(On Saturday evening, May 4, Jane briefly came through with some trance information of her own. At least Seth wasn’t overtly present. The last time she’d done this had been early on March 4; her material then was on parallel man, alternate man, and probable man; Seth mentioned it that same evening in the 687th session, and it furnished the basis for Section 2 of this volume. [The material itself is presented as Appendix 6.]

(It isn’t necessary to quote Jane’s delivery of Saturday evening, however. It came about because we’d been discussing our deceased parents and probabilities, in connection with the first two sessions [679–80] of “Unknown” Reality. To launch his book Seth had used a childhood photograph of each of us. The night before last, then, I told Jane about my idea of asking Seth to comment upon early photographs of her parents, Marie and Delmer,¹ to see what would develop in the material.

(We discussed the data given above as we waited for tonight’s session to begin. “Seth’s book reminds me of an old-fashioned diary,” I remarked, “but with a new twist — that of probabilities.” I continued that I was somewhat concerned because the notes for Unknown” Reality were running considerably longer than they had for either Seth Speaks or Personal Reality. Yet I felt there were reasons for this, and had chosen to go along. Jane agreed. She said the notes were intended to furnish a mundane account of our lives that would “parallel” Seth’s more complicated data on probabilities and other concepts. She thought he would have more to say on the subject of notes later in the book.

(“What we know of the species can be compared to what we know about ourselves as individuals. In one way both concepts are on the same level, and deal with realities in consecutive time sequences. The individual, like the species, exists in multidimensional terms; and hovers around focuses of probabilities, weaving in and out of alternate realities constantly.

(“A photograph of a given person represents one experienced probable identity, focused in a recognized time sequence. Its validity is dependent upon the other invisible snapshots not taken, even as the given notes that make up a symphony are important because of the implied notes not actually used.

I would like each reader to try two exercises. First of all, take any incident that happens to you the day you read this page. See the particular chosen event as one that came into your experience from the vast bank of other probable events that could have occurred.

Examine the event as you know it. Then try to trace its emergence from the thread of your own past life as you understand it, and project outward in your mind what other events might emerge from that one to become action in your probable future. This exercise has another part: When you have finished the procedure just given, then change your viewpoint; see the event from the standpoint of someone else who is also involved. No matter how private the experience seems, someone else will have a connection with it. See the episode through his or her eyes, then continue with the procedure just given, only using this altered viewpoint.

For the second exercise, take a photograph of yourself and place it before you. The picture can be from the past or the present, but try to see it as a snapshot of a self poised in perfect focus, emerging from an underneath dimension in which other probable pictures could have been taken. That self, you see, emerges triumphantly, unique and unassailable in its own experience; yet in the features you see before you — in this stance, posture, expression — there are also glimmerings, tintings or shadings, that are echoes belonging to other probabilities. Try to sense those.

Now: Take another photograph of yourself at a different age than the first one you chose. Ask yourself simply: “Am I looking at the same person?” How familiar or how strange is this second photograph? How does it differ from the first one you picked this evening? What similarities are there that unite both photographs in your mind? What experiences did you have when each photograph was taken? What ways did you think of following in one picture that were not followed in the other one? Those directions were pursued. If they were not pursued by the self you recognize, then they were by a self that is probable in your terms. In your mind follow what directions that self would have taken, as you think of such events. If you find a line of development that you now wish you had pursued, but had not, then think deeply about the ways in which those activities could now fit into the framework of your officially accepted life.² Such musings, with desire — backed up by common sense — can bring about intersection points in probabilities that cause a fresh realignment of the deep elements of the psyche. In such ways probable events can be attracted to your current living structure.

(9:40.) We have been speaking about probable men, and do intend to deal more deeply with probable man [or woman], as that is applied to your species. The events of the species begin with the individual, however. All of the powers, abilities, and characteristics inherent in the species are inherent in any individual member of it. Through understanding your own unknown reality, therefore, you can learn much about the unknown reality of the species.

The person within the photograph is beyond your reach. The you that you are can make any changes you want to in your experience: You can change probabilities for your own purposes, but you cannot change the courses of other probable selves that have gone their own ways. All probable selves are connected. They each influence one another. There is a natural interaction, but no coercion. Each probable self has its own free will and uniqueness. You can change your own experience in the probability you know — which itself rides upon infinite other probabilities. You can bring into your own experience any number of probable events, but you cannot deny the probable experience of another portion of your reality. That is, you cannot annihilate it.

As you are looking at one photograph in your personal history, that represents your emergence in this particular reality — or the reality that was accepted as official at the time it was taken — so you are looking at a picture of a representative of your species, caught in a particular moment of probability. That species has as many offshoots and developments as you have privately. As there are probable selves in private terms, there are probable selves in terms of the species. As you have your recognized, official personal past, so in your system of actuality you have more or less accepted an official mass history (see Note 2). Under examination, however, that history of the species shows many gaps and discrepancies, and it leaves many questions to be answered.

THE PRIVATE PROBABLE MAN, THE PRIVATE PROBABLE WOMAN, THE SPECIES IN PROBABILITIES, AND BLUEPRINTS FOR REALITIES

— to be called (pause): “The Private Probable Man, the Private Probable Woman, the Species in Probabilities, and Blueprints for Realities.”

Give us a moment … Remember, in this analogy the various children represent your ancestors, yourself, and your own children. They are exploring the land of time. Now in your physical world it is obvious that nature grows more of itself. In the land of time, time also grows more of itself. As you can climb trees, both up and down the branches, so you can climb times in the same way. Back home, Mama and Papa know this. The family tree exists at once — but that tree is only one tree that appears in the land of time. It has branches that you do not climb and do not recognize, and so they are not real to you. There are probable family trees, then. The same applies to the species.

(A pause lasting almost two minutes, starting at 11:12.) Give us a moment … There are alternate realities, and these exist only because of the nature of probabilities. Now give us a moment …

2. The “officially accepted life” mentioned here reminded me that in the last (694th) session Seth used the phrase “your officially recognized idea of physical reality” in discussing the role probable events played in our world history. In the 686th session he referred to “official data” when he considered ancient man’s selection of certain mental and biological pulses as physical reality; later in the same session, he used the self-explanatory “official history.” In the 684th session he discussed our “official activity” when he compared our reaction to hunches and premonitions with our acceptance of normal psychological reality.