“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Nature took the place of the devil in an insidious sleight-of-hand that initially Darwin himself never expected. He wanted to show that God was not responsible for the world’s cruelties. Darwin loved nature in all of its aspects, yet he could not reconcile its beauties and splendors with the course of its events. He could not bear to see a cat play with a mouse, without blaming God who would permit such cruelty. He tried to wipe God’s hands clean, as he understood the nature of God through his early beliefs—but in so doing he wiped the soul from the face of nature.

To a large degree, however, and for many people, he did remove the idea of God’s injustice, even if he removed the image of God in the process. The idea of one God as a superman would not carry again the same weight as it had before. For your species, the questions behind the conventional God the father were at least brought out into the open.

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.

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.

To some extent the Freudian self, as per James, more or less followed the same pattern. A man could scarcely trust his neighbor if he agreed with Darwin or Freudian concepts. Behind any altruistic impulse there had to be a selfish gain. Before all of this, however, nature was seen as primarily passive—put here by God for man’s purpose, but without possessing the uniqueness or even approaching the status of man.

Ruburt went from a strict religion, embracing both Darwin finally, and Freud also, as liberators from old doctrines—not realizing of course that he was substituting one dogma for two, period.

Yet those terms influenced you both. You were involved in work that required growing trust of the self. Your painting required it, but Ruburt’s position required it still more. The self could be trusted least of all, however, so that Ruburt felt a necessity to criticize his procedure and performance, lest he was leading you and he both down a Freudian garden path.

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.

As a woman Ruburt was in a worse position than you from both theories. He took greater precautions, therefore. Now that is the climate in which you began our work.