“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(We preferred not to go, but took the ticket to avoid explanations, without making promises. We thought the affair would be dull. I forgot about the incident until a couple of days ago, when I found the ticket in a coat pocket. Jane hadn’t seen it since last November. I sealed it in the usual double envelope, between two pieces of Bristol.

(For the session Jane and I looked more presentable than usual, but by 8:30 Peggy had not appeared. In my daily predictions for today, made yesterday, I had noted that Peggy would not make it. The predictions were made at 3 PM, March 15; Seth has something to say about the hour and day later in the session.

(Once again Jane began speaking while sitting down and with her eyes closed. Her head rested on her left hand, but she soon became quite restless in her Kennedy rocker and began to shift about. She used some pauses. Her voice was average.)

Now. As I have told you in the past, the individual does indeed survive physical death, but there is a reorganization of psychological elements that compose the personality. The personality, even as you know it, is never static, always changing, and even the ego is not the same from one day to the next.

When you sleep the ego becomes unfocused, but still present, and its goals and attitudes to some extent do color dream experiences. The survival personality has somewhat the same relationship to the ego as the dreaming personality has to it now.

It is a great mistake to imagine that the human being has but one ego, however. The ego represents merely any given pattern of characteristics, psychological characteristics, that happen to be dominant at any given time. If any kind of a thorough investigation were to be carried on, it would become apparent that during one lifetime any given individual will display several, sometimes quite different, egos at various times, each one quite honestly seeing itself as the permanent I.

The survival personality for example relies mainly upon telepathic communication. The survival personality does not think in terms of words, but experiences concepts in a much more direct manner. This sort of thing simply could not be understood by the physically-oriented individual.

These levels of the self have known self-consciousness in other existences, before the present one. But they cannot be allowed to remain completely dormant, but must continually reassert their characteristics and abilities.

I am aware of the various egotistical selves that I have been. I am still each of these selves, but the whole self that I am is dominant now. The psychological structure has changed, but it has changed not only in realignments but in quality. For I am aware of all my selves.

The object is a small round object in a small square box. There is also cotton in the box. The object is shaped somewhat like a ring, but it is not a ring. The circle is not complete. It is of a grayish color, like stone. Perhaps somewhat speckled, and it is very old.

(Jane paused at 10:15. Her eyes still closed, she took the usual double envelope from me. This time she did not hold it to her forehead but in her lap. Her left hand was raised to her eyes. This was our 41st such experiment.)

The appearance of a neat, even, script, with small letters. The main paragraph forming a neat rectangular form, but neatly squared off. A block of matter.

(Break at 10:25. Jane was dissociated as usual, and her eyes had remained closed. We made what connections we could, but missed some that Seth later pointed out; these then seemed to be rather obvious. It also developed that we had some conflict of terminology, as will be seen, and as Seth hints at in the last data above.

(“The appearance of a neat, even, script, with small letters. The main paragraph forming a neat rectangular form. But neatly squared off. A block of matter.” Jane said this data referred to the printed envelope object, even though she used the word script instead of type. I was wondering if her use of the word script was a reference to the note sent in connection with the object, but Jane said no. She is not aware of the difference between the terms script, lettering, and type, for instance. She had an image here, of small even words on a rectangular shape; but my questioning could not elicit whether she could distinguish, here, between type, script, etc., on this rectangular shape. She merely knew there were words present.

(After we had discussed this point, Jane added that it is possible she also had an image, very vague, of the note referred to earlier in the data. This seemed to return to mind after our discussion; she didn’t mention it during the session, but when I was typing up these notes. This could account for the reference to a “main paragraph” above. But in giving the above data, Jane had the image of a rectangular form and block of matter with neat borders.

(Jane resumed, with her glasses still on but with her eyes closed, at 10:42.)

A good deal was legitimate, but not precisely-enough interpreted. Whether or not a test such as this were involved, Ruburt’s terms and your own would not agree as to the printed material and so forth.

The dog was legitimate, but too far afield. You received the card in a friend’s apartment. The friend has a girlfriend with a dog. She takes the dog with her on her visits there.