“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

As an individual you carry within you such a blueprint, then; it contains all the information you require to bring about the most favorable version of yourself in the probable system that you know. These blueprints exist biologically and at every level — psychically, spiritually, mentally. The information is knit into the genes and chromosomes, but it exists apart, and the physical structures merely represent the carriers of information.³ In the same fashion the species en masse holds within its vast inner mind such working plans or blueprints. They exist apart from the physical world and in an inner one, and from this you draw those theories, ideas, civilizations, and technologies which you then physically translate.

Platonic thought saw this inner world as perfect.⁴ As you think of it, however, perfection always suggests something done and finished, or beyond surpassing, and this of course denies the inherent characteristics of creativity, which do indeed always seek to surpass themselves. The Platonic, idealized inner world would ultimately result in a dead one, for in it the models for all exteriorizations were seen as already completed — finished and perfect.

Many have seen that inner world as the source for the physical one, but imagined that man’s purpose was merely to construct physically these perfect images to the best of his abilities. (Very forcefully:) In that picture man himself did not help create that inner world, or have any hand in its beauty. He could at best try to duplicate it physically — never able, however, to match its perfection in those terms. In such a version of inner-outer reality the back-and-forth mobility, the give-and-take between inner and outer, is ignored. Man, being a part of that inner world by reason of the nature of his own psyche, automatically has a hand in the creation of those blueprints which at another level he uses as guides.

In your terms, the inner world does represent Idea Potential as yet unrealized — but those ideas and those potentials do not exist outside of consciousness. They are ideals set in the heart of man,⁵ yet in other terms he is the one who also put them there, out of the deeper knowledge of his being that straddles physical time. Existence is wise and compassionate, so in certain terms consciousness, knowing itself as man, sent future extensions of itself out into the time scheme that man would know, and lovingly planted signposts for itself to follow “later.”

Give us a moment … Man is himself made as much of God-stuff as earth-stuff, so in those terms now the god in himself yearned toward the man in the god, and earth experience. Not understanding yourselves,⁶ you have tried to put the idea of God outside of yourselves and your living framework. Through various exercises in this book, I hope to acquaint each of you with the inherent oneness of the inside and outside realities, to give you a glimpse of your own infinite nature even within the bounds of your creaturehood — to help you see the god-stuff in the man-stuff. In other terms, this can help you see the potentials of your species and break down the barriers of limiting thoughts. I would like to change your ideas of human nature. To some extent this will entail humanizing your idea of divinity. But oddly enough, if that is done you will end up seeing the divinity in man.

(10:35. Jane’s delivery had been average; and, she said now, the session would be a short one. It was. When Seth came through again in a few minutes he said, humorously: “Tell Ruburt I said ‘Happy Birthday’” — then gave a page of material for Jane on another subject. End at 10:48 P.M.

Every so often Jane hears from a female reader who wants to know why Seth often uses the male gender in his books, especially in passages like those in tonight’s 696th session. A little reflection will show that in spite of the “sexist” implications it would be quite difficult to present such material in other ways, so common is the use of “man,” “he,” “his,” and “him.” In the English language we often don’t have the right word, one meaning male and female equally, with which to represent the species. Many times “humanity” doesn’t fit. Nor do we like to substitute “it,” since it’s neuter and devoid of feeling as far as we’re concerned. We also don’t want to become involved with rewriting Seth’s material: We’re sure that when he produces passages cast in the male gender, his intentions are anything but prejudiced in favor of that sex.

“Seth is using the English language (my native one) to discuss issues that often involve concepts most difficult to describe in the language itself — or, indeed, in any language.

“Obviously, Seth’s purpose is to explain what he can within the framework of that language, rather than to change the language itself — as would be necessary, for example, to escape its often prejudiced nature. This prejudice appears most obviously in its sexual aspects: ‘Mankind’ for the species in general, and ‘he’ in referring to the individual member. Linguistically this leaves the female out in the cold — and in more ways than one — for the masculine intent is clear.

“Using that language, however, Seth’s intent is also clear: Individual identity comes before sexual affiliation. That affiliation is a mixture of ‘female’ and ‘male’ elements that are complementary, not opposing. Neither is superior. Male and female also represent psychic and biological faces and a sexual stance. Through all of Seth’s books runs one common thread: Our sexual prejudice is the result of certain aspects of consciousness that we as a species long ago began stressing over others.”