“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

We will continue this evening in our discussion of identities and action.

Unfoldings continually occur, and all identities, with a few exceptions, contain within them also other identities, not duplicates. Our discussion in the past concerning gestalts should make this point clear. The frameworks and boundaries, the extents and limitations of identities, are not physical.

Identities may be termed action which is conscious of itself. For the purposes of our discussion, the terms action and identity must be separated. However basically no such separation exists, for an identity is also a dimension of existence, action within action, an unfolding of action upon itself; and through this interweaving of action with itself, through this reaction, an identity is formed.

The reality of such an identity then exists within the action. The energy of the action, the workings of action within and upon itself, forms identity. There are other causes here that we will consider later. Yet although identity is formed from action, action and identity cannot be separated. You will remember our previous definition of action, for this will make this evening’s discussion easier to understand.

Identity then, is action’s effect upon itself. Without identities action would be meaningless, for there would be nothing upon which action could act. Action must, therefore, of its very nature, of itself and from its own workings, create identities. Again, action and identity cannot be separated. This applies from the most simple to the most complex.

This first dilemma results in action, and from action’s own working upon itself we have seen that identity was formed, and that these two are inseparable. We will discuss the second dilemma after your break. I suggest your break now.

(Jane said some subjective feelings are difficult to put into words. While talking about action and identity, she had an inner perception of a whole concept, of some kind of inside visual sense of action without seeing any object. She said this description is as direct as she can make it. While experiencing such a thing, Jane said she is not conscious of being apart from the experience. Rather, she seems to be part of it.

Action, having of itself, and because of its nature, formed identity, now also because of its nature would seem to destroy identity, since action must involve change. And any change would seem to threaten identity.

It is however a mistaken notion that identity is dependent upon stability. Identity, because of its characteristics, will continually seek stability, while stability is impossible. And this is our second dilemma.

It is this dilemma, precisely between identity’s constant attempts to maintain stability, and action’s inherent drive for change, that results in the imbalance, the exquisite creative by-product that is consciousness of self. We have a series of creative strains. Identity must seek stability while action must seek change, yet identity could not exist without change, without action, for it is the result of action, and not apart from it but a part of it.

Identities are never constant, as you yourselves are not the same consciously or unconsciously from one moment to another. Every action is a termination, as we discussed earlier. And yet without the termination, identity would cease to exist, for consciousness without action would cease to be conscious.

Since this is obviously impossible, since no consciousness or identity can exist without action, because they are inseparable, we have our third dilemma.