“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

In the psychological realm it goes without saying that a repressed emotion is never really repressed, since action cannot be retained. It must change. The cause of such difficulties lies not in the repression of an emotion, for this is impossible. The emotion in one way or another, will out, but the difficulty lies in the attempt to repress the emotion. This attempt is itself an action.

There is a term used occasionally to the effect that an emotional block is like a wall. The analogy is an excellent one. I have told you earlier that there are other kinds of structures beside physical structures. Emotions and thoughts have their own structures, that may be manipulated in the same manner that physical objects are manipulated, generally speaking.

An action has reality, as you know, within every possible field of activity. An emotion has an electrical and chemical structure. This is extremely important. It is not a structure that takes up space as you know it, obviously, but it is a structure nevertheless, and could be compared to the appearance of dream locations.

Emotions are a quite natural portion of action, and left to themselves are fluid. They have electrical validity, and shape. When an attempt is made to reject an emotion, this does not affect the emotion half as much as it affects the individual involved. The act of rejection in itself is detrimental and doomed to failure.

If you toss a ball in a dream, neither the self that tosses the ball, nor the ball, exist in any space structure as you know it. In somewhat the same manner are emotion structures handled. A refusal or a denial, an attempt not to handle a particular emotional structure involves action. The refusal itself is an action.

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.

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.