“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Initially language had nothing to do with words, and indeed verbal language emerged only when man had lost a portion of his love, forgotten some of his identification with nature, so that he no longer understood its voice to be his also. In those early days man possessed a gargantuan arena for the expression of his emotions. He did not symbolically rage with the storms, for example, but quite consciously identified with them to such a degree that he and his tribesmen merged with the wind and lightning, and became a part of the storms’ forces. They felt, and knew as well, that the storms would refresh the land, whatever their fury.

I would like to emphasize the difficulty of explaining such a language verbally. In a way the language of love followed molecular roots — a sort of biological alphabet, though “alphabet” is far too limiting a term.

If that language I speak of had been verbal, man never would have said: “The water flows through the valley.” Instead, the sentence would have read something like this: “Running over the rocks, my water self flows together with others in slippery union.” That translation is not the best, either. Man did not designate his own as the only kind of consciousness by any means. He graciously thanked the tree that gave him shade, for example, and he understood that the tree retained its own identity even when it allowed his awareness to join with it.

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.

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.