“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Now: the conscious mind legitimizes physical reality. It puts its stamp of approval upon those probabilities that are considered to be actual and real in your world. It does so according to your beliefs, and the mass mold of your beliefs is formed as you learn from parents and teachers what to expect in the nature of events.

These habits become quite ingrained. They operate very smoothly. Now when anyone is involved particularly in formal experiments dealing with, say, PK, you run into cross activity in that respect. The conscious mind is set up by your belief systems to believe that PK effects are impossible, or at the best highly improbable.

(Pause.) If such an individual can convince himself or herself that somehow the entire affair is more in the nature of a game, then you can have at times some success, because in a game the conscious mind is willing to make allowances, and to “pretend.” In a good variety of cases, however, the formal experiment itself sets up a barrier, for the conscious mind is being asked to cooperate in a venture that it considers nearly an impossibility.

(Pause at 9:20.) This opinion is backed up, you see, by the habitual use of accustomed neurological activity, and even while such an individual may agree that PK is possible at certain levels, there is a kind of neurological prejudice built in. Added to that is the conscious mind’s position as the arbiter of actuality. This in particular applies to events like metal bending of silverware or whatever.

The same applies to the conscious mind itself, which is not programmed in the same fashion to be the arbiter of microscopic events. It does not feel overly threatened, then, despite this, in many instances there will still be some blockage of PK effects. That blockage may still allow a kind of displacement targeting, however, in which case inner abilities are allowed to operate, but in a rather sabotaged way—not hitting the target with which the conscious mind is so familiar or concentrated upon, but hitting another microscopic target instead, in which effects are then noticeable.

It is the conscious mind as it is trained in your society that deals with black and white thinking, apropos of one of your questions. The connection between black and white thinking and creativity is legitimate, but it exists the other way around: as a rule the artist or creative person is (underlined) creative to the extent that he or she escapes black and white thinking, for the creative person deals with syntheses, original versions of reality and the consideration of different groups of probabilities—groups that appear otherwise very unlikely together from the standpoint of black and white thinking.

(Long pause.) The motion of microscopic events always involves probabilities, which are at the heart of your world, and healings always involve activity at that level also. To divert the conscious mind can therefore be of great import —enjoying television, relaxing in whatever fashion, allows the desired activity to occur. That is why such diversions are so beneficial. On some occasions company can provide the same service. Ruburt should therefore try to divert his mind more. His ink sketches serve that capacity. Television also.

(Pause.) In your creativity you both largely avoid black and white thinking, and automatically leap out of that framework. The conscious mind is quite willing to let go in that regard, for art not only provides it with enjoyment but fulfills its own framework of action. It does not regard art as a game, exactly, but it does not expect the same rules to apply, either, to a painted apple on a canvas and a real one.