“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

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.

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.

An ego could be compared to a small dam in this respect. However, action constantly forms perceptual patterns in which it can view itself. Again, these patterns are formed one within the other, and they could be said to form that imaginary structure which we called the fifth dimension, so many sessions ago.

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.

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.

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.