“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(10:53.) It means that you are not willing to take the actual steps in physical reality to achieve the ideal, but that you believe that the end justifies the means: “Certainly some lives may be lost along the way, but overall, mankind will benefit.” That is the usual argument. The sacredness of life cannot be sacrificed for life’s convenience, or the quality of life itself will suffer. In the same manner, say, the ideal is to protect human life, and in the pursuit of that ideal you give generations of various animals deadly diseases, and sacrifice their lives.³ Your justification may be that people have souls and animals do not, or that the quality of life is less in the animals, but regardless of those arguments this is fanaticism — and the quality of human life itself suffers as a result, for those who sacrifice any kind of life along the way lose some respect for all life, human life included. The ends do not justify the means (all very emphatically).

If you want to change the world for the better, then you are an idealist. If you want to change the world for the better, but you believe it cannot be changed one whit, then you are a pessimist, and your idealism will only haunt you. If you want to change the world for the better, but you believe that it will grow worse, despite everyone’s efforts, then you are a truly despondent, perhaps misguided idealist. If you want to change the world for the better, and if you are determined to do so, no matter at what cost to yourself or others, no matter what the risk, and if you believe that those ends justify any means at your disposal, then you are a fanatic.

(10:14.) Fanatics are inverted idealists. Usually they are vague grandiose dreamers, whose plans almost completely ignore the full dimensions of normal living. They are unfulfilled idealists who are not content to express idealism in steps, one at a time, or indeed to wait for the practical workings of active expression. They demand immediate action. They want to make the world over in their own images (louder). They cannot bear the expression of tolerance or opposing ideas. They are the most self-righteous of the self-righteous, and they will sacrifice almost anything — their own lives or the lives of others. They will justify almost any crime for the pursuit of those ends.

What does that mean? In practical terms it would mean that you would not wage war for the sake of peace. It would mean that you did not kill animals in experiments, taking their lives in order to protect the sacredness of human life. That would be a prime directive: “Thou shalt not kill even in the pursuit of your ideals” — for man has killed for the sake of his ideals as much as he has ever killed for greed, or lust, or even the pursuit of power on its own merits.

[...] Politically, many today believe that Russia is “the enemy,” and that therefore any means may be taken to destroy that country. Some people within the United States believe fervently that “the establishment” is rotten to the core, and that any means is justified to destroy it. [...]

You must realize that Hitler believed that any atrocity was justified in the light of what he thought of as the greater good. [...] For the first time, again, the species understood that might alone did not mean right, and that in larger terms a world war could have no real victors. [...]

[...] To attain that end, Hitler was quite willing to sacrifice the rest of humanity. [...]

[...] Hitler’s idea of good was hardly inclusive, therefore, and any actions, however atrocious, were justified.

[...] Because of his belief in his powerlessness [the fanatic] feels that any means to an end is justified. Behind all this is the belief that spontaneously the ideal will never be achieved, and that, indeed, on his own man is getting worse and worse in every aspect: How can flawed selves ever hope to spontaneously achieve any good?

[...] (Pause.) They believe that their search for answers, however, justifies almost any means, or sacrifices, not only on their parts but on the parts of others. [...]

[...] End of chapter. End of dictation.

You never should have [worried], and neither should he (Jane). [...]

“The end justifies the means.” [...]

[...] The villains consisted of the following ideas: that the world is unsafe, and growing deadly; that the species itself is tainted by a deadly intent; that the individual has no power over his or her reality; that society or social conditions exist as things in themselves, and that their purposes run directly counter to the fulfillment of the individual; and lastly, that the end justifies the means, and that the action of any kind of god is powerless in the world.

[...] They never had to work for a living, perhaps. [...]

[...] They looked for values, but at the same time they felt that they were themselves sons and daughters of a species tainted, at loose ends, with no clear destinations.

I have told you before, however, that there is never any justification for violence. There is never any justification for threats. It makes no difference whether or not you think that the end justifies the means because it does not. [...]

The means creates the end. [...]

And if the means are violent, the ends are violent. [...]

[...] You are highly confused as to the meaning of spontaneity and discipline. [...]

[...] I have told you that you will never be in severe financial difficulties again, but you do not trust my word enough, so far. [...] And then of course it does, and you think that the physical circumstances certainly justify your attitude. [...]

[...] I mean that literally, since in the beginning particularly you did not believe that any would last for any period of time. [...]

(“That’s what I mean, I guess.”)

(“I mean things like additional money.”)

(I have for some time thought that Jane needed to sell her writings as a means of justifying her life—whether these writings were her best work was, in that sense, immaterial; she couldn’t possibly wait until her writing was a polished art before beginning to market it. So I don’t believe comparisons between her selling her work, and me selling mine, mean much. [...] Oddly enough, I am sure that my work will end up very successful, both as art and in the marketplace. [...]

[...] Ruburt never learned how to handle normal aggressive thoughts.

(“Do you mean tonight?”)

He feels that you have not tried to make a success of your art, but have used excuses while blaming him for using excuses; that he tries desperately to sell his books, while you will not lift a finger to sell your paintings; that if he waited until he did his best work, he would never have sold a thing.

[...] Then whispering:) Each individual is innately driven by a good intent, however distorted that intent may become, or however twisted the means that may be taken to achieve it.

[...] Impulses provide specifications, methods, meanings, definitions. [...]

[...] You are left with an undefined, persisting, even tormenting desire to do good, to change events, but without having any means at your disposal to do so. [...]

[...] Many have high ideals, but ideals that have never been trusted or acted upon. [...]

[...] He meant obviously that it must be replaced, but would never directly ask you to do so, feeling he had no right.

[...] He was operating to a large degree according to the code long set down by his grandfather: be quiet, do not argue, be aloof, and above all never raise your voice.

[...] He would never ask you to do anything for him, for he felt he had no right to do so, or to your love. [...]

[...] It carried him through all of his early years, this belief in the writing self that automatically justified his existence and more (underlined) than made up for any other lacks, he felt. [...]

[...] When they became obvious he decided there was nothing to do but put up with them if the end was justified.

[...] The translation will be added to the end of the session, presumably.)

[...] Meaning the symptoms.)

(We have been recently planning that I am to leave my job at Artistic at the end of January, and take at least a year to paint, etc., after a month’s trip to Florida in February. [...]

9:45 P.M. I found Seth’s abrupt end of the session to be unexpected, in spite of Jane’s many long pauses. “He is ending,” she said, meaning this book. [...]

[...] What do you have to say about this?” We don’t feel like justifying ourselves.

[...] You are never at the periphery of events.

(Long pause.) End of dictation. [...]

(10:05.) These ideas went a long way to justify later scientific experiments that involved giving pain to animals, for example: nature itself had no feeling. [...] The individual shouts that his life does indeed have meaning, while the scientists until now have vehemently stated otherwise. [...]

[...] It can, even in scientific terms, never be proven. [...]

[...] It saw a good God, a just savior, who nevertheless never thought twice about sending down death and destruction as punishment for sin. [...]

Darwin was faced with the proposition of a kind god who was more cruel than any human being, and with supernatural power behind him to boot—so Darwin tried to justify God’s ways to man. [...]

And I end our session. We are close to the end of Chapter Two. [...]

[...] By this I mean that I am not restricted to a time sequence. [...]

[...] It is natural, then, that our environment would have multidimensional qualities that the physical senses would never perceive.

[...] This does not mean that its reality exists in that form in any more basic way than it exists in the form perceived by the microbe, insect, or bird. [...]

[...] The means never justify the ends.

[...] Your misunderstandings, your crimes, and your atrocities, real as they are, are seldom committed out of any intent to be evil, but because of severe misinterpretations about the nature of good, and the means that can be taken toward its actualization. [...]

End of session. [...]

[...] There is an overall pattern to relationships within lives, and yet this does not mean that you travel through various existences with the same limited and familiar number of friends and acquaintances, merely altered like actors with a change of face or costume.

[...] Some families are literally reincarnations of their ancestors, but this is not the general case by any means. [...]

[...] You cannot justify or rationalize present circumstances by saying, “This is because of something I did in a past life,” for within yourself now is the ability to change negative influences. [...]

Each individual is not at the same level of achievement even at the end of the reincarnational cycle. [...]

[...] She means well enough but in her insecurity she believes them when they tell her that she would be a fool for not raising rents. Money does mean security to her. [...]

[...] Now this does not mean that your landlady knew this, but in a way she did, for all of your intentions were subconsciously taken into consideration when such a decision was made.

[...] Today Jane learned that his rent has not been raised, peculiarly enough, as of today, June 5. The lawyer never lived in the apartment, for whatever reasons of his own. [...]

[...] The man on the top floor always feels persecuted: for his own reason she seeks out situations where his feeling is justified.

[...] When you curse another, you curse yourselves, and the curse returns to you.’” The answer must be considered in the light of the previous conversation, in which the student was trying to justify violence as a means of attaining peace. [...]

[...] It can also be a method of communication, but it is never a steady constant state, and will automatically change if not tampered with.

[...] They were given the means to power in their own eyes. [...]

[...] A person from whom you expect nothing will never earn your bitterness.

[...] A man who hates always believes himself justified. He never hates anything that he believes to be good. [...]

[...] The original meaning of that remark, however, should be understood. [...]

[...] Your belief in it will, therefore, seem highly justified. [...]

[...] Yet because of his words you do not feel justified in the emotion. [...]

It was never, except for the time mentioned, the writing self that Ruburt distrusted, but he feared for the worthiness of his being. The writing self was obviously a part of his being, and so justified it.

[...] The ones that are less advantageous were used as methods of bringing about desired good ends—i.e., they were used in the service of “good beliefs.” [...]

To use his abilities freely and fully might therefore mean success, money, and sexual license. [...]

[...] The end is seen as justifying the means. [...]

[...] The woman is alone, with many empty rooms behind her, signifying that you set yourself apart from the many worlds of commerce in your day—meaning social commerce—and that such an understanding can also bring loneliness. [...]

There is a portion of each person that correlates with the meaning of that image.

Such systems distort the very nature of idealism by placing the ideal in such an exalted position that it can never be attained, for by giving up the self you have you are to attain instead a wholly pure, wholly loving, idealized, spiritual self. [...]