“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

“Physical objects cannot exist unless they exist in a definite perspective and space continuum. But each individual creates his own space continuum … I want to tie this in with the differences you seem to see in one particular object. Each individual actually creates an entirely different object, which his own physical senses then perceive. [...]

“Matter is continually created, but no particular object is in itself continuous. There is not, for example, one physical object that deteriorates with age. [...]

“No particular object “exists long enough” as an indivisible, rigid, or identical thing to change with age. [...] The actual material that seems to make up the object has completely disappeared many times, and the pattern has been completely filled again with new matter. [...]

[...] … Generally speaking, however, no physical object can be constructed, and no action can occur, without what you are pleased to call suggestion. No action and no material object can be perceived without inner consent and willingness. [...]

Within a fairly decent amount of time, Ruburt and I will be able to work hand in hand, so that our own separate perceptions will build up together, to a more or less precise picture of the object involved. But upon many occasions his personal associations now are connected with the object; so he does not fight me, but we work together.

[...] A group, but I pick up busts rather than full figures, and a round object. People about a round object, such as a table.

(See the tracing of the test object on page 131. [...] Bill’s son is named David, he is four years old, and it is he who drew the test object, with a black ball-point pen on white paper.

(As Seth explains on page 134 of this session, some of the test data tonight represents preliminary connections with the test object, just as in the last envelope test with the drawing made by Roy Fox. Thus Jane’s personal associations are now often connected with the test object, and she is working with Seth and not against him.

(Jane said that out of all the connections we made, practically all of them referred to my tracing-paper drawing rather than to the actual envelope object itself. My boss made the envelope object. [...] Perhaps this diverted Seth/Jane’s focus from the envelope object to a closely related object. [...]

(“A small round object, with some inscriptions resembling a postmark.” Jane said she saw within a small round object, with horizontal lines running across it; she thought of a postmark on an envelope, with the cancellation lines, but knew this wasn’t it. When she looked at my tracing-paper drawing, she said this was evidently what she was trying to arrive at subjectively; my drawing is of a round object, although much larger. [...]

(“and a paper item, folded like a card”, also referred, Jane said, to my drawing rather than the envelope object. Jane said she had a vague image of a small round object upon a rectangular folded object that was like a card, yet the circle was not placed as neatly in the center of the rectangle as my drawing is. [...]

[...] The drawing on 313 is the actual envelope object. The drawing on 314 is executed by myself, after my boss’s drawing and instructions, and enters into the envelope data in the manner in which the four letters became involved with the envelope object in the 234th session. [...]

Now, our object. [...] The object is fairly old. [...] Connected with the object also an 1874 date, referring to the beginning of a tradition or establishment.

[...] You can understand in fact the way in which sense images are organized much more clearly by studying instances where sense images exist without an actual object representing them in the physical universe. This shows that sense impressions are independent, you see, of objects.

[...] All apparitions however, to appear as or within the physical system, must be constructed by the perceiver in the same manner that all physical objects are constructed.

All of these matters, you see, and many more, from the considerations of health and the formation of destructive ulcers and tumors, to the construction of any simple physical object, to the construction of an apparition—all of these are in one way or another connected with inner focus and concentration.

[...] Handing her the two envelopes and the two pieces of Bristol, I had asked her to pick a test object, seal it up, and give it to me the next time we saw her, without telling me what the test object was. She had picked the test object last August, then mislaid the envelope and forgotten it; in addition I hadn’t asked her for it.

The object before him on the table does have checks upon it. Some are black, and the object is flat and of cardboard. [...]

[...] She told us she enjoyed the test involving a more impersonal object, in the sense that I did not choose it. However Jane was as much aware of the emotional charges surrounding this object; she felt that she was quite aware of the emotional disturbances involved in a hospital stay in this particular case.

(See the tracing on page 169 for the test object for this evening’s envelope test. [...]

(“A square, and a round object, perhaps inside the square.” [...] What we have is a rectangular area with rounded corners inside the square object. Perhaps Seth/Jane’s perception of the rounded corners led to the statement concerning a round object inside the square.

Something in the nature of a fabric with a wooden framework I believe, for our object. [...] This is our object. (Pause.)

[...] For the test object I used a letter from my brother Loren, who lives in Tunkhannock, PA. [...]

[...] On the other hand you do have a rather deeply felt feeling for mechanical objects. [...]

[...] In other words, such attempts further compound the problem of considering a seemingly objective universe, and describing it in an objective fashion.

(9:30.) Since I must use [an] objective vocabulary I am always seeking for analogies. By objective I refer to the use of language, the English language, that automatically sets up its own screens of perception — as of course any language must do to some extent.

The universe is — and you can pick your terms — a spiritual or mental or psychological manifestation, and not, in your usual vocabulary, an objective manifestation.

[...] I am not speaking merely of hidden variables, in scientific terms, nor am I saying that the universe is an illusion, but a psychological reality in which “objectivity” is the result of psychological creativity.

Now the object. A cube or square-shaped object like a dice. [...]

(I used the ribbon as object not only because I wanted to get its background for myself, but because this lack of at least conscious knowledge on my part would simulate the circumstances surrounding an object furnished by someone else.

[...] The object was a red satin bow that had been kicking around the studio for some months; at various times I had idly thought of using it for an experiment. [...]

(Since the object had been thoroughly flattened by some kind of pressure, it was no trick to place it between the usual two pieces of heavy Bristol, then seal it in double envelopes.

The first object must be seen as completely destroyed, and the area cleared before the new object is imagined in its place. The first object should be deliberately destroyed. [...] Any object you see can be used in place of the house. [...]

[...] The object should be something you can visualize easily however. If you have difficulty imagining the deliberate destruction of the negative object, this is merely a sign of its hold. [...]

[...] It might also help you to place an object to which you are strongly attached in the living room. [...]

Now there are, in quotes, “objective” realities that exist, within astral reality itself.

(See the tracing of the envelope object on page 327. Jane and I made most of the connections between the envelope object and the data easily enough, and did not ask Seth to clear up any points. The connections tonight were predominantly related with the envelope object itself, and not displaced onto another as they had been in the last session, and in the 234th, which involved the episode of the four letters.

(“The darks horizontal,” Note the fold marks on the copy of the envelope object on page 327. When the object was folded and then held in a roughly horizontal position in the rectangular double envelope, the dark patterns of the fingers would be horizontal within the envelopes.

[...] See the tracing of the envelope object on page 327. [...]

[...] (Jane shook her head.) The matches are the object.

There are such subtle qualities affecting the nature of all thought, such emotional gradations, that no one is ever identical — (smile) and incidentally, no physical object in your system is an exact duplicate of any other. The atoms and molecules that compose it — any object — have their own identities that color and qualify any object that they form.

[...] In a manner of speaking, three-dimensional objects are formed in somewhat the same way that the images you see on your television screen are formed, but with a large difference. And if you are not tuned into that particular frequency, you will not perceive the physical objects at all.

Each of you act as transformers, unconsciously, automatically transforming highly sophisticated electromagnetic units into physical objects. [...]

You accept and perceive and focus upon continuities and similarities as you perceive physical objects of any kind, and in a very important manner you shut out and ignore dissimilarities out of a given field of actuality. [...]

Obviously there are objects of all sizes, durability, and weight. There are private objects and public ones. There are also “vast psychological objects,” then, sweeping mass events, for example, in which whole countries might be involved. [...] I know it is difficult to comprehend, but every object that you perceive — grass or rock or stone — even ocean waves or clouds — any physical phenomenon — has its own invisible consciousness, its own intent and emotional coloration. [...]

[...] In the same way that your thoughts have a reality in Framework 2, and only for the sake of a meaningful analogy, thoughts could be said to be the equivalent, now, of objects; for in Framework 2 thoughts and feelings are far more important even than objects are in physical reality.

[...] In those terms, the physical events that you perceive or experience can be compared to “psychological objects” that appear to exist with a physical concreteness in space and time. [...]

You can look at an object like a table and see its definitions in space. [...]

[...] There are hidden but very definite connections between the self and the objects of which it has created in its environment. The environment is simply an extension of the self, and those objects within it are a part of the physical or the physically materialized personality. [...]

[...] Each physical object has a psychic effect on all other objects, and a psychic existence that is independent of its physical existence.

Objects carry a strong emotional and psychic charge. [...]

There is constant interaction between all objects, and several will create a pervading psychic climate that affects those who come in contact with it.

[...] You know the difference between shadows, for example, and solid objects. [...] You might utilize them in the background, but as a photographer you would not confuse the shadows with, say, the solid objects. [...]

(Pause.) In your daily world objects have shadows, and thoughts or feelings do not, so in your dream travels simply remember that there “objects” do not possess shadows, but thoughts and feelings do.

Now: The physical shadow of a tree bears witness to the existence of a tree, even if you see only the shadow; so your hallucinations appearing in dreams also bear witness to their origin, and give testimony to a valid “objective” dream object that is as “solid” (slowly) in that reality as the tree is in your world.

[...] They are a part of the environment and appear within its reality, though they change shape and form constantly, as physically manufactured objects do not.

[...] I expected this when I picked the object. The idea in choosing it was to simulate a test in which an object chosen by a third party was used; then this third party would interpret the data, leaving Jane and me free, so to speak. [...] The object was chosen by Lorraine Shafer, and to some extent she helped us interpret the resulting data.

[...] For the test object I used a wallet identification card that I picked up two years ago in an empty house that Jane and I nearly purchased. Both of us had met the owner of the house, Jim Birch, a few times. [...]

(The test object was among other papers that we cleaned up at the house, with the intention of mailing them to Mr. Birch’s new address in North Carolina; later we learned this wasn’t necessary and the papers lay forgotten in my file until I came across them the other day. [...]

The past is no more objective, no more independent from the perceiver, than is the present. [...]

[...] They involve the spontaneous combination of living objects and non-living into curious juxtaposition.

For example, I’ll see, say, Rob’s head with our floor stand growing out of it into a new kind of object.... [...]

[...] He is concerned too much about the object which your friends are using for the other test, and for now I am afraid that he will unwittingly distort this material in this respect.

(“Do you know what the object is?”)

I know what the object is.

[...] The object in question is one that Jane’s friend, Peggy Gallagher, is carrying about with her in her handbag. [...]

[...] Make up new, different “words” for the objects that you see about you. Pick up any object, for example. [...] See how the sounds bring out certain aspects of the object that you may not have noticed before.

[...] Do this with many objects, following the same procedure. You can instead say the name of any object backwards.⁶ In such ways you break up to some extent the automatic patterning of familiar phrases, so that you can perceive the individuality that is within each object.

[...] You may not realize it, but your language actually structures your visual perception of objects. [...] They will present a sound equivalent of the emotion or object perceived, an equivalent that is very direct and immediate, and that bears legitimate correspondence with the object or emotion.

[...] Words in a language function not only by defining what a specific object is, for example, but also by defining what it is not.⁴

[...] Saturday is involved with the envelope object, through our car. I obtained the actual object on Friday, August 14,1964; while doing this the car was left at the station for servicing, and the events developing at the station very nearly prevented our leaving on vacation the following day, Saturday, August 15.

(The 39th envelope experiment was held during the session; see the tracing of the AAA membership card used as the object on page 1. Some interesting and hilarious results were obtained in the connections made by Seth/Jane.

I have told you that each individual creates physical matter, including objects, that he constructs his own physical image. [...]

[...] He constructs subconsciously, as always, material objects in line with the data that is available to him. [...]

[...] So-called objective approaches will only work at all when you are dealing with so-called objective effects — and your physicists are learning that even in that framework many “facts” are facts only within certain frequencies,² or under certain conditions. [...]

Because of your attitudes, ideas do not seem as real to you as objects, or as practical. [...] When you manipulate objects you feel efficient. [...]

Suppose a scientist found a first orange, and used every instrument available to examine it, but refused to feel it, taste it, smell it, or otherwise to become personally involved with it for fear of losing scientific objectivity.

[...] A true doctor cannot be scientifically objective. [...]