1 result for (book:ur1 AND session:702 AND stemmed:inner)

UR1 Section 3: Session 702 June 10, 1974 7/54 (13%) spin electrons technology biofeedback science
– The "Unknown" Reality: Volume One
– © 2012 Laurel Davies-Butts
– Section 3: The Private Probable Man, The Private Probable Woman, The Species in Probabilities, And Blueprints for Realities
– Session 702: Objective Science and a Loving Technology. Consciousness, Subatomic Particles, and the Spin of Electrons
– Session 702 June 10, 1974 9:19 P.M. Monday

[... 9 paragraphs ...]

So-called objective science gives you a picture, a model, that has served well enough in its own fashion, enabling you to travel to the moon, for example, and to advance in a technology that for a time you set your hearts upon. In the framework of objective science as it now exists, however, even the technology will come up against a stone wall. Even as a means, objective science is only helpful for a while, because it will constantly run up against deeper inner realities that are necessarily shunted aside and ignored simply because of its method and attitude.2 No objective science or splendid technology alone will keep even one man or woman alive, for example, if that individual has decided to leave the flesh, or finds no joy in daily life.

(Pause.) A loving technology, again, would always add to the qualitative and spiritual deepening of experience. The inner order of existence and true science go together. The true scientist is not afraid of identifying with the reality he chooses to study. He knows that only then can he dare to begin to understand its nature. There are many unofficial scientists, true ones in that regard, unknown in this age. Many are quite ordinary people in exterior terms, with other professions. Yet it is no accident that greater discoveries are often made by “amateurs” — those who are relatively free from official dogmas, released from the pressure to get ahead in a given field — those whose creativity flows freely and naturally in those areas of their natural interest.

[... 4 paragraphs ...]

Give us a moment … The particular thrust and direction of your own science have been directly opposed to the development of such inner sciences, however, so that to some extent each step in the one direction has thus far taken you further from the other. Yet all sciences are based on the desire for knowledge, and so there are intersections that occur even in the most diverse of paths; and you are at such an intersection.

[... 17 paragraphs ...]

1. Once again (as in Note 7 for the last session), I quote Seth from the 45th session: “Any investigation of the basic inner universe, which is the only real universe, must be done as much as possible from a point outside your own distortions … To get outside your own universe, you must travel inward … Your so-called scientific, so-called objective experiments can continue for an eternity, but they will only probe further and further with camouflage [physical] instruments into a camouflage universe … The subconscious, it is true, has elements of its own distortions, but these are easier to escape than the tons of distortive camouflage atmosphere that weigh your scientific experiments down.”

[... 1 paragraph ...]

2. Seth’s material about technology and science leading to inner realities reminds me of two related examples that I’ve become aware of recently through my own reading. The first one involves a more intimate inner reality than the second, yet both pose interesting questions. Each reader can probably give similar illustrations. (However, as I wrote in Appendix 1, “I’m not interested in knocking our technology, but in pointing out coexisting inner factors that I’m sure are just as important.”)

My first example concerns the development of biofeedback machines in the 1960’s. With one of these devices the individual was to learn to control, when necessary, his or her own blood pressure, or any of certain other involuntary body functions. Doubtlessly such self monitoring is an example of the “loving technology” that Seth mentioned in his final delivery for the last Session; yet we now understand that the early claims for biofeedback were considerably exaggerated. Within a more reasonable context the technique will take its place in our medical systems, but in each case what we learn will surely point up the need to understand our individual inner realities; i.e., what caused the high blood pressure, or whatever, in the first place?

[... 1 paragraph ...]

Strange but inevitable, I think, how the conscious mind, developing such disciplines as biofeedback and astronomy (to use the examples considered here), finds itself led back to its own inner sources.

[... 14 paragraphs ...]

Similar sessions

UR1 Section 3: Session 704 June 17, 1974 oracle physician predict disease psyche
UR2 Section 4: Session 714 October 23, 1974 snapshots tone postcards sound Politics
DEaVF2 Chapter 12: Session 940, February 3, 1982 center homey doorstep prepackaged stand
UR2 Appendix 19: (For Session 712) hole sound massive particles atom