“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.