“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(10:05.) Give us a moment.... You cannot say that any of Ruburt’s attitudes were “wrong,” nor can you say in larger terms that his method was “wrong.” You cannot say, and should not, place moral connotations in such situations. Each personality is different, and affects the body in a different way. You think of health as physical only. If you think in terms of an unhealthy relationship, for example, then you may at least begin to glimpse the ways in which individuals will seek prerogatives, so each case must be seen separately.

In normal terms in life, while the conditions for life are given, the nature of physical time means that practically speaking life will be full of surprises, for in usual terms you do not know what will happen tomorrow. In that context people take “risks.” They set up prerogatives. They do not usually concentrate with the same intensity in all areas of their lives, so there is seldom what you might think of as any ideal balance. If your health is bad enough, of course, you will die. If you are poor enough, of course, you will starve, or freeze to death in the wintertime. If you are lonely enough you may go mad, as people do in isolation cells.

In between excellent health and death through disease, in between wealth and perhaps gluttony, and poverty and starvation, in between a glittering social existence, the comfort of a family, and the utter loneliness of isolation, there are literally infinite variations and gradations of behavior, according to individual differences and prerogatives. Most of this refers to your question, and is by way of giving you a fuller explanation.

In those terms, the subconscious can consider the health of a relationship quite as important as the health of the body, or even more so. It will go along with enforced starvation, deprivation, or whatever, if the individual in mind is in pursuit of something else that it feels it must have to insure its existence.

In those terms, when the subconscious considers health, it must also take into consideration the individual’s strong intents, in which case it is insuring the mental and emotional health in a somewhat different fashion.

(10:22.) I simply want to stress that health in those terms does involve more. The “subconscious” will try to save an individual from great disappointment. This may mean the incidence of a disease, but the disease may save a person’s sanity. So the issues are not nearly as clear as it would at first seem.

He wanted to use his intuitive abilities fully, but felt that great caution must be used. He thought mainly of the health of your relationship together, and the health of his work. He became divided, seeing these as opposing tendencies in his personality, rather than as complementary ones that quite naturally met in his personality, so one was set against the other. Much of this appears in your pendulum work of late, but you both then project those ideas upon the world, so that you think of your readers as overly credulous, or of critics who are overly critical. This leads of course to people who are for you, but dumb; or against you but intellectual.

If this were not so, the subconscious would not only see to it that the body was in ordinary good health under any conditions, but it would automatically refuse to allow any individual to put its health in jeopardy.

Now there are some people who consider overall balance a prerogative, and you will usually find them in decent health, with average concerns, and you will not find them taking risks. The subconscious does not exist, of course. “It” is a highly personalized portion of the self, uniquely tuned. Some people enjoy risks. The body may be in excellent health, and die that way in an accident. But the subconscious knows that the quality of life for that individual involves such exhilaration, and such a person literally chooses that rather than, for example, what someone else might consider a well-balanced long life.