Mike's commentary · The Magical Approach, Session 3

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

In this session, Seth gives for the first time a simple definition of the magical approach. He points out that when the intellect is isolated from nature and the other functions of the psyche, it produces pessimism and paranoia; so-called mistakes are often self-correcting actions, not things that make matters worse. The intellect itself is a natural instinct, as natural as a cat's whiskers. The magical approach takes it for granted that the individual life fulfills itself, that the environment and the individual suit and cooperate with each other, and holds that every cell believes tomorrow will be better and that it survives after death. Intuition rests upon magnificent calculations far beyond what the conscious mind can comprehend.

Key Points of This Chapter

• When the intellect is isolated from nature and the other psychic functions, it tends to produce pessimism and paranoia.
• The intellect itself is a natural instinct, as natural as a cat's whiskers, and is not separate from nature.
• What are called mistakes are often self-corrective actions, and do not necessarily make things worse.
• The magical approach takes it for granted that the individual life fulfills itself, and that the environment and the individual suit and cooperate with each other.
• Intuition is built upon magnificent calculations far beyond what the conscious mind can comprehend, and the intellect cannot follow its processes.

Main Text

Seth Book The Magical Approach Session 3: Humans and Other Species Treat Mistakes as Corrective Actions, and the Definition of the Magical Approach

In this session, Seth gives a simple definition of "the magical approach" for the first time. Later he gives more in-depth definitions, and we will take it step by step.

This class began on Wednesday, August 13, 1980, at 8:57 p.m. Before that, Rob gave a brief description of what happened before the class began. He said:

Before tonight's session, I had just finished typing the second half of Monday's session. I told Jane that I thought it was an excellent session. And I wanted to make a copy for us of the information from 9:15 to 9:36.

At that time he wanted to put that part of the information from the previous session in the studio. Seth had explained then that the intellect must understand that it does not need to fight alone, that it is supported and helped by other parts of itself. Rob thought this insight could greatly benefit Jane. He also told Jane that he wanted to include part of Monday's session in Seth's current Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment.

Then there is a note from Rob. The Democratic National Convention had already reached its third day. While Rob was typing after dinner, he knew Jane was in the living room listening to the speeches on television. He then remembered something he had forgotten — just last Saturday, their local newspaper had published a short article saying that a psychic they had both heard of had recently predicted that, after Carter and Kennedy developed into a deadlocked, evenly matched situation at the convention, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia would win the Democratic presidential nomination. Rob had seen the article and had also shown it to Jane. He had wanted to keep it, but the newspaper ended up being tied into the bundle of trash to be thrown out this morning.

Since Carter's forces were strong enough to win a battle, causing the convention to close itself off to outsiders in the first session on Monday, Carter was destined to win the nomination on the first ballot. So the psychic's prediction was wrong, and the prediction was apparently known nationwide. Rob had a habit of clipping articles about predictions from newspapers to see whether the predictions were accurate. He had forgotten to put it in the prediction file. He said that if necessary, the newspaper could still be found at the newspaper office.

I was wondering how public figures react when their predictions do not come true. I hope their mistakes will not be rationalized away, or used only for publicity. Obviously, since psychics must be held accountable for their words, we will continue to watch for any subsequent reports on that subject, but I suppose it will fade away like any other news from yesterday.

However, in such circumstances, what do those predictors think privately? No one is perfect.

Jane had never attempted to predict events of this kind — predictions about political events, Jane had never done. For some of Jane's predictions, see Appendix 1.

Jane said she did not really feel like having a session tonight, and just wanted to go through the motions. Rob suggested that she have the session anyway, since she sometimes felt better afterward. So their new plan was producing some results — this new book would have some gradual results, even though she had only had two sessions.

All Other Species Protect Nature

In the formal content of this session, first Seth said good evening. Then he spoke with some deadpan humor — very much like Ma Sanli telling crosstalk: he himself never laughs, his face is expressionless, but it is extremely funny. Probably Seth at this moment had the same expression as Ma Sanli.

Now listen to me. All other species protect nature, yet at the same time humanity has a penchant for destroying it. I have heard it said that all creatures other than man possess a natural elegance of form; I have heard it said that all of nature except man is self-satisfied, while man is filled with dissatisfaction.

This kind of thinking naturally follows the authoritative opinions of so-called rational thought. What we call the destruction of nature, or dissatisfaction with human society, is all told to us by the authoritative opinions brought by rational thought. When you ponder this kind of thinking, when we think about such thought patterns, think about them with the most far-fetched rational thought.

For an intellect forced to operate alone — the previous session talked about how the intellect is forced by us to operate independently. Independent operation refers to two aspects: one is independent operation in the realm of time and space. When we use the brain to think, we often do not give it the information of the time before and after, or the data of time and space, and just let it think abstractly. And this intellect itself, logical thinking itself, has no ability to foresee, nor any ability to have precognition. When it does not know how to think, it produces certain obsessions, and so-called obsessions always lead to a kind of pessimistic thinking.

The other kind of independence is that our intellect itself is a natural product of the human being. It should originally work in coordination with other information. It should work together with our intuition, inspiration, emotions, feelings, and information coming from within. The ability of logical reasoning needs more material and information to support it in order to make more effective judgments. But we also isolate it, telling it that nothing else is acceptable, that only your logical thinking ability is the most acceptable. It is isolated both in time and space and from other information and resources, so the intellect inevitably produces a pessimistic, obsessive tendency, and is inevitably pessimistic about the future.

That kind of thinking seems self-evident.

Rational thinking seems self-evident, unrelated to other faculties. It says, I do not need to prove anything, nor do I need mechanisms like intuition. My own thinking and reasoning are enough, and I know what the future will be like. Then it really seems as if — somehow humanity has become separated from nature.

Because originally the intellect is a product of nature, an attribute of the natural human being itself. What we consider rational thought is actually a surface layer covering over the natural, magical approach. Its inner operating mechanism has never been truly understood by humanity. We think that this layer of logical thinking is the most important, and forget that the most core part beneath it operates under the magical approach, and is a natural behavior, a behavior of nature itself.

So when you look at problems this way, you separate yourself from nature. Even worse —

It forms an ungrateful wretch on the surface of the planet, almost a parasite.

These few sentences from Seth are quite harsh. When we separate ourselves from nature, when we do not admit that we ourselves are products of nature, we have a sense of estrangement from nature, as if I am me and nature is nature, and nature is only there to be conquered and exploited, and everything exists for the sake of humanity. This completely separates humanity from nature, and places humanity above nature.

You have never thought about the most fundamental question: you as a person are one with nature. You are a part of nature, and nature is also a part of you. But humanity has never thought so, and has always thought that nature is an objectively existing nature, and that humanity is the most intelligent and spiritual lord of all creation. This basic concept itself is wrong.

Symptoms of the Intellect's Problem

That viewpoint itself is a symptom of the intellect's problem.

That viewpoint of separating oneself from nature is itself the cause and symptom of the intellect's problem.

In the position in which your culture has placed the intellect, it does indeed see itself as quite isolated, separated from the rest of the personality, and separated from other creatures and from nature itself.

For example, science therefore says —

That creatures other than man operate by blind instinct.

This term itself is used to explain the complex behavior of all other species. We take the very complex behavior of all species and use a single phrase — blind instinct. The materialist scientific education we have received holds that all species have a tendency to reproduce themselves, that the purpose of survival is only reproduction, blind instinct without any goal. Only humans have purpose.

So the gulf between humans and animals, between intellect and nature, seems to deepen further.

But think carefully — is that really the case? We have discussed many experiments and exercises before. For example, when voles reach a certain population, they stop reproducing¹, and humans have the same problem. When the population reaches a certain level, wars and plagues occur, young people are the first to stop normal reproductive behavior, and the population will decline sharply over the next few decades. This is a self-regulating, spontaneous function. The same is true of other species. It is only the result of human arrogance, prejudice, ignorance, and single-minded rational thinking that uses one phrase, "blind instinct," to represent the complex behavior of all other species.

Using Their Own Spear Against Their Own Shield

In those terms, man's intellect is also instinctive.

If you say that everything in the world is blind instinct, then how can you say that humans are not instinctive? Is that not cursing others while also cursing yourself? If you admit that all things are instinctive, then humans are also instinctive. But humans do not think so. Humans think that their thinking, logical reasoning ability, wisdom, knowledge, and IQ transcend all other species, are not instinctive, and are something that humans developed and evolved through using tools over millions of years, an ability unique to humans, transcending all things, outside of nature.

Now let us think about it — does it not seem ridiculous? How could humans be born of all things, yet develop an ability that no other thing has? Impossible. So Seth uses this to refute you: if you think other species are all blind instinct, then human intellect should also be instinctive, also natural. Seth does not deny this — your intellect is instinctive. He is using human theory to slap humanity's own face, using their own spear against their own shield.

He says there is nothing wrong with that.

The Intellect Operates Magically, Spontaneously, and Automatically

Humanity immediately begins to think. It cannot help but use its intellect.

You say, I will stop using my intelligence now, from the next second onward I will not use my intelligence — is that possible? Can you do it? You cannot stop using it even if you want to.

Once again, the intellect operates magically, spontaneously, and automatically.

To put it more bluntly, from the time a person grows up from a little baby, your way of handling things and surviving in the three-dimensional world begins to operate automatically and spontaneously. Your intelligence is naturally acquired. Of course, your knowledge is taught by others, and you gain a lot of experience through learning, but these things are all formed spontaneously and automatically. You say, no, I only learned it by going to school — much of what you learn in school is knowledge, but how you use that knowledge and how you learn that knowledge all require that you first have this ability. If you did not even have the ability to learn, then there would be no possibility of learning knowledge at all.

He says you cannot possibly not use your intellect. When I say this, do you immediately start thinking — hey, what he says seems to make sense? When you think like that, are you not using your intellect?

Man can never not use his intellect.

Just as animals cannot not use their animal abilities, humans cannot not use their thinking ability. You must first admit this: this thinking ability is natural, innate, and comes from nature.

The Intellect Is Born of Nature's Magical Action

The sharpest reasoning process is a result born of nature's magical action.

At this point Seth very easily uses your human approach to negate the human viewpoint. You say you think intelligence exists apart from nature — it is actually a part of nature.

The intellect has been taught to separate itself from its source.

The intellect has always been taught by our schools, teachers, and human society to be separated from its source. Its source is nature, a result of magical action.

And in that regard, it senses a feeling of powerlessness. So to some extent, it is philosophically cut off from the source of its own power.

It is philosophically cut off — it is taught. We have always been taught that your thinking has nothing to do with nature, that nature develops by blind instinct, that trees grow wildly and crazily, that grass grows wildly no matter what, and that all animals, plants, and microorganisms grow wildly. We cut wisdom and knowledge off from their source — their magical and natural quality.

So when it looks at political events, the problems seem unsolvable.

When we use logic to deal with political problems, it indeed seems impossible to solve them. Because of the intellect's belief system, and because of its disconnection from other sources of information, people make many decisions that seem wrong to the intellect. And those many wrong decisions, or bad steps —

Often represent self-corrective actions. Decisions made according to knowledge that has not been consciously recognized.

This passage is very important. This passage is the core and theme of this session.

Mistakes Are Often Self-Corrections

We humans often make many bad, wrong decisions — from the perspective of the intellect or rationality, we think these decisions are all wrong, impulsive, blind, and irrational. We think these decisions are all things that should be avoided in the future in the history of human development. The same is true on a personal level. We often say we acted on impulse, that emotions got the upper hand; when buying something, no matter how eloquently you explain it, I just like the color of this model, I just like a certain thing, and he buys it.

So the mistakes in human society and the mistakes in individuals, at the time, seem to violate rational reasoning and analysis, and seem very blind and very bad. But Seth says that these mistakes are actually very good and very necessary. They serve as a corrective and course-correcting function when you have been developing along the path of rational thinking. They bring you to a level that seems irrational, illogical, and non-objective, and make some bad decisions. These so-called wrong things, from a higher level of the whole, are precisely a corrective action that should bring you back to the natural way of nature, or the magical approach. Otherwise you would keep going along the so-called rational and objective path.

This actually implies one of the most core issues, and also a bottleneck encountered in recent research on artificial intelligence development: humans make mistakes, and the fact that humans make mistakes is precisely a core and fundamental reason for the development of human society. If humans made no mistakes at all, they would never have developed to where they are now. [[claim: When researching artificial intelligence, robots, and these algorithms, people discovered one of the biggest problems — they can never replace humans. One of the insurmountable hurdles is that these machines never make mistakes. Precisely because these machines never make mistakes, they can never seem like a person, and they can never develop the kind of wisdom and thought that humans have.]]

In the same way, for certain decisions and events in individual lives — the same is true on a personal level — we make certain decisions in our personal lives, or certain events occur, which for certain reasons (the reasons are all different, perhaps a momentary impulse) may seem very disadvantageous and unwise to the intellect. Yet they are actually methods of self-correction due to beliefs that you do not perceive.

Will Wrong Things Make Things Worse?

The rational guidance we currently use always carries a basic assumption: any wrong thing will make things worse. Of course, that belief is extremely detrimental. Why do we think that so-called wrong things will make things worse? It violates the basic principle of life.

Because in terms of your history, if that were true, the world would never have lasted more than a century.

Human society has encountered far too many wrong things in the course of civilizational development. If wrong things always led to worse results, human society would have perished long ago.

Interestingly enough, even before there was a medical science, there were quite a number of healthy people, and disease did not wipe out the entire human race.

Humanity has had disease since ancient times, and such diseases existed before modern medicine. Disease is a bad thing, and we think disease is wrong, but this disease has not brought destruction to humanity. I will not give more specific examples. If you are fairly familiar with human history, many very terrible things have happened in human history — wars, disasters, the burning of books and burying of scholars, and so on — and later generations feel these were absolutely enormous wrongs, but they did not hinder the development of human society as a whole.

Using the Intellect as a Weapon to Guard Against the Worst

When you think the worst will happen, you must always be on guard.

When you think the worst may happen, you must always be on guard against that bad thing happening. So in your culture, people almost use the word "intellect" like a weapon, to guard against the worst possible outcome, to protect themselves against coming disasters. They must be alert to all dangers, and remain alert to all dangers they can possibly think of. Then they begin to collect evidence of danger, and find all the dangers.

So humanity begins to look for danger everywhere, looking for what terrible things will happen in the future. Whether from the development of human society to environmental pollution, to the extinction of natural species, and any other kind of orientation in life, everything seems unwise. Only viewing the future as extremely pessimistic is instead considered the wisest approach. How ridiculous. Humans are just that foolish. Look at how every day people talk about melting glaciers, global warming, the ozone layer disappearing, forests burning, the Amazon fires, plagues running rampant, and humanity being helpless against them.

In that framework, being a practical person means guarding against the worst.

The Intellect Does Not Need to Be Overused

If you realize that the intellect itself is a part of nature — that what you call intelligence is a part of the natural human being, one of the most magical processes — then you do not need to overuse it. It is a part of nature, just like the other parts. You cannot force it to feel isolated, cannot isolate your logical reasoning ability, or place it in circumstances that develop obsessive tendencies. When you put too much pressure on rationality, it inevitably leads to obsessive tendencies.

Like your intuitions, the intellect itself is also supported by life's magical processes. It is supported by the greater energy that gave birth to you and to the world.

Your intelligence is supported by the greater energy that gave birth to humanity and the world. This energy operates in the world, and in the political world, just as it operates in the natural world. Whether political activities or natural activities, they are all equally supported by this powerful energy.

But when you follow the so-called rational approach, you inevitably feel threatened. Because your body is divided into two parts — your intellect and your sensibility or spirituality. They originally operate as one, but you insist on separating them, and the result is the separation of your own body. The mind becomes independent from the rest of the body, and a division seems to appear between spirit and flesh.

And again, each of them is supported by those magical processes.

The Rational Approach Conflicts with Life's Natural Rhythm

That rational approach conflicts with what I can only call a directive of life, or the natural rhythm of life. It conflicts with biological soundness. And again, it is not reasonable.

This must be remembered: the rational approach conflicts with nature.

Now that rational approach is also connected with the scientific concepts mentioned earlier.

Our current scientific concepts are all built upon the rational approach — logical analysis, experiments, argumentation, verification, reasoning, papers.

Life surrounded by chaos, struggling for survival, and so forth.

After we separate ourselves from the natural world, we think our lives are surrounded by a chaotic, uncontrollable world where we do not know what will happen tomorrow, and that humanity must struggle and fight for survival.

What are you actually fighting? You are a part of the natural world. Who are you going to fight? Fighting against heaven, fighting against earth, fighting against people — who are you fighting? But we cannot help it. We are educated from birth — starting in elementary school, you cannot lose at the starting line. Who are you competing with?

The Intellect Is as Natural as a Cat's Whiskers

I do not mean to belittle the intellect. The intellect is very important — remember this, Seth does not mean to belittle the intellect. Because the intellect itself has no fault, but we overuse it, and we use it in isolation, not giving it more material, letting it make decisions all alone, and putting too much pressure on it. This is our human problem, not a fault of the intellect itself.

And I tell you, the intellect is as natural a thing as a cat's whiskers.

Just like a cat's whiskers, nothing could be more natural. It is not something added on top of nature; it is a part of nature.

At this point Seth made a humorous analogy about cat whiskers:

Because our cat Billy is chasing what appears to be a dusty moth all around the living room, meowing with considerable craziness.

The First Definition of the Magical Approach

In the simplest terms, the magical approach takes it for granted that any individual life will fulfill itself.

What is the magical approach? He begins to give a simple definition. The magical approach takes it for granted that a person will fulfill his own life, will develop and mature.

The environment and the individual are uniquely suited to each other, and work together.

The environment you are in and you as an individual are very uniquely suited to each other. The environment is not separate from you, nor opposed to you. This sounds very simple, as simple as it can possibly be.

In colloquial terms, in everyday language rather than written language:

Those beliefs of each cell, they are imprinted on every chromosome, on every atom, and they provide an inborn confidence that permeates every living creature, every snail, and every hair on your head. Those ingrained beliefs are biologically appropriate, providing the impetus for all growth and development.

That is, you as a person will inevitably fulfill your own life, and will inevitably develop and mature, just as a seed in the earth will naturally sprout. This is imprinted on every cell, every chromosome, every life of yours.

Do you think it takes great effort for a seed to sprout, bloom, and bear fruit? If you study it purely from biology, it requires many conditions — soil, nutrients, water, specific temperature and environment, the softness of the soil, and after it grows it also needs sunlight and rain — a whole series of things, and then it grows automatically. But in the natural environment, a seed sprouting and growing is simply too natural. No one pays any extra effort for it, and it grows naturally. The same is true for each of us.

Every Cell Believes Tomorrow Will Be Better

Every cell believes that tomorrow will be better.

Underline this, and be sure to remember it.

I admit that here I am personifying our cells. But this statement has a firm reality.

Every cell believes tomorrow will be better. It is not hope; it is belief.

Furthermore, each cell has within itself a belief in and understanding of its own inevitability. In other words, they know that they survive after death.

To go further: every cell believes tomorrow will be better — that is the first level. The second level is that cells know they survive after death. The death of a cell does not bring about the death of the whole, so it knows that after it dies — cells also have a lifespan, and when a cell dies, it is just as if it were alive — this is called surviving after death.

The Concept of Heaven as a Theoretical Framework

The concept of heaven, with all its distortions, has operated as a theoretical framework, assuring the intellect of its survival.

Although the theory of heaven is distorted, childish, and laughable, at least it preserves a space of survival for our intellect. But our science does not believe in heaven, and believes in its opposite — it believes that the intellect is utterly destroyed after our death. Science holds that when a person dies, the light goes out. Compared to the childish religion that believes in the existence of heaven, it would be better to believe in that.

Since at that time people identified completely with the intellect, this was a heavy blow that shattered his hopes. It refused to give man a necessary biological necessity.

You admit that nothing other than the intellect is real — only logical thinking ability, only rigorous scientific methods of thought are real, and everything else is superstition — yet you also tell people that after you die, this intellect disappears along with you. Then you inevitably make him feel fear, without even a place to rest.

All these reasons lie hidden behind the problems of the human group, and they apply to every life.

Many of the problems humans now encounter in society have their roots right here: we believe we only live once, we do not believe in the soul, and we do not believe anything else exists after death. If you assume life only happens once, then seizing the day becomes the best code of conduct. Since you only live once, you do not need to take responsibility for the future, so you can do whatever you want. What meaning is there in following those laws and morals?

Ruburt: Relying on intellect rather than beauty

Once again, I would like to point out that Ruburt made the decision early on. As a child, he would rely on his intellect, rather than on his beauty.

Many girls think this way too -- they refuse to be a decorative vase. Do not tell her she is good-looking; she really does not like hearing it, because she feels that when you say she is good-looking, you mean she is a vase, with nothing but a pretty face. So people often say that having both wisdom and beauty is what everyone wants to pursue. Jane was like this too. He did not want to rely on beauty. He felt that his mother had once relied on beauty, and that was not good.

As I have said before, in his case, he also felt that the qualities of the feminine nature were opposite to the development of the intellect.

He felt that this kind of rational intelligence was opposite to feminine characteristics. Yet he was gifted both intuitively and intellectually -- whether in psychic ability, intelligence, knowledge, logical capacity, or wisdom, he was gifted in both areas -- and was naturally pointed toward growth in two fields. He felt that these two fields emphasized contradictory traits rather than complementary ones.

Clearly intuition and intellect are complementary and mutually supportive, but in Ruburt's beliefs he considered the two to be contradictory. So you can see Ruburt's problem: the tug-of-war within his inner beliefs leads to these outer manifestations.

Ruburt's doubts about psychic abilities

In the field of channeling, take any channeler -- or, to put it more to the point, take any woman -- Ruburt tried to prove that he was reasonable and rational. He felt that those people had never learned to use their reasoning ability, and instead trusted the thoughts wandering around in their heads. So doubting their own psychic abilities, doubting his own psychic abilities, had a protective quality.

What he means is, Ruburt believed that in his process of channeling Seth, among all channelers, he was the most rational, the most reasonable, the most objective and practical, or the most scientific. He felt that other people simply trusted the thoughts in their heads, without ever going through reasoning and analysis. Whereas the Seth material he transmitted was very rational, very logical, and possessed a certain scientific quality and rigor.

So he would doubt his own psychic abilities, and refuse to acknowledge them, feeling that acknowledging psychic abilities would put him in the same category as those people. If you have read some of the earlier books, you know that Jane's psychic abilities were actually very strong -- he could see the rain god in the rain, the water in a puddle turning into transparent spirits, and a giant standing at the edge of the universe in the distance lowering his face to the window and looking at him eye to eye, and so on. He had many, many of these psychic abilities, but he doubted all of them, and would not acknowledge them.

The questioning ability of the intellect

He also felt that the questioning ability of the intellect was one of the intellect's main functions.

He believed that doubt represented one of the main abilities proving that his intellect was highly developed. Seth says that, in fact, it is not --

It is, however, its main function. In your terms, the main function of the intellect is to make clear deductions and distinctions in the relationship between the personality and the world.

Questioning is one function of the intellect, but it is not its main purpose. We humans believe that doubting everything is the main purpose of wisdom, but in fact the main function of wisdom is, within the relationship between you and your surrounding environment, people and things, to clearly deduce and distinguish what is you, what is other people, what is the world, what is objective, and what is subjective.

The rational approach carries a masculine flavor

Your society does indeed consider the rational approach to be masculine in flavor.

Saying a man is rational is very normal, while women tend to be emotional. If it is the other way around, people say this man is fussy and indecisive, so emotional. So we attach a certain masculine flavor to rationality.

So in that regard, Ruburt had an additional reason to be a defender of such a rational approach.

From childhood, Jane did not like using beauty to conquer the world; he wanted to use wisdom and rationality to conquer the world. He hated that his mother used beauty to conquer men; he despised and hated that kind of life. So he was very resistant to certain traits of femininity itself. If you look at videos and photos of Jane, you will find that Jane's appearance and features lean somewhat masculine or androgynous -- this shows his inner thoughts, because he very much wanted to make himself into a very rational person.

Of course, all beliefs connected with sex are wrong.

Be sure to remember this. When we later discuss the book The Nature of the Psyche, we will cover this: humans themselves are androgynous, and all beliefs connected with gender are wrong. But if you keep emphasizing certain gender characteristics, it means you have not thought it through at all.

They are, however, part of that rational framework itself.

Topsy-turvy dreams

Obviously, what I am about to say is oversimplified. Nevertheless, it is almost as if -- if you turned the entire rational approach upside down, and took it for granted that all of its assumptions were wrong, you would be better off. Because it is indeed more often wrong than right.

This statement is a subversive viewpoint. What he means is, take everything you now think is right and turn it upside down, considering it wrong; take everything you now think is wrong and treat it as right. If you look at the world this way, it will be better than the way you look at it now. This is what Buddhism calls topsy-turvy dreams -- we treat what is wrong as right, and what is right as wrong. Many people do not understand why Buddhism speaks of topsy-turvy dreams; Seth explains it to you clearly in this way.

Intuition is built upon far more magnificent calculations

The distinctions on your part are arbitrary.

Any distinction you make is arbitrary -- rationality, good and bad, right and wrong, all are arbitrary.

Once again, the intellect is the result of an extremely spontaneous process, of which it itself knows nothing. And intuition, which is considered so undisciplined and unreasonable, is built upon calculations far more magnificent than the conscious mind can comprehend.

Both of these passages are very important. What he wants to say is this: humans can never figure out how they think. You cannot figure out how your brain operates, where your thoughts come from, how they pop up, or how you acquired your reasoning ability. You think you know, but in fact you do not know at all. The intellect is an extremely spontaneous product of nature; it is not something you can deduce by writing a code or writing a program, as you imagine. You can simulate it, but you cannot truly generate it.

And you think intuition has no logic and no scientific basis -- you are exactly wrong. Your intuition stands on a higher dimension, at a level your consciousness cannot even understand, as the final result of a macroscopic calculation. Its computational volume, computational dimensions, and precision are beyond anything human wisdom has so far been able to reach. In his words, it is far grander than what the conscious mind can comprehend.

To compare in terms of computing power, the factors it considers, the angle it stands at, and the intensity of its operations may be more than a hundred billion times greater than what you think your rational calculating ability is. Why is the difference so great? Because it takes into account past lives, considers the future, considers the results and changes of all possibilities, considers your current situation and future development, and the overall macroscopic outline and blueprint of your successive lifetimes. And you do not even know any of this.

So just trust your intuition. It has gone through precise calculation, and its computing ability far exceeds what you call the computing of the human brain. That is why scientists often have a joke: when humans think, God laughs. You always think your brain's thinking is so powerful, but the moment you think, God laughs -- with that little computing power of yours, stop making a fool of yourself. The information and data you possess, and then using your laughable calculating ability to calculate the best result -- that is just too funny.

Intuition, on the contrary, has been calculated; what you call rational analysis is actually a natural instinct. Is this not completely opposite to your way of thinking? You think intuition is instinct, and logical analysis has been calculated. Now he tells you it is all reversed: the ability of the intellect is an extremely natural thing, while what has truly been calculated is precisely what you think has no logical analysis. When Seth said this, personal computers were not yet widespread, and there was no cloud computing, so he could only explain it to you in this way.

The intellect cannot follow them.

You simply cannot keep up with the footsteps of intuition. It only gives you a result, and you can understand the result, but you cannot understand the steps and process of the calculation. It computes in parallel across so many worlds, across millions of possibilities simultaneously, and selects for you the best step you can take in the present moment. How could you understand it? You cannot understand it, because you cannot see the past and the future at all.

So that distinction is not a basic one. They are the result of beliefs and habitual usage.

What you call good and bad is a collective belief or a belief instilled in you by others. Have you truly analyzed it? Is being a civil servant really good? You do not know either. What is truly good and bad? Just follow your intuition, and that is all. It is that simple.

The parallel definitions of the magical approach

Therefore I will speak of them separately, as you think they should be.

The magical approach takes it for granted that the human being is an integrated creature, like the animals, fulfilling purposes in nature, whether or not those purposes are understood.

What is the magical approach? The magical approach regards everything as a matter of course. The human being is an integrated, holistic creature, just as animals fulfill their purposes in nature. Do not feel pessimistic when you hear this -- how can humans be like animals? He is only giving an example: animals have their own purposes and meaning for existing in nature, and humans do too. The purposes and meaning of human existence are as natural as those of animals. Whether or not those purposes are understood -- does an animal know the meaning and purpose of its existence? It does not know, but does that prevent it from living? Does it prevent it from growing and reproducing? It does not. Do you know the purpose and meaning of your existence? You do not know either, but does that prevent you from developing, growing, marrying, having children, and living your own happy life? It does not. This is the magical approach.

The magical approach takes it for granted that each individual has a future of his or her own, a future that achieves its purposes, even though death may come tomorrow.

Even if death may come tomorrow, it does not hinder today's life and growth.

The magical approach takes it for granted that the means of development are within each individual, and that fulfillment will happen naturally.

In this life, you will accomplish your own life's purpose and mission, and it will happen naturally. You do not need to ask others, because others do not know either. Everyone is different. Who knows what your mission is?

By and large, the magical approach operates in your world. Without it, there would be no world at all.

Without the magical approach, there would be no world. Why are we learning this magical approach today? Because without the magical approach, there would be no world.

If the worst were bound to happen, then in their terms, evolution would be impossible as well.

If bad things were certain to happen, humanity could not have developed to where it is now; the process of civilization would have been interrupted countless times long ago. Of course, this is also a good idea -- evolution itself does not exist. According to scientists, evolution is impossible. This in itself is a good idea.

Establishing an atmosphere

You need this background information, because I want to establish an atmosphere. In this atmosphere, the magical approach can be understood. Then the detailed information can be utilized.

Why does he want to tell us all this? He wants to establish an atmosphere for you. Without all this preceding groundwork, you would not be able to understand what the true magical approach is in such an atmosphere, nor would you be able to apply it in your life.

Work in dreams

In your dreams, of course, in the process of forming new concepts about the nature of the magical self, through my painting, you are also realizing that concept through images.

He is still referring to the matter he mentioned last time, about dreaming that his hometown was polluted. He had Rob understand the process of forming the magical nature through this.

Ruburt's recent psychic discussions with Mary, and your own dream concerning Mary and the sketchbook, all of these experiences point to an exquisite reasoning carried out at levels of perception usually considered unreasonable. That kind of data enriches the intellect and puts it at ease.

Because we do not have the earlier text here, you do not know who Mary refers to, but that is all right.

One more thing: remember to have Ruburt tell you how he feels emotionally. For now you can help him in that regard.

He asks Rob, at the end of the session, to go ask Jane how Jane feels emotionally.

He must realize that relaxation is also part of the creative process.

You must tell him that relaxation is also part of the creative process. Do not feel uneasy just because you think you are doing nothing.

Left alone, it will do the right thing.

That is, do not try to manage relaxation itself; let yourself relax, and it will naturally do the right thing.

Seth's performance itself is a miracle

Seth says:

My heartiest regards to you both, and have a magical, satisfying evening.

Then the session ended. After the session, Jane said she did not remember at all what Seth had said; she only knew that before the session, none of these thoughts had been in her mind at all. Then she said this was obviously magical.

Rob's performance as Seth during the session -- the following note was written two days after this Seth material inspired him:

Of course Seth not only dictated his magical information, but in doing so, he had to keep the session in mind. Therefore every sentence he spoke was meaningful in comparison with what he had said before, and with the sentences that followed. Once you stop and think about it, you realize that, as far as Seth and Jane are concerned, this is a feat, this is a miracle.

Do not forget that Seth's sessions are held every few days, sometimes even months apart. He has no draft and no outline; he just speaks off the cuff like that, continuously for such a long time, and after days apart he can still produce something so coherent and logically rigorous. If you carefully analyze the continuity and logical rigor between what he said earlier and what he said later, it is as if he knows every sentence he speaks and can remember it -- this is something ordinary people cannot do. This matter itself is a magical thing.

But how is this possible? Seth had no prepared script, and during the session he could not refer to Rob's notes in order to verify what he himself had already said, yet he just spoke eloquently like that.

Yes, exactly. This must involve a super memory, accompanied by a shortening, at a deeper level, of what we think of as time.

He believes Seth is working across time and space. Seth's ability reminded Rob of something he had recently written about a certain part of the personality or psyche:

It must be cunning and careful, constructing dreams in advance. Therefore when dreams are stored, they give exactly the right information to the needed part of the psyche.

Seth writes his books in a similar way. It seems inconceivable, but for these dream-makers, it is simply too easy.

When I wrote that dreams are a spontaneous production, I was not contradicting myself here either.

If one can understand how Seth transmits the material, then these comments on Seth's abilities, when thought about in the way I have described, seem obvious.

But I do not think I had ever thought about what Seth could do in that way before. It makes Seth's performance even more remarkable.

What Rob wants to say in this last part is this: Seth said earlier that what you consider intellect and what you consider intuition -- intuition is the result of far more meticulous calculation, while what is called rational logical reasoning often cannot achieve that. What Seth speaks with his mouth, speaking so eloquently by intuition, is actually better than what professional philosophers or scientists have organized. This kind of speech that follows the natural flow, that relies on intuition, far surpasses the things of the intellect.

The entire session applies.

In fact, it applies to this entire session, and it applies to all of life.

This session is extremely important, and extremely brilliant. I hope you will think about it carefully. It is a complete subversion of your entire understanding of the world -- this is what the Buddha called topsy-turvy dreams.

注释与核实

1. According to Mike's original words, "voles will no longer reproduce once they reach a certain number"; upon verification, it should be "increased vole population density inhibits reproduction—the proportion of individuals participating in reproduction declines, sexual maturation is delayed, and reproductive hormones and hypothalamic GnRH expression decrease, but this is a gradual negative density-dependent regulation, not a complete cessation of reproduction after reaching a certain number." (Source: Edwards, Frenette-Ling, Palme, Boonstra, "A mechanism for population self-regulation: Social density suppresses GnRH expression and reduces reproductivity in voles," Journal of Animal Ecology, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33550586/) ↩