“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

The authors made several excellent points, without however carrying the main point in any actuality. They conceive of the psychological structure as a gestalt, dominated by the ego, formed by various needs and potentialities. When the dominating ego relaxes its control for any reason or becomes weakened, then according to their concept any one of the subsidiary groups may take over.

They do not know however where identity does reside, and consider it the result merely of organized perceptual patterns. Subsidiary potential egos can then seize upon and use the organism’s sensual and perceiving apparatus. They do mention, the authors, that this can sometimes be the result of necessity. The next strongest takes over when the captain is down, so to speak, so that the whole can survive.

But identity is much more than this, and basic identity, while using the perceptive abilities, is not that dependent upon them. It is true that the personality is a gestalt, and that every identity has any number of potential egos. It is also true that on occasion one potential ego will take over from another. But this is all highly simplified, for the ego structure is not one thing, but a changing, never constant, actually quite informal grouping of psychological patterns. Each ego uses and interprets the organism’s perceiving apparatus in a way that in the overall is characteristic and distinctive.

This characteristic way of interpreting perceived data, and of reacting to it, is not as constant as it appears to be however. The stability and illusion of permanence is highly misleading. The four manifestations of personality all belonged to one identity, and this is perhaps the main point missed. For if the authors say that oftentimes a subordinate or potential ego will take over control when necessary in order to insure the survival of the whole, then this implies a decision that has been made; and who has made it?