1 result for (book:tes5 AND session:218 AND stemmed:self)

TES5 Session 218 December 15, 1965 11/427 (3%) Priestley Peggy Dunne San seminar
– The Early Sessions: Book 5 of The Seth Material
– © 2013 Laurel Davies-Butts
– Session 218 December 15, 1965 9 PM Wednesday as Scheduled

[... 78 paragraphs ...]

Having read Priestley’s ideas about Dunne, Ruburt now wonders if I am not a future self of his own, according to Dunne’s ideas; that is, if I am not one of those future selves of which Dunne speaks, or if I am not consciousness number two, or three even, of Priestley’s concept.

[... 5 paragraphs ...]

Otherwise I should be all life force and no self. Now, I communicate through this level of Ruburt’s consciousness. It is subconscious to him or to his ego, but it is not without consciousness by any means. And again, I communicate through that level. At my own level this is not in itself difficult.

The difficulty lies in making this communication, which is direct from me, to what would be Ruburt’s time three self, clear to the time one self of Ruburt’s, which must speak these words, in what could be called Priestley’s time one.

[... 2 paragraphs ...]

Now I would be number six self, so to speak, according to Dunne. According to Priestley however, at this point in his theory, I would simply be that life force, or part of it, with no individuality. Priestley is more correct in depth however, though Dunne goes further, only to peter out. Nevertheless I would be a number six self. Using the same terms, however, I will make some distinctions. For as a number six self I have complete knowledge of all the other selves.

Now I could indeed be Ruburt’s number six self, you see. I am not, but I could be. It is entirely possible however, using Ruburt as an example, for Ruburt’s number six self, to communicate with Ruburt’s number one self; these communications sifting through the intervening selves however, and unfortunately. Now these various times of Priestley’s and Dunne’s have much in common with the planes of which I am speaking in our discussions, and the value fulfillment of our material is akin to Priestley’s insistence on depth within any given moment.

[... 3 paragraphs ...]

Now. While I am not Ruburt’s number six self, and I should know, this is not to say that I may not be Ruburt’s number eight or nine self.

At this point I am at the level, again, that could be compared to Dunne’s number six self, as myself. I communicate through the third undifferentiated layer, that could be compared to Priestley’s consciousness at number three time.

[... 1 paragraph ...]

His observations were not complete enough, for there are changes occurring now that he did not perceive. Therefore he did not project them into these other times. The becoming self grows more and more aware of its own portions, and of these various aspects of time in which these portions are or will be focused.

[... 3 paragraphs ...]

Now. At some point you, Joseph, and Ruburt and myself, are part of the same entity. This entity is that synthesization that Dunne did not foresee, but it in no way implies a loss of individual identities. This is extremely difficult to explain, since when I use the word individual identity, I am not referring primarily to egotistical identity alone. As a matter of fact, I am in one way, and in one way only, a future self—this is extremely simplified—of Ruburt’s; that could be compared I suppose to a theoretical number twelve self, according to Dunne.

[... 15 paragraphs ...]

It is because of the peculiar connection of selves that our communications are possible. It is for the same reason that such communications are relatively rare, for many conditions and circumstances are necessary; and the number one self is made to bear strains unfamiliar to it, and to perceive data which does not make sense within its number one time system.

Because of this I have always leaned on the side of caution. But these strains, and this data, to some extent lift the number one self from the limitations of the number one time, and lends an advancement ordinarily not possible. For the number one time has changed for both of you since our sessions began, and it no longer seems the prison that it did earlier.

[... 308 paragraphs ...]

Similar sessions

TES5 Session 226 January 24, 1966 John Cleveland McKeown Searle Hilton
TES5 Session 214 December 6, 1965 discotheque napkin Washington dancers ultraviolet
TPS2 Session 607 April 3, 1972 Alma Porcius Marcus Cato statesman
TES7 Session 294 October 17, 1966 statue Nassau San hill galleons