“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Long pause, one of many.) I do not want to ruin your idea of stability, and I do not want to confuse you. The fact remains that in speaking of probabilities thus far, I have simplified the issues considerably. (To me:) I said, for example, that you died as a child in one probability, and again in the (military) service, and I gave you a small sample of your parents’ probable history. (See the last two sessions.) In doing so I used ideas and terms quite easily grasped. The larger picture is somewhat more difficult — by far — to express.

There is, of course, no single-line kind of development at all. In the first place, as you know, your life is at once, though you experience, practically, a life-to-death sequence — Ruburt’s living area in Adventures.⁷ Every probable event that could happen to you, happens. I gave you one or two small examples of your mother’s probable existences. Think in physical terms of the generations going out from one seed into the ages.

Only in a context of probabilities can immortality make any sense. Heredity springs from the great inherent unpredictability that is then broken down to specifications inside the chromosomes,⁹ no two of which are alike. What you think of as daily life is then a focus upon certain probable events above others, a choosing of significances, a selection of pattern. Other portions of the self follow different selections.

11. Seth’s description of how I’m blending two probable selves reminded me of his material on the way Jane is doing the same thing. See the 680th session at 11:02. It can hardly be coincidental that Jane and I are using our individual writing abilities as the cohesive — the “glue” — to unite our respective sets of probable selves.