Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site flairvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!decwrl!flairvax!kissell
From: kissell@flairvax.UUCP (Kevin Kissell)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: New Topic - Multidimensionality of Self -
Message-ID: <453@flairvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Apr-84 14:09:41 EST
Article-I.D.: flairvax.453
Posted: Tue Apr 17 14:09:41 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Apr-84 19:00:23 EST
References: "The Nature of Personal Reality" - Jane Roberts, <236@nmtvax.UUCP>
Organization: Fairchild AI Lab, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 38
Keywords: Seth, Reality

(sigh)

I read TNoPR several years ago, and while I found it to be entertaining
and occasionally exasperating reading, I would not consider it to be
good philosophy.  Seth/Roberts cleverly remove themselves from the possibility
of serious debate by rejecting consensual reality with the "thought
creates reality" argument.  The critcisms I am about to level will not
disturb Seth fans in the least, because, after all, they are only cogent
in *my* reality, while they can be safe and everwarm in their solipsistic
bubbles.

Seth/Roberts observations on the nature of time (as I (mis)understand them)
are pretty sloppy.  It is perfectly reasonable to advance the viewpoint that
space-time can be rotated in the mind's eye along one of the space axes, so
that "past" and "future" events appear simultaneous.  One can then even assert
that causality as we commonly concieve of it is merely an illusion born of
the sequential way in which we experience events in time.  X does not cause
subsequnt Y if X and Y are viewed as integral parts of a single inseperable
event.  It seems to me that Seth/Roberts is missing her own point by asserting
that causality works *backwards* in time.  (Except, perhaps, in an antiuniverse,
but enough of that.)

The appeal of Seth/Roberts seems to be based on the desperate need for people 
in this society to feel in control of their lives.  These books hold out the 
promise that everyone can have everything they want once they understand the 
reality they can create.  In addition to being incitement to psychosis 
(not a crime yet, thank Bog), this notion is subversive to notions of social 
responsibility.  After all, those who are poor/crippled/dying are as much in
control of their realities as any of us, so they must *want* to be that way.
And Ronnie and Constantin can't blow up *my* world if *I* don't want 'em too.
Right?

Kevin D. Kissell
Fairchild Research Center
Advanced Processor Development
uucp: {ihnp4 decvax}!decwrl!\
                             >flairvax!kissell
    {ucbvax sdcrdcf}!hplabs!/