“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

The theory, then, is a way of organizing experience, a suggestive hypothesis. It is indeed no more than a point of view. It has colored man’s societies and cultures since its inception. It has dominated economical systems. In that regard, for example, James was quite correct: certain religious societies interpreted the theme so that it read “evolution of the soul”; but there is no soul in Darwinian theory and hereditary, and certainly none in the environment.

Suggestion not only impels toward action, but causes you to interpret action in a given manner. In strict Darwinian terms, man and animal alike had to be turned aggressively outward in the most competitive of physical ways. A new achievement on the part of a species, or any mutation occurred, occurred as the direct result of personal experience—and of course no information was available otherwise.

The value of the artist was deprecated. Contemplation had little part to play. As per James, it was no coincidence that the beliefs of Freud and Darwin merged so well to form western society’s idea of the self, physically and psychologically. The ideas of financial competition, advocated, came into direct conflict, Joseph, with your own inclinations to be an artist. The ideas of manliness in your society, particularly in past years, were directly tied in with Darwinian concepts and Freudian theory. They operated as suggestion that directed the actions of millions of people, and provided a framework through which they experienced their reality.

Now when either of you, or both of you, feel that there might be something wrong in spending your time thinking, writing, painting, or worse, daydreaming, you feel that way because your way of life meets some conflict from old Darwinian and Freudian beliefs: you should be out there in the world—active, competing, or even just riding bicycles.

For example, Ruburt’s latest status, and your somewhat natural concern with the temporary walking difficulty—you know what I am referring to—I say to you that the concern is natural; for it certainly seems so to both of you. You have little idea, however, how sometimes the most natural-seeming reactions are not natural at all, but programmed. An animal, say, in Ruburt’s position, feeling as much new activity in the body, new motion in the knees, new elasticity in the ligaments, would quite naturally accept the improvements with physical elation, even if it had more difficulty one day, or two, than it had in days previous. It would sense the body’s interstate condition. It would not worry, but would exercise whatever new motions were possible. It would take it for granted that its body knew what it was doing. It would not be hampered by remnants of Darwinian or Freudian concepts.

The work of the jaws necessitates the actions occurring, and if the new jaws end up with new teeth (humorously), that must not be considered a failure or a tragedy. That fear is precisely what keeps Ruburt from saving the teeth so far. The teeth business has to do also with Darwinian concepts of age, with thought of the animal not surviving, and in your world that is ridiculous. The fears behind the fears are groundless. He must not be so afraid, then, of losing the teeth—and then perhaps he can save them. But in any case you both lay highly negative and unwarranted suggestions in that area.

(10:58.) Darwinian concepts allowed the passage of no knowledge from one generation to another that was not genetically transmitted. It did not understand the inner communication of the animals, and certainly it did not admit any altruistic animal intent.

(11:10–11:43.) Now: even before you met each other many of your private abilities, and the thrust of your intellects and intuitions, made no sense in Darwinian or Freudian terms. This applies to you both.

In those terms, what value is there in any love of contemplation for its own sake? You hastened, Joseph, to put your talent to the proper Darwinian and Freudian goals: to make money, and to compete. Understand, I am not saying there is anything wrong with making money or in competition, say—only when these become primary so that other stronger individual drives must necessarily be put in secondary or third place.

In Darwinian and Freudian terms, certainly later your joint and private pursuits literally made no sense, nor did they conform to any organized religious framework. Many of your difficulties came as your own natural impulses and natural inclinations conflicted with both Darwinian and Freudian concepts.

Illness is a face-saving device, socially, often occurring where private beliefs and feelings find irritation with mass beliefs. Our sessions began, and you managed to make other changes or compromises: you worked part time, and so did Ruburt. This had some advantages, but also many points of conflict. When either of you were offered jobs with advancement, you avoided them like the plague—idiotic behavior in Darwinian and Freudian terms.

That young psychologist brought all those doubts to the surface. He was young, and following Darwinian and Freudian concepts both, he was therefore vigorous and to be trusted, where Dr. Instream was in his dotage.

(12:01.) You have learned much, but until lately you always interpreted your position in the light of Darwinian and Freudian concepts. You want the books to sell well. That is natural. Your natures however are not particularly competitive. There is no reason to feel that you should (underlined three times) “be out there selling books.” You naturally both concentrate on ideas. Left alone, that concentration will naturally seek expression, amplification, and might result in, say, if you wanted it, some tours. But many of your ideas there are your attempts to bring your work into Darwinian terms.