“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

He had always made sounds that communicated emotions, intent, and sheer exuberance. When he became involved with sketched or drawn images, he began to imitate their form with the shape of his lips. The “O” was perfect, and represents one of his initial, deliberate sounds of verbalized language.

Now: Regardless of the language you speak, the sounds that you can make are dependent upon your physical structure, so that human language is composed of a certain limited number of sounds. Your physical construction is the result of inner molecular configurations, and the sounds you make are related to these.

I said before that early man felt a certain emotional magnification, that he felt, for example, the wind’s voice as his own. In a manner of speaking your languages, while expressing your individual intents and communications, also represent a kind of amplification arising from your molecular configurations. The wind makes certain sounds that are dependent upon the characteristics of the earth. The breath makes certain sounds that are dependent upon the characteristics of the body. There is a connection between alphabets and the molecular structure that composes your tissue. Alphabets then are natural keys also. Such natural keys have a molecular history. You form these keys into certain sound patterns that have particular meanings.

Certain sounds are verbal replicas of molecular constructions, put together by you to form sentences in the same way, for example, that molecules are put together to form cells and tissue.

(Long pause at 11:26.) There are “inner sounds” that act like layers between tissues, that “coat” molecules, and these serve as a basis for exterior sound principles. These are also connected to rhythms in the body itself.

To some extent punctuation is sound that you do not hear, a pause that implies the presence of withheld sound. To some extent, then, language is as dependent upon the unspoken as the spoken, and the rhythm of silence as well as of sound. In that context, however, silence involves merely a pause of sound in which sound is implied but withheld. Inner sound deals primarily with that kind of relationship. Language is meaningful only because of the rhythm of the silence upon which it rides.

(11:33.) Its meaning comes from the pauses between the sounds as much as it does from the sounds themselves. The flow of breath is obviously important, regulating the rhythm and the spacing of the words. The breath’s integrity arises directly from the proper give-and-take between cells, the functioning of the tissues; and all that is the expression of molecular competence. That competence is obviously responsible for language, but beyond that it is intimately connected with the patterns of languages themselves, the construction of syntax, and even with the figures of speech used.

Again, you speak for yourselves; yet in doing so you speak a language that is not yours alone, but the result of inner communications too swift for you to follow, involving corporal and subjective realities alike. For this reason your languages have meaning on several levels. The sounds you make have physical effects on your own and other bodies. There is a sound value, then, as apart from a meaning value.

The words you speak to someone else are in certain terms broken down by the listener to basic components, and understood at different levels. There are psychological interpretations made, and molecular ones. The sounds and their pauses will express emotional states, and reactions to these will alter the body’s condition to whatever degree.

The listener then breaks down the language. He builds up his own response. You have so connected words and images that language seems to consist of a sound that suggests an image. Yet some languages have had sounds for feelings and subjective states, and they had no subjects or predicates, nor even a sentence structure that you would recognize.

Your language must follow your perception, though the sound structure beneath need not. You say: “I am today, I was yesterday, and I will be tomorrow,” yet some languages would find such utterances incomprehensible, and the words, “I am” would be used in all instances.