“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

The psyche as you know it, then, is composed of a mixture of these families of consciousness. One is not superior to the others. They are just different, and they represent various ways of looking at physical life. (Pause.) A book would be needed to explain the dimensions of the psyche in relation to the different families of consciousness. Here, in this manuscript, I merely want to make the reader aware of the existence of these psychic groupings. I am alert to the fact that I am using many terms, and that it may seem difficult to understand the differences between probable and reincarnational selves, counterparts and families of consciousness. At times contradictions may seem to exist. You may wonder how you are you in the midst of such multitudinous psychic “variations.”

(Long pause.) You can look at an apple and hold it in your hands, so it is obvious that its shape does not contradict its color. You see that an apple can be red or green or both. If I said: “Apples sit quietly on a table,” you would have to agree that such is sometimes the case. If I said: “Apples roll down grassy inclines,” you would also have to agree. If I said: “Apples fall down through space,” you would again be forced to concede the point. It would be clear to you that none of these statements contradicted each other, for in different circumstances apples behave differently.

Sometimes you act as though one ability contradicts another. You think “I cannot be a good parent and a sexual partner to my mate at the same time.” To those who feel this way a definite contradiction seems implied. A woman might feel that the qualities of a mother almost stand in opposition to those of an exuberant sex mate. A man might imagine that fatherhood meant providing an excellent home and income. He might think that “aggressiveness,”⁶ competition, and emotional aloofness were required to perform that role. These would be considered in opposition to the qualities of love, understanding, and emotional support “required” of a husband. In actuality, of course, no such contradictions apply. In the same way, however, you often seem to feel that your identity is dependent upon a certain highly specific role, until other qualities quite your own seem threatening. They almost seem to be unselflike.⁷

(10:48.) In that case, you see, there would be in another reality a carpenter or his equivalent with a latent love of words, unexpressed — and that individual would then begin to develop; reading books on how to write, perhaps, and taking up a hobby that would allow him to express in words his love of the land and its goods. (With emphasis:) The creativity of the psyche means that no one world or experience could ever contain it. Therefore does it create the dimensions in which it then has its experiences.

There are many kinds of music. I could say: “Music is triumphant,” or “Music is tragic.” You would understand that I am not contradicting myself. You would not say, or (humorously) at least I hope you would not say: “Why would anyone write a composition like Tchaikovsky’s Pathetique?”⁸ Why would a composer choose a somber mood? The music itself would have its own sweep and power, and would indeed be beautiful beyond all concepts of good and evil.

From the outside, for instance, it might seem as if a young person dies because in one way or another he or she is dissatisfied with life itself. Certainly it is usually taken for granted that suicides are afraid of life. However, suicides and would-be suicides often have such a great literal lust for life that they constantly put it into jeopardy, so that they can experience what it is in heightened form. The same applies to many who follow dangerous professions. It is fashionable to suppose that these people have a death wish. Instead, many of them have an intensified life wish, so to speak. Certainly it seems destructive to others. To those people, however, the additional excitement is worth the risk. The risk, in fact, gives them an intensified version of life.⁹

This is obviously not the case with all suicides¹⁰ or would-be suicides, or all risk-takers. But those elements are there. A person who dies at 17 may have experienced much greater dimensions of living, in your terms, than someone who lives to be 82. Such people are not as unaware of those choices as it seems.

2. Every so often I’ve referred to the inconveniences of apartment living for us, especially those involving that ever-present, ever-growing traffic noise. During break for the 726th session, which was held on December 16, 1974, I wrote that we planned to start looking for a house of our own as soon as I finished the illustrations for Dialogues. Our need for a certain kind of privacy and quiet has become very strong. At the same time, we want to avoid the sense of isolation that might result if we move into the country. I’d probably like that, but realized some time ago that such a situation would bother Jane considerably.

And in a note for that session I wrote: “Years ago, when Jane and I began living in Sayre, Pennsylvania, not long after our marriage in 1954, I began telling myself that before I reached the age of 40 I’d know whether I wanted to concentrate upon writing or painting — but that if I’d failed to do so before that date, I would then decide upon one or the other of those creative arts. I turned 40 in 1959 — and chose painting.”

12. A note added later: I’m sorry to write that Seth didn’t discuss historical probabilities in the 736th session, or national counterparts either. I forgot to remind Jane of those topics before that session, just as I forgot to ask Seth about them while he was speaking. Several more sessions were held before I discovered the lapse, which occurred partly because I hadn’t typed the 735th session yet, and neglected to refer to my handwritten notes, and partly because in the meantime Seth had returned to his material on the families of consciousness. My error was unfortunate, since I feel that his information would have been most original, enhancing future sessions.

My comments here are certainly reminiscent of those in Note 4 for the last session: I explained how Jane and I missed out on what I think would have been excellent material simply because she was interrupted by a visitor just as she began to deliver it. Then see Note 2 for Appendix 22, which contains some of the reasons why we often find it difficult to return to a certain session to flesh out a certain subject.