“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

If you will consider the projection of a thought, that is intangible, so that it affects another individual, and hence both directly and indirectly affects the action of physical matter, then you may consider the possibility of other such projections. We have here a rather delicate point. I have said that there are no duplicates. Yet you may say, are not some thoughts duplicates? The variations may indeed be slight, but the variations are always present. A thought transmitted knowingly or unknowingly by “A” is not precisely the same thought when it reaches receiver “B”.

The thought originally held by A is still retained by A, yet a seemingly identical thought reaches B. A has lost nothing. That is, in sending the thought, in trying to duplicate the thought, he himself still retains it, so what is passed on to receiver B? This is rather important, since an explanation will do much to account for the frequent difference that occurs in telepathic communications.

Whether or not A, the sender, knowingly transmits this apparent duplicate, at the point of its transmission the sender forms an electrical impulse pattern that is supposed to duplicate the original thought. But no such identical duplication is possible, as far as I know, within reality of any kind.

As soon as the attempt is made to duplicate the original thought, then we find that the attempt itself strains and pulls; the impulses change minutely or to a greater degree. The point that I want to make here is that any attempt at such duplication actually forces, because of the nature of the attempt, the impulses to line up in a different pattern. When B receives the thought, it is already a new thought, bearing great resemblance to the original, but it is not the identical thought.

In this case action forces change, and by the very nature of action no such duplications can occur. It may be said, for practical reasons, that A and B have identical thoughts. But the thoughts are not identical.

I cannot explain everything at once, and so obviously many questions would remain unanswered until we can get to them. For the original thought, as an identity, to actually be transmitted to a sender, you would have to face the inevitable result: If the identical thought were actually transmitted from A to B, then A would have it no longer. Since A obviously may still have the original thought, then B has not the identical thought; not an exact duplicate, but instead a similar but still unidentical thought.

Prime identities cannot be duplicated. Duplication, exact duplication, is always merely an effect of insufficient knowledge. In some cases two thoughts may indeed appear identical, but whether or not examination can show it, such exact duplication is impossible. Now. When receiver B receives this transmitted thought, he may react and interpret that part of the thought that is similar to the original.

He may, on the other hand, react to and interpret portions of the thought that are not similar. He may then react and interpret the similarity or the difference. His reaction here depends on several circumstances, including the intensity of the electrical pulsations that compose the thought, and his own inner facility in reacting to particular ranges of intensities. Habitually individuals establish various overall frequencies that they are able to handle, for various reasons that I believe I explained to you somewhat earlier.

An individual will therefore feel more at home operating within certain frequencies, and he will feel less at home with others. The original thought is used as a pattern, therefore, for the creation of a new electrical reality, which may or may not be directed at any given receiver. It is obvious that the attempt to duplicate is present; and were it not for this attempt to duplicate, then there would be little similarity between any separate identities.

(Break at 9:54. Jane was well dissociated. She said she thought it was a good session, because “my head feels as though there’s absolutely nothing else in it but the session.” She thought Seth was trying to use her abilities as best he could, in order to present the material without mix-up.

Now. The nature of the thought that is received by our sender B is determined by many factors. We shall merely consider a few of these. These include, to begin with, the original intensity of the thought as A possesses it, A’s ability to duplicate the thought as far as possible, the relative stability of the electrical thought unit as it is formed by A, the familiarity or unfamiliarity of the range of frequencies that compose the new thought to any intended receiver.

The receiver will understand and interpret in general the intensity range that he is in the habit of using himself. Some, or a portion of, the transmitted thought may fall within his range, and some may not. He may pick up the portions of the thought which are similar to the main thought, in which case some scientific proof of sorts can be achieved.

It may happen however that the dissimilarity is what falls within his particular accustomed range, in which case proof would be inadequate. Such thoughts will be received by those individuals in whom a variety of circumstances happen to occur simultaneously.

Now. I have told you that emotions also possess an electrical reality. Thoughts formed and sent out within the impulse range of emotion often succeed because of the peculiar nature of emotional electrical impulses themselves. They have a particularly strong electrical mass. They also usually fall within powerful intensities. For reasons that we will not discuss, this evening, thoughts formed under a strong emotional impetus will carry greater vividness, have a greater tendency toward duplication, and are apt to be interpreted with some success.

Also, all individuals have had familiarity with emotions, as they exist within electrical intensities, and are accustomed to reacting to them. The whole process is instantaneous. However, the thought which is now an approximation of the original thought, and actually an identity of its own—

The thought is changed once more by the receiver.

He does not interpret the thought. He interprets its meaning, and forms a new thought identity.