The Solution to Earth

By Seth Unterseher

I’m sure that you will all be very excited to hear that, after many years of nigh incomparable introspective extractions of extravagant interdimensional immersion and dangerous mystical experimentation, I have, finally, and with great authoritative finality, solved the Earth. Huzzah! All that remains now is to translate these tactical transmutations into the tongues of all tribes, and surely prosperity and understanding shall proliferate among mankind for the duration of eternity! Alas, though I paint this serious topic in playful and lyrical whimsy, my intent to assist in the evolution of beneficial wisdom and understanding is sincere. Perhaps the serious tribe will be one of the first to translate some of these concepts into their more mechanically logical tone. Oh, did you think I meant other languages? No, no. The tribes assimilate information even among the same language in very different ways. Many English speakers scarce read a thing but can feel truth deeply through singing, for such is the intuitive method of their tribe's reception. If you perceive merit in my musings, I may humbly request your assistance in this act of mass translation (and perhaps even salvation), as, alas, ideological keys have no value if they never reach the locks they belong to...

• Language: English
• Publisher: Page Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Jul 11, 2022
• ISBN: 9781662461309

Book preview

cover.jpg

The Solution to Earth

Seth Unterseher

Copyright © 2022 Seth Unterseher

All rights reserved

First Edition

PAGE PUBLISHING

Conneaut Lake, PA

First originally published by Page Publishing 2022

ISBN 978-1-6624-6129-3 (pbk)

ISBN 978-1-6624-6130-9 (digital)

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Development of Objective Logic

Pursuit of Objective Morality

Spiritual and Psychological Awakening and Evolution

Healing and Resolving Various Social Issues

Eclectic Quotes, Online Posts, and Shower Thoughts

Dreams and Visions

First and foremost, I will explain the most solid principles of logic upon which mankind ought to endeavor to analyze the nature of reality around us so as to ensure the greatest chance of an accurate view of truth or probability while avoiding paranoia and assumptions.

Consciously understanding the universal principles which lead to superior lives (and hence a superior overarching reality), and especially having knowledge of the nature, habits, and motivations of evil, is pivotal in the context of fixing the Earth.

In this chapter, I will delve further into various spiritual inevitabilities and strive to guide aspiring spiritual seekers to understand certain common pitfalls and deceptions so they may pursue their studies and experiments more safely and efficiently.

This is the chapter in which I fundamentally fix society. Boring.

Herein I have compiled many fragmented tidbits I have written which do not necessarily fit neatly into the themes of previous chapters.

To conclude this labor of love, I have documented a number of dreams I have experienced. Many of these are direct encounters with both angels and demons and, on a few separate occasions, communication from God and the devil himself.

Preface

Now, I know what you’re thinking: The Solution to Earth? How humble! You’re not even going to solve the problems of Saturn, nor of Pluto, nor the galaxies beyond the Milky Way? Where is your inspiration, your drive, your passion!? Do you not love the whole of creation? And to these accusations I must concede, indeed, that I find it best to start small before seeking to solve everything everywhere forever. While I do truly love all of creation (though I find it wise to remain guarded against the parts which yet intend ill will in spite of my love), the solution to all of creation must start somewhere, so I figure it may as well start on Earth, since Earth, as a part of creation, must logically be solved if we hope to solve it all eventually, anyway.

This book is a compilation of many things which I have previously written that have repeatedly compelled me to dwell on them, edited together to be offered with finality from author to scoffer while limiting the inhibition of my past addiction to too often placing mixed signals disjointedly betwixt each poignant point. In essence, I intend it to be a blessed amalgamation of philosophical and spiritual perception injection! Verily, I pray to relay myself in ways that help this thought-provocation-invocation to be more entertaining than draining.

While this book may simply appear to be a smashed-up, chaotic mishmash of mere maniacal madness, I assure you it is, in fact, a highly advanced weapon in the ultimate and eternal war between archetypal and primordial good and evil for the fate of all souls. The more knowledge you gain about mystical spirit war physics, the more of a responsibility you will have to help out, and the more temptations you will also have to endure and overcome. You have been warned! Read at your own risk!

I encourage my dear reader to keep a pen or highlighter or the like available as you read. This book benefits significantly from personal scribbles and notes! In my opinion, there are actually very few personally owned books which should not be scribbled in for future reference. Doing so not only adds flavor to any books which end up being passed along (as should be the natural life cycle of books), but helps the dear reader to efficiently skim through to whatever it is they might have wished to think about once more at a later date. It’s an excellent practice to partake in!

In any case, I sincerely hope that you find some degree of delight as you reflect or refract upon the ideally igniting insights herein. I may merely be an unreasonably idealistic astral anomaly seeking to salve matrices and eviscerate evil with lyrical literature and annoying alliteration, but perhaps it takes such a brazen flavor of reckless naivete to effectively weave fate and help unseal the healing this world so desperately needs…

Chapter 1

Development of Objective Logic

Intro

The second most important factor in the evolution of human consciousness is the development of accurate faculties by which to logically determine truth, or the probability thereof. The first most important factor in the evolution of human consciousness is the development of an accurate understanding of morality and the generative or destructive nature of all actions, intents, and philosophies, but it’s a bit easier to start with logic before moving to the complexities and nuances of moral absolutism (many of the common perceptions of which I find to be quite tritely misguided).

In able to most efficiently and logically approach truth, we must first start by very simply acknowledging that there does, in fact, exist an absolute and objective truth to the nature of all things, regardless of our finite and fallible perceptions of this truth. Whether any conscious being (even God, if you are a believer) keeps track of all frivolous nuances and statistics within the realm of absolute truth (I, for one, do not believe that even God would bother to keep data on the precise location and angular trajectory of every atom currently within my fingernail ten billion years ago) is of course up to debate, but we must rationally acknowledge that, by merit of anything existing, that thing has absolute and deterministic properties to its existence. With efficient communication and elaboration upon common terms and definitions, it is possible to come to understand many of those properties and, further, to communicate those properties with others.

I begin with such a broad statement regarding the general existence of truth and the potential for us to discern and share it so as to immediately bypass certain wasteful arguments which I have sadly seen frequently postured by many an often online frivolosopher. I am referring to any argument built upon a premise that denies our fundamental potential to ascertain truth, which inaccurately equates truth with subjective perspective, or which suggests a lack of universal value in the pursuit of truth itself. The claim that it is absolutely true that it is impossible to attain truth is, of course, self-negating, and there is very little potential value in addressing such arguments beyond confronting that initial foundation of self-negation. When such debates play out, it is often because the individual feels they have come to some profound revelation regarding the objective subjectivity of reality, when this is actually a sort of vanity which makes them feel more wise than they are, and also comforts them with the sense of assurance that they needn’t work harder to discover the actual truth. They have observed only the natural fallibility of any finite perspective, and stopped. They have not then taken the next step to understand that there is an objective reality beyond perception, and to then ask: How do I best bring my finite perception closer to that objective reality, to touch upon components of the absolute? They then often argue from the premise of rejecting rather than agreeing to common definitions of words or terms, to feel they are proving their point about the inevitability of subjectivity. But I do not wish to waste more time on this particular mentality than I need to.

Many debates that occur are due to people disagreeing about nuanced definitions at the core of their language, and then failing to realize that this is the case. When this occurs, people may bicker incessantly with little hope of resolution or common understanding because they are technically arguing about fundamentally different things without realizing it. Take, for example, a debate about ego in which one individual defines ego as a vain sense of pride, and another as a sense of personal identity. Such people may debate at length without ever realizing that the core of their disagreement is actually the definition of the word they’re building their conclusion upon. They may actually even agree with the conclusion of the other if they merely understood how the other was defining the word! The same may occur with someone defining the word judgment as condemnation and another defining the word judgment as an observation of traits. Further, this is particularly evident in modern debates regarding the word gender, wherein one person or group defines it as merely biological sex and the other defines it as a psychological behavioral trope or identity. This one has, of course, caused immeasurable wasteful strife among many people (perhaps by nefarious design), when the whole time they are simply using a fundamentally different definition to form their conclusions, and then arguing over their conclusions instead of their definitions.

If we can collectively (and individually) learn to normalize breaking our debates down to their core foundations through how we are defining the language we are using, it will be much easier to examine why those foundations are more accurate or productive than the foundations we are arguing against, as well as to better understand why another may define our position as incorrect or destructive. I have concluded that XY leads to ABC. You have concluded that XY leads to CDF. We agree that Y is C, but I believe X is AB, and you say it is DF. If X was DF, I would agree that XY leads to CDF, and I hope you can agree that if X is AB, XY leads to ABC. Therefore, our debate is not about our conclusions but about how we define X. Our beliefs are like pyramids, with the conclusions at the top, and all the supporting beliefs building up to them. If we spend our time arguing over the conclusions rather than the reasoning leading up to them, it is often nearly impossible to debate in a productive manner.

Now, I will waste no time moving on to one of the most pivotal topics which needs to become consciously understood by mankind in able to develop a more objective sense of reason. While there exists a singular multitude of things which are absolutely and objectively true, there likewise exists an infinite number of things which are absolutely and objectively false. However, a claim or accusation of absolute and objective falsehood is just as much a positive assertion as a claim of absolute and objective truth and therefore necessitates an equal amount of irrefutable evidence. The vast majority of ideas and perceptions, therefore, exist in a realm of theoretical possibility or probability. It is imperative, if we wish to be logical, that we do not fundamentally fully discount the possibility of any idea, even one which may sound quite unlikely to us based on our beliefs and knowledge, without absolute proof of its falsehood. It’s perfectly logical to say, Such a thing seems infinitesimally improbable based on my current knowledge, but we must recognize that we cannot claim anything absolutely false until it can be proven so. Many aspiring intellectuals have been led to believe that due to the nature of the burden of proof being upon the one making a claim, they can assume all claims false until proven otherwise. However, this mentality has failed to recognize that an assertion of falsehood is a positive claim and also requires absolute proof. Recognizing how few of our beliefs, positive or negative, are thus absolute, and how many are based upon probabilities, can be frightening for some people. Yet learning to say that seems highly improbable rather than assuming many things to be absolutely false, will both make one sound more intelligent, and be more actually factually rationally accurate in one’s understanding of potential.

That said, it follows naturally that our pursuit of truth and rationality must be built upon as accurate a means of determining the probability of statements and claims as possible. Since there are many things which are (if not fully then nigh) impossible to absolutely prove or absolutely disprove, and additionally, due to the obvious inherent finitude of a human consciousness, we will very rarely be dealing with objective absolutes when confronting the problems or ideas that arise in our lives and in the world. If we wish to understand these problems and ideas in as close to an objectively accurate sense as we possibly can, we must consciously understand the nature and logic of the building blocks which lend to the eventual structure of our conclusions. Further, we ought to endeavor to learn how to articulate the nature of these building blocks and roots in ways that others can understand, so that we are not wasteful in acts of debate, but efficiently come to agreements on the specific areas in which our beliefs differ from others, and why. A near endless amount of wasteful hatred could be avoided in this world if more people would work to seek the roots of our disagreements rather than attacking one another for the culminations of our disagreements.

As a basic example, if I had merely claimed the conclusion that one cannot assume a claim to be false merely because it has not been proven true, certain people may have been inclined to disagree with me, and we could have debated upon their premises for some time. However, having first explained that a claim of absolute falsehood is just as much a positive assertion as a claim of absolute truth and that therefore it is illogical to fully discount anything without it having been absolutely disproven, and we must, to be perfectly logical, accept a possibility of all things neither proven nor disproven, one who disagrees with me would now have to debate upon my supporting premise rather than merely the conclusion.

As a brief summary, this is all that people really need to understand in able to build more accurate faculties of reason for themselves by which to seek out truths. Complexity arises, of course, in trying to determine accurate probabilities of the many things that cannot be positively proven. To elaborate further, I will now dive into a very fun and not at all controversial example of what I have just explained.

Checkmate, Atheism

Perhaps the most prominent popular example of making a definitive claim regarding an impossible premise is atheism, or the claim that there is, absolutely, no God. This does not of course apply to agnostic atheism, which admits that its leaning toward there being no God is a belief based upon one’s limited perception, which is a perfectly logical thing to claim. However, to claim that there is, absolutely, no God, is impossible, and thus intellectually naive.

In able to make such an assertion, one must first define God. The majority of arguments against God are based upon the creation of straw-Gods, if you will, in which the claimant says, God has these properties and God has these contradictory properties, therefore God cannot be real. These are not actual cases against God, but against the possibility of certain properties of God. Narrowing down the properties of God in this manner is fine, but claiming that one has completely eradicated the possibility of any sort of Creator with this logic is, again, profoundly simpleminded.

For the purposes of continued examination, I will define God in this basic way: God is the first consciousness to have come into existence, which subsequently imposed order upon the chaotic and unthinking substrate of universal matter, and eventually created life. If anybody cares to make an argument against such a primordial organizing consciousness, that is all well and good, but a logical person will invariably find that it is nigh impossible to gather evidence against such a thing and thus it must be categorized within the realm of possibility in able to maintain intellectual integrity. There may theoretically be ways to eventually prove this construct of God not entirely accurate, such as discovering that the first consciousness to come into existence was not the one which created life, or organized reality, but a consciousness (or consciousnesses) which came after. In the pursuit of absolute truth, I am always open to such considerations.

As I speculate about the nature of God herein, I would like to remind you that I am using God as an example by which to examine logical contemplation. I am not yet making a case as to the existence of my perception of God, as I will dive into that in later chapters. I merely find the concept of God to be an exemplary example of a topic which people of many beliefs and persuasions struggle to approach with logical integrity (particularly atheists, who claim a definitive assertion of an unprovable premise).

I will now briefly examine the popular Epicurus quote: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Now, there are many implied nuances to this statement which I’m sure that very few people question. What exactly would God preventing all evil look like? Logically, the potential for evil (though not its actuation) is required for free will to exist, and therefore, the absolute preventing of evil could probably only be accomplished either by eliminating free will in a sort of mechanical universe, or by invoking a sort of automatic destruction or paralysis whenever an evil act is about to be chosen. If such a moral shock collar were possible, would it be the best way to teach men not to be evil by fear of punishment and not by recognizing the morality of their actions consciously? Is it perhaps necessary, in the course of the evolution of primitive souls, that they come to understand the nature of evil so they see why it must be rejected? Could the observation of evil create a greater good? I will not claim to argue that point wholeheartedly, but it is worth considering. And finally, even if God is perhaps not omnipotent at all, does that preclude the existence of God? Only of the omnipotent God, which is not the initial Creator God that I previously defined. I personally believe that absolute instantaneous transmutation and manifestation according to creative whimsy, as we can imagine omnipotence to be, is indeed greater than the true power of God. Through what I have observed and experienced (though I will not yet go into the minute details), the will of God takes time to enact, and is not capable of instantaneous manifestation within the physical realm. It takes time for all created particles to respond and transmute into different things, and the most efficient way that God can get God’s will into the hearts and souls of mankind is through the words of incarnate human prophets (I would think that a sudden magic wise talking elephant might do the job better, but again, it may be far more practical to place the correct kind of soul in the human form and hope it doesn’t get lost in translation than to twist the genetics of elephants to have the correct minds and throats).

I already touched upon the second statement: Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. by pointing out that there may be more to it than that simple logic. It may be possible that souls cannot learn of evil except by experiencing it, and that in experiencing it and choosing to reject or embrace it themselves, they find the path of their further evolution. It may be possible that there are other complications beyond that. And it may also simply be possible that in this world of freedom, God cannot prevent us from doing what we want unto one another. It may be possible that such actions and intents leave karmic imprints upon one’s soul which linger into the consciousness of death. It may be possible that there are many more complications than can be definitively implied into such minor statements as ancient Epicurus once made.

In regard to the final statement: Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus is implying that in able for a spirit to be worthy of claiming the title of Creator, it ought to adhere to the absolute highest morality which has been encoded into our mortal perceptions. This is not an entirely unreasonable assumption, though it is also not an absolutely perfect premise. If one adheres to my definition of God, then calling God God would have nothing to do with our perception of God’s morality or omnipotence, but be due to the fact that God is the original conscious organizing force of creation. In that context, working to discern the properties, the character, and the will of God, would ideally be done from an unbiased perspective and without expectations (though it is reasonable to hope that a hypothetical Creator would love and want what is best for creation, as that is naturally coded into our hearts). All efforts to pursue any sort of absolute truth ought to be undertaken without bias or expectations. While this is rather obvious, there are precious few who can approach even basic ideas without deep attachments to various often weakly substantiated assumptions. Encouraging the development of this logical integrity in general society is pivotal if we ever hope to overcome our present addiction to frivolous divisions and learn to address the true roots of our disagreements.

I will end on that note, before I begin to again delve into repetition. Wariness of all definitive assertions is pivotal in the development of the more accurate recognition of probability and potential.

The Value of Beliefs

The growth of this more accurate faculty of logic will, in many ways, automatically facilitate a more civil and decent mode of discussion when we confront those who have differing beliefs because it will be our motivation to seek to understand the logic of the foundational axioms of our different beliefs rather than to overpower and/or degrade one another. To argue with the intent to dominate is often a rather primitive motivation (though in the context of arguing against a belief which is both utterly wrong and directly destructive, it can be acceptable to seek to dominate it). Instead, when we are led to argue against the wrongness of others, we should be led by a desire to better understand them and ourselves, how both of our beliefs are formed, and what the actual outcome of those beliefs is in the context of the motivations and actions that spring from them. Once we truly integrate into an understanding of the relativity of our finite perceptions, it will only be natural to want to refine the probability of our beliefs through more coherent discussion.

This should further develop naturally as people understand the nature of the malicious forces in this world which directly benefit from our frivolous distracted bickering, and thus why it is important not to waste our energy in arguments, but to be precise and surgical, or not to argue at all. Furthermore, having a more coherent understanding of the building blocks of arguments and the points at which they are not absolute but merely probabilities, will help us to more efficiently dissect ideas which are provably incorrect or destructive. Seeing as people do so deeply enjoy debating one another, or at least feeling right about things, there’s little excuse to not try to become better at it (though one part of being better at debating is realizing when one’s opponent does not adhere to logic).

In any case, I will diverge briefly from my repetitions on the need to consciously develop a probability-based outlook on the fabric of truth and falsehood and begin an examination of how it most benefits us to determine the value of beliefs regardless of their truth or probability. Logically, almost all pursuits of truth are done in the context of pursuing our improvement or greater benefit, be it of the collective, or of the sociopathic individual. Since many beliefs cannot be proven deterministically, it behooves us to have other metrics by which we determine their value in the context of the improvement of our collective reality (or the improvement of the reality of one sociopath at the cost of others). Understanding the impact that a belief has on the outcome of society, or how we behave as individuals, is often more important than the relative truth of that belief.

The critical example of this premise which I will use is the belief of nihilism, which I will simplify as such: the belief that all value is subjective and based upon perception, and that as such, there can be no objective meaning or value to anything.

The slippery slope of this reasoning tends to result in a purely hedonistic outlook, in which the only logical pursuit is the pursuit of personal pleasure. This can further devolve toward sociopathy. An alternative slippery slope of this outlook is that apathy is just as noble a pursuit as hard work and creativity. And for some, the notion of a lack of meaning leads directly to melancholy or despair.

While I would currently argue that nihilism is also logically flawed and incorrect (that there is, in fact, an objective scale of value outside of the subjectivity of individual perception, upon which the universe and all that exist within it either improve and grow in knowledge and truth and love, or degrade and decay in ignorance and depravity and injustice), it is much easier to observe that it is spiritually flawed in the manner that its rationale cascades to negatively impact the one who believes its premise. Being able to consciously recognize the destructive implications of beliefs and ideas, even and especially beliefs and ideas which may sound quite good or logical at first glance, is extraordinarily important, especially in the context of confronting the evils of this world. There will always be those who conspire to exploit others, and in this modern age, all such conspiracies are disguised as well-oiled Trojan horses which seem to imply positive things while secretly leading people toward destructive actions, cutting away our rights, or otherwise siphoning our value unjustly into the gaping maws of monstrously obese felines. The snake oil salesman wants desperately for you to believe you are purchasing medicine. Only by consciously developing our minds to be wary of the outcomes of implied belief structures can we ever hope to outwit such forked silver tongues and develop a more positive and just world for ourselves. Malicious imps impose the most sordid lies amidst flowery prose.

Understanding Core Motivations

In the process of working to efficiently seek truth and understand the value of our beliefs, it further behooves each of us to analyze the roots of the motivations which lead us to desire to believe certain things, and why. This will lead to a much deeper understanding of the self, and in turn, of others.

Reality on Earth is determined largely by human actions, which are built upon our motivations. In general, our logic leads us to form our beliefs, which lead to our sense of value, which leads to our motivations, which lead to our actions. However, this can become quite cyclical, as there are many instances in which our motivations, rather than strict logic, have a great influence on what we choose to believe, as we would often prefer beliefs that validate our already existing motivations, to new logical beliefs that confront our biases. If we do not consciously understand