“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.

[...] 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. [...]

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. [...]

[...] 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.

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.

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.”

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. [...]

[...] 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. [...]

“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.

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. [...]

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. [...]

[...] 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.

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.

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.

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. [...]

[...] 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. [...]

[...] 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. [...]

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.

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. [...]

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. [...]