“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

What you have here is an attempt to objectify, or stand apart from action in such a refusal. This is not the fault of the subconscious, but a fault of the ego, which refuses to assimilate or accept a given action. As you know, it is the ego who exists as a result of such objectivity. All the qualities that make up the ego are objectified to that degree, but they are collected about the ego with the ego as center. When the ego however refuses to accept an emotion as a part of itself, it tries one of two actions.

Either it attempts to return the emotion to a subjective state, or it attempts to objectify it further away from itself. In either case the ego is at fault for not assimilating or accepting the emotion. It is easy to see then that the ego is itself a series of actions, that it is a collection of more or less similar actions, selected from a larger mainstream of other actions.

You will recall that the ego, while disliking change, is nevertheless dependent for its identity upon change. The ego to a large degree, therefore, chooses during its development those characteristic actions which will form its nature. Because the ego necessarily changes however, actions or emotions which at one time it chose as acceptable, at a later date so to speak it may attempt to deny.

The habitual pattern or characteristic nature of the ego may then be led to refuse to accept an emotion, at the same time that a pattern has already been set to receive the particular type of emotion. Here the ego fights against itself. Such an emotion may of course be given release through dreams, but this is of limited value to the ego involved, since the ego does not accept the reality of dream existence.

The strength of the ego actually depends on the flexibility with which it can accept and assimilate ever more complex actions, and give them a unity of its own. An action or emotion not accepted by the ego, but nevertheless a part of it, will always drain energy from the main core of the ego, despite the ego’s denial, and energy that cannot therefore be used by the ego for the purposes of its own purposeful action.

The rejected emotion, in other words, will express itself in any case, but it will do so then as a rebel, outside of the organizational directives of the ego itself. Hence for example, actions that appear senseless to the ego are often the results of such unassimilated or denied emotions. At one time or another such emotions were acceptable to the ego. There was an attraction, or the emotion would not have been permitted to enter into a realm close to ego control.

Inclinations with which the ego has very little liking, for example, are very seldom a problem for the ego, since they remain generally outside of the ego pattern, never having been chosen by it to form a characteristic part of the ego pattern. Obviously, to some degree every conceivable sort of inclination is latent to the ego, but it is apparent that each ego has its peculiar set of adopted characteristics, its set of characteristics that it sometimes accepts and sometimes rejects; and it is obvious that some characteristics simply seem alien to any given ego.

It is therefore with the second alternating group of characteristics that most such problems arise. An ego who can, and has at one time or another accepted as part of itself a violent and unruly desire to kill, for example, will not automatically reject the emotion of hatred. He may dislike it, but he will recognize it as a part of himself during whatever period it is assimilated. An ego which once accepted such an idea of violence, and knew it as a possibility of action, such an ego, if he then rejects the conception, can no longer afford, ever, to recognize this once acceptable emotion, for he is only too aware of the action that could have at one time developed.

It is in this area that such conflicts arise. The man, or ego, who has never really accepted such violence as a part of his action pattern, will usually have no conflicts in this particular line, simply because the inclination was never a strong part of the ego’s inner image, and is more or less discarded automatically, along with all those other characteristics or inclinations which are not in his ego pattern.

This is obviously somewhat simplified, in that the ego constantly changes, and the above examples must be read carefully or their meaning could be misinterpreted. Actions may appear to be separate, but they are all part of other actions, this being of course the basis for all organization, including that of the ego and the inner self.

Groupings of actions of any kind merge into other groupings, both within the physical field and outside of it. All apparent units are merely formed by functions, the functions of action. In this context the ego is also a function of action. There are of course also functions within functions, which should be obvious.

The ego itself attempts as its function to be the director and center of other functions. The ego, while considering itself apart from action, is obviously not apart from it. As dreams allow the inner self great freedom, and as in dreams great perspectives of time are available, and great freedom in space, though no space as you know it is involved, so it is possible for the ego itself to achieve the experience of freedom from time and space, if it would only allow itself for a short while to relax the intensity of its objective focus.

It could still do this and retain its own nature, merely by allowing into its awareness the reality of other actions as a part of its self-image. There is for example no basic reason why the subconscious and the ego cannot communicate to a much larger extent than is now usual. Such communication would result in the acceptance of additional energy and action by the ego, and an expansion of the ego’s self-image.

It was necessary for the ego, in its origins, to objectify itself as much as possible. Now however the stability of the ego, generally speaking, as a part of the human personality is established. It can now afford to be much more elastic, to include, in other words, more and more of reality within its awareness. Such an inclusion would be most beneficial. It would of course however to some extent change the ego, and any change is resisted by the ego.

Nevertheless the course of future events will move in this direction. It must. The ego must change in this rather basic manner, including other realities within its scope of awareness. There is no basic reason why it cannot add its directive energies to other aspects of the personality, and if it could so expand it would, theoretically, be possible for the ego to become aware of many experiences which have been impossible for it in the past.

The hope and the possibilities here, as well as some of the dangers, lie in the fact that the ego does indeed change, and is not one specific reality but a series or group of actions, with direction, that have the potentiality for unlimited value fulfillment. The ego will never be less than it is now. It may very well be more. Possibilities for development here are very great, but most such possibilities lie still in the future, and only, so far, as possibilities. There is nothing that will force the ego to enlarge the scope of its awareness.