“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Even so, Jane had the magical approach in mind two days later, when she typed a rough last note for her journal on February 10: “Still annoying problems with fingers… hoping to clear this up, using in part robs new suggestion page [credo] for me. typing weth right hand. as I see it even that can be utilized in magical approach, again, Seth finished his book monday.”

What, then, are those “ideal developments” Jane and I are growing toward? Questions like that must intrigue Seth even more than they do us; his dealings with us—but especially with Jane, of course—are as much learning experiences for him as they are for us. After all, here he is, engaged in a “lifelong” process with my wife, and just as dependent upon what he can get through her psyche, as she is upon what she can get from him and then let through to me and to others! What storms of consciousness, as well as peaceful reaches, must Seth travel through in order to help her even as much as he does’? As far as he’s concerned those storms and reaches aren’t physical, but instead consist of intensities of feeling—as they do for us too, basically.

From her mystical orientation Jane chooses what she wants to learn and use from what Seth has to offer. I think that if one isn’t a mystic, such a state of being can only be approximated: There are obviously many variations possible, but the mystic chooses challenges that the rest of us can really understand only in the vaguest of terms. Jane’s mystical creation of her universe is just her own. It always has been and it always will be; she has expressed her way over and over again in her deceptively simple poetry, as well as in the sessions. That way is a fount of creativity I can only partially grasp. No matter that right now our joint reality seems quite opaque to me as Jane lies bedridden. I know that it appears much more translucent to Seth, and that he sees our great active potentials as we cannot at this time.

1. In Chapter 10 see Note 1 for Session 933, which Jane held six months ago. I described asking her if Seth could give us some information on the consciousness connected with nuclear energy. She promised me that he would discuss it soon—but we have yet to receive any such commentary. This is as much my fault as hers; I let the question get away from me amid our day-to-day activities. Now that Dreams is finished, we’ll probably not get the information for use in this book. (However, I do have a few related remarks of my own to offer in Note 3 to come.)

Some ideas came to me as I was taking a walk late one evening during the days I worked on this note. “We don’t want it thought,” I wrote when I got back to the hill house, “that the overall consciousness of Iran is playing with the individual consciousnesses of its people, say, as with toy soldiers, setting its citizens up against the world only to have them knocked down. Nor would this be true of any other country. Rather, we want to relay to the reader that the great consciousness of Iran is made up of the individual consciousnesses of its people—that within that chosen national context the individual does have whatever freedom of creativity is possible. The mental and physical freedoms available will vary widely, according to time, nation, and history, but they will always be chosen. This is hardly new thinking. Indeed, it’s quite obvious, but it’s the best way I can put it into words at the moment….” Once again, I refer the reader to Seth’s excellent material on violence as quoted in Note 2 for Session 933.

3. “I am not assigning human traits to energy. Instead, your human traits are the result of energy’s characteristics—a rather important difference,” Seth told Jane and me almost two and a half years ago. In Chapter 1 of Dreams, in Volume 1, see Session 884 for October 3, 1979.

The ordinary violence involved with these events leads me to comment upon the theological concept of privation theory, and the military one of perception theory—for again, I think the two are closely related, not only to each other but to the points I’ve made in this note. In mundane terms, both represent longstanding distortions in perception of the great basic creativity of All That Is. I suggest that the reader review Seth’s material on the basically creative use of violence as I quoted it in Chapter 10; see Note 2 for Session 933.

Privation theory has for many centuries been a main tenet of theology: Evil is not a power in itself, but only the absence of good; it is not-good. Room is made for the existence of the devil, who rebelled against the God who created him and constantly inveighs others to follow him in choosing the not-good. I believe that the only devils we know are those we originate ourselves. Through privation theory religion has created unanswerable questions for itself as it seeks to explain man’s inhumanity to man. To me, privation theory is a beautiful example of how man projects his fears of the world he’s created out upon that very world. His focus is much too limited.

To me, privation theory and perception theory are interchangeable; they represent consciousnesses deeply exploring the misperceptions I’ve listed concerning violence, and the relationships involving the counterparts of nuclear energy and warfare.

In Note 3 for this session I referred to what I think are a couple of earthly analogs of All That Is. To Jane and me, our species’ venturing into space is another such analog: Our physical motion off the planet is certainly an objectified version or translation of our tentative explorations of inner space. In conscious terms, we have barely touched upon the fantastic inner complexities of All That Is, from which all else emerges, and which for a number of reasons we still fear.