“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(After supper Jane offered to have a session for me because during the day I’d had a number of recurrences of the panic feelings in my chest. The first one came early this morning after I’d shoveled but a few scoops of snow in the driveway—no work involved at all, really, but I had to quit for fear of having an “attack” of some kind.

(Jane surprised me by mentioning a session at about 7:40. By the time she called me to sit for it, it was 8:35—and her mood had changed. Before she’d felt “clear-headed.” Now she had questions, and wished we’d gone right into the session as soon as she had mentioned it. As we waited for the session to begin, I read her the first questions I’d noted down from rereading the 367th session—Seth’s first comprehensive session on her symptoms, and one that’s been referred to rather often lately. I still want to study all of those early personal sessions, but haven’t progressed far because of all the new material we’ve been getting lately. But they’re always there, waiting. I didn’t expect Seth to go into my written questions this evening, although he did refer to several of them, if rather obliquely....)

The material that came from “Unknown” today—you disagreed with the type of lettering, if I understand properly. Now, that is legitimate as an artistic judgment—but it is illegitimate as a moral judgment. There is nothing wrong or inferior about the people at Prentice, who made the “improper” artistic decision. It is not immoral or wrong not to have excellent artistic judgment. The people involved are in an art department. They are individuals, doing their best to develop their abilities and their lives—but your indignation was moral in narrow terms, rather than in quite acceptable artistic ones. You do this often.

Ruburt does it when he reads poor material. He immediately makes a moral judgment against a poet whose material is artistically poor. The person involved may indeed have difficulty artistically in expression, and an artistic revulsion can then be quite acceptable, but not a moral one.

Now you have even made—both of you, now—the same kind of moral, or I should say immoral, judgments about Ruburt’s condition, which with your joint perfectionism is doubly appalling. You see it as morally wrong, not simply a physically poor condition, but a morally reprehensible one, reflecting upon Ruburt’s integrity, his knowledge, his understanding.

(8:52.) You judge the world, but in far more rigorous terms morally than either of you really realize. Your beliefs exist in the present. I will always go into back material, or the past when you request it, for it is important that you understand I am never evasive in that regard. But the overly conscientious selves are not separate versions of you, really. The division is one I use to make certain points.

(9:15 PM. I might add that I don’t think I for one believe any longer that worrying is the answer to very much, as Seth says Jane and I still believe, nor do I think that fear is going to act as a stimulus to positive action. I’ve disabused myself of such thoughts, with Seth’s considerable help. I still worry, obviously, but have no illusions about it helping anything. The call to Prentice today was an effort to free one area of life. I told Jane today that this week I’d pay our taxes a few days ahead of time—another effort to get free....)