“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

What you have here is an attempt to objectify, or stand apart from action in such a refusal. This is not the fault of the subconscious, but a fault of the ego, which refuses to assimilate or accept a given action. As you know, it is the ego who exists as a result of such objectivity. All the qualities that make up the ego are objectified to that degree, but they are collected about the ego with the ego as center. When the ego however refuses to accept an emotion as a part of itself, it tries one of two actions.

Either it attempts to return the emotion to a subjective state, or it attempts to objectify it further away from itself. In either case the ego is at fault for not assimilating or accepting the emotion. It is easy to see then that the ego is itself a series of actions, that it is a collection of more or less similar actions, selected from a larger mainstream of other actions.

It was necessary for the ego, in its origins, to objectify itself as much as possible. Now however the stability of the ego, generally speaking, as a part of the human personality is established. It can now afford to be much more elastic, to include, in other words, more and more of reality within its awareness. Such an inclusion would be most beneficial. It would of course however to some extent change the ego, and any change is resisted by the ego.

[...] Your own ideas, objectified, become a part of the physical environment. In this vast cooperative venture the thoughts and feelings of each living being take root, so to speak, springing up as objectified data. [...] Generally speaking, then, you agree to objectify certain inner data privately and en masse at any given “time.” In those terms the airplane objectified the inner idea of flying in “your” time, and not in A.D. 1500, for example.

[...] The demons simply represent a state of your own mind that is seemingly out there, objectified. [...]

Man has always feared what he could not objectify. He has always attempted to objectify, to separate whatever realities he could from himself, to hold them in his hands, so to speak, so that he could observe and study them.

Those things, those realities which were most intimately connected with himself, those realities which he could not objectify and hold in his hands, he feared. [...]

[...] So also are there other realities that cannot be examined through the use of the physical senses, realities so close to the self that they cannot be separated from it and objectified.

[...] In those terms you are one person physically objectified, staring upward in the scene just mentioned at an objectified sky. [...]

[...] Even these symbols, however, divide you as the perceiver from the rest of the world, which becomes objectified. [...]

[...] It deals with an objectified reality. [...]

[...] Your inner egos populate Framework 2, and deal with the actual creation of those events that are then objectified. [...]

Physically you have at your fingertips certain accumulations of knowledge, objectified through the passage of information verbally through the ages, in records or books, and through television. [...]

[...] Before one group of muscles on one side would react in one way, while the other side would react in another way, so that the conflict between spontaneity and caution was objectified.

[...] It is simply a portion, a field of focus whereby the self attempts to objectify itself within the world of matter.

It simply ceases to so objectify itself, but it retains, or the self retains, memory of that objectification.

“The ways in which dream material becomes real, the processes involved, are the same ones by which the universe itself becomes objectified to our views and experience. [...]

[...] You have objectified your ghosts. [...]

[...] He often perceived what you would call the products of the imagination as sense data, for example, more or less objectified in the physical world.

[...] Again, your world was not created, then, by some exteriorized, objectified God who created it from the outside, so to speak, and set it into motion. [...]

[...] It is not objectified outside of you. [...]

[...] When you attempt to objectify All That Is into the nature of a God that exists somewhere outside you, then it seems to you that you must reach outward when instead you must listen inwardly. [...]

“If you prefer to call this supreme psychic gestalt God, then you must not attempt to objectify him, for he is the nuclei of your cells and more intimate than your breath.”

[...] But if God cannot be objectified, what about Christ? [...]

[...] This development was an advancement, yet this advancement led also to a separation and objectifying of consciousness, into dual segments of subject and object.

[...] You do not know how far you can go in any given waves of activity until you see it objectified, or nearly so. [...]

[...] They have the knack for expressing themselves in physical ways and objectifying inner feelings faithfully. [...]

Now that you know something about the nature of matter, you will see that all matter is objectified mental action, and that basically such action happens simultaneously in the spacious present, formed by individualized energy through the formation of mental enclosures.

3. Seth’s material here reminded me of what Jane had told me last week about her own objectified perception of information; see her quoted notes prefacing the 694th session for May 1.

[...] It was meant to serve as a map that would lead, not into another objectified universe per se, but into inner roads of consciousness. These inner roads or strands of consciousness bring elements into play so that it becomes possible to realize that the content of a given objectified universe may actually be perceived quite differently. [...] When you alter the focus of your perception you automatically change the objectified world. [...]

We touched briefly on this when I spoke of objectifying. [...]