“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Jane returned at 7:05 PM, and confirmed my thought. She had indeed, on impulse, visited Bob and Mary Piper, friends of ours whom we had not seen for many months. She had not consciously been thinking of visiting them when she left me. She recalled mentioning my name often in conversation with Mary Piper, particularly to the effect that I might be concerned because she, Jane, did not return promptly. It will be recalled that the Pipers witnessed the 73rd session [See Volume 2].

We will continue our discussion concerning action and identities. I have said that identity is a part of action, and basically inseparable from action. Identity attempts to form meaningful patterns and relationships from action. Consciousness is action that perceives itself. The ego is action’s attempt to stand off from itself.

Action may show itself as motion, but it is much more than motion in the terms which you usually use, and motion is but one small dimension within action’s realm. All types of consciousness represent a different focus of energy’s perception within itself. There is no past or future to action. All action is simultaneous. Identities, some identities and some forms of consciousness, particularly the ego, perceive a past or a present, but this is merely the result of the manner in which such identities and consciousnesses view available data.

A consciousness is characterized by the particular ways in which it views or perceives available action. It is characterized by the type of action which it is more likely to perceive. It is characterized by the pattern of perception itself.

Since action is not apart from structure, but is indeed the formulator of structure, then it is obvious that generally the type, nature, extent and scope of characteristic perception patterns of a consciousness will determine its physical structure, and not the other way around.

There is no one particular pattern followed by consciousness in its perception of itself as action. Mankind is more familiar with certain patterns and relatively unfamiliar with others. Any action changes itself. Nothing is constant. This rule is not forced upon action from some outside agency, but is simply a part of its own nature.

Action, you may say, is carried away by itself. Reality possibilities are endless. You are familiar with very small portions of reality. Your perception characteristics at this time dictate and limit the aspects of action that you can perceive. You can, however, focus very clearly on other aspects. And particular types of consciousnesses and identities are merely the result of action’s formation into perception patterns with which it can focus upon certain aspects of itself.

It may be thought that such perception patterns or identities may be limited, but this is hardly the case. For without them, whole portions of reality would never be perceived. There is much here that will take us a long while to explain, for the line can theoretically be drawn anywhere in the formation of identities and consciousness. And herein lies your freedom.

The dimensions of consciousness are not arbitrary. They are not clearly drawn. They are open, they are action.

They are a dimension, as I mentioned. Consciousness is not one thing, therefore consciousness is not of itself limiting. Boundaries may be set up in terms of a self. A self is a gestalt of action perception patterns, which are formed together through attraction.

A particular consciousness is a gestalt of these conceptual patterns; but there is nothing to prevent a consciousness from increasing itself by experiencing other conceptual patterns or patterns of perception. This assimilation would increase, not decrease, any given consciousness. We use, or you use, words merely as a convenience. We therefore say that a consciousness is a gestalt of patterns of perception, by which action knows itself. But the patterns of perceptions may grow, and the consciousness reach out. The consciousness has changed. It is no longer the same consciousness, since it has extended itself. Yet it is the same consciousness, on the other hand, because it is that which has extended itself. So words can confuse us.

A consciousness can be said to be a gestalt of patterns of perception then; and while the definition stands, it can only apply to any given consciousness for the breath of an instant, since the patterns of perception, being action, have already changed; and the particular consciousness of which we spoke, and which we tried to limit and pin down, is gone.

This material on action, and identities, and consciousness, will add much to your understanding of dreams, of the whole self, and of other facets of reality of which I will speak shortly.

The self then, being action which has formed itself into gestalts of pattern perceptions, by which it knows itself, this self changes constantly. And within the range of effective perception, starting at any particular point, there are patterns within patterns. For convenience’s sake we will have to limit our discussion to some degree, taking the self as a particular gestalt within, or composed of, a particular range of perception patterns; though in actuality the range may be smaller or larger at any given time.

If however we changed our arbitrary boundary points, then the minor selves at either end would now seem to be portions of other selves. For practical purposes it may be said that a self is composed of a gestalt of perception patterns, within which a fairly constant efficiency is maintained. This is the best definition I can give you at this time.

(Break at 10:25. Jane was again well dissociated. For material on the inner ego, the self-conscious self behind the self-conscious self, see the 28th session.

(Jane quoted this to me immediately after the session ended, and I include it here without change. My point is to show that she did not have time to consciously tinker with the thought, to recompose it in a literary sense, etc.)