“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

A pun. It is as you know an extremely difficult topic because of the limits of your own conceptions. Philip may not be able to follow me too well, since he has not heard, nor read, any previous discussions on matter. But this again will not matter.

He will read it all in time. As I told you, matter is created constantly. No object is composed of the same matter from one day to the next. Matter is caused by pulsations of energy, taking a formal pattern that is already formed by means of the consciousness inherent in the energy itself.

In other words once more, even by your own farfetched time scheme, there is an interval of physical nonexistence for each interval of physical existence.

Your senses do not perceive this. They are far too slow. At some time your instruments may discover this interval. Nevertheless, for all the appearance of permanence and rigidity, your chair is only a chair by virtue of your own concept—gestalt, that is in itself severely limited due to the limitations of outer senses. I have mentioned that your cause and effect theory is in itself antiquated and distorted. Matter in itself does not decay, since it does not exist as one object long enough.

This antimatter therefore, by inference, exists in duration on your terms for as long as your own universe of positive matter has existed. It might seem to you that the universe of antimatter is a twin of your own. On physical terms it is indeed, although it is in a divided state. By this I mean that I herein include two universes very closely connected with your own.

One could be compared to what I will call a before image. Your universe is the focal point for physical manifestation, where the manipulation of matter predominates. One of the other two universes to which I refer is formed as energy is nearly approximate to your own; and energy not yet within a strong position to materialize into matter does, nevertheless, manage an early, somewhat weaker form.

The negative universe is, therefore, composed of what we may refer to as a beforeimage and an afterimage of your own. As you may have surmised however, each of these is composed of what you may call, for your own purposes, seemingly exactly like your own universe and following your own time perspective.

However, the personalities that inhabit these seemingly twin bodies to your own are not the same. Your scientists have already discovered the theory of antimatter, but assume that it is completely separate from your own universe, I believe the latest theory being that a universe of antimatter may possibly be found at the furthest reaches of your known universe.

Antimatter exists simultaneously with your own universe, and approximates it in terms of your own idea of time. This may be possibly discovered within a short time, but it will not be accepted. Because of the perilous and necessary relationship and balance between matter and antimatter, it will never be possible for you to contact the universe of antimatter.

The reason should be apparent; if you consider for the sake of analogy, you may think of our fifth dimensional space once more. Your universe of positive matter is but one portion of the stuff of reality or energy as it is temporarily apparent, instantaneously, at one point within one of our imaginary cubes.

My connection with you is obvious from our previous discussions. Ruburt and I were once intimately connected, being offshoots so to speak of the same entity. We developed according to our own abilities. I am not his subconscious nor is he mine.

When his senses, his outer senses, do not perceive a physical object in his self-perspective (and hyphenate that please), in his self-perspective, the object simply does not exist. If the object is touched and not seen or otherwise perceived, then in his self-perspective it exists only in the realm of his sensual perception of it. It does not exist to be seen if he does not see it. If his father, for example, sees the chair that the boy does not see, then the object exists as a thing to be seen in the father’s self-perspective. Each individual himself creates a portion or a whole physical object. Many people appear to see an object, but the object that they see is not the same object, but only approximates an object.

Your idea of space is so erroneous that it is extremely difficult to set you straight. For every apparent single object you have, literally, infinite varieties, and no one particular object indeed. From your own perspective, from your own space perspective, through the methods which I have given you, you create your own version of a particular object, and you do it by using energy in a personal manner.

I told you that without telepathy language would be meaningless and ineffective. It is true that each of you constructs his own physical universe, and responds to it. It is also true however, that through continuous telepathy you are acquainted with the ideas of others concerning their approximate physical universes; and while you construct and see your own, you also construct any given material object taking into consideration its approximate size, width, thickness and location, as received through telepathy from others.

Nevertheless, the objects are simply not the same objects. You do not see, feel, smell or touch the same object. I will shock you further by stating that, in your terms, the objects do not even exist in the same space, but in the personal self-perspective space, formed and created by any given individual.

This can easily be proven by a simple experiment with any small object, such as a book of matches. No one of you can see a book of matches from exactly the same perspective, for the simple reason that it does not exist for you except in the self-perspective in which you create it.

My very best to all of you, and my thanks to Philip for the copies. You will find that the sessions will make their own friends; through the years, if you can bear to think of it, these friends will grow.

(I can’t really describe the sound. I seemed to pick it up with my ears like a very loud garbled static; and this voice, a man’s, was distinguishable amid the static, and formed it somehow. The static was like a bubbling in my ears, from within. The sound didn’t come from the room. The voice was definitely independent, another person’s, not my own; nor was the thought my own.

(Then again, later yet, I heard myself asking: “What’s your name, little girl?” This time a voice, it could have been my own, answered from offstage to my right: “I’m Bonnie Lou Ryerson.” “How old are you?” I asked. The same voice answered: “I’m seven years old.” I did not see anything this time. There was more, but I believe that by this time I was coming out of the desired state and was consciously connecting the name Ryerson with a local teacher by that name whom Jane sees occasionally in connection with the art gallery where she works. I do not know him, or whether he has children.