“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Your daily personal lives are touched, are changed, are created from the interrelationships that exist among those phenomena. So, of course, your mass world is also affected. You do have free will, and in a certain fashion it can be said to be dependent upon the nature of probabilities and the multidimensional behavior of electrons.¹

The full practical implication here should be understood: No course is irrevocably set or beyond change. Within the limited framework of your usual operations, however, so-called predictions³ may be made. They will be workable to some degree. In deeper terms however no action is set beyond alteration. The unknown reality is the source for the known one. If you want to “discover” how things work, then your journey must eventually lead you into the dimensions that lie within the world you know.

Now all of this certainly sounds unscientific to many people, yet most of my readers have already picked up a different version of the nature of science, or they would not be reading this book to begin with. The private oracle: What does that mean? And what does it have to do with the unknown reality? More, what does it have to do with the practical world? The private oracle is the voice of the inner multidimensional self — the part of each person not fully contained in his or her personhood, the part of the unknown self-structure out of which personhood, with its physical alliance, springs. Basically that portion of the psyche is outside of space and time, while enabling you to operate in it.⁴ It deals intimately with probabilities — (louder:) the source of all predictable action.

In very simplified terms, then, Jane regards Seth as a personagram, “a multidimensional personification of another Aspect of the entity or source self, as expressed through the medium.” Aspects like Seth, she wrote in Chapter 11, “would have to communicate through the psychic fabric of the focus personality. They would have to appear in line with our idea of personhood, though their own reality might exist in quite different terms. I think that I always sensed this about Seth. It wasn’t that I mistrusted the Seth personality, but I felt it was a personification of something else — and that ‘something else’ wasn’t a person in our terms … Yet in an odd way I felt that he was more than that, or represented more; and that his psychological reality straddled worlds … I sensed a multidimensionality of personality that I couldn’t define.”