“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Both are necessary to maintain that larger “norm” of mental activity. I am using the word “norm” here for your convenience, though I disagree with the ways in which the term has been used, when it has been set up as a rule (underlined) of measurement, psychologically speaking. The genetic system² is not closed, therefore. The genes do not simply hold information without any reference to the body’s living system. It does not exist, then—the genetic structure—like some highly complicated mechanism already programmed, started and functioning “blindly,” so that once it is set into operation there is no chance for modification.

(Pause.) Genetic events are not irrefutable in a deterministic fashion. They represent strong inclinations toward certain bodily or mental activity, certain biological preferences. They lead toward the activation of certain events over others, so that the probabilities are “loaded” in certain directions. (Pause.) Genetic events are (underlined) then events, though at a different level of activity than you are used to thinking of.

I also believe, however, that generally speaking science still views our genetic systems in mechanical, deterministic, and reductionistic terms, and will continue to do so for a long time: So that evidence is being accumulated to support that overall view that at this time science has no need to seek for other, larger, and more unsettling frames of reference encompassing consciousness, intent, and genetics. Indeed, I seldom see consciousness mentioned in connection with genetics, except as its quality may relate to genetic “defects” like mental retardation, say.