“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

There are some points that should be mentioned concerning the definition of the self, or a self, as I gave it to you during our last session.

The definition of course stands. I merely would like to be sure that the correct interpretation is given to the definition. The self, or a self, is not any particular thing, as I told you. It is true that there are no boundaries to enclose it within safe confines, where it can be said, “Here is the self.”

It is also true however that this lack of boundary allows for possibilities of development and expansion that would be impossible with a limited self. The self is not nebulous. Action changes itself, as we have described. Any self, therefore, is never the same self, but action contains within itself its own comprehension.

Because there is no time, as you think of time, we will not say that action retains a memory of all its previous actions or selves, for this would be misleading. Action is aware of itself in all of its spontaneous and simultaneous workings. The self that you are, in a basic sense, is the self that you were in past instances within this existence, the self or series of selves that you were in previous existences within the physical field, and also the myriad selves that you are now, in various perception experiences unknown to the ego.

Your self is all this, as well as the selves that you would call future selves. I wanted to make it clear that the self at any moment, while being no one thing, being indeed a series of simultaneous happenings, so to speak, is however far from meaningless, containing within it full inner comprehension of its various portions.

Once again I make the point, a seeming paradox: The self constantly changes. The self at any given moment is not the self that it was, yet it is that which it was, since it is that which changed.

It acts upon itself, being action. The inner self also changes, but it is also that which changes itself. We come now close to a definition finally for the entity, which cannot really be defined, because in your terms it escapes definition. However, the entity can be partially defined as the sum of all the selves within a given range of action, the simultaneous totality which on the one hand then cannot yet exist, since action can never complete itself, yet representing that impetus forever frustrated on the part of action for complete materialization.

There are selves within selves. Each self is interwound with all others, and yet each self, being composed of action, has within it the powers of action toward change, development, expansion, and the drive toward fulfillment.

Herein also lies the freedom of each self: not being limited. We have spoken in the past of capsule comprehension. It is indeed a characteristic of action, indivisible from action, equally interwoven within it.

Therefore each portion of action is aware of its simultaneous experience within all levels. Again, action carries itself along. Each self is therefore aware of its previous gestalt affiliations. Now. Identities may or may not have egos. An atom is an identity—

It is a self materialized in physical form. It is conscious of itself as belonging to action. The fact that it may be part of a larger gestalt self in no way belittles its own identity. It is conscious of the gestalts of which it is part.

It is materialized action, a self, part of other selves, as you are part of other selves. The intensity here is different. You, any human being, represent a capability, an attraction, an electrical field of great intensity that is capable of efficiently acting as a unit within the physical field.

You may also be part of a self operating within other fields, and operating also within another system of units. The inner self operates as a relay station, as a reference point for the various seemingly disconnected selves. It is only through contact with the inner self that knowledge of the whole self can be found.

The inner self could be called, then, the nucleus, the original point of action from which all the other emanations that form the whole self began. There is here you see no limitation upon the direction in which action may move, nor any limit to the dimensions which action may create.

The inner self would be then any given outthrust of original action outward, as explained earlier. This outthrust would, because of its nature, instantly send further outthrusts in as many directions as possible for it. And because it is action, and because no action can complete itself, and no action can completely materialize, then each outthrust or materialization would result in an in-thrust; not into the original action from which it came, but into itself.

Your concept of consciousness is fearful and limiting, and depends for its existence upon ignorance and barriers, barriers that divide parts of the self from others, from other parts of the self, and from other selves, and from experiences of the selves.

Value fulfillment opens the many eyes of the self to its various portions. It enables the self to expand, to join in a gestalt with other selves. It is only your ego which leads you to believe that such an expansion would result in a lessening of consciousness on the one hand, or an invasion of other selves on the other.

And yet in another sense all selves are one self, in that all selves are action.

But action must attempt to materialize itself and fulfill itself completely. It cannot do so, and the result is the formation of many selves, that are a part of action, and formed from action; and therefore each self must continue in the creation of other selves.

Selves are not destroyed. They change into other selves, and yet are still themselves, for each new self is also the previous self which changed through acting upon itself. There will be no huge contraction of action back into itself, in those terms. There may very well be a conscious realization of each self, that it is a part of the original actionself.

Efficient manipulation within the physical field will soon require that other portions of the self be utilized and recognized. In a manner of speaking, the ego can be compared to the nationalistic state of nations, necessary indeed for man’s development, but already growing passé, and perhaps even mitigating against the survival of the species, where once it aided that survival.

In like manner, when the ego concept is discarded as a concept, as the concept of nationalism will be discarded, so the individual self will not lose but gain. The individual self will expand, as the individual man will be capable of expanding when the old idea of nationalism is finally overthrown, and he can be benefited through learning of, and cooperation with, other men as brothers upon your planet.

But as it is not wise to dispense with the idea of nationalism without gradual growths of understanding and preparation, and while the idea of nationalism cannot suddenly be dispensed with, so also the ego cannot be, and will not be, overthrown overnight; and even when it is finally left behind, it will still be used as a handy reference point; and through all this the self will not lose but gain, for all expansion outward, and expansion inward is a gain, and all boundaries, whether inward or outward, are hampering and limiting. Basically, the self is not limited. The self does not need imaginary fences to protect its privacy, or its safety or its solitude. Only the ego is afraid of challenge, and therefore speaks of such limiting safety.

If the self were the ego then indeed such precepts would be necessary, but the ego is a small part of the self. Necessary indeed, still, but less necessary than it once was.