“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Identity is not the same thing as personality. Personality is that part of identity that manifests itself within physical reality and within your time. Identity is far greater than personality. Personality represents only those aspects of identity that you are able to actualize within three-dimensional existence. The inner self knows who it is. The inner self communicates with your present personality. In your dreams you have communication with that larger portion of yourself that is your identity. Personality may be to some extent molded by circumstance. Identity uses the experiences. Identity is not carried willy-nilly, but holds its own.

If you had read more of the material and if you had studied the information more carefully on action and identity, then you would know what I mean. You can consider the whole self as an onion if you wish. There are layers and layers and layers, but these layers all grow from the inside outward as though the inner identity forms layers and layers of personality. These personalities are part of the identity but not the entire identity.

It is true there are no limitations to the self, and in one respect you can say that the self reaches out and encompasses the environment. Current feelings regarding personality, however, do not take into consideration the existence of telepathy or clairvoyance, nor the fact of reincarnation. And so what you have, in effect, as I have said often before, is a one-dimensional psychology. You need a multi-dimensional psychology for identity operates in many dimensions beside a physical one. If you examine your own dreams, you know that for yourself. Now, that is for your record.

The facts are, dear psychology class and professor, that all of you are more than you know and that personality and identity are far different than you usually believe. Although each of you realizes privately the truth, and the truth is not easy to put into words, no one can do more than approximate it. However, each of you exists in other realities and other dimensions, and the selves that you call yourself is but a small portion of your own I.

[...] For the original thought, as an identity, to actually be transmitted to a sender, you would have to face the inevitable result: If the identical thought were actually transmitted from A to B, then A would have it no longer. Since A obviously may still have the original thought, then B has not the identical thought; not an exact duplicate, but instead a similar but still unidentical thought.

[...] That is, it is never the same or identical impulse. It is not identical. [...]

Change alone allows for the possibility of identity within any universe, for without change there can be no value fulfillment, no experience, and no identity. [...]

A side note: Identical twins, for example, are hardly identical.

Identities may be termed action which is conscious of itself. For the purposes of our discussion, the terms action and identity must be separated. However basically no such separation exists, for an identity is also a dimension of existence, action within action, an unfolding of action upon itself; and through this interweaving of action with itself, through this reaction, an identity is formed.

The reality of such an identity then exists within the action. The energy of the action, the workings of action within and upon itself, forms identity. [...] Yet although identity is formed from action, action and identity cannot be separated. [...]

Identity then, is action’s effect upon itself. Without identities action would be meaningless, for there would be nothing upon which action could act. Action must, therefore, of its very nature, of itself and from its own workings, create identities. Again, action and identity cannot be separated. [...]

Unfoldings continually occur, and all identities, with a few exceptions, contain within them also other identities, not duplicates. [...] The frameworks and boundaries, the extents and limitations of identities, are not physical.

[...] In grand ancient fashion above other more homey village-like souls, I have my own identity. Yet that identity is composed of other identities, each independent, as the mountain is composed of its rocks and could not exist without them, even while it rises up so grandly above the plain. [...] I do not feel invaded by the selves or identities that compose me, nor do they feel invaded by me — any more than the trees, rocks, and grass would resent the mountain shape (intently) into which they have grown.

[...] Your scientists write about heredity, buried and coded in the genes,⁶ blueprints for an identity not yet formed. But there are psychic blueprints,⁷ so to speak, wherein each identity knows of its “history”; and taking any given line of development, projects that history. The potential of such an identity is far greater, however, than can ever be expressed through any physical one-line kind of development (forcefully).

[...] So identities throw off seeds of themselves in somewhat the same fashion. [...] Their realities in no way threaten the identity of the “parent.” Identities have free choice, so they will pick their environments or birthplaces.

His experience appeared to imply that his father’s identity had so much mobility, and so many possibilities for development, that the very idea of identity seemed to lose its boundaries.⁴

The energy that composes personality therefore consists of an inconceivable number of separate identities. These separate identities form what we call the inner self, which retains its individuality even while the energy that composes it constantly changes. There are continual groupings and regroupings, but basic identities are always retained. The potential egos within any given identity therefore retain their own individuality and self-knowledge, regardless of their relative importance in the order of command.

[...] The book should make one point plain: Identity, despite all appearances to the contrary, does not reside primarily in the ego. Social identity may possibly there reside, but the basic identity does not.

The four faces of Eve all represented various ego manifestations of one inner identity. The course of the ego is a precarious one, and any number of potential egos exist within any identity. The Three Faces of Eve is an excellent title for the book, since the ego may quite legitimately be compared to the face that the identity turns toward objective reality, or the living mask that it dons.

But identity is much more than this, and basic identity, while using the perceptive abilities, is not that dependent upon them. It is true that the personality is a gestalt, and that every identity has any number of potential egos. [...]

In a larger manner, the identity of the soul can be seen from the same viewpoint. It knows who it is, and is far more certain of its identity, indeed, than your physical self is of its identity. And yet now where in this electromagnetic energy field can the identity of the soul as such be found?

The soul is not frightened for its identity. [...] If you had a more thorough understanding of the nature of identity you would not, for example, fear telepathy, for behind this concern is the worry that your identity will be swept away by the suggestions or thoughts of others.

[...] Within your body you cannot put your finger upon your own identity. If you could travel within your body, you could not find where your identity resides, yet you say, “This is my body,” and, “This is my name.”

(10:14.) If you cannot be found, even by yourself, within your body, then where is this identity of yours that claims to hold the cells and organs as its own? Your identity obviously has some connection with your body, since you have no trouble distinguishing your body from someone else’s, and you certainly have no trouble distinguishing between your body and the chair, say, upon which you may sit.

Action tampers with identity, yet were it not for action identity would be impossible. It may, here, sound like a contradiction; but to remain an identity, an identity must completely renew itself, and each renewal is indeed a termination. Yet without the termination no new action on the part of the identity would be possible. And without action no identity can be aware of its own existence.

[...] The thought, the original thought, is retained by A. A, however, forms a thought as nearly identical as his possibilities allow it to be. [...] He forms a thought as nearly identical as possible, and interprets it.

[...] Identities exist within dreams also, and here the same nature of identities applies, as those given earlier. [...]

We will further consider this evening the nature of identities. [...]

[...] Identities are obviously psychic environments, primarily, rather than physical ones. [...] Though you are a portion of your psyche, then, your identity is still inviolate. [...] It follows its own focus, and knows itself as itself, even while its own existence as itself may be but a portion of another “identity.”

Using this as an analogy, you are a part of your psyche or your soul, dwelling within it, easily following your own sense of identity even though that psyche also contains other identities beside the one that you think of as your own. [...]

Moreover, there is nothing to stop it from exploring this other greater identity, or moving into it, so to speak. When this happens both identities are changed. [...]

[...] At still other levels of reality, activities that you now consciously claim as your own have — in those same terms and from another viewpoint — become unconscious, providing a psychic history from which other identities emerge, as it seems that your own identities emerge from unconscious bodily activity.

“The energy of action, the workings of action within and upon itself, forms identity. Yet though identity is formed from action, action and identity cannot be separated. Identity, then, is action’s effect upon itself. Without identity, action would be meaningless, for there would be nothing upon which action could act. Action must, by its very nature, of itself and its own workings, create identities. [...]

“Identity may be termed action which is conscious of itself. For the purposes of our discussion, the terms ‘action’ and ‘identity’ must be separated, but basically no such separation exists. An identity is also a dimension of existence, action within action, an unfolding of action upon itself—and through this interweaving of action with itself, through this re-action, an identity is formed.

“This first dilemma results in action, and from action’s own workings upon itself we have seen that identity was formed, and that these two are inseparable. [...] Action, having of itself and because of its nature formed identity, now also because of its nature would seem to destroy identity, since action must involve change, and any change seems to threaten identity.

[...] Identity must seek stability while action must seek change; yet identity could not exist without change, for it is the result of action and a part of it. Identities are never constant as you yourselves are not the same consciously or unconsciously from one moment to the next. [...] And yet without the termination, identity would cease to exist, for consciousness without action would cease to be conscious.

Since you value sexual performance in the most limited of terms, and use that largely as a focus of identity, then both your old and young suffer consequences that are not so much the result of age as of sexual prejudice. [...] I did not say that old or young had no sexual expression — but that both groups did not identify their identities with their sexual roles. [...] If the man or the woman is taught that identity is a matter of sexual performance, however, and that that performance must cease at a certain age, then the sense of identity can also begin to disintegrate. If children feel that identity is dependent upon such performance, then they will begin to perform as quickly as possible. They will squeeze their identity into sexual clothes, and the society will suffer because the great creative thrusts of growing intellect and intuitions will be divided at puberty, precisely when they are needed.

[...] In terms of sex, you insist upon a picture that shows you a growth into a sexual identity, a clear focus, and then in old age a falling away of clear sexual identification into “sexual disorder.” It does not occur to you that the original premise or focus, the identification of identity with sexual nature, is “unnatural.” [...] In many cases the person is truer to his or her own identity in childhood or old age, when greater individual freedom is allowed, and sexual roles are more flexible.

[...] You will discover an identity, a psychological and psychic identity, that is in your terms male and female, one in which those abilities of each sex are magnified, released, and expressed. [...]

[...] To some degree each person is at war with the psyche, for all of an individual’s human characteristics must be denied unless they fit in with those considered normal to the sexual identity.

The next step is taken when identity is able to include within itself the intimate knowledge of all incarnations. [...] Each of these steps of consciousness involves identity with the inner recognition of its whole identity with All That Is.

[...] Now this altered ego retains its highly specialized self-consciousness, and yet it can now experience itself as an identity within and as a part of action.

As each separate identity then seeks to know and experience its other portions then All That Is learns who and what it is. [...]

[...] Action is also a direct result of individual identities, for without these psychological dimensions, oneness could not multiply itself.

[...] I am the prime identity that you were part of. And I was myself at one time, so to speak, a part of another prime identity. [...] Some fragments of an identity simply do not wish to so develop. [...]

[...] The connections between you, and your development from the same prime identity, made your union an excellent one. There is a constant maintenance of identity, and a search for stability, psychologically speaking. But then identity, sure of itself, seeks to enlarge its experience for it is no longer afraid that experience will swallow it.

Identity always becomes part of that which it perceives, however, and so it constantly forms new gestalts, while accepting as itself a larger variety of experiences. Therefore identity grows, and as I have told you there are no limitations to it. Therefore we are forming new identities, and you have already accepted as part of yourself experiences which previously would have been considered alien, and not accepted.

The overall efficiency of the inner self, or prime identity, is best displayed of course when it adopts an ego that mirrors its own characteristics and intents as closely as possible. There is bound to be a difference however, between the purposes of the inner identity and the ego.

A psychic gestalt is dependent upon matter, not for its identity but merely for its survival in the physical plane. Psychic gestalts or identities or individualities are for all practical purposes immortal. [...] Identity then is never broken down. [...] The personality did not exist as such before its creation by the entity, and once it becomes an identity, it retains that individuality.

The limits of identity are arbitrary on your part, developed throughout the stages of your evolutionary process, not for any reason inherent in identity itself, but merely for purely practical reasons on your physical field, having to do with the amount of matter that various kinds of identities could effectively manipulate and control.

When you maintain that identity is dependent upon the duration of the physical body, you are taking it for granted that the physical body is one complete thing, more or less rigid in form, and permanent within a certain perspective. You know however that the physical body is not one thing in those terms, and that the stuff of which it is composed is forever coming and going, arriving and departing, and yet identity is maintained.

[...] It should be apparent that psychic identity is no more dependent upon physical permanence, certainly when you consider that even a chair retains its form as a chair, even though it is actually not one thing or object, and that no atom or molecule remains the same within it.

This is in connection with the lectures you are being given having to do with time and identity. [...] One number, for example 7, can be considered itself as an identity. [...]

[...] Three and four will add to seven, yet three and four are their identities and will always be so in your terms. The numbers on the other side of zero, the minus numbers, represent identity in that time of relative nonbeing. [...]

Let us discuss numbers in terms of identities.

[...] The 1’s behind are not serial, nor identical, nor duplicates.

We will continue our discussion concerning action and identities. I have said that identity is a part of action, and basically inseparable from action. Identity attempts to form meaningful patterns and relationships from action. [...]

[...] Identities, some identities and some forms of consciousness, particularly the ego, perceive a past or a present, but this is merely the result of the manner in which such identities and consciousnesses view available data.

It may be thought that such perception patterns or identities may be limited, but this is hardly the case. [...] There is much here that will take us a long while to explain, for the line can theoretically be drawn anywhere in the formation of identities and consciousness. [...]

[...] It was directed toward us and was to this effect: “Through action, see how I’m a part of you both now, and how foolish it is of you to worry about identities, when all identities are so bound together.”

[...] This is the identity, the whole identity, of the various portions of the self that operate within various systems. [...]

[...] (Long pause.) It can eventually be given a mathematical identity, or it can be discovered mathematically. All the personalities within it are independent, and survive as themselves, yet it is only part of a larger identity—which is to say that it itself is within the sphere of another psychological organization system or gestalt.

[...] The ego, while always changing, is one of the most rigid aspects of identity. [...]

It however retains its identity, you see, while partaking to the extent of its desire and ability in the superior aspects of this greater gestalt. [...]

[...] The identical thought will not return. A very similar thought may return, but the two thoughts will not be identical, although you may perceive them as identical. [...]

[...] Since identity is dependent upon action, then it should be seen that it is impossible for an identity to attain stability, since total stability would destroy it.

[...] Identities are action, as I have explained. [...]

[...] If one thought were held forever, no other thoughts would follow, no action would follow, and no identity. [...]

All of an individual’s experiences, even those of which he is not aware on a conscious basis, therefore are part of the electromagnetic reality that forms this particular individual’s electromagnetic identity. [...] While the experiences which form this framework and compose this individual’s identity are obtained through his interaction with the physical system, his electromagnetic identity is not dependent upon the physical field.

[...] The electromagnetic identity of any given individual contains the past identity systems, again in coded form. [...]

[...] Individual identity will then expand to include a greater variety of impulses and stimuli, which do not necessarily come from the self, and yet maintain specialized identity.

[...] The individual identity, composed of its electrically and magnetically coded experiences, is therefore intact. [...]

Self-structures and identities are not the same. Identity requires no structure. Identity knows, and knows that it knows. [...] Self-structures are a part of identity. Identities can contain pure knowledge without translation, and use it to seed various existences and to form realities. [...]

[...] (Pause.) Another part of your whole identity is quite aware that you are delving into one concept of yourself. [...] Your prime identity is quite aware of other self-concepts that are also being experienced. [...]

[...] This kind of comprehension automatically puts you out of self- (hyphen) structures as you think of them, but does not deny identity. [...]

[...] To the contrary (smile; pause), it is meaningless unless it is (smile; gesture; pause), experienced intimately within every part of an identity. [...]

But beyond this life, and before this life, and forming this life, there are identities and there are realities and these are not dead. Identity as experience is intimate. [...] Identity, the self that you are, is made up of the selves that you were and, my dear friends, the selves that you shall be. [...]

[...] For the identity is a different identity than the name that you bear. [...]

[...] Indeed, the inner identity knows, and the inner identity knows that it knows. [...]

[...] You may look back to a time and remember no identity, and you wonder: Who was I then, and how did I come here?