1 result for (book:ur2 AND session:705 AND stemmed:reader)
[... 49 paragraphs ...]
(Naïve realism, the philosophical concept that’s been mentioned a few times in this appendix, enters in here. It could, however, be considered at just about any time, since its proponents believe that it’s unconsciously involved in practically all of our daily activities. Simply put, naïve realism teaches that our visual and bodily senses reveal to us an external world as it really is — that we “see” actual physical objects, for instance. Disbelievers say that neurological evidence contradicts this theory; that from the neurological standpoint the events in our lives and within our bodies depend upon interpretation by the brain, that we can know nothing directly, but only experience transmitted through — and so “colored” by — the central nervous system. The perceptual time lag, caused by the limited speed of light, is also involved in objections to naïve realism. I merely want to remind the reader that in ordinary terms naïve realism, or some mind-brain idea very much like it, is habitually used whether we’re considering evolution within a time-oriented camouflage universe, painting a picture, or running a household. And after many centuries, the debate over the relationship between mind and brain continues, if first the existence of the mind is even agreed upon!
[... 73 paragraphs ...]
2. As I wrote in the Introductory Notes for Volume I of “Unknown” Reality, “I think it important to periodically remind the reader of certain of Seth’s basic ideas throughout both volumes….” His simultaneous time, or spacious present, is certainly such a concept. Yet in the next paragraph I added that in my opinion, “Seth’s concept of simultaneous time will always elude us to some extent as long as we’re physical creatures….” To me the challenge of confronting that idea is well worthwhile, however, for to grasp it even partially is bound to enlarge one’s view of reality.
[... 42 paragraphs ...]
20. I remind the reader that an agnostic (as I think Charles Darwin was) is one who believes the mind can know only physical phenomena, and not whether there are final realities, causes, or gods. An atheist believes there is no God.
[... 3 paragraphs ...]
22. A note added later: I inserted “counterparts” here because in Section 5 of this volume Seth devotes portions of several sessions to his counterpart concept: “Quite literally, you live more than one life at a time” (his emphasis). Among others, see Session 721, here quoted, with its Appendix 21. As the reader studies those particular sessions, he or she will quickly see how counterpart ideas fit in with the subject matter of Appendix 12.
[... 3 paragraphs ...]