“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Let us discuss numbers in terms of identities.

This is in connection with the lectures you are being given having to do with time and identity. Though numbers are abstract they can serve our purposes well here. One number, for example 7, can be considered itself as an identity. Now, it may become a portion of other numbers in infinite varieties, and yet it is always itself.

(Pause; one of many.) It may be a portion of many groupings yet still retain itself. Three and four will add to seven, yet three and four are their identities and will always be so in your terms. The numbers on the other side of zero, the minus numbers, represent identity in that time of relative nonbeing. The paradox is that the numbers therefore cannot be conceived of as not being, so the minus sign is used.

The unit of the numbers alone however signifies their existence. Now, mathematics is not nearly understood within your system. A fourth and fifth-dimensional mathematics cannot be initiated from within inside your own system.

It is as if each number represents not only the number itself, not only a unit to be added, subtracted, multiplied or divided, but also as if each number had infinite varieties of intensities that you do not perceive. I am not talking of smaller units within that number, but of the nature of the unit itself.

These multidimensional intensities would be considered as inherent qualities belonging to each number. (One minute pause.) They would represent other dimensional realities inherent in the number itself, and since numbers are only symbols they would therefore represent other dimensional realities inherent in the unit for which the number stood.

As one number quite simply can be added to another without denying the validity of either number, nor the individuality of either number, so a different kind of grouping also takes place (pause), involving (pause), mathematical manipulations of these other intensities that reside within the number units.

(Pause. Very slow delivery.) In no way does this alter the individual character of any unit number. Since we are involved in this discussion I will give you a simple analogy, and please understand that it is an analogy, meant only to simplify the idea.

Pretend then that behind or within but unseen by you, behind or within the number 1, for example, there are an infinite number of other 1’s, lined up so to speak behind the one that you see. (Jane leaned forward, gesturing:) The one that you see is the self that you see or recognize within your system. The 1’s behind are not serial, nor identical, nor duplicates.

They are all however variations, but neither one is patterned upon any other. Each number in our original quote “row” that you see has therefore within it these other individual units.

Behind 1 then imagine the infinite other 1’s, literally for the analogy’s sake one behind the other. Now this long line of 1’s may seem to stretch out indefinitely (Jane spread her arms wide), or may seem (Jane clapped her hands together) to snap together into one. There is expansion and contraction within this simple number 1 then, within any number or unit.

Now imagine number 2 placed beside number 1, number 2 also having behind it infinite variations. These variations incidentally should be thought of in terms of intensities. The intensities are themselves individual. Take the two main numbers, 1 and 2; as they stand beside themselves they become 12, and yet the 1 and 2 remain unchanged.

In the same manner any of the unit intensities behind each number may change position while still remaining itself, and retaining its individuality as a unit. If you use x and y rather than 1 and 2, basically the same is true. Now this analogy applies to identity. You are in a world where you see one particular intensity unit—belonging say to number 1.

You do not perceive the other intensity units to which it belongs. You perceive—in other terms—the 1, say, as a flat line on a flat surface, and are unable to imagine the existence (pause), the intensity, within that simple unit number.

(Jane said she “came down” easily though. She felt the pyramid effect a little during break. She knows nothing about math, and said the personality was pushing her “like mad” to try to get her to do it right. She had an image while speaking of a row of numbers, with others behind each number in the front row. Jane said that each number in the front row was in the middle of an endless row, from left to right. She also felt that the numbers lined up behind could expand and contract and assume various variations and endless combinations. “Things we couldn’t conceive of in terms of math.”

I am trying to tell you that numbers are only symbols for your kind of reality.

(10:19. Once again the abrupt ending. Jane slowly came out of a good trance; she patted the top of her head as she did so, several times. “I keep trying to stuff all of myself back inside my head,” she said. “Most of me is down here,” she said, patting the chair, “waiting for the rest of me. The part down here doesn’t know anything about numbers. I don’t know whether the data’s good or not—but the part up there just goes on giving it...”