HELP: when Seth got it right years before science, etc. -- post reference and when the world caught up


#1

I maintain the Wikiepedia webpage on the Seth Material and would like to add all the times that Seth was right about something years in advance of science, etc. There are many instances of such but they are scattered throughout 30 or so volumes for which there is no master index as yet.

When you come across a passage that is prescient in this way, put it in this thread; or when you come across when science caught up or a new study, etc., is published that vindicates Seth’s comments, post that.

Eg.: Seth said genes could change their expression and science mocked him for saying so; now there is a whole subfield called epigenetics.

The original passage/reference is most helpful.

The Wikipedia page is still hotly contested by atheists and they fight against any little change which is why I fully updated the bibliography (impressive by its mere size on the page)–they can’t argue with facts. So it would be impressive for readers to see such instances of validation and no-one can stop the posting of facts related to the Material. :smile:


#2

Great idea, anon38262219. As I was reading this the word “holograms” popped into my head. Let’s keep an eye out.

Lynda


#3

Wiki just hit me up for a $30.00 PayPal donation as I always donate annually because I rely on Wiki…great site!..ron


#4

I think this is an excellent topic.
I will be on the lookout for ‘prescient passages, applied to science’ in a Seth kind of way.
Now, this could apply to a science of psychology, where, Seth was most revealing, but hard to call prescient.


#5

Here’s an interesting article.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429944.000-ghost-universes-kill-schrodingers-quantum-cat.html#.VG8BSMWSySp


#6

Read it. It is merely speculative. Seth said there are infinite probable universes not a finite number. Their theory doesn’t explain a fraction of what the wave-function theory does. Still, one can see they are probing how to affect other universes which is exciting.

That said, this article is not corroborative AT ALL and does not belong in this category–please! :smile:

Perhaps we should start another thread topic on general news, items of interest, etc.?

Chris?


#7

Got it. I do not think that physicists, operating solely from of a secondary plane, can/will fully corroborate what Seth says. Their tools are extensions of their beliefs - extensions of their senses, so to speak.

Having said that, this is intriguing:

“Incidentally, if it is not now known by your scientists, it will be shortly discovered that the physical organism does not age in sleep at the same rate at which it ages in the waking state. Aging, therefore, is not a primary.”

1965.11.15 (208: ES5; PS1)


#8

The Wikipedia page is very important work and I thank you for yours! :slight_smile:


#9

Thank you, and I agree, Chris, that it is very important. I’m sure many view it when they first search “Seth Material”, and since Wikipedia is trusted, it is a good resource to maximize.

I’m having to do an end-run around the atheists who fight on the Wiki page to minimize its content. At one point, laughably, they argued that since they didn’t think Seth existed, there should be no Wikipedia entry on the Seth Material at all. They are aggressive. I tried to remove a non-contentious, non-essential element and explained why but that was shot down; it’s unimportant compared to other areas–like creating a whole new section that is historical and factual and, thusly, that they cannot bar inclusion of, nor dispute, its relevance. Hehehe.

Hence my plan to get help in collecting the specific incidents where Seth was right first, the exact passages in the Material, where,they are found., and the date of scientific discovery. These drama queens need footnotes!


#10

excellent ideas and progressive mapping and planning skills. that is where I get lost. you are providing great structure (I used to fight structure, confusing it with authority) through which to accomplish multiple creations.

‘those atheists’ don’t seem to perceive any shades of grey. I started with agnostic.


#11

anon38262219, Can anyone contribute to the Wiki Seth page? Is there oversight and accountability for content? Thanks, ron


#12

If you join Wikipedia, yes.

That said, I think we need to be strategic about adding to it. When there is just one dispute, members can undo the edit and there is discussion. If there is no agreement, then the matter is relayed to a higher body that decides.

If there is more than one edit being questioned at one time which is undone and someone adds to that before the dispute is settled, then it becomes problematic to put the new addition back in.

A bit of a nightmare. I really hope we can be united on this front and pursue just one change at a time that is contentious. Without footnotes to specific sessions, you cannot even add further description of the Seth Material, itself. This should be remediated but that will require detailed work to not be challenged.

Unfortunately, it can take weeks or more for someone who is monitoring the page to chime in so the process is slow. Frankly, I hope the antagonists just die off. They are most pesty.


#13

anon38262219 is quite right, let’s just say I’m very grateful I’m not the one navigating that particular maze.


#14

anon38262219, I contribute money every year to Wiki, when they come begging, LOL. I guess that does not make me an auto member. I would not feel comfortable working on such a project should it erupt into a back and forth controversy on, say, subjective expression of ideas, as in too many cooks spoil the broth. With that said, do you realize that you can’t even get surviving members of Jane’s ESP classes to all agree on everything Seth? ron


#15

…so, someone with 4 months experience with Seth could contribute to Wiki-Seth the same as someone with 40 years experience with the Seth material and philosophy? Who is minding the store? ron


#16

As with Wiki, we all arel…

One only has to sign up to begin editing pages, no fee.

The page is hotly monitored and contested. Bumblers need beware, lol.

And I only have 33 years experience with the Seth Material not 40. :wink:


#17

What are you trying to say? As far as I know in my reality the members of the class would mostly agree on what we heard.


#18

I just made an account to contribute. I distinctly remember Seth speaking on meat created in laboratories, so no animal has to be killed. A development we are now witnessing in our time. Just the other day they presented the first burger consisting of that meat, lol. I think it was in Seth Speaks and he mentioned it when talking about Lumania.


#19

(“How about our killing animals for food?”)

On your plane the hunter and the prey system is at this time a necessary one but it will not always be this way. A time will come when you will not have to kill in order to exist, and the balance of nature will take care of itself. This time is sooner on the way than you think. In your country, if there is peace, you will see its beginning in your lifetimes.

(“Does this include doing away with slaughterhouses?”)

It most certainly does. This involves your own intellectual technology, which will be quite able to maintain its population with synthetic proteins. However this technological development will come first; unfortunately the corresponding ethical evolution will follow after.

—TES1 Session 32 March 4, 1964

:+1: