“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

I will first discuss our own particular circumstances, and then proceed to a more general discussion. There is Ruburt’s ego, and his subconscious, as you know. There are also other areas or levels that are part of his whole personality. In our case a gestalt personality or a psychological bridge

This psychological framework obviously must be receptive. It must also be formed by portions of my own essence, and by portions of Ruburt’s personality. It can be thought of almost as a psychological protrusion, though this is not precisely the word to explain it.

Bridge perhaps is better. This psychological framework is in itself capable of growth, in terms of development. It represents on Ruburt’s part a psychological expansion, and indeed on my own part also. It is formed partially by abilities inherent within all personalities, psychic abilities, and it is composed of energy. It is not a secondary personality, for it exists in quite a different dimension than secondary personalities.

At the same time, because of the methods we use, some translation is often necessary. In many cases this translation is done by the intervening psychological framework, which is simply the psychological point closest to the meeting of Ruburt’s personality and my own, for he does not fade out as a personality. He extends himself in an expansion. The psychological expansion on his end, and the psychological expansion on my end, form the gestalt, the psychological bridge, of which I have spoken.

As a result in such instances, it is up to him to interpret the image correctly. The words that you hear are my words and not Ruburt’s. However, they are representations of my thought, as they are sifted through various layers, first of all of our composite psychological framework, and then through layers of Ruburt’s own personality.

Then when we are successful there is a divergence from his associations so that he says the correct word, even though the correct word, for him personally, would be the wrong word as far as his personal associations are concerned.

This point is fairly important, for it shows how the personal associations are utilized up to a certain point, and then sometimes quite suddenly dispensed with, for they have served our purposes.

Here is a very brief example. Suppose I am trying to give him the impression of a glass of water. It is fairly easy to insert the idea of water, but this may lead him personally to think of the Gulf of Mexico, or the ocean off of Marathon, or even of the Atlantic at York Beach. I will use his associations until I am certain that he has the concept of the word water, but precisely where he is about to say the ocean for example, and after having made use of his associations to get him to this point, I must suddenly make him say a glass of water.

(Yet note that above she has an impression of a basement instead, personally, and when speaking for Seth does not use the word grave, as she did the first time. One point I am curious about. Is water somehow involved with Ezra’s grave? Is Seth clairvoyantly aware of water in, or near, the grave? I wasn’t quick enough to ask the question after break.