“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

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.

This, when it occurs, and this particular formation into a self may or may not occur, but when it occurs it is a result of our second previously mentioned dilemma. The self as you know it is in actuality a self plus an ego.

The ego, if you recall, is self’s attempt to set itself apart from action, and to see or perceive action as an object. The ego attempts to attain stability and dominance, and resents change. It seeks to limit certain perceptions, to block out many perceptions of which the self is knowledgeable. In this way limitations become fairly rigid.

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.

It cannot maintain stability, for all its efforts, and it cannot in any way limit the self. It, the ego, merely does not perceive because it will not perceive those other perception patterns, and that larger scope with which the whole self is constantly involved.

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, is not static by any means. It has no arbitrary boundaries. The term itself is used only for convenience; and indeed the concept of the self is a concept of the ego, which considers itself the self.

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.

The self then, unknown to the ego, perceives itself in a vast variety of experiences, and in, indeed, a vast number of realities. Each of these so-called realities, for one blends into the other, could be termed, or viewed as, a separate field. Each is therefore composed of the characteristic perception patterns that happen to lie within it, and these so-called minor fields could then be termed other selves, or minor selves, from the standpoint of the self that we are considering.

From the standpoint of these seemingly minor selves, however, the viewpoint would be entirely different. If we take for example a particular range of various perception patterns, for convenience’s sake, and label them one self, then the various patterns within would appear to be minor selves forming the whole.

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.

As this effective field of perception patterns changes, so do the apparent boundaries of the practical self. It is imperative that we move away from the concept of a self as an indivisible, rigid and limited reality. Indeed, I hesitate almost to continue, since I do not want to confuse you.

The fact is, that any given self, as we have described the self, may have more than one ego, though these egos will not be aware of each other, even though operating simultaneously. You have information on the inner ego. There is also a dream ego, in that there is within that reality field a directive part of the self that is concerned with the construction of purpose and meaning.

(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.

And what meaning you give it is there, and part of it, since you who project the meaning are yourselves part of it. The inner self is, therefore, that inner portion of action which forms the egos, and the selves, through the dilemmas of which I have spoken.

Part of the self knows, and knows that it knows. Part of the self knows, and does not know it knows. The creative dilemmas of which I have spoken are the basis for all realities, and the heart of all meaning.