“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] Your society has emphasized and exaggerated the objective characteristics of life to such an extent, however, that art seems to be an esthetic, fairly remote phenomenon, quite divorced from physical time. [...]

[...] Later the acquisition of technology’s objects became an added embellishment. [...]

[...] While talking about action and identity, she had an inner perception of a whole concept, of some kind of inside visual sense of action without seeing any object. [...]

[...] Ego consciousness, on the other hand, involves a state in which consciousness of self attempts to divorce itself from action, an attempt on the part of consciousness to perceive action as an object. [...]

[...] The units meet with, and to some extent merge with, other units sent out, say, from foliage and all other objects. [...]

[...] (Pause.) I do not know the specific painting, although a round object was involved. [...]

[...] You cannot observe it in any objective manner, as you can observe a pencil on a table, yet it would be foolish to say that this psychological experience did not exist. [...]

[...] In the first place, your most pragmatic scientist is even now forced to admit, as even Ruburt knows, that solid objects are not solid; and the interesting sidelight of this fact must be that your faithful, tried and true, so-called dependable outer senses are in reality lovely liars, since the eyes see a chair as solid while the chair is not solid at all.

[...] Will you then stop operating in a physical world of physical objects? [...]

[...] Intense concentration even upon an object is useful whenever he is bothered. [...]

Even within the experience of men there are realities that are entirely different from the realities of physical objects. [...]

Dream locations do not exist like physical objects in your head. [...]

(9:31.) In certain terms, science and religion are both dealing with the idea of an objectively created universe. [...]

[...] Both concepts seem equally implausible when you think of them with any objectivity, and neither can be proven, of course. [...]

We also think science is “objective” enough in its own terms of serial time and measurement, as it claims to be, but that eventually it must choose to look inward as thoroughly as it does outward. [...]

[...] And I knew that no objective reasoning processes alone could explain their magnificent flight.

[...] The objects were bought in high spirits, with money well earned, and they will retain to some rather strong degree the psychic exuberance which has become part of them, and will therefore add to the overall constructive climate of your dwelling.

I am speaking again of quite practical connections here, for as energy forms matter, matter and energy are inseparable and objects obtain their character from their owners, and from the circumstances surrounding them.

[...] It also stands for the separation of the self who perceives — and therefore judges and values — from the object which is perceived and evaluated. [...]

[...] The observer and the object perceived are a part of the same event, each changing the other. [...]

In terms of probabilities, therefore, you choose certain acts, unconsciously transform these into physical events or objects, and then perceive them. [...]

(With a smile:) “Your particular conscious and subconscious viewpoints are fluent enough so that they do not hamper the basic material, or cover it with the rock of dogmatism so that it becomes impossible to find … Actually, what I needed were personalities who were not fanatics along any line — including scientific fanatics who would object as forcibly to the reincarnational data as religious fanatics would object to some of the other material.

(“For example an analysis of an ancient Mexican drug, sinicuichi, has shown it to contain five alkaloids that produce giddiness, an illusion that surrounding objects have become very small, and a feeling of remembering events before one’s birth.”

[...] As the pictures and representations in a photograph are only dim, incomplete symbols for the people and objects they represent, so the physical universe is but a dim image of the reality for which it stands.

(Tracing of the envelope flap used as the object in the 45th envelope experiment, in the 248th session for April 4,1966.)

[...] If you think strongly of an object, somewhere it will appear.

[...] It confounds and outrages the conventional to see objects behave in a way they have been taught to believe is impossible.

Your visitor believes that these children who can also move objects (and who work with AP) are unique, and a new breed—but any children of past generations who realized that such feats were possible, and desirable, could do the same thing. [...]

[...] These portions may seem objective—distant from you—and different. [...]

[...] What I objected to in your recording was the implication that once the conscious mind as you know it was quieted there was no other conscious mind to take over, and that the ordinary conscious mind was the only conscious mind that you have. [...]

[...] You said, at that time, it was a kind of self-defeating attitude, and it would have been much more beneficial for him to utilize his energy in striking some kind of an inanimate object or running up and down the road.”)

The meaning behind and the object lesson to be learned. [...]

[...] You projected to her system of reality and the environment was pseudophysical, the projection of her own thoughts made real in objective terms within the system.