“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(She was again very relaxed today. She’d also been picking up from Seth through the day some quite amused comments on a variety of subjects we’d mentioned, ranging from “carpets and health” to the “nature of the law, the connection between the law and ideals and their actualization; the reactions of Tam Mossman to our feelings about Fate Magazine,” etc.

Ideals are vital, for they provide an impetus toward beneficial action, action that is meant to lead to some actualization of that ideal in fact. An ideal represents events that do not as yet exist in fact. They should serve as plans for concentrated action.

Many ideals, however, must remain by their nature somewhat generalized, a matter of inspiration, for example, that cannot perhaps so easily be put into words; or sometimes the ideal exists simply as a yearning for a better situation, though no immediate steps come to mind that offer any concerted plan for action.

The ideal may be specific, then, or ill-defined, and man’s idea of “the good” varies considerably. The better you can define your idea of the ideal, the better off you are, for it—the definition—at least clears your own mind, and suggests lines of action too. “The best” idealist is a practical one—someone who realizes that most men like to work with specifics. Many might shy away from any philosophical discussions concerning the nature of “the good,” but many would also understand and appreciate the meaning of the word “better,” when applied to any situation.

You may not achieve ideal solutions with the law, but it should allow practical specific actualization, at least in part, of an ideal situation. You are both quite lucky, in that in your main work you can deal directly with the ideal. In writing and in painting you tackle it. The creative artist is always involved in the expression of the ideal, and his work expresses that ideal as best he can.

In the matter of publishing, or selling paintings, others are involved—others who very rarely in their lives experience that important encounter between, say, the self as actualized and the idealized sensed self, between the painting or the poem as an ideal and the actualization of that ideal. You cannot give such people a general impression of what you want. If you are concerned with such matters as covers that do not live up to your ideals of what covers should be, then you must begin your definitions. Ruburt has primarily been concerned with the ideal that is behind all of his books, and with the practical matter of getting those out into the world. (Pause.) He was willing to put up with a good deal to do so, to overlook lacks of taste in presentation, say.

(9.39.) You feel sometimes a visual outrage, because your natural ideals tend to follow the design and integrity, the lines and flowing patterns that belong to the nature of the universe. Some part of you feels that when such blatant distortions occur, as sometimes occur in the packaging of the books, that far greater invisible lacks of integrity lie buried within. Now that is true and not true, as you know—for ideally, how marvelous it would be if each person could indeed understand those balances and artistic lacks of balances when they appear.

On the other hand, of course, the very individuality implied in art itself tells you that even the ideal must follow its own eccentric patterns, and that man must find his own way out of his l-a-c-k-s (spelled). Ruburt, however, would rarely deal with such issues at all, though he was aware of them, so you felt you bore the brunt. You cannot expect Prentice to understand the nature of your own idealism, or Ruburt’s, in such a way that Prentice as an entity can apply that idealism to its packaging. Not unless you define, you specify. You get together, the two of you, on each issue, as it happens, and make your decision together, and stick by it. You have not done this before because each of you would become irritated at the other’s mode of behavior.

Ruburt felt that your idealism could threaten the practical distribution of the books, so that his idealistic purpose—to get those words out—could be held back. You felt that the lack of taste, and often of artistic integrity, was so blatant that it blighted the words themselves, marred the message. Both of you were concerned with the ideal. You felt Ruburt was being too “practical,” and would put up with almost anything, and he felt that you were being too impractical at times.

Do not think in terms of a generalized ideal situation, but in terms of better covers, better communication with Prentice in both friendly terms as per Ruburt’s calls to Tam, and in the definitive terms of clearly stating specific requests. Otherwise neither of you will be satisfied. Other companies may have more money to spend. Prentice is not a great trade publisher. Yet you will still be dealing with the same kinds of people, and Ruburt has done well as far as publishers are concerned, in handling innovative books published by the firm. Some other companies might well have exerted even more pressure to keep Ruburt writing along certain proven lines. They were also innovative, in their terms, in the publishing of material before the current interest in unofficial events.

(9:57. Jane laughed as she came out of trance. “I couldn’t do it, but I have the feeling that he could go on all night. You know, tie it all together. The law, Prentice, health, the poor and nationalized medicine, our ideals—and start doing it from any point you wanted him to.”

(Pause.) You appeared as both young men. Ruburt appeared as himself, and as Pat Norelli. The amphitheatre stands both for the world, and for the dramatic action of your lives, in which your ideals and aspirations are actualized or played out to whatever extent. The couples show your own double faces. One couple is brave, daring, assured, headed for the center of the stage. The other couple, while headed in the same direction, are frightened of the high ledge that must be covered, and afraid that it can lead to a dead end.

Pat was chosen symbolically, yet stands for a definite situation, when you two visited Boston on tour. At that time, Ruburt saw Pat, who is a teacher, and was traveling through belief systems with the greatest of ease, converting to Judaism and then out of it, and so forth. I spoke on television, and you were both appalled at the gulf between what you saw as the idealized message of our work, and the ludicrous (pause) lack of integrity of the environment in which that ideal was expressed. I am referring to the other performer, et cetera—the circumstances which you know well.

While still devoted to the ideal, you were both quite appalled, simplistically speaking. The brave portions of your personalities went on helping each other, as per the dream, until Pat Norelli, as Ruburt, easily working through belief systems stands center stage, ready to speak to other frightened portions of yourselves still on a high ledge. They begin to realize that everything is all right; they can come down or join the other couple.

I try my best (louder) to define and redefine your ideas of the ideal, so that you can achieve greater practical benefits, and feel some satisfaction with the actualization of at least portions of the ideal in daily life.