“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(When I began to learn about my own symptoms, I started taking steps whereby I could present the same idea—of a man facing himself—in other ways, and shortly evolved several quite acceptable ways, that were in harmony with my ideas of pictorial form, permanence, etc. This experience was quite revealing. It taught me to consider all portions of the personality—its needs, desires, creative drives and expressions, etc., and I intuitively linked this up with Jane’s problems. It began to seem very clear to me that this was what she must do.

(This is excellent information, and as has happened before where Seth discusses art, implies knowledge that I don’t believe Jane would express in such terms.

(Note that I had progressed this far on my own with the pendulum, but I hadn’t reached a full understanding of the contents of the first paragraph, above. I’d had some glimmerings, but hadn’t expressed any of them to Jane.)

(“I didn’t want to be rigid in my ideas, and the way I expressed them.”)

(“I thought this painting would allow me more of an expression of fantasy than I usually permit myself.”)

You can accept completely abstract work, and do it well, though you would not be satisfied with it for a great time. (True.) This sort of a painting however, that uses figures or objects, but not in representational form, bothers you, while you are strongly attracted in sketches of the same nature. There is no dilemma: you allow the intuitive self spontaneous expression in those sketches. It is only when you transpose the same ideas onto painting and a more permanent form that you become uneasy.