“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(The evening was a bit cooler than evenings have been lately. Jane was rather quiet as we waited for Seth to come through. “All those questions,” she said when I asked her about her silence. “All those things I’m supposed to answer…. I guess I’ve been brooding because I fell into that trap Seth talks about — of thinking that I’ve got to save the world….”

(Then we both laughed. There isn’t any saving of the world necessary, we agreed. The world doesn’t need to be saved. It’s perfectly capable of surviving even while it’s home to a species as obstreperous as man. After all, I said, man is but one species who creates his perception of the living earth in concert with nearly innumerable other species — and each other species does the same thing from its viewpoint. Even with his seemingly destructive ways, man can injure that joint reality only to a minor extent, regardless of such potential fiascos as that posed by Three Mile Island, or even nuclear war. In particular, I reminded Jane of a paragraph of material Seth gave in the 865th nonbook session, which she held a week ago from last Monday evening:

(“Fortunately, the power of constructive action and thought is indeed paramount in nature and in your world. Otherwise, you would simply not exist. The cooperative ventures that crisscross this community of Elmira, in biological, social, spiritual, economic, political and artistic ways are staggering. That cooperation goes unnoticed, largely, yet it rests firmly upon the stability that is characteristic within all life. Period.”)

As far as this discussion is concerned, there are biological ideals, imprinted within the chromosomes, but there are also in-built ideals much more difficult to define, that exist as, say, mental blueprints for the development of other kinds of abilities. I use the word mental, meaning that all species possess their own kinds of interior mental life, as opposed to the physical characteristics of plants or animals with which you are familiar. Your official views effectively close you off from the true evidence you might perceive of the cooperation that exists among the species, for example. Nor am I speaking of an enforced cooperation — the result of “instinct” that somehow arranges the social habits of the animals; for their habits are indeed social and cooperative.

Ruburt was recently scandalized upon reading that orthodox science still does not grant man with volition. According to its tenets, any such feeling of conscious choice is instead the reflection of the brain’s attitude at any given time. Yet I am saying that man has free will within the framework of his existence, and that all other species do also within the frameworks of their existences (underlined).

The chicken cannot read a book. It cannot choose to read. The plant cannot choose to walk down the street. The chicken and the plant can choose to live or die, however — rather important issues in the existence of any entity. They can choose to like or dislike their environment, and to change it according to their individual circumstances. It is fashionable to say that some scientific laws can be proven at microscopic levels, where, for example, small particles can be accelerated far beyond [their usual states]. But you quite studiously ignore that feeling exists on microscopic levels, that there can be psychological particles, much less come to the conclusion that all particles are psychological particles, with their own impetuses for development and value fulfillment. That is why atoms join together to form matter. They seek the fulfillment of themselves through form. They cooperatively choose the forms that they take.

Any scientist who believes that life has no meaning has simply provided himself with what he thinks of as an unfailing support against life’s vicissitudes. If he says: “Life has no meaning,” he cannot be disappointed if such is the case, for he is ensconced in a self-created cocoon that has meaning (underlined), because it provides a cushion against his deepest fears (all very intently).

Ruburt today read an article about gifted children — their background and development. Gifted children do not fit psychology’s picture. Gifted children do not fit the portrait of children that is sold to parents. The fact is that for many reasons gifted children merely show the latent quickness, mental agility, and curiosity and learning capacity, that is inherent in the species. They are not eccentric versions of humanity at all, but instead provide a hint of mankind’s true capacities.

Many children, for that matter, who are regarded as retarded by their teachers, are instead highly gifted. The same also applies to disruptive children, who are overactive and put on drugs. Their rebellion is quite natural. Autistic children, in many cases, now, are those who have picked up the idea that the world is so unsafe that it is better not to communicate with it at all, as long as their demands or needs are being met. When the child is fed and clothed and cared for, then it continues its behavior, and the behavior itself does (underlined) serve its needs.

First of all, if (underlined) a sperm carrying cancer entered a woman’s uterus, and if she had no intentions of getting the disease, her body’s own system would make the cancer completely ineffective. In the second place, however, referring to the article, that is not what happens to begin with — and I am somewhat at a loss to explain, simply because of certain invisible assumptions that it seems to me you must necessarily make.

Though scientists might find “cancer cells,” and though it might seem that cancer is caused by a virus, cancer instead involves a relationship, say, between what you might think of as a host and parasite, in those terms — and to some extent the same applies to any disease, including smallpox, though the diseases themselves may appear to have different causes completely. A host cell, say, is not simply attacked. It invites attack, though I am not pleased at all with the connotations of the word “attack.” I am trying to use words familiar to you to start.

It is not simply that a cell suddenly “relaxes its defenses” against disease. As easily as I can, I will try to explain. A cell mirrors a psychological state. A cell exists by itself, as its own entity, but also in context with all of the other cells in the body. There are literally uncountable psychological states mixing and interchanging constantly, with the overall psychological stance being one of biological integrity (colon): The organism holds together, maintains its functions, and so forth.

Your body is the physical mirror of your psychological state (quietly intent). It is powered by the energy of the universe. It actually springs into being in each moment. Your mind and your body come from the same source, from universal energy. You are powered with vitality. You must seek meaning in your lives. When you lose the sense of life’s meaning, for whatever reason, this is reflected in your body. (Pause.) It is very difficult to separate all of this from the many connotations placed about disease, and I do not want the material to be misread (still intently). Cancer, for example, has become the symbol for the body’s vulnerability, in current years — the proof of man’s susceptibility to the body. It is a disease that people have when they want to die — when they are ashamed to admit that they want to die, because death seems to fly against sane behavior. If the species struggles to survive, then how can individuals want to die?

(Pause.) That is all for this evening. A fond good evening to you both.