“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Now. Priestley is indeed the priestly fellow, and Dunne is far from done, If you will forgive my jest. Portions of both of their theories are correct. Sometimes one of them is accurate on one point, and the other one completely off, and sometimes they are both wrong.

Priestley does not go far enough with his time one, time two and time three, but he is fairly correct up to that point. In a different way he says many of the things that I am saying. I have told you that upon physical death the ego becomes the subconscious in the next existence, and that its conscious knowledge is retained electromagnetically.

He can use it, use the knowledge obtained therein, learn from its mistakes, and advance. But this individual as seen by Priestley at this particular point is somewhat limited, still, by this time one. Time one is available to him, though not necessarily as a series of moments, one after another. From this he is free, but he is still somewhat bound by those events, though he may learn from them. According to Priestley, while the individual therefore is free from successive moments, he still does not have easily available, at fingertips so to speak, any information or realizations from time three. I am using Priestley’s terms here.

Priestley’s concept here becomes more limiting than he realized. At this point Dunne overtakes him precisely where he and Dunne disagree. For once having hypothesized times one, two and three, Dunne continues onward as is the case, and Priestley simply stops here in this particular respect.

In concept, again on this particular point, Dunne went further. But in doing so he ended up in a frenzy, losing sight of where he was. And no wonder. It is simply because I am outside of these times that I can see through them more clearly, and there is no particular reason why I should be considered wiser in this respect than they. I am simply in a better position to observe. If Dunne were able to write another book now, on his time theories, he would be able to correct several of his well-intentioned errors.

It is one thing to conceive of basic time as being outside of physical time, for the sake of making a point; but it must be realized that Priestley’s time one, while only real to the ego, is nevertheless a part or a materialization that exists within this basic time framework, and the life force is at the same time within as well as without.

There are two particular points that I want to make this evening, if at all possible.

One concerns myself and where I would stand in this time framework, and you should find this highly interesting. The other has to do with Dunne, for in one instance he saw further than Priestley, for he carried these times further. But he also fell into an understandable error. For at some point the separate selves of Dunne’s, with their separate times, become aware of each other, and merge into the sort of superconsciousness that we have always called the entity.

Now. Since you have a vacation coming up, I want to make certain that I cover one point in particular.

Now. While Dunne and Priestley and myself used different terms often to express the same concept, we also differ in many respects as far as these theories are concerned. My third undifferentiated layer, you see, would correspond to the consciousness of Priestley’s third time, which is why I can tell you that at that point individuality is indeed maintained, and personality continues.

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.

I go into particulars however concerning how this depth is achieved, as you know, if you recall a diagram that I outlined for you concerning moment points in the past.

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.

I repeat myself because I want to make the points plain, and this material is difficult. But things simply do not happen as Dunne supposed they did. He was correct in carrying his times further than Priestley, but he was incorrect in assuming the serialization continued indefinitely along the same lines.

I do not believe that Dunne understood this. There is no serialization as he imagined, after a certain point, simply because this progression of selves through various times in a serial fashion is no longer necessary. The selves reach a point which is not a theoretical point, but a particular mathematically existent point, whereby these times and selves simply become one, or in our terms, an entity.

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.

But we three are all part of another entity, or rather of an entity that exists at that point where Dunne’s serialization breaks down and a new synthesis takes place.

Now. In that respect I am closer to Ruburt than I am to you. However I have been connected with both of you in the past, and this is something for another night. And at that point of synthesization we will be part of the same entity.

I believe it is apparent in our own tests, incidentally, that some preciseness is beginning to show through, for in the general associations connected with the object, identifying points concerning the specific object now appear.

A handkerchief shows above his breast pocket. Pointed, that is a pointed handkerchief, with an initial, perhaps a C or G.

(Peggy quite clearly recalls a man with such a handkerchief in his breast pocket. She remembers this because the handkerchief had four sharp points showing, which she considered unusual, very much out of the ordinary. She cannot recall however whether this man was also the cameraman. She does not remember any initials.”

(Jane took a break at this point, seemingly ending the Gallagher test before she went into the Dr. Instream test. However, Peggy said the first paragraph of the Insteam material applied to her Washington trip:)

([Peggy:] “Yes.” Seeing the above word in the material caused Peggy to say that it was quite unusual. At the seminar Peggy was surprised to hear the name of Secretary of Defense McNamara brought up rather strongly in connection with Sargent Shriver and the poverty program. The connection being a comparison of the two men’s tactics in running their respective departments. Peggy said the point was hammered at more than once during the seminar.)