HomeUncategorized‘VIROSOPHY’ – philosophy of virology

‘VIROSOPHY’ – philosophy of virology

Some contributory quotes from the SETH material, compiled by Peter Wilberg, with discussion below:

In the 1930’s the psychoanalyst Willhelm Reich coined the term  ‘emotional plague’ – “a disease that has its roots in the fear and hatred that is passed from generation to generation in closed social systems. It is emotive in nature but has enormous physiological ramifications.” Here Seth explains the nature and role of viruses – and how individual and social discontent and fears – dis-ease – can transform them from a natural and healthy part of bodily life into ‘pathogens’ that serve as a form of socio-biological communication and expression. The current panic around the supposed coronavirus pandemic can be seen as a form of ‘emotional plague’ of this sort – one whose actual physiological effects are entirely dependent on the mental immune system of the individual and its resistance to virally pathogenic thoughts and fears:  

All viruses of any kind are important to the stability of your planetary life. They are a part of the planet’s biological heritage and memory. You cannot eradicate a virus, though at any given time you destroy every member alive of any given strain. They exist in the earth’s memory, to be recreated, as they were before, whenever the need arises.

“Viruses appear to be “the bad guys,” and as a rule you think of them separately, as for example the smallpox virus. There are overall affiliations in which viruses take part, however, in which delicate balances are maintained biologically. 

Each body contains countless viruses that could be deadly at any given time and under certain conditions. These — and I am putting it as simply as possible — take turns being active or inactive within the body, in accordance with the body’s overall condition. 

Viruses that are “deadly” in certain stages are not in others, and in those later stages they react biologically in quite beneficial ways, adding to the body’s stability by bringing about necessary changes, say, in cellular activities that are helpful at given rates of action. These in turn trigger other cellular changes, again of a beneficial nature.

Viruses serve many purposes, as I have said before. 1 The body contains all kinds of viruses, including those considered deadly, but those are usually not only harmless, or inactive, but beneficial to the body’s overall balance.

In certain fashions, that system also keeps the body from squandering its energies, preserving biological integrity. Otherwise it would be as if you did not know where your own house began or ended, and so tried to heat the entire neighborhood. So some indispositions “caused by viruses” are accepted by the body as welcome triggers, to clean out that system… 

More is always involved, however, for those viruses that you consider communicable do indeed in one way or another represent communications on a biological level. They are biological statements, literally social communications, biologically made, and they can be of many kinds.

The viruses in the body have a social, cooperative existence. Their effects become deadly only under certain conditions. The viruses must be triggered into destructive activity, and this happens only at a certain point, when the individual involved is actively seeking either death or a crisis situation biologically.

In the same way that a member of such a society can go askew, blow his stack, go overboard, commit antisocial acts, so in the same fashion such a person can instead trigger the viruses … 

When a skunk is frightened, it throws off a foul odor indeed, and when people are frightened they react in somewhat the same fashion at times, biologically reacting to stimuli in the environment that they consider alarming. 

They throw off a barrage of “foul viruses”—that is, they actually collect and mobilize from within their own bodies viruses that are potentially harmful, biologically trigger these, or activate them, and send them out into the environment in self-protection, to ward off the enemy (more vigorously).

In a fashion this is a kind of biological aggression. The viruses, however, also represent tensions that the person involved is getting rid of. That is one kind of biological statement

It is often used in a very strong manner in times of war, or great social upheaval, when people feel frightened.

What I have said about viruses applies to all biological life. Viruses are “highly intelligent” — meaning that they react quickly to stimuli. They are responsive to emotional states. They are social. 

Their scale of life varies considerably, and some can be inactive for centuries, and revive. They have extensive memory patterns, biologically imprinted. Some can multiply in the tens of thousands within seconds. They are in many ways the basis of biological life, but you are aware of them only when they show “a deadly face.”

You are not aware of the inner army of viruses within the body that protect it constantly. Host and virus both need each other, and both are part of the same life cycle.

….thoughts move far quicker of course than viruses. The action of the virus follows the thought. Each thought is registered biologically. Basically (underlined), when you have an immunity to a disease you have a mental immunity.”

Thoughts interact with the body and become part of it as viruses do. Some viruses have great therapeutic value. The physical body will often let down its own barriers to these, knowing they will counteract certain others that are not beneficial at the time.

So-called harmful viruses are ever-present within the body. You are very rarely vulnerable to any but a small percentage, though you carry within you traces of the most deadly of them all of the time. 

… viruses can be beneficial or deadly according to the condition, state, and needs of the body at any given time. It is known that one disease can often cure another; sometimes, left alone, an individual will go from a serious disease through a series of less severe ones that are seemingly unrelated to the original problem.

You are not attacked by viruses, for instance, for all kinds of viruses exist normally in the body. There are no killer viruses, then, but viruses that go beyond their usual bounds.

I am not suggesting that you not visit doctors or not take drugs of that nature, as long as you believe in the structure of medical discipline that the Western world has evolved. Your bodies have been conditioned to it through the use of such medications since birth. There are many casualties [of it], but this is still a system that you have chosen, and your ideas still form your reality. 

No one dies who has not made the decision to do so – and no disease is accepted blindly. 

Put simply, your thoughts can be regarded as invisible viruses, carriers, sparks setting off reactions not only within the body but the entire physical system as you know it. Your thoughts are as natural as the cells within your body, and as real. They interact with one another as viruses do. 

While you are in this reality there is no division between the mental, the spiritual, and the physical. If you think there is, then you do not sufficiently understand the spirituality of the flesh or the physical reality of your thought.

It seems quite scientific to believe in vaccinations against such dangerous diseases — and certainly, scientifically, inoculations seem to work: People in your time right now are not plagued by smallpox, for example.  Some cultures have believed that illnesses were caused by demons. Medicine men, through certain ceremonies, would try to rid the body of the demons — and those methods worked also. The belief system was tight and accepted, and it only began to fail when those societies encountered “civilized views”.



Though what Seth says speaks for itself, I would be interested in opening a new discussion of the implications raised by his words for a deeper ‘psychic politics’ of both Covidism and anti-Covidiocy. His message seems to be that the essential factor in illness severity and mortality, whatever the putative ’cause’, even iatrogenetic, is fear itself – and the will to die.


Well, I tend to agree with Seth’s thinking around fear, and from a psychic political point of view it seems there could be nothing more divisive in the population than something like COVID that will have all the believers scared to gather and commune or ratting on any non-believer whereas the non-believers/rebels are mostly scared that they have lost their communities and are afraid that they cannot find a line of logic or pursuasion to regain a semblance of sensible discourse and reframing of the now heavily unbalanced power dynamics that are being expressed. It seems to be a win win for those in control whether they achieve complete vaccination coverage or not…unless we can eventually succeed to changing the rhetoric and thought framing to rebalance the scales.

But perhaps even more concerning is the potentiality that these physical changes in the population being sought by the minority in power will give them an even greater ability to control the thought patterns of humanity. I would love to know what Seth’s view is on the ability of consciousness and spirit to override some kind of physical biotechnology limitation on thought.


Some questions re. Seth: Are we to conclude that, unless they have a death wish or other unconscious agendas, those with a fully trusting attitude to the vaccines are less likely to suffer severe adverse reactions? Is it therefore counterproductive to induce fears in them? How can they nevertheless be weaned off naive political conformism or Covidiocy, educated about the ‘Covid Cult’ agenda, which has and will have further consequences for them and also for their children and humanity as a whole?

How can the political Left be weaned off their Covidiocy, and the great betrayal of failing to see the Covid agenda as the most vicious and insidious form of class warfare by the ruling elites that has ever been launched? Are there nevertheless any useful historical parallels that dissenters can draw on? What forms of spiritual and political self-defence and resistance might be most appropriate for consideration? Is, as Seth also hints, humanity possibly on the verge of transforming into something else – or dividing into two species of consciousness? What can be expected from the inevitable resistance to 4th wave lockdowns, like the one million strong march in London? My own obsession: why don’t dissenters return to old-fashioned local street leafletting instead of massing for media ignored demonstrations? Is it the role of thinkers to do anything at all – beyond questioning more deeply the essence of what is going on?

Heidegger was already well aware of all the dangers of biotechnology and planetary technocracy. He suggested that thinking itself will only survive in small ‘cells’ or groupings.

Or maybe we have failed to look for or see the innate internal contradictions that will lead to the undoing of this new Covidian reset of GloboCap?.


… leafletting isn’t a bad idea but the problem no mater what the media used to inform people is that they have been brainwashed to not trust anything but authority. I will post what we share here and everyone I know could potentially see it, but even if it isn’t plastered with a “fact check” label, most people will already ignore it, not necessarily as misinformation, but just as another narrative in a sea of opinions that they don’t have the tools to determine the truth of.


It shouldn’t be that hard for people to understand once they see all the points and discussion completely uncensored. Peoples blind trust in authority I argue is merely their way of lazily not digging deeper to consider the things they know are looming under the surface, helped by the fact of widespread censorship.

This reminds me of that comment that Zizek likes to make about the role of the subversives to make and expose the reality that has always been present but merely shallowly veiled under the surface…to bring that out in the open so that people can no longer find rationale to ignore it


when there is explicit corruption all it might take is exposure, but as I recently wrote in the book I am working on

“…it can be difficult to truly evaluate a problem without understanding what is sacrificed when knowledge is socially guided one way rather than another. Few people can conceive of the extent of corruption, because the most tragic corruption is not explicit, but rather baked right into business as usual in the scientific industry.

Most people end up resigning to the way things are and begrudgingly accept the pronouncements of obviously corrupt institutions, because even if they suspect the limitations of their media-manicured ideology, they are so enthralled by the seemingly sophisticated products of hightech competition, that even their skepticism of politics and power cannot lead them to question the value or see the danger in the basic truths and ways of life produced by the bureaucratic system. Even with the popularity of alternative medicine and non-traditional spirituality, few people have an alternative system of values deep enough to resist the seduction of rhetoric backed by centuries of powerful investments in the technocratic faith.”

but yeah, exposure is vitally important. without that we have nothing, at least for the surface political game. there is the deeper psychic politics but that eventually has to translate into changes in traditional political power and communication.

I think Peter brings up an interesting point about fear, and what is accomplished by freaking people out about spike proteins or vaccines.


And what is the possibility of convincing people anyways considering that it’s always more difficult to convince someone that they’ve been lied to then it is to lie to them


the psychic politics is crucial. spiritual thinking is so important. we need to create the structure of the future. the long game is what is important


We can reframe the systems of thought. Its how to help others do so, as individuals and not en masse, and with gentleness, kindness and skillful means, that counts. This is what I have always called Relational Revolution. Being interested in what makes just this one individual different from us in their values and way of being. It’s fulfilling the potential of one to one relationships as what Buber called the basic units of relation. I still believe the locus of social change is neither the individual nor the group but the immediate relation of one individual to another within any group and how it can be deepened and become mutually educative and transformative if the intent is there.


Whatever the relationship, the path is formed by finding and forming links, not struggling for power in the already constituted world.

…whether we are physically with the other or not, they are all inside us. We are all counterparts of each other. we need to deepen and expand our own internal relations of difference in unity.


But then embody that in our mode of relating.