“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Tuesday night, June 22,1965, I had another clairvoyant dream which came to pass the next morning on my way to work. I believe it is a case of suggestion, given by a dream, then influencing my behavior, unwittingly, the next day. I hoped aloud that Seth would discuss it tonight, but as in my dream mentioned in the 160th session, he did not. I record all dreams I recall, as does my wife.

Such actions naturally possess all the characteristics of action in general, and therefore will seek other methods of materialization and expression. An attempt at discipline will be made. The structure will seem, that is the impeding structure will seem, to maintain itself. The whole personality at any given time, because of its own nature and characteristics, has only a given amount of energy available to it in practical terms, though ideally speaking its energy is not limited.

It is, momentarily, literally accepted by the personality as a part of the self, and here lies its danger. It is not just symbolically accepted, and I am not speaking in symbolic terms. The impeding action, as seen in an illness for example, is quite literally accepted by the personality structure, and by all corresponding systems, as a portion of the self. Once this occurs, a conflict instantly develops. The self does not want to give up a portion of itself, even while that portion may be painful or disadvantageous. There are many psychological reasons behind such a psychological truth.

Even a quick and automatic rejection or withdrawal from such stimulus is in itself a way by which consciousness knows itself. The ego may attempt to ignore or escape from such experiences, but the basic nature of action itself is the knowing of itself in all aspects; and in a basic manner, in a very basic and deep manner, action does not differentiate between pleasant, painful or enjoyable actions.

These differentiations come much later and on another level, and in a later evolutionary development. But because the personality is composed of action, the personality also contains within it this characteristic of action, in that it accepts all sensations as expressions of itself, and does not discriminate between stimuli.

Action accepts all stimuli in an affirmative manner. It is only when action becomes compartmented, so to speak, in the development of highly differentiated consciousness, that such refinement occurs. I am not here saying that unpleasant stimuli will not be felt as unpleasant, and reacted against, by less self-conscious organisms. I am saying that less self-conscious organisms will rejoice even in their automatic reaction against such stimuli, because any stimuli and reaction represents sensation, and sensation is another method by which such action knows and expresses itself.

On a very basic level, as consciousness with a self (but no conscious “I” exists in the most minute division of consciousness), all action and all sensations and all stimuli are instantly and automatically and joyfully accepted, regardless of their nature. At this level no knowledge of threat exists.

The complicated organism which is the human personality with its physical structure, has evolved, along with many other structures, a highly differentiated “I” consciousness, whose very nature is such that it attempts to preserve the apparent boundaries of identity. To do so it chooses between actions, for the very choice, or act of choosing, and ability to do so, represents the nature of identity. But beneath this sophisticated gestalt are the simpler foundations of its being, and indeed the very acceptance of all stimuli without which identity would be impossible.

Without any acceptance of painful stimuli the structure could never maintain itself, for the atoms and molecules within the structure constantly accept painful stimuli, and suffer even joyfully, their own destruction; being aware of their own separateness within action, and aware of their reality within all action, and not having complicated “I” structures to maintain, there is no reason for them to fear destruction.

They are aware of themselves as a part of action, and therefore through capsule comprehension, which we have discussed, the simple atoms and molecules are aware of their own basic immortality. All this is basic knowledge, if you would understand why the personality accepts even an impeding action, or pain or illness, as a part of itself, despite the ego’s resistance to pain.

In this case the illness could not be called an impeding action, unless it persisted long after its purpose was served. Even then, without knowing all the facts surrounding the personality, you could make no judgment, for the illness could still serve by giving the personality a sense of security, being kept on hand, so to speak, as an ever-present emergency device in case the new unifying principle should fail.

Indeed, oftentimes they serve to preserve the integrity of the whole psychological system, and to point out the existence of inner problems. Often they serve temporary functions, leading the personality from other more severe areas of difficulty. I am not here saying that all illness is good. I am saying that illness is a portion of the action of which any personality is composed, and therefore it is purposeful, and cannot be considered as an alien force that attacks the personality from without.

Without the choice there would be no personality. The exaltations and triumphs of the personality are as much a result of this ability to choose between actions, as are its illnesses and disasters. In almost all cases, impeding actions are the result of a refusal to allow action to flow unhampered in certain directions. It seeks other outlets, and these outlets are caused by fear.

(End at 11:00. Jane was again well dissociated. Her delivery had been fast, her eyes closed all the time, her voice good.)