“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

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.

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.

Now, however, you understand the reason why even an impeding action is literally accepted by the personality as a portion of the self, and why therefore efforts must be made that will coax the personality to give up any portion of itself, if progress is to be made. Once the personality can understand that an illness has been accepted as a portion of the self, then even the ego will be an aid.

The longer the impeding action is accepted as a part of the self, the more serious the problem. The impeding action or illness however is not a part of the basic personality structure, or action gestalt, which is composed of action patterns formed since birth. Compared to this truly astounding structure, that is the result of the memory of every atom and molecule, this impeding action is relatively unimportant, and when correct methods are used, it can be dislodged without too much difficulty.

The peculiar nature of the impeding action or illness has much to do with its persistence. The whole focus of the personality can shift from constructive areas to a concentration of main energies in the area of the impeding action or illness. In such a case the illness actually represents a new unifying system. Now, if the old unifying system of the personality has broken down, the illness, serving as a makeshift, temporary emergency measure, may hold the integrity of the personality intact until a new constructive unifying principle replaces the original.

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.

It is therefore impossible to consider an impeding action, such as an illness, without taking into consideration the particular structure-unifying devices, subconscious and conscious personality tendencies.

In other words, an action cannot be judged as an impeding one without a thorough knowledge of the other actions that result in the makeup of any given personality. This is extremely important. To overlook this point is to risk the adoption on the part of the personality of a more serious illness.

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.

I will at various times use as an example your friend’s ulcer, simply because the ulcer represents an excellent example of an impeding action or illness. It must therefore be clearly understood that an impeding illness is a creation of the personality itself. The very effectiveness and nature of the personality, and health of the personality, is dependent upon the manner in which it handles its ability to choose between various kinds of action.

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.

This attempt forms the ego, and is itself action. If illness were thrust upon action, or upon the personality from the outside, then the personality would be at the mercy of outside agencies.

An illness can be rejected by the personality. The habit of illness can be rejected. Illness is sometimes in the overall, however, beneficial. A given illness, that is, may be beneficial. When action is allowed to flow freely, then neurotic rejections of action will not occur; and it is neurotic rejections of action that often cause unnecessary illnesses.

For we will be involved here with a definite classification as to when an illness is beneficial and when it is detrimental. This will be most important. An illness is almost always the result of another action that cannot be carried through.

When the lines to the original action are released and the channels opened to it, the illness will vanish. In some cases however, you see, the thwarted action may be one with disastrous consequences, which the illness may prevent. The personality has a logic of its own. We will be involved for many sessions to come with these problems, for they are of basic value, and practical value.

We will, then, later discuss the manner in which the difference can be seen between a beneficial illness, and a severely detrimental one. We will see how a temporarily necessary illness can be greatly lessened, and the symptoms minimized, while the illness is still retained as a temporary emergency measure, and then gradually allowed to disappear when its presence becomes unnecessary.

We will also see how an unnecessary and detrimental illness, that does not serve such a purpose, can be dismissed.

I will now end the session, but it will indeed serve as a basis for many discussions, concerning the relationship between action, suggestion, personality, illness and health.