“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

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.

(10:05.) These ideas went a long way to justify later scientific experiments that involved giving pain to animals, for example: nature itself had no feeling. It was seen in human terms as inhumane: life without reason, life with no purpose except its own repetition, life in which the individual was dispensable. Many people cannot operate under that kind of system. The individual shouts that his life does indeed have meaning, while the scientists until now have vehemently stated otherwise.

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.

Any animal would rather be running and physically vigorous than not. But when an animal’s improving, he goes along with the improvement. If Ruburt suddenly walked more poorly than usual, as for the last few days, showing no other signs of obvious beneficial change, then that would be something else. There are natural bodily reactions, however, and psychological reactions that may seem natural, but that often are contrary to the body’s knowledge, and that can block that knowledge with the sense of reassurance that it can bring.

Animals have their own culture. They understand it differently, however, but it is taken into consideration in physical terms. You are doing very well, and your own beliefs are changing, Joseph, perhaps in greater fashion than you realize. The idea of Ruburt’s teeth should be dropped, however. The concern over the matter becomes far more an impediment than any actual loss of his teeth. Yes, beliefs could save the rest of them—but both of your interpretations about teeth at this point hold you back.

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.