“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Intellectually he changed his views. [...] The clash with the emotional aspects occurred only when a system of thought seemed formulated that would oppose the early emotional views.

He therefore feels highly upset if he does not accept all of my views as he understands them, and makes it a point to repeat that rebellion now in a different way.

He is afraid of hurting people by upturning their views. [...]

It is very difficult to explain to you that the universes that you see, the stars and planets that you view, are one-dimensional, comparatively speaking. [...]

You do not understand the dimensions into which your thoughts drop, for they continue their own existence, and others look up to them and view them like stars. [...]

[...] The inner self knows what is behind the stars and planets that the eyes views, but the ego would be swept aside in panic. [...]

[...] Your mainly accepted normal consciousness is within the matter of your body, and through it — the body — you view your world. There is nothing to prevent you from viewing your body from a standpoint outside of it, except that you have been taught that consciousness is imprisoned within the flesh.

[...] You can, however, quite consciously leap from it — and you do often, when for a while, particularly in the dream state, you view the world from another perspective.

Also, Jane has long since completed The World View of Paul Cezanne: A Psychic Interpretation, which was published in 1977; and she’s finished The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher: The World View of William James — both books growing out of the world-view material given by Seth in “Unknown” Reality.

[...] Jane finished her Psychic Politics, and began some new poetry and world-view material. [...]

“The view of sky sweeping over our hill makes it much easier to see the great flights of geese heading south for the winter. [...]

[...] Identities, some identities and some forms of consciousness, particularly the ego, perceive a past or a present, but this is merely the result of the manner in which such identities and consciousnesses view available data.

A consciousness is characterized by the particular ways in which it views or perceives available action. [...]

[...] However, action constantly forms perceptual patterns in which it can view itself. [...]

[...] Each of these so-called realities, for one blends into the other, could be termed, or viewed as, a separate field. [...]

Viewing you as he viewed himself, using the same logic, he was afraid however that basically you felt our work a detriment to your own, and that its success, while pleasing you on the one hand, might prevent you from success as an artist because you would not have the time, and that you would basically resent it. [...]

Both of you have seen yourselves in the past in a rather specialized light, and interpreted your success, or lack of it, or progress or lack of it, in one particular area only; and you had at least, each of you, a tendency to view the other in the same manner, though this was far more emphasized on Ruburt’s part. [...]

Some of this he is aware of, but all of it was based upon the specializations, the private focuses through which both of you have a tendency to view your lives. [...]

[...] During break she picked up that the Cézanne material from Seth would be in two parts — one of these being on world views, the other more on Cézanne-and-world-views. [...]

(Seth opened the session by finishing his Introduction to Jane’s The World View of Paul Cézanne, which Prentice-Hall will publish later this year. In that piece Seth has come through with an excellent capsule explanation of his theory of “world views.” [...]

[...] Because I am not as immersed in it as you, I can tell you much about it, since your precise orientation necessitates a more narrow, concentrated view.

[...] In view of this, we thought it better to have a brief session, at least, though ordinarily we might have passed it up.)

(“In view of your past statements about old patterns being set, is it possible for these symptoms to return sometime, say, in the distant future?”)

[...] However, they are not entitled to project their views of reality upon others—an obvious impossibility for them to grasp, since they are blind to any other kind of reality than their own.

[...] The hill house, again, has good aspects because of the location, the view and the proximity of nature. [...]

[...] It does not have secrecy, and while you have a view you cannot hide in it. [...]

[...] I suggest, and only suggest, that that be your choice—because it is the most daring of the ventures for you—and because the hill will give you a view in many more ways than one. [...]

[...] The hillside is not yours, yet it is your view. [...]

[...] The art dream (of June 3), as I call it, has its opening scene in an art gallery, which represents a conventionalized view of art. Ruburt used painting as an art in the dream rather than writing (pause), because it symbolized your joint ideas of art—to some extent, now—and allowed him to have you in his mind as he viewed the dream events.

[...] The dream also says that like a private eye you are on a search, but the private eye also stands for your own private eye, or your own world view, so that you are in a process of enlarging your own private way of viewing reality. [...]

(I added that I doubt if they really do, but that the views need integration for us to understand it all clearly as a unified theory—sort of like field theory in physics, perhaps. [...]

Perfectionists, however, not only take a dim view of problems, but consider each one a blot, a proof of inferiority in themselves or others and they see such blots everywhere. [...]

[...] You must increase your view of your own operations.

[...] Probable selves can be viewed by myself and others like me, for we see your reality in all of its dimensions, and you view it from the small present forms that you know. [...]

(“and a grand view.” [...] We offer this: Miss Callahan has a nice view from her apartment windows. She spends much of her day sitting at a window admiring the view, and never fails to mention it when Jane visits her. However she doesn’t use the phrase “a grand view.” [...]

[...] February or March, and a grand view.

(See the considerable world-view material from Jane and from Seth in Volume 2 of “Unknown” Reality. A world view is the body of an individual’s personalized interpretation of the physical universe; emotions are necessarily involved. “Each person has such a world view,” Seth tells us in Session 718, “whether living or dead in your terms, and that ‘living picture’ exists despite time or space. [...]

[...] Nor would the idea of reaching Jane’s world view be considered, or telepathy from me, for both of those concepts are scientifically unacceptable. The most parsimonious view — the simplest, stingiest one — would be that through studying the Seth Material Valerie subconsciously divines the replies I want from my dead wife, and in all subjective innocence comes through with her trance messages for me, to fit my own stubborn belief in Jane’s survival.

[...] But since I believe the Seth Material is valid, it would be very arrogant of me to think that none of Jane’s readers except me had legitimately tuned into her where she is now or perhaps touched upon her world view.

[...] In this view, those elements in such messages that have no meaning for me can be only distortions on the part of the medium or the letter-writer or the poet. [...]

[...] Right in front of us was the sky, which somehow came right down to the floor; the view was spectacular and the sky was doing something very strange; it was all made up of large sky-folds which blew and changed, huge folds coming down from inexpressible heights, past us, I think. [...]

2. I see correlations between the “flat view of reality” given to us by our physical senses, as Seth maintains, and the “flat” view of the universe that cosmologists perceive when they look way out into space. [...]

[...] I use the term “conscious mind” as you define it, for you allow it to accept as evidence only those physical data available for the five senses—while the five senses, of course, represent only a relatively flat² view of reality, that deals with the most apparent surface.

The church’s view of reality was the accepted one. [...] The world’s view was a religious one, specified by the church, and its word was truth and fact at the same time.

It is easy enough to look at those belief structures and shrug your shoulders, wondering at man’s distorted views of reality. The entire scientific view of illness, however, is quite as distorted (with amused emphasis). It is as laboriously conceived and interwound with “nonsense.” [...]