“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] Now violence is a type of action and it is often misdirected. Whatever violence you did you did because you thought it was good and met a worthy end then; therefore, be careful of those ideas that you entertain now and what you will do to defend them. No one ever does violence for something he considers unworthy. [...]

As with Jane and me, Fred had offered no signs of violence toward the police or anyone else that they knew of. [...]

[...] Damned up, such sexuality still keeps trying for expression, and it is often men of habitual “sexual discipline” who suddenly break out in bouts of sexual promiscuity or violence.

The ordinary violence involved with these events leads me to comment upon the theological concept of privation theory, and [...] I suggest that the reader review Seth’s material on the basically creative use of violence as I quoted it in Chapter 10; see Note 2 for Session 933.

2. “The killing in Iran continues—and hardly just because of that country’s war with Iraq,” I wrote in the opening notes for Session 936, in Chapter 11 of Dreams. Some three months later the killing goes on, and with even more ramifications of violence, intrigue, and power politics—involving not only Iran but that unhappy country’s neighbors in the Middle East.

[...] Once again, I refer the reader to Seth’s excellent material on violence as quoted in Note 2 for Session 933.

[...] In this case the projections were of violence predominating. Love and kinship were secondary to what indeed amounted to baptism and communion through violence and blood.

[...] Not that Christianity was not mixed with violence, or that Mohammedanism was devoid of love. [...]

[...] There are systems where no violence is allowed, but full energy is given. [...]

[...] Even abruptness of thought, you see, carries implications of violence, of abrupt change—the breaking of one pattern for another.

So, even in the dream you misinterpreted and distorted the violence. Instead of having your mother say “He hit me in the chest,” and in order to punish yourself through your identification with your father, instead you translated the words to “He has a spot on his lungs,” therefore punishing symbolically both your father and yourself for the violence.

Had the dream not so prepared you, you may well have struck out verbally at your father most forcibly, in an actual attempt to make him suffer for his own rather restrained violence, because you would have feared and not been able to face its somewhat weaker but still definite latent manifestation in yourself.

(9:32.) As he resumed “normal” consciousness Ruburt found himself wondering about the great violence involved, and the entire situation in which such people placed themselves. [...]

Some of the material in the last chapter should help to explain the reasons for frameworks in which violence is built-in, so to speak, and indeed becomes a challenging context through which reality is perceived. [...]

[...] Some of the Old Masters were adept at painting scenes of violence, warfare, sagas, with dark and dreary atmospheres, yet each so filled at the same time with life and vitality that the canvases themselves seemed alive. [...]

[...] An ego which once accepted such an idea of violence, and knew it as a possibility of action, such an ego, if he then rejects the conception, can no longer afford, ever, to recognize this once acceptable emotion, for he is only too aware of the action that could have at one time developed.

[...] The man, or ego, who has never really accepted such violence as a part of his action pattern, will usually have no conflicts in this particular line, simply because the inclination was never a strong part of the ego’s inner image, and is more or less discarded automatically, along with all those other characteristics or inclinations which are not in his ego pattern.

[...] Symbolically, you see, and beneath it all, both men showed characteristics that under different circumstances could have led them into violence for the sake of their beliefs.

[...] Violence is wrong.” [...]

[...] This is because in your mind violence and destruction are the same thing. [...]

2. Here Seth probably referred to material that Jane and I recently came across concerning the views of a “radical” philosophy of change: Violence is permissible in order to bring about a revolution which, in turn, would lead to a new age. [...] With some amusement we also considered the reactions of such radicals should they ever find themselves personally threatened or assaulted through the very “permissible” violence they advocate.

Now the red hoods had a peculiar significance, subconsciously speaking, to you because the red subconsciously meant violence and the idea in the back of your mind that religions through the ages have often resulted in violence and also Cardinals, you see, wear red hats at times. [...]

That sort of exposure, in your terms, has not happened before, and of itself it forces both mind and heart to question some dictates that have been taken for granted in the past—for in the past almost any kind of destruction or war or violence was justified if it was done in God’s name, or if the soldiers were marching “on the side of right.”

(Long pause at 3:34.) You can also find single families, of course, that operate like cults — or an entire nation — that are given over to repression with its resulting violence.

Your anger is interpreted simply as violence, and she fears it. [...]

[...] Among the agencies chosen, of course, are the FBI, the CIA, the Russian Secret Police, the Ku Klux Klan, or any controversial group given to acts of violence for whatever purposes.

[...] In your terms this in no way absolves those who start riots, for example, for they will be working within a system of conscious beliefs in which violence begets violence. [...]

[...] Any violence or hatred serves a purpose beyond itself, so that man in a way often performs services of which he is not consciously aware.