“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

In a manner of speaking, the motives familiar to men are applied to the smallest microbe. More than this, however, the theory’s vast suggestive nature forms a framework through which people then view the experiences of their lives, and through whose focus the behavior of their own species seems determined.

In deepest terms the world had an outside only. It was empty inside. The soul or any remnant of it vanished, so that all of the action had to occur in an arena where competition ruled. Life was not trusted. You could be betrayed by your genes. There was no purpose in nature except its own mechanical reproduction. The individual had no importance, once it served its part in reproduction.

(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.

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.

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.

Ruburt’s eyes change constantly while improving overall. It may seem to you that this is indeed a very strange condition. Ruburt certainly finds it disconcerting at best, and at worst worrisome. The eyes, however, quite naturally in their motion are connected with all of the body’s other motions. They are healthily (underlined twice) responding.

Ruburt’s new attitudes and intentions to be responsive are renewing the body. The fears and anxieties of course do not help. They add tension. You are going ahead in spite of the worry. The entire jaw is being realigned to its natural and most ideal position. This is allowing all of the other bodily beneficial changes.

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.

Darwin managed to bring out nature’s complexity, though this had been mentioned by other men—I believe by a man called Mendel in particular. But Mendel did not catch man’s imagination. Darwin then brought nature to man’s focus in a new way, for before neither science or religion had dealt with it in a meaningful manner. The full sweep and extent of the natural world , with all of its seeming ambiguities, cruelties and splendors, had to be accepted as more than a passive package delivered into man’s hand.

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.

(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.