the limitation of your spectrum, you cannot communicate with them, so you think they have no consciousness and you have consciousness.

This portion of the dictation ends here. It is very short, because it is the last part of the previous Session 888, just to open Chapter 3. Chapter 3 opens well, giving a macroscopic exposition for our understanding of the entire universe -- of consciousness, cells, the physical body, and the positioning of the universe. There will be specific explanations later.

注释与核实

1. Source: Jane Roberts, Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, Volume One (https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Jane%20Roberts%20-%20Seth%20-%20Dreams%2C%20Evolution%20and%20Value%20Fulfillment.pdf) ↩

2. Source: Robert F. Butts, Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment, Volume I, 1986 (https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Jane%20Roberts%20-%20Seth%20-%20Dreams,%20Evolution%20and%20Value%20Fulfillment.pdf) ↩

3. According to Mike's original words, "the entire cycle is twenty-six thousand five hundred years"; upon verification, it should be "one orbit of the solar system around the center of the Milky Way takes about 230 million years, not 26,500 years." (Source: NASA, "Solar System Facts," https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/solar-system-facts/) ↩

4. Source: NASA, "The Solar Cycle," 2011 (https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/10804) ↩

5. This claim could not be verified. ↩

6. Source: Nobel Prize official website, "Quantum Mechanics: The Uncertainty Principle" (https://educationalgames.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/quantised_world/final-3.html) ↩

7. This claim could not be verified. ↩

8. This claim could not be verified. ↩

9. Source: YouVersion, "Genesis 1:3" (https://www.bible.com/zh-CN/bible/36/GEN.1.3.CCB) ↩