“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

I estimate that it’ll take me five or six weeks to type the final manuscript of the book for our publisher. Then I’ll need another week to go over the manuscript, with colored pens marking instructions of each page as to what copy we want set in roman [upright] type, and in italics; while doing that I’ll also check spelling, punctuation, references, dates, times—all of those mundane details so necessary in helping our publisher produce a finished, good-looking book for the marketplace.¹

Last night, as I began typing Monday’s 915th session, I asked Jane why Seth hadn’t just called his “invisible particles” CU’s, or units of consciousness, as he’d done earlier in Dreams,² and as he’d always done in his other books. The question upset her, especially when I added that I was afraid Seth was repeating old material under a new term. In order to help Jane feel better, I speculated that he must have had his reasons for doing this, and that of course a certain amount of repetition is necessary in each book in a series: The restatements not only furnish a foundation for new material, but enable each book to be complete in itself. After all, I said, I try to achieve those same goals with the notes.³

In spite of those thoughts, Jane was still rather upset and out of sorts a day later as session time approached. Even with her unease, however, she wanted to begin the session early, as she’s been doing lately. She also thought of giving me the night off, by way of celebrating a bit because I’ve finished the notes for Mass Events, but I told her I’d rather keep the sessions going as long as both of us feel like it. This afternoon I’d started my first tentative typing for Mass Events, and felt good about that.

Then, as we waited for a delayed session, Jane received material from Seth in which he very nicely explained his use of “invisible particles” on Monday evening—and since tonight he goes into his reasons for doing so, there’s no need to give them here. Of course we were both relieved. And of course, Seth hadn’t been concerned at all.)

He was supposed to ask the question, and so was each reader. For one thing, while I realize the importance of specific terms, I do not want you as a reader to become so dependent upon terms that coming across one you have read before, you instantly categorize it. For another thing, each time I reintroduce such information I do so from another direction, so to speak, so that you as a reader are meant to approach it from a different angle also. In that way, you become familiar with certain knowledge from a variety of viewpoints.

There are countless relationships between species that go unrecognized. The generations of all species interact. The genetic cues are not triggered on the proposition, obviously, that a species exists alone on the planet, but also in response to genetic sequences that operate in all of the species combined. The genetic system, again, is not closed nearly as much as supposed. That is, again, because the basic units of consciousness that build up matter—that form matter—are themselves endowed with a subjective acuteness. This also accounts for my earlier statement, that in usually understood terms the environment and its creatures “evolve” together. (Long pause.) Your position on the scale of awareness inclines you to categorize consciousnesses so that only your own familiar brand seems to fit the definition—so again here I remind you that consciousness is everywhere in the deepest terms, because All That Is disperses itself throughout physical reality. All portions of that reality have their own rights to existence, and purposes within it. So of course do all peoples, and the races.

(“I have, very much. What are you going to do for the rest of the evening?”)

3. In a note like this I can only touch upon the theme of repetition. All of Jane’s books, as well as my own notes for her Seth books, obviously contain repetitious material, and/or material based upon variations of certain basic concepts. It’s inevitable and necessary that they do. Individually and en masse, and to the extent that our human systems of perception make it possible, our species has created a world and universe built upon a very limited, repetitious creation and interpretation of internal and external data. We could hardly survive without our particular communicative repetition, nor could any other species without its own.

I’ve often thought that the repetition in the Seth books, say, is nothing compared to the repeated barrages of suggestion—much of it negative—that our species has chosen to subject itself to daily. I constantly search for balances between the positive and the negative. Indeed, however, Jane and I think that in ordinary terms, and for many reasons, our species long ago began creating a great deal of negative thinking and action—so much so that those qualities came to range throughout all facets of our world culture. As far as I know, we humans are the only ones to indulge in such behavior. I can’t imagine animals doing so, for instance—they have no need to!

I’m sure that in much larger terms even negativity is creative, and often in ways we cannot comprehend in our temporal reality, but I do believe that Jane’s work offers more penetrating and redeeming insights into many of those challenges we create. Once again, then, on world scales ranging from the very small to the very large—and with all of them seamlessly “interlocked”—consciousness seeks to both know and surprise itself.