“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] It’s an amazingly simple luxury to consider a problem or challenge, then say the hell with it and throw it into Framework 2. It is, of course, reminiscent of our behavior right after we first learned about the frameworks, and as I remember it worked very well. [...]

These were meant as checks against impulsive or intuitive behavior. [...]

[...] Steve was also talking about the phases of the moon having influence on his behavior and actions, Jane said she didn’t believe in that. [...]

[...] This would be especially true of behaviorism. [...]

[...] It is vitally important that you realize the great psychological diversity that is present within your psychological behavior—and those varieties of psychological experience are necessary. [...]

[...] Obviously there are reasons for her behavior, and changes also that she can and should make, but I am speaking to you and not to her.

[...] Work — very noisy work, which is to continue for a year — is now underway to replace it.] In Chapter Eighteen, Seth explains the emotional origins of Agnes as a whole, and our personal behavior within it.

[...] While it is generally quite natural for the child to cry or feel “badly” when hurt, this inclination can be carried through belief to such an extent that prolonged feelings of desolation are adopted as definite behavior patterns.

So one of the most hampering beliefs of all, as earlier mentioned (in the 614th session in Chapter Two, for instance), is the idea that the clues to current behavior are buried and usually inaccessible. [...]

(I did remind Jane that in yesterday’s session Seth hadn’t addressed the question I’d mentioned to her at lunch time — why were we such extremists in our behavior, considering the severity of the symptoms, and so forth? [...]

[...] The physical universe is as unpredictable as the behavior of that table. [...]

[...] Telepathy and clairvoyance, for example, are a part of natural effects, but they belong to a nature so much more expansive than science’s definitions that they have been made to appear as highly unnatural eccentricities of behavior, rather than as natural components of consciousness.

[...] Such abilities appear to be unpredictable, discontinuous, only because you are so relatively unaware of what is actually quite constant psychological behavior. [...]

[...] It’s certainly enlarged my own ideas of what human beings are all about, for instance — their motivations, their behavior — ”

(Long pause at 11:29.) While words are difficult to use here, again, what I am saying applies, in different ways perhaps, to the behavior of worlds, atoms, and psychological structures. [...]

(They also fit in beautifully with my own recent feelings and questions about the behavior of our species, and Seth’s answering material. [...]

[...] You have been taught to concentrate upon criticisms and faults in your society; and in your times it seems that everything will work out wrong — that left alone the world will run down, the universe will die, man will destroy himself; and these beliefs so infiltrate your behavior that they organize much of your experience and rob you of the benefits nature itself everywhere provides in direct primary experience.

[...] But in some newish way I seemed to understand how much seemingly mental work is dependent upon physical vigor, flexibility and so forth; and then rather strongly—emotionally it came to me that I’d thought it my duty to clamp down physically, to cut down mobility in order to … have mobility as a writer; that is, to sit down, cut down on impulses, distractions, to make sure I’d ‘do my work,’ pursue my goal undeviatingly; that new [book] contracts instantly led me to that kind of behavior and that I really see that such behavior carried to its extremes would end up smothering my writing, defeating the purposes it (seemingly) meant to protect. [...] I’m not writing here tonight about the reasons behind such behavior—many ideas—but did want to get something down now….”

(8:54.) Actually, that kind of psychological behavior represents the backbone of social organization as far as the species is concerned, and it is the usually hidden but definite past and future memories of reincarnational relationships that cement social organizations, from small tribes to large governments.

[...] Even if you were aware of reincarnational existences, your present psychological behavior would not be threatened but retain its prominence—for only within certain space and time intersections can physical actions occur. [...]

[...] With many pauses, but all intently:) Ruburt has had particular difficulty, however, with “the theory of reincarnation,”²² because as it is usually described, it seemed that people used it to blame as the source of current misfortune, or as an excuse for personal behavior whose nature they did not otherwise understand, and it has been so maligned. [...]

(4:12.) Perhaps the greatest variances in human behavior show in mental states, and so parents are apt to feel most crushed and despondent if any of their children prove to be what is generally regarded as mentally deficient. [...]

[...] You then react to their behavior and complete the circle. [...]

[...] The pattern of animal behavior, for example, is not at all as set and finished as you suppose. [...]

[...] Beliefs of like nature attract each other, for you are bound to look for consistencies in your behavior and experience.

It shows itself particularly in any kind of obsessive behavior, mental or physical. [...]

The behavior of electrons, for example, will elude your technological knowledge — for in deepest terms what you will “perceive” will be a facade, an appearance or illusion. [...]

[...] Thus, according to Seth, we have a most complicated and profound dance of units or essences — behavior not really amenable to translation in words.