“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

“This is the difference between repression and positive action. In repression the resentment is shoved beneath and ignored. With our method it is recognized, imaginatively plucked out as being undesirable, and replaced by the thought of peace and constructive energy.” (Seth has frequently cautioned me against repressing aggressions out of fear of them. Rob says that it is quite funny—to him!—when Seth, speaking through me, takes me to task in this way. His suggestions have always been excellent, however.)

“All illness is momentarily accepted by the personality as a part of the self, and here lies its danger. It is not just symbolically accepted, and I am not speaking in symbolic terms. An impeding action such as an illness is quite literally accepted by the personality structure, and once this occurs, a conflict develops. The self does not want to give up a portion of itself, even while that portion may be painful or disadvantageous. There are many reasons behind this.

Now Seth comes to this point, very important in his theories: “This acquiescence to even painful stimuli is a basic part of the nature of consciousness. Action does not differentiate between pleasant, painful, or joyful stimuli. These distinctions come much later, and on another level [here Seth is considering personality as composed of energy or action].

“Action accepts all stimuli in an affirmative manner. It is only when it becomes compartmented, so to speak, in the highly differentiated consciousness that such refinements occur. I am not saying that unpleasant stimuli will not be felt as unpleasant and reacted against in less self-conscious organisms. I am saying that they will rejoice even in their automatic reaction, because any stimuli and reaction represents sensation, and sensation is a method by which consciousness knows itself.

“The complicated human personality with its physical structure has evolved, along with some other structures, a highly differentiated ‘I’ consciousness [the ego, in other words], whose very nature is such that it attempts to preserve the apparent boundaries of identity. To do so it chooses between actions. But beneath this sophisticated gestalt are the simpler foundations of its being, and indeed the very acceptance of all stimuli without which identity would be impossible.

“Without this acquiescence to even painful stimuli, the structure would never maintain itself, for the atoms and molecules within it constantly accept such stimuli, and joyfully suffer even their own destruction. Being aware of their identity within all action, and not having the complicated ‘I’ structure, there is no reason for them to fear destruction. They are aware of themselves as a part of action.

“Now all of this is basic knowledge if you would understand why the personality accepts even an impeding action such as illness despite the ego’s resistence to pain.”

“The whole focus of the personality can shift from constructive areas to a concentration of main energies in the area of the impeding action, or illness. In such a case, the illness actually represents a new unifying system. Now, if the old unifying system of the personality is broken down, the illness serving as a makeshift temporary emergency measure may hold the integrity of the personality intact until a new, constructive unifying principle replaces the original.

“Unifying principles are groups of actions about which the personality forms itself at any given time. These usually change in a relatively smooth fashion when action is allowed to flow unimpeded. [See how this ties in with Seth’s advice to the students on the value of spontaneity and the difficulties of repression.] These impediments [illnesses] may sometimes then preserve the integrity of the whole psychological system and point out the existence of inner psychic problems. Illness is a portion of the action of which personality is composed and therefore it is purposeful, and cannot be considered as an alien force that invades personality from without. . . .

“Illness could not be called an impeding action unless it persisted long after its purpose was served. Even then you could make no judgment without knowing all the facts . . . for the illness could still serve by giving the personality a sense of security, being kept on hand as an ever-present emergency device in case the new unifying system should fail.

“In other words, an action cannot be judged as impeding without a thorough knowledge of the actions that result in the makeup of any given personality. This is extremely important. To overlook this point is to risk the adoption of a more severe illness.

“When action is allowed to flow freely, then neurotic rejections will not occur. And it is neurotic rejection that causes unnecessary illness.

“All illness is almost always the result of another action that cannot be followed through. When the lines to the original action are released and the channels opened, the illness will vanish. However, the thwarted action may be one with disastrous consequences which the illness may prevent. The personality has its own logic.”