“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Now in the same way, I am telling you that objects are also symbols that stand for a reality whose meaning the objects, like the letters, transmit. The true information is not in the objects any more than the thought is in the letters or in words. Words are methods of expression. So are physical objects in a different kind of medium. You are used to the idea that you express yourselves directly through words. You can hear yourself speak them. You can feel the muscles in your throat move, and if you are aware, you can perceive multitudinous reactions within your own body — actions that all accompany your speech.

(10:29.) Physical objects are the result of another kind of expression. You create them as surely as you create words. I do not mean that you create them with your hands alone, or through manufacture. I mean that objects are natural by-products of the evolution of your species, even as words are. Examine for a moment your knowledge of your own speech, however. Though you hear the words and recognize their appropriateness, and though they may more or less approximate an expression of your feeling, they are not your feeling, and there must be a gap between your thought and your expression of it.

The familiarity of speech begins to vanish when you realize that you, yourself, when you begin a sentence do not know precisely how you will end it, or even how you form the words. You do not consciously know how you manipulate a staggering pyramid of symbols, picking from them precisely those you need to express a given thought. For that matter, you do not know how you think.

You do not know how you translate these symbols upon this page into thoughts, and then store them, or make them your own. Since the mechanisms of normal speech are so little known to you on a conscious level, then it is not surprising that you are equally unaware of more complicated tasks that you also perform — such as the constant creation of your physical environment as a method of communication and expression.

[...] A sentence is built up as words, parts of speech, verbs, and adjectives, subjects and predicates, vowels and syllables, and underneath there is the entire structure that allows you to speak or read to begin with. [...]

(10:56.) The psyche, as it is turned toward physical reality, is a creator of events, and through them it experiences its own reality as through your own speech you hear your voice.

(11:15.) Yet each of those nameless atoms and molecules cooperates in a vast venture, incomprehensible to you, that makes your speech possible, and your reality of events is built up from a cordella of activity in which each spoken word has a history that stretches further back into the annals of time than the most ancient of fossils could remember. [...]

[...] I am saying that they are expressed through your speech, however — and that your speech represents an amplification of their existence. [...]

[...] That competence is obviously responsible for language, but beyond that it is intimately connected with the patterns of languages themselves, the construction of syntax, and even with the figures of speech used.

[...] The hesitation, however, is translated into the speech mechanism. [...]

Now there is some sense of jealousy in the family over the child that the child senses and this, also, has to do with his sense of hesitation in speech. [...]

[...] The speech defect has to do with the projection of divided loyalties within the family. [...]

Many theories have been advanced throughout history to explain the origins of speech. [...] As science now reaches back into human beginnings, the already scanty evidence gradually disappears, until finally it seems highly unlikely that the species will ever really know how or when its language and/or speech started.

Numerous forms of vocal communication — whether “true” speech or not, in current opinion — undoubtedly existed among the ancestors of our species for many millennia before the appearance of late Neanderthal man, however; according to conservative estimates such methods could have been in use for well over two million years, perhaps beginning even with our prehuman or animal stages. [...]

Seth tells us, of course, that prehuman communication and human language and speech have originated in rhythmic patterns again and again, since in the far past our planet has seen the development of a number of presently unknown civilizations. [...]

[...] The dreams were like glossolalia — you know, speaking in unintelligible speech sounds — yet they made sense, and man began to speak….”

[...] It was the only way — speech — by which he could share data that couldn’t be seen. [...]

[...] The prophet looks upward to the left, lips parted in speech.)

[...] To whom is his implied speech spoken—to a god he understands, to a god he does not understand, to the elements or to a part of himself that he knows exists and cannot reach. [...]

[...] In your time scheme, for example, you could never move as quickly as you do if you had to consciously work all the muscles involved in motion—or in speech, or in any such bodily performance. You certainly could not communicate on such a physical level if you first had to be aware of all of speech’s mechanisms, working them consciously before a word was uttered. [...]

[...] It’s far better to think in terms of power than of lacks — the power of life, of motion, of speech, etc. [...]

[...] Your brother told you about her occasionally faltering speech. [...]

Because you believe your method of expression is primarily through your hand in painting, and you believe your mother’s to be vocal, you tampered with your hand’s motion — not, for example, your speech. [...]

[...] Any speech within your system and expression must be tinged and must be somewhat distorted in order to make sense to you. [...]

[...] I am dependent in a large measure upon Ruburt’s own knowledge, and lack of it, in that I cannot force for example from him, from his speech mechanism, concepts with which he is entirely unfamiliar. [...]

[...] It is not as simple a thing as it might seem, for there is no coercion involved, Ruburt always consenting to let me push concepts at him, which he interprets speech-wise with my assistance.

[...] Instead the Mediterranean area in the 1500’s, and it is from this period that his present speech impediment indeed originated.

[...] Louie had also remarked that his speech impediment had not bothered him as much while he lived in California, as it does currently.)

[...] Afterward I wondered if I should have made my little speech, since it stressed negative things. [...]

(My little speech got her talking about it and related matters, and she soon felt Seth around. [...]

(Pause.) The molecules are unfrozen, so to speak, and become fluid, following this figure of speech. [...]

[...] Suddenly her voice became high-pitched and, at first, quite incomprehensible to me because of the rapidity of her speech. [...]

[...] Her speech was as fast as it could be while remaining at all explicit. [...]

[...] She remembered giving the variations on the sounds and methods of speech. [...]

[...] You know all behind words, and in parts of you that are beyond speech. [...]

[...] Often it may simply sound like a figure of speech when I talk about probabilities. [...]

[...] For behind even this electrical universe there is a reality which cannot be explored in terms of speech; for all consciousness, while having an electric reality, has a reality beyond even this.