“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Jane received her first copy of Cézanne Saturday morning. Tonight she began reading the appendix material I’ve done on Volume 2 of “Unknown” Reality. The evening was very hot and humid.

(Appendix 12 for Volume 2 is on evolution; I was surprised to realize that Jane’s reading it today had apparently triggered Seth’s material here.)

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.

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.

Why then did such a theory originate? Darwin was initially a religious man. Like many others, his religious background held out nonsensical propositions. It saw a good God, a just savior, who nevertheless never thought twice about sending down death and destruction as punishment for sin.

Darwin was faced with the proposition of a kind god who was more cruel than any human being, and with supernatural power behind him to boot—so Darwin tried to justify God’s ways to man.

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.

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.

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.

(10:36.) I want to show you where culture and cultural beliefs meet with your private experience. Ruburt’s body needed more challenge. Before this latest episode that upset him showed, Important releases in the hip sockets occurred, with hardly any notice on his part. Little inconvenience. The amount of new motion there was minute but vitally important if his stance upward were to improve.

(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.

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.

Your own behavior with your parents, with Ruburt, your attitudes toward your painting and outside jobs, Ruburt’s attitudes toward children, his work and you—all of these were so influenced. You set up defenses, privately and jointly, providing justifications, so that you could do your own thing, and “hold your head up” in the world of those beliefs. When you wanted to quit your job you became ill so that no one could blame you. That was years ago, when you were working full time. This would give you parental acceptance.

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.

Your preoccupation with Ruburt’s condition, however, was beneficial for a while, because it upset the status quo, shook him up, and started him more firmly in the proper physical direction. It should not continue, however. It was necessary to unite you both.