“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

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.

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.

Yet as you can see, what it was when we spoke of it is still present in what it will by now have become. The ego, through its own nature and characteristics, attempts to limit such change, but it succeeds only in limiting itself by limiting its perceptions. It still must change, as is obvious. But it changes along certain lines, moving within certain patterns of perception which are characteristic of it.

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.

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.

(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.)