“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Since the 863rd session was held three weeks ago, Seth has given us but two regular sessions — both on subjects other than those for Mass Events — and two private sessions.

(According to him, tonight’s session after 9:52 isn’t book material either, but Jane and I are presenting it here because in it Seth returns to questions I’d asked earlier in Mass Events: What about the roles played in human affairs by viruses like smallpox? As I quoted myself in the opening notes for the 840th session: “What is the real relationship between the host organism and disease?” See Session 840 itself, and certain parts of Session 841.

(My questions had been rearoused because of an article I’d read a few days ago in a scientific journal; in their piece the authors explained that a certain significant percentage of women can develop cervical cancer from contact with a virus carried by the sperm of males who haven’t had vasectomies — or who haven’t been sterilized, in other words. I found the whole premise or situation strange indeed, I told Jane — that the male of our species actually has the potential to pass on cancer to the female. We’ve heard of the theory before, by the way — but transmitting cancer in such a fashion seems to be one of the most deadly results that can follow from the union of a man and a woman. We became intensely curious as to how Seth would explain the whole matter, and he gave us excellent information on it. The chances for ironies abound in our belief systems, I said to Jane. What if researchers next find out that in some as-yet-unsuspected manner, the female can in turn pass on a cancer-causing virus to her mate?

(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:

(Pause.) Each species is endowed with emotional feelings, immersed in an interior system of value fulfillment. Each species, again, then, is not only concerned with physical survival and the multiplication of its members, but [with] an intensification and fulfillment of those particular qualities that are characteristic of it.

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.

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.

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.

(Pause.) Your brains are not empty, but well-oiled machines ready to whirl into activity at your births. They are provided with a propensity to learn — and the rudiments of knowledge as you understand it exits within the brain (intently). In those terms, now, the brain thinks before birth. It does not simply react. Each individual has its own unique abilities. Some that involve relationships with others, you do not even have words for. Parents, however, often half-disapprove of their children if they show unusual gifts. They are afraid their children will not get along with others. They are upset because the children do not fit the norm — but no child ever fits “the norm.”

I am not speaking of greatness in terms of fame, or in terms of usually understood artistic or intellectual abilities alone, but also of people whose lives have the capacity for great emotional content. I am speaking also of other natural abilities — that of dream communication, the conscious utilization of dreams and creativity in daily life. There are dimensions of human sentiment and psychological experience, that remain latent simply because you focus your attention so closely within the idea of “the norm.” Any unofficial experience must then remain bizarre, eccentric, outside of your main concerns, and ignored by your sciences (quietly).

(9:52.) I will give the beginning of an answer (to my question about the relationship between the host organism and disease). You make your own reality. That should be your complete answer (with humor), but obviously it is not.

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.