Counterparts, probable selves, fragment personalities

Could someone give a brief summary of the differences between these 3? Thank you

Hey! That’s a great question!
Hopefully someone more qualified will be along to answer it soon, but in the meantime I can offer a partial explanation.

The Self as Seth explains it is a conscious conglomeration of psychological counterparts, each of which is involved with its own reality and existence. Each counterpart it’s almost like a project of the larger self. It’s possible (even likely) that you know some counterparts of your larger Self.

A probable self is byproduct of the ever-expanding and infinite nature of reality. Essentially, any version of yourself that could exist does exist and does so in its own reality. Basically, probable selves are the denizens of an extraordinarily complex Multiverse.

Personality fragments are harder to explain. In a way, every thought (and counterpart and probable self, etc.) Is a fragment of the larger gestalt of Self. Sometimes a fragment develops its own needs and wants and fragments off from the main personality in order to satisfy those needs and wants. If it is very strong can potentially develop into a larger self on its own terms.

I hight recommend checking out the wonderful Finding Seth tool at https://findingseth.com/

Given the fluid nature of consciousness that Seth describes, all of the many terms can be somewhat limiting I think. However, I will give it a stab.

  1. Probable Self. I do believe this coincides with the theory in Physics referred to as the Many Worlds Hypothesis. Simply put, for every action you take, every decision you make, there is another “you” taking a different “probable” action or making a different “probable” choice. This might be an infinite number of probable selves, or may be finite, this is not known.

  2. Fragment personality. A single mind can throw off a shoot, an offshoot, say from some strong urge to explore a specific characteristic of self more objectively. This fragment of one’s own mind could end up being a child, or a pet or I suppose even a lover. But the fragment is of the same self, expressed outward. I believe Seth would say that the fragment then takes on its own validity and trajectory.

  3. Counterpart. I believe this has to do with the “impressions” that strong emotional responses or thoughts can make. If you dwell on someone intently with strong emotions, you in fact send out a “counterpart” of yourself as Seth would say “beneath the intensity of matter”. But he also uses the word counterpart to talk about parts of the self that get thrown out into matter as well – physical counterparts.

Not very long, sorry but it’s a start! Thanks for your inquiry!