“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] You have never really examined your beliefs seriously concerning your objective physical surroundings, and your psychic attitudes. [...]

[...] Those events soon found that a transformation must occur (pause), if they were to journey into objectivity—for no objectivity of itself could contain the entire reality of subjective events that existed within divine subjectivity. [...]

[...] In terms of time, the realization of that purpose will emerge with another momentous explosion of subjective inspiration into objectivity, or into another form. [...]

[...] Instead, I thought, by “another form” he may mean an explosion of ideas or knowledge in our reality, with the tremendous objective results that would follow. [...]

[...] In the same way, however, once, you had to learn to deal with gravity, to deal with space and time, to manipulate in a world of objects, to simply breathe, to digest your food, and to perform all of the biological manipulations that now you take for granted (all most emphatically).

[...] You do not perceive the consciousness of objects. [...]

All of your manufactured objects also originated in the realm of dreams, first obviously being conceived of mentally, and in the same way man produced his first tools. [...]

[...] Objects in your reality have an entirely different aspect in another. Any of the objects shown in the program you are watching, then, may be used as a different kind of reference point in another reality, in which those objects appear as something else.

Now: Ruburt was validly involved in the erection of that building, and he did indeed travel through various dimensions in which the objects in one represented something entirely different in another. He used the particular symbols, however, simply to bring the theory home to him, but it represented the fact that any given object in one dimension has its own reality in another. [...]

[...] Objects may appear blurred, ordinary sounds distorted. [...]

[...] Nor between inner reality, which forms physical matter, and physical objects themselves, for the atoms which are manipulated to form objects are themselves a portion of consciousness, and alive in those terms. [...]

Ordinarily we think of mass as meaning the bulk and/or weight of an object. In classical physics the amount of matter in a given object is measured according to its relation to inertia, which in turn is the tendency of matter to keep moving in the same direction, if moving, or to stay at rest if at rest. An object’s mass is arrived at through dividing its weight by the acceleration caused by gravity.

[...] In practical terms, they have to do with the seeming permanence of an object. [...]

[...] Instantly I ‘knew’ that these faster sounds were objects coming into material focus. [...]

In conventional terms, atoms are regarded as the submicroscopic entities making up all objects and substances in our world. [...]

[...] (Pause.) You “hate” something that separates you from a loved object. It is precisely because the object is loved that it is so disliked if expectations are not met. [...] It is supposed to lead to a communication from you, stating your feelings — clearing the air, so to speak, and bringing you closer to the love object. [...]

Often it is akin to love, for the hater is attracted to the object of his hatred by deep bonds. [...]

[...] But environments are not objective things, conglomerations of objects that exist independently of you. [...]

[...] I form mine following the same rules, though you end up with physical objects and I do not.

As you know, so-called inert objects possess consciousness also, though in a more generalized and much less specific manner, in which to a large degree choice is denied to them. 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.

[...] Your senses are rather more equipped to notice difference and divergence than sameness; but nevertheless the cooperation of all conscious entities provides physical objects with whatever appearance of permanence they have.

[...] You would perceive it simply as a visual object, but these people were great synthesizers. [...]

[...] Curves, angles, lines all represented, beside their obvious objective function in a drawing, a highly complicated series of variations in pitch, tone and value; or if you prefer, invisible words.

[...] The color however, its value of intensity, served to further refine and define — for example, either by reinforcing the message already given by the objective value of the lines, angles, and curves, and by the invisible word messages already explained; or by modifying these in any given number of ways. [...]

[...] It seems to you then that objects come from the outside, generally speaking — for after all, do you not make them in your factories and laboratories?

[...] Yet your world is composed of quite natural products, objects that emerge, almost miraculously when you think of it, from the inside of the earth.

[...] The entire physical universe emerges from an inside, however, and none of your manufacture would provide you with even one object, were it not for those that appeared as source materials long before. [...]

[...] Yet symbols are simply examples of other kinds of quite “objective” events. [...]

[...] They grow out of each other in a kind of spontaneous expansion, a profusion of creativity, while the conscious mind chooses which aspects to experience — and those aspects then become what you call an objective event.

[...] Love exists without an object. [...]

(Tracings of the beer can cap, and my note, used as the objects in the 73rd envelope experiment, in the 292nd session for October 10,1966.)

[...] One of these from a six pack supplied by Don Wilbur on the evening of Friday, October 7,1966, furnished the cap used as envelope object for the 73rd experiment.)

(See the tracing of the object on page 339. The object is the insurance slip for the manuscripts of Jane’s poetry book, and the first section of the Seth material, mailed to her publisher on February 10,1966. [...]

(Since most envelope objects are paper items, we usually discount such data. The numbers 4, 6 and 9 however do appear on the object, as mentioned in the first data.

[...] The object, sealed in the usual double envelope, was the insurance slip for the two manuscripts Jane mailed to her publisher on February 10,1966. [...]

[...] They can only serve so far, of course, before the body’s objections state most clearly its disagreement. [...]

[...] Taking probabilities into consideration, there are cultural movements involving the western world as it tried to form a new philosophical stance, and our books may well provide a highly valuable alternate position for people—again—between the passionate beliefs systems of religion in many countries, and the overly objective dictates of science. [...]

[...] This leads in some cases, then, to an exaggerated repudiation of objective reasoning, and to the alliance of a fundamental kind of religion with the intuitive portions of the self. [...]

[...] The nightly portions of your personalities have become strangers to you — for as you identify with what you think of as your rational intellect, then you identify it further with the daytime hours, with the objective world that becomes visible in the morning, with the clearcut physical objects that are then before your view.

This meant, of course, a language (pause) that was in its way more precise than your own, for concepts were routinely expressed that described the vast complexity of subjective as well as objective events. [...]

[...] In it I wrote: “Ordinarily we think of mass as meaning the bulk and/or weight of an object. In classical physics, the amount of matter in a given object is measured according to its relation to inertia, which in turn is the tendency of matter to keep moving in the same direction, if moving, or to stay at rest if at rest. An object’s mass is arrived at through dividing its weight by the acceleration caused by gravity.”

[...] They do not have anyone in their stable who can do good work with figures, or of an objective nature.

[...] In New York now, and across the country, it is difficult to find objective work that is not highly stylized or sentimentalized.

Many galleries therefore do not carry objective work because the defects are so clearly seen. [...]

I am saying in this physical reality you look about you en masse and you see a variety of objects upon which you all agree. [...] Your experience dictates what you make of the objects that exist as root assumptions within this reality. Now, in other realities and in the Alpha state, there are certain root assumptions like your objects, but you will perceive these again in your own individual manner, and you must learn to differentiate there as you do here. [...]

[...] Unfortunately, science as it has developed in your time has resulted in a mistrust of the individual, and saddled him or her with a sense of powerlessness, subjectively, even while it has added a seeming sense of objective power. I say that it has seemingly added a sense of objective power (intently during a fast delivery). [...]

[...] In fact, the behavior of any object in your universe is “predictable” only because you concentrate upon such a small portion of its reality.² Unpredictability assures uniqueness, and is the opposite of predetermined motion. [...]