“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

The unknown self, the “original self,” straddles realities, dipping in and out of them in creative versions of itself, taking on the properties of the system in which it appears, and the characteristics native to that environment. Waves and particles are versions of other kinds of behavior taken by energy. Using that analogy, you flow in wavelike fashion into the physical particleized versions that you call corporal existences.

(Pause.) Basically, however, each “appearance” of such a particle is a self-version, for it is altered to some extent by its “location.” Period. So can the human self appear in several places at once,⁵ each such appearance subtly altering the “human” particle, so that each appearance is a version of an “original” self that as itself never appears in those terms.⁶ When you look at an electron — figuratively speaking — you are observing a trace or a track of something else entirely, and that appearance is termed an electron. So the self that you know is a physical trace or intrusion into space and time of an “original” self that never appears. In a way, then, you are as ghostly as an electron.

(Still quietly:) It is true that you create your own dreams, but it is also true that you only focus upon certain portions of your dream creations. Even in the dream state, any present expands into its own version of past and future; so in those terms the dream possesses its own background, its own kind (underlined) of historic past, the moment you construct it.

It is the adult’s version of childhood knowledge, the human version of the animal’s knowledge, the conscious version of “unconscious” comprehension. [...]

[...] You do not need to worry or deride yourselves for stupidity if it appears (very long pause, eyes closed, at 9:04), looking over the long annals of work that we have done together, that it should have been obvious that our ideas were leading in certain directions—for not only have I been trying to divest you of official ideas, but to prepare you for the acceptance of a new version of reality: A version that could be described in many fashions. [...]

[...] All of the possible versions of 1980 will happen. Except for those you settle upon, all of the others will remain psychologically peripheral, in the background of your conscious experience—but all of those possible versions will be connected in one way or another.

Now: The year 1980 exists in all of its potential versions, now in this moment. [...]

[...] I want you to try and imagine actual events, as you think of them, to be (pause) the vitalized representations of probabilities—that is, as the physical versions of mental probabilities. [...]

The events that you recognize as official have a unitary nature in time that precludes those probable versions of them, from which they arose — versions that appeared to one extent or another in the dream state. Again, if you speak the English sentence “I am here,” you cannot speak the Chinese version at the same time. [...]

[...] Yet there are biological mechanisms that allow you to send versions or patterns of your body outside of its prime position, and to perceive from those locations. [...]

Such people, however, in their fashion refuse to accept standardized versions of reality. [...] They are actually in the process of putting their own personalities together long after most people have settled upon one official version or another—and so their behavior gives glimpses of the ever-changing give-and-take among the various elements of human personality.

[...] Usually you are presented with, say, semi-personalities, or even with lesser versions (dash)—fragmentary expressions of impulses and desires that are dramatically presented only in snatches, heard by the person as a voice, or perceived as a presence.

The Christ figure represents the exaggerated, idealized version of the inner self that the individual feels incapable of living up to. [...]

In your reality, the “Unknown” Reality we have just finished is the only version of that manuscript. Instead it is, of course, the only version you recognize. [...] So we have been working on a probable “Unknown” Reality — in fact, on many probable “Unknown” Realities. Not mere versions, but variations.

[...] Perhaps Seth likes some of those other versions of ourselves more than he does us. ( I didn’t ask him if I was right, though.) It might even be that his favorite Jane inhabits one probable reality, his favorite Rob another. [...] In which reality did we produce the “best” version of “Unknown” Reality? The worst? [...]

Now: An artist does the same thing in different terms, when he or she imagines the probable versions that a painting, or a book or a sculpture, for example, might take. [...]

[...] People are, therefore, taught to give up their own private view of the universe, and to substitute for it a prepackaged, rather bland picture so that everyone more or less agrees with this standard version. [...]

People must be able to share their views of reality with their fellows, of course—but in your society you are taught to substitute a stylized version for the highly individualistic and unique view of reality that is your own. [...]

[...] In many cases people forget (long pause) their native, natural method of seeing themselves and the world, and turn outward to the stylized version—and in so doing they lose sight of vital portions of their own identities. [...]

The Murphy version is more applicable than the older version Ruburt referred to.

[...] You have created your version of Adam... The version that you have created knows that you have created him. [...]

[...] Now you are beginning at your end and in doing so you form the initial version of your Adam. [...]

[...] (Seth-Jane gestures indicating Tam’s end of the imaginary bridge.) So with your Adam you must either take him and form the rest of your bridge, with the joy of adventure, not always knowing who may be at the other end, forming their own structure; or play around with the Adam version in which case you will get no further than you are. [...]

[...] Part of your accomplishment lies in our sessions and your own considerable work with the notes, and with the invisible aura contained in those notes, for there in a different way you are painting a portrait—a portrait of two lives from a highly individualistic standpoint, extremely unique—and that is the kind of experience that would be ripped out of your life’s fabric, were you the hypothetical idealized version with whom you sometimes relate—a version highly romanticized, let me add. [...]

Many difficulties arise when you compare yourselves to stylized or idealized versions of yourselves—to composite images of yourselves that you may have picked up along the way—a subject that we have mentioned earlier. [...]

[...] You should always address yourself to the natural person, and when Ruburt becomes confused about images, it is because he is relating himself to other composite versions that he thinks he should live up to. [...]

([Florence McIntyre’s Version])

[...] (several words lost here [see Rob’s version, p. 12]). [...]

[...] [Adolf] Hitler pursued his version of “the good” with undeviating fanatical intent. [...] In his grandiose, idealized version of reality, he saw that race “set in its proper place,” as natural master of mankind.¹

He believed in heroic characteristics, and became blinded by an idealized superman version of an Aryan strong in mind and body. [...]

[...] I am not saying that is their only motive, but in one way or another they manage to justify their activities by seeing them in their own version of the good and the right.

[...] In his (unpublished) apprentice novels, Ruburt (Jane) did two or three versions of an episode with a priest he had known in his youth. Each version at the time he wrote it represented his honest memory of the event. While the bare facts were more or less the same, the entire meaning and interpretation of each version differed so drastically that those differences far outweighed the similarities.

Because events do not exist in the concrete, done-and-finished versions about which you have been taught, then memory must also be a different story.

You must remember the creativity and the open-ended nature of events, for even in one life a given memory is seldom a “true version” of a past event. [...]

The Garden of Eden legend represents a distorted version of man’s awakening as a physical creature. [...]

[...] By the time the Biblical legend came into being, however, historical events and social beliefs were transformed into the Adam and Eve version of events.

In a fashion (underlined), it was a great creative and yet cosmic game that consciousness played with itself, and it did represent a new kind of awareness, but I want to emphasize that each version of All That Is is unique. [...]

[...] It is true that you are each versions of the universe, or even that every person alive is somehow a version of each other person, and it is true that a great unity underlies the basis of life, as you know it, that all things are interrelated. [...]

[...] As popularly understood, Eastern religions can lead to spiritual exhaustion, as the individual tries to level himself out, again, so to speak — and the popular understanding of a religion is far more important than the priests or the gurus understand it, for people directed their lives by following their own versions. [...]

[...] He identified with them perfectly however as himself, or versions. The woman’s was a more possible version of himself. [...]

[...] At the same time the ape male and female represents the sexual quality of the earth, male and female being simply other versions of each other. [...]

The woman, not seen that clearly, nevertheless represented the female version possible. [...]

[...] It is not just that highly accelerated versions of time can occur at other levels of actuality (long pause), but that there are dimensions in which those [versions] are no impediments to the natural “flow” (pause) of events into expression.

[...] Any sudden emergence of a completed universe would then imply an unimaginable and a spectacular development of organization—that it did not just appear from nowhere, but as the “completed physical version” of an inner highly concentrated endeavor, the physical manifestation of an inspiration that then suddenly emerges into physical actuality.²

(Long pause at 9:55.) The Christ story in the beginning was not nearly as singular and neat as it might now seem, for the finally established official Christ figure was one settled upon from endless versions of a god-man, with which man’s psyche has long been involved: He was the psychic composite, the official Christ, carrying within his psychological personage echoes of old and new gods alike—a figure barely begun, comma, to be filled out in time, although originating outside of it (again, all very intently).

[...] Ruburt should like this, for the actress stands for your idealized version of Jane, as a star however in a different theater. [...]

The younger people represent versions of yourself, who wonder at your prominence in a different field, but you do not care. [...]

[...] For that matter, their natural television operated better in some ways than your technological version, for their mental images allowed them to perceive events in neighboring areas or in other portions of the world. [...]

[...] Each aspect of a dream, while having personal meaning, is also your version of a symbol that stands for a corresponding kind of event, but in a different level of reality entirely.

[...] You, on the other hand, must work with the time version of events. [...]

(Pause at 9:16.) Your physical body … give us time … is, as an entity, the fleshed-out version — the physically alive version — of the body of your thoughts. [...]