“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] And if I speak through this woman, then what should this tell you about the nature of human personality and since you all have human personalities at this point, what questions should this make you ask of yourselves. [...]

The complicated organism which is the human personality with its physical structure, has evolved, along with many other structures, a highly differentiated “I” consciousness, whose very nature is such that it attempts to preserve the apparent boundaries of identity. [...]

[...] However the subject will be covered thoroughly, in sessions dealing with the nature of the human personality.

It is very possible that physics rather than psychology will give the first hint that human personality is multidimensional and that the inner reality of the mind far surpasses the physical universe that it attempts to probe. [...]

You would learn little of what it means subjectively to be a human being by simply studying a picture of one. [...]

[...] You suppose that all personhood in one way or another must have an equivalent of a human form, spiritual or otherwise, to “inhabit.”

[...] The animals consume you, then, as often as you consume them, and they are as much a part of your humanity as you are a part of their so called animal nature.

[...] But so are we — and might not both rock and human also respond to a uniting psychological weather?

3. “I am not assigning human traits to energy. Instead, your human traits are the result of energy’s characteristics—a rather [...]

Yet from the very day of the accident, this question has existed along with each step of the cleanup process, and will continue to do so: What to do with Three Mile Island, that enormously complicated human creation that now has its own consciousness, and that has in its own way exerted the force of that consciousness throughout our civilized world? [...]

[...] Although Seth hasn’t gone into the idea yet, I believe that events have counterparts also, just as does any “living” organism, whether human or not. [...]

[...] Your physical life — your human nature — is, in your terms, dependent upon a time when you were not. [...]

[...] Some of the dogs bore human heads, and some human bodies and canine heads. [...]

Art is not a specifically human endeavor, though man likes to believe that this is so, and no scientist is going to grant a spider or a bee any sense of esthetic appreciation, certainly, so what you have is art in its human manifestations, and art is above all a natural characteristic. [...]

[...] In parentheses: (Any scientists who might be reading this book may as well stop here.) I am not assigning human traits to energy. Instead, your human traits are the result of energy’s characteristics—a rather important difference. [...]

([Brad:] “I heard a doctor speaking of anger and anxiety leading to the destruction of human cells.”)

When you love life very deeply then it is very easy to despair, and when you compare ideal human relations to the relations that exist in the world as it is, it is very easy to despair; but if you give in to despair then you cannot see the beauty that does exist for the despair will eat it through like lye; and so hold on to the beauty and guard it and the vitality of your thoughts and emotions and your natural vitality as you would your life, for it is your life. [...]

To be human necessitates fine discrimination in the use of such consciousness. [...]

[...] You are not here to cry about the miseries of the human condition, but to change them when you find them not to your liking through the joy, strength and vitality that is within you; to create the spirit as faithfully and beautifully as you can in flesh.

In this book he comments on our religions, sciences, cults, and on our medical beliefs as well, with an uncompromising wisdom — as if — as if he represents some deep part of the human psyche that knows better, that has always known better — as if he speaks out not only with my voice but for many many other people — as if he represents the truths that we have allowed ourselves to forget.

[...] The point of all of this is the exploration of human consciousness, its ranges and scopes. [...]

[...] As you know, the inner senses belong to that part of human personality that is not physically materialized. [...]

[...] It is only by understanding the connection between the physical and nonphysical self, and the communication systems that operate here, that the true nature of human personality can be studied

The physical organism reflects vividly and with perfection the innermost state of the human personality. [...]

[...] Neither, therefore, is it aware of those distortions that cause it to construct faults within physical matter, for in all cases the physical matter of the human body will be subconsciously created in line with inner conditions.

[...] However, you are exactly what you think you are, and every thought is mirrored in the physical matter of the human organism. [...]

[...] As I’ve mentioned in past books, at one time the human personality was “more at one with itself.” [...]

(How different human relations would be, I thought after all of our guests had left, if the counterpart thesis could gain a more general acceptance on conscious levels.)

(Long pause.) Now as it is possible for any one human being to speak more than one language, it is also possible for you to put physical data together in other ways than those usually used. [...]

[...] That belief alone can lead you to deny quite natural dimensions of human experience, and to impede the flow of emotions that could otherwise cleanse both your body and your mind. [...]

[...] Your humanness did not emerge by refusing your animal heritage, but upon an extension of what it is.

[...] Ruburt was correct, however, in seeing the connection between the lampshades and the Nazi experiments (in World War II) with human skin. [...] The connection with cloning came out in the lampshades made of (human) skins, in the old news stories—though your lampshades merely stood for those, and were of fabric. [...]

[...] It was seen in human terms as inhumane: life without reason, life with no purpose except its own repetition, life in which the individual was dispensable. [...]

Darwin was faced with the proposition of a kind god who was more cruel than any human being, and with supernatural power behind him to boot—so Darwin tried to justify God’s ways to man. [...]