“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(I also planned to start reviewing the first deleted sessions Seth gave on Jane’s symptoms, for I’ve never really forgotten them and always felt they were as good as any Seth has ever given on those subjects. The main one, the breakthrough session as I think of it, was the 367th for October 1, 1967. I read it over just before tonight’s session began, and was able to reaffirm my opinion that it’s still one of the best; at the same time it aroused questions, for it deals with causes in the past. According to Seth’s suggested use of the point of power, and his late deleted material, one isn’t supposed to dwell on the past, but go forward from the present—two major blocks of material, I told Jane this evening, that at first glance seem to contradict each other.

(At this writing at least I plan to spend evenings typing new session material, and in the time left over to restudy the past material in the hopes of putting it all together with and/or without Seth’s help. But out of this work I expect our questions for Seth will come. I’m deeply troubled by Jane’s condition, and by what I regard as her strange passivity in the face of it; clues to this attitude exist in the 367th session. I’m sure my own role in the whole thing is a strong one, and that in my own way I’m as badly off as she is, although it may not show physically.

(Jane too read over the 367th session before the session this evening. It seems that essentially our situation is unchanged, 12 years later, which doesn’t say much for our learning capacities, I’m afraid. When the session began I half expected Seth to tell us to stay away from old deleted sessions, since as mentioned delving into the past can cause too intense a focus there, and reinforce problems, whatever they may be. But he didn’t. I said to Jane later that it seems Seth will tailor his material to suit our needs and/or moods of the moment, which may be one of the ways to integrate blocks of his material into a larger whole, which can display many facets or approaches.)

Perfectionists, however, not only take a dim view of problems, but consider each one a blot, a proof of inferiority in themselves or others and they see such blots everywhere. They are in a certain fashion overly conscientious, and they fear spontaneity lest it be less than perfect. They fear flaws.

This session you read (the 367th) applied mostly to Ruburt, yet you also have what I will call an overly conscientious self in battle with the spontaneous self (a fact I’m well aware of, and had discussed with Jane before tonight’s session). You have actually grown somewhat more spontaneous. Why not—since Ruburt was nicely expressing the overly conscientious selves of both of you?

No one can completely do that for anyone else, of course, so you have your own struggles with spontaneity. Ruburt’s spontaneous self was by far the most active, and so his defenses against it, as the overly conscientious self, were more obvious than yours.

Your struggles earlier, before you met Ruburt, involved relationships, in that you had no deep ones, allowing yourself to become close to no one. When you fell in love with Ruburt, a part of you was appalled, for it felt it must hold itself ever aloof—and in those days Ruburt’s spontaneous self often met a response from your overly conscientious self, so that you appeared cold to him, and in repelling his spontaneity you were of course frightened to reveal your own.

(9:55.) You showed him often the face of the overly conscientious self.

Ruburt’s condition, in a way, stops you from hurting others. If you close the door in the world’s face, it is because Ruburt cannot walk properly. The overly conscientious self on both of your parts to a strong degree becomes a composite personality. Its beliefs are invisible because you accept them unthinkingly. The next few old sessions should be read. You have both largely, except in your work, now, cut spontaneity from your lives; your habits are so set.

In that regard you do not challenge yourselves, and to that extent your work also suffers. Instead of (hypnotic) advisors, try to set up a dialogue, each of you, with the overly conscientious self, reminding it that spontaneity knows its own order—and that its defenses are overdone, with the best of good intent.

You must think in terms of surprises, of spontaneity, of changed rhythms. Between now and our next session, read that group of old ones, and each of you attempt to reach your own overly conscientious self.

Behind all of this is the feeling that exposure is dangerous, that your true feelings must be hidden, and that the world is unsafe—hence your need for defenses. Read this session also over together, and follow all the suggestions I have given you.