“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Ruburt has also been picking up some information, quite interesting, on unusual versions of perception, in which, say, living and nonliving are combined momentarily to form momentarily new kinds of objects. [...]

(Long pause.) Now, regardless of many objections to the contrary, Ruburt’s condition still has served your own ends as well as his—and into the present. [...] Your joint acknowledgement of your love, however, vastly increases the feelings of safety in your lives, and the love-making involving touch is very reminiscent of the childhood state involving freedom, when children rejoice in touching themselves and other objects and so forth. [...]

For the most part over the six years and 510 sessions covered in The Early Sessions, from December 2, 1963 to January19, 1970, Jane spoke for Seth in her own creative yet also objective manner. [...]

[...] Then there’s Jane’s business and personal correspondence; much of her poetry; her journals; her unfinished autobiography; several novels she wrote before publishing the three Oversoul Seven books; the later essays she dictated to me, while in the hospital, about Seven’s childhood; her family history as far back as it can be researched; an objective biography of her physical and creative lives including her two marriages, and Jane’s and my struggles to survive before the advent of the Seth material. [...]

[...] They involve the spontaneous combination of living objects and nonliving ones into curious juxtapositions. For example, I’ll see Rob’s head, with our floor-stand world globe growing out of it into a new kind of object.... [...]

The individual involved is aware of very little as far as physical objects are concerned. [...] Objects could be placed upon it; and yet, Doctor Instream, our entranced individual is not conscious of that table. In his state he is concentrating upon some object which we cannot see. [...]

Though objects upon the table be dearly familiar to him, in his trance state he will not recall them. Any sentiment involved with the objects on the table, such sentiment will disappear and have no meaning. [...]

[...] Highly difficult indeed, for such objects do not exist for our dreamer.

[...] I can only tell you that I appreciate both your objectivity and your beliefs. [...]

(See the tracing of the envelope object on page 278. As stated, the object is the front page of the announcement of the marriage of my brother Loren’s daughter, Linda, to Dennis Murray of Brooklyn, NY. [...]

[...] A green object. [...]

[...] The three pieces of data that are not explained in this experiment are the best, incidentally, that Seth gave in connection with the object.

A miscellany of objects arranged in pyramid form.

[...] (Pause.) He did not realize the implications, the immediacy, of an object pulled up as he pushed. [...]

I see also a box of clippings in a drawer, perhaps a desk drawer, (Jane took a long pause) and an unusually-shaped object, perhaps used as a paperweight.

[...] She said that again she had the vaguest kind of an impression, this time of an object, perhaps the paperweight, on top of a dark wooden desk. [...]

[...] As there are different shapes to physical objects, then, so identity can take different shapes — and basically those forms are far more rich and diverse than the variety of physical objects.

[...] That episode had upset me to some degree, but Jane’s discussion of the subject in Politics, plus a few comments Seth made in ESP class last night, helped me put the affair in a more objective light.

[...] Resting in their natural outdoor world, these entities are subject to even the smallest change in their objective weather. [...]

I will, then, begin with a short treatise concerning the importance of expectation, not only in the construction of physical objects from inner data, but also in the importance played by expectation in the actual sifting of inner data that is received, and in the importance of expectation in the interpretation of inner data after the sifting process has been carried about.

As physical objects can be manipulated, so can the emotions be manipulated, so can they be combined into various shapes and psychic constructions. [...]

[...] I am suggesting that you examine as objectively as possible your own basic expectations, for this will help you, and is a basic step in changing them for the better.

The individual self is, therefore, literally a part of what would seem to be completely different objects. In a shorthand you could say that the self is the object which he contemplates, since indeed he constructed the object to begin with from the self.

[...] By now however we have learned that material in the latter category is not necessarily distorted; it could merely be another example of the sometimes far-reaching impressions that attach themselves to test objects. [...] So we were now curious to learn what application, if any, such statements as four, a masterpiece, a voice, etc., had to the test object. [...]

[...] Each dream has meaning to all levels of the personality, and one dream object is a symbol which is translated by all layers of the self, in a mathematics which is more complicated than any dealt with by your physical computers.

[...] As the Mona Lisa is “more real” than, say, a normal object or the canvas that composes it, so is all good or great art more than its own physical manifestation. [...]

[...] It was the nature of your dreams, and your dreams’ creativity, that made you what you are, for otherwise you would have developed a mechanical-like language — had you developed one at all — that named designations, locations, and dealt with the most simple, objective reality: “I walked there. [...] You would not have had (pause) any way (pause) of conceiving of objects that did not already exist. [...]

[...] The glass is the object. [...]

[...] I do not pick up any strong emotional attachment between him and the object.

The glass which I have given as the object has a connection with roses. [...]

1934, also in connection with the object.

[...] All other objects that you perceive are formed in their own way in the same fashion.

The sculptor’s creation is pragmatically realistic, in that it exists as an object, and can be quite legitimately perceived, as can your world. [...]

[...] There have also been recent astronomical observations of several far-distant objects that appear to be “superluminous,” or traveling considerably faster than the speed of light. [...]

[...] They “make room” for themselves in ways that are rather difficult to explain, although they may coexist at times with physical objects or shapes, or may even be superimposed upon these. [...]

[...] Some more sophisticated scientific instruments than you now have would clearly show not only the existence of these forms, but also vibrations in varying waves of intensity surrounding those physical objects that you do perceive.

[...] The range of consciousness involved is obviously physically oriented, yet within it there are great varieties of consciousness, each experiencing that seemingly objective world from a private perspective. [...]

[...] The effects of objectivity are caused as the psyche projects its experience into inner dimensions that it has itself created.

[...] They provide the basis for the physical events, objects, and phenomena upon which you all agree. [...]

[...] Yet, now you need words and letters, and names and objects. [...]

However, if objective proof of that nature is considered the priority for facts, then as you know science cannot prove its version of the [universe’s] origin either. [...]

In other words, subjective play is the basis for all creativity, of course—but far more, it is responsible for the great inner play of subjective and objective reality.

[...] (Not to mention that innumerable experiments have proven that “physical matter” isn’t solid or objective at all, but “only” energy!) We have, then, the paradox of mind denying its own reality, let alone its importance. [...]