August 29, 1977

[DELETED SESSION]

[AUGUST 29, 1977 9:45 PM MONDAY]

(Jane received her first copy of) Cézanne [Saturday morning.

Tonight she began reading the appendix material I've done on Volume 2 of] "Unknown" Reality [. The evening was very hot and humid.]

(Generalized body changes since the last session Saturday night: More loosening in neck, ligaments, chin and face area; walking is easier but still requires support -- legs tremble and have trouble supporting weight, but knees move better. "Shitty," Jane said with a rueful laugh.

Right foot looser and looser, but no help walking. Head and back more flexible; eyes not quite so red---"in and out" of focus in a period of minutes, yet Jane could see to work part of the time today, as Seth suggested.)

Now---good evening.

(Good evening. Seth.)

The practical experience of reality is formed through the suggestive sychological idea-shapes that appear in the guise of theories, dogmas, and assumptions.

The theory of evolution represents a magnetic organizing suggestive hypothesis. It can, even in scientific terms, never be proven. Under its banner of suggestion, however, the great parade of men and other living creatures are observed so that the hypothesis brings about its own hypnotic focus---so that creatures, man, and indeed the universe itself, seem to behave in certain highly ritualized fashions.

(Appendix 12 for Volume 2 is on evolution; I was surprised to realize that Jane's reading it today had apparently triggered Seth's material here.)

In a manner of speaking, the motives familiar to men are applied to the smallest microbe. More than this, however, the theory's vast suggestive nature forms a framework through which people then view the experiences of their lives, and through whose focus the behavior of their own species seems determined.

The theory, then, is a way of organizing experience, a suggestive hypothesis. It is indeed no more than a point of view. It has colored man's societies and cultures since its inception. It has dominated economical systems. In that regard, for example, James was quite correct: certain religious societies interpreted the theme so that it read "evolution of the soul"; but there is no soul in Darwinian theory and hereditary, and certainly none in the environment.

I do not think you understand yet the importance of suggestion, for once you said to me "Suggestion cannot be all that important."

("I said that?" I didn't remember doing so and I certainly wouldn't say so today.)

You did indeed---not in that context. There is little difference, however, between private suggestion in your personal lives, and the ower of mass suggestion in your society.

Suggestion not only impels toward action, but causes you to interpret action in a given manner. In strict Darwinian terms, man and animal alike had to be turned aggressively outward in the most competitive of hysical ways. A new achievement on the part of a species, or any mutation occurred, occurred as the direct result of personal experience---and of course no information was available otherwise.

In deepest terms the world had an outside only. It was empty inside. The soul or any remnant of it vanished, so that all of the action had to occur in an arena where competition ruled. Life was not trusted. You could be betrayed by your genes. There was no purpose in nature except its own mechanical reproduction. The individual had no importance, once it served its part in reproduction.

(10:05.) These ideas went a long way to justify later scientific experiments that involved giving pain to animals, for example: nature itself [had no] feeling. It was seen in human terms as inhumane: life without reason, life with no purpose except its own repetition, life in which the individual was dispensable.

Many people cannot operate under that kind of system. The individual shouts that his life does indeed have meaning, while the scientists until now have vehemently stated otherwise.

Why then did such a theory originate? Darwin was initially a religious man. Like many others, his religious background held out nonsensical ropositions. It saw a good God, a just savior, who nevertheless never thought twice about sending down death and destruction as punishment for sin.

Darwin was faced with the proposition of a kind god who was more cruel than any human being, and with supernatural power behind him to boot---so Darwin tried to justify God's ways to man.

Nature took the place of the devil in an insidious sleight-of-hand that initially Darwin himself never expected. He wanted to show that God was not responsible for the world's cruelties. Darwin loved nature in all of its aspects, yet he could not reconcile its beauties and splendors with the course of its events. He could not bear to see a cat play with a mouse, without blaming God who would permit such cruelty. He tried to wipe God's hands clean, as he understood the nature of God through his early beliefs---but in so doing he wiped the soul from the face of nature.

To a large degree, however, and for many people, he did remove the idea of God's injustice, even if he removed the image of God in the process.

The idea of one God as a superman would not carry again the same weight as it had before. For your species, the questions behind the conventional God the father were at least brought out into the open.

Those theories of Darwin, however, formed part of the suggestive background in which you and Ruburt and millions of others matured. Each erson interpreted those beliefs in an individual fashion. Sexual, economic, social and even religious behavior became tinged by these concepts.

The value of the artist was deprecated. Contemplation had little part to lay. As per James, it was no coincidence that the beliefs of Freud and Darwin merged so well to form western society's idea of the self, hysically and psychologically. The ideas of financial competition, advocated, came into direct conflict, Joseph, with your own inclinations to be an artist. The ideas of manliness in your society, particularly in ast years, were directly tied in with Darwinian concepts and Freudian theory. They operated as suggestion that directed the actions of millions of people, and provided a framework through which they experienced their reality.

Now when either of you, or both of you, feel that there might be something wrong in spending your time thinking, writing, painting, or worse, daydreaming, you feel that way because your way of life meets some conflict from old Darwinian and Freudian beliefs: you should be out there in the world---active, competing, or even just riding bicycles.

In other kinds of systems, great premiums would be put upon your work. I want you to understand, personally, the importance of such suggestions---particularly when they have authoritative backgrounds.

For example, Ruburt's latest status, and your somewhat natural concern with the temporary walking difficulty---you know what I am referring to---I say to you that the concern is natural; for it certainly seems so to both of you. You have little idea, however, how sometimes the most natural-seeming reactions are not natural at all, but programmed. An animal, say, in Ruburt's position, feeling as much new activity in the body, new motion in the knees, new elasticity in the ligaments, would quite naturally accept the improvements with physical elation, even if it had more difficulty one day, or two, than it had in days previous. It would sense the body's interstate condition. It would not worry, but would exercise whatever new motions were possible. It would take it for granted that its body knew what it was doing. It would not be hampered by remnants of Darwinian or Freudian concepts.

(10:36.) I want to show you where culture and cultural beliefs meet with your private experience. Ruburt's body needed more challenge. Before this latest episode that upset him showed, Important releases in the hip sockets occurred, with hardly any notice on his art. Little inconvenience. The amount of new motion there was minute but vitally important if his stance upward were to improve.

That small alteration, however, immediately altered the legs' position, however minutely, placing new challenge upon the entire leg and foot region. That challenge further activates additional motion: it is almost impossible to explain how intimately your sychological beliefs program your experience of events, or to tell you how to interpret them.

Any animal would rather be running and physically vigorous than not. But when an animal's improving, he goes along with the improvement. If Ruburt suddenly walked more poorly than usual, as for the last few days, showing no other signs of obvious beneficial change, then that would be something else. There are natural bodily reactions, however, and sychological reactions that may seem natural, but that often are contrary to the body's knowledge, and that can block that knowledge with the sense of reassurance that it can bring.

Ruburt's eyes change constantly while improving overall. It may seem to you that this is indeed a very strange condition. Ruburt certainly finds it disconcerting at best, and at worst worrisome. The eyes, however, quite naturally in their motion are connected with all of the body's other motions. They are healthily (underlined twice)

responding.

Ruburt's new attitudes and intentions to be responsive are renewing the body. The fears and anxieties of course do not help. They add tension. You are going ahead in spite of the worry. The entire jaw is being realigned to its natural and most ideal position. This is allowing all of the other bodily beneficial changes.

Animals have their own culture. They understand it differently, however, but it is taken into consideration in physical terms. You are doing very well, and your own beliefs are changing, Joseph, perhaps in greater fashion than you realize. The idea of Ruburt's teeth should be dropped, however. The concern over the matter becomes far more an impediment than any actual loss of his teeth. Yes, beliefs could save the rest of them---but both of your interpretations about teeth at this oint hold you back.

The work of the jaws necessitates the actions occurring, and if the new jaws end up with new teeth (humorously) , that must not be considered a failure or a tragedy. That fear is precisely what keeps Ruburt from saving the teeth so far. The teeth business has to do also with Darwinian concepts of age, with thought of the animal not surviving, and in your world that is ridiculous. The fears behind the fears are groundless. He must not be so afraid, then, of losing the teeth---and then perhaps he can save them. But in any case you both lay highly negative and unwarranted suggestions in that area.

(10:58.) Darwinian concepts allowed the passage of no knowledge from one generation to another that was not genetically transmitted. It did not understand the inner communication of the animals, and certainly it did not admit any altruistic animal intent.

To some extent the Freudian self, as per James , more or less followed the same pattern. A man could scarcely trust his neighbor if he agreed with Darwin or Freudian concepts. Behind any altruistic impulse there had to be a selfish gain. Before all of this, however, nature was seen as primarily passive---put here by God for man's purpose, but without possessing the uniqueness or even approaching the status of man.

Darwin managed to bring out nature's complexity, though this had been mentioned by other men---I believe by a man called Mendel in particular.

But Mendel did not catch man's imagination. Darwin then brought nature to man's focus in a new way, for before neither science or religion had dealt with it in a meaningful manner. The full sweep and extent of the natural world , with all of its seeming ambiguities, cruelties and splendors, had to be accepted as more than a passive package delivered into man's hand.

Darwin's theories, and Freud's for that matter, will in the future be seen as any other antiquated, outmoded system---yet from their ashes will rise new ways of interpreting and experiencing reality.

You may take a break or end the session as you prefer.

("We'll take the break, then.")

(11:10--11:43.) Now: even before you met each other many of your private abilities, and the thrust of your intellects and intuitions, made no sense in Darwinian or Freudian terms. This applies to you both.

In those terms, what value is there in any love of contemplation for its own sake? You hastened, Joseph, to put your talent to the proper Darwinian and Freudian goals: to make money, and to compete. Understand, I am not saying there is anything wrong with making money or in competition, say---only when these become primary so that other stronger individual drives must necessarily be put in secondary or third place.

Ruburt went from a strict religion, embracing both Darwin finally , and Freud also, as liberators from old doctrines---not realizing of course that he was substituting one dogma for two, period.

In Darwinian and Freudian terms, certainly later your joint and private ursuits literally made no sense, nor did they conform to any organized religious framework. Many of your difficulties came as your own natural impulses and natural inclinations conflicted with both Darwinian and Freudian concepts.

Your own behavior with your parents, with Ruburt, your attitudes toward your painting and outside jobs, Ruburt's attitudes toward children, his work and you---all of these were so influenced. You set up defenses, rivately and jointly, providing justifications, so that you could do your own thing, and "hold your head up" in the world of those beliefs.

When you wanted to quit your job you became ill so that no one could blame you. That was years ago, when you were working full time. This would give you parental acceptance.

Illness is a face-saving device, socially, often occurring where private beliefs and feelings find irritation with mass beliefs. Our sessions began, and you managed to make other changes or compromises: you worked art time, and so did Ruburt. This had some advantages, but also many oints of conflict. When either of you were offered jobs with advancement, you avoided them like the plague---idiotic behavior in Darwinian and Freudian terms.

Yet those terms influenced you both. You were involved in work that required growing trust of the self. Your painting required it, but Ruburt's position required it still more. The self could be trusted least of all, however, so that Ruburt felt a necessity to criticize his rocedure and performance, lest he was leading you and he both down a Freudian garden path.

That young psychologist brought all those doubts to the surface. He was young, and following Darwinian and Freudian concepts both, he was therefore vigorous and to be trusted, where Dr. Instream was in his dotage.

As a woman Ruburt was in a worse position than you from both theories.

He took greater precautions, therefore. Now that is the climate in which you began our work.

(12:01.) You have learned much, but until lately you always interpreted your position in the light of Darwinian and Freudian concepts. You want the books to sell well. That is natural. Your natures however are not particularly competitive. There is no reason to feel that you should (underlined three times)

"be out there selling books." You naturally both concentrate on ideas.

Left alone, that concentration will naturally seek expression, amplification, and might result in, say, if you wanted it, some tours.

But many of your ideas there are your attempts to bring your work into Darwinian terms.

In the more important ways you have left those frameworks, and your hearts were never in them. Now it is necessary that you, consciously, and with greater understanding, set up your own alternate framework.

Rededicate yourselves, as per my last session, together each morning.

Reinstate the library at least twice a week.

Ruburt's return to his writing will again trigger psychic response and creativity. With that work the comparatively few visitors will fall by the wayside in importance, and Ruburt's condition will improve more smoothly, with his main concentration elsewhere. Your preoccupation with such matters has certainly hampered your creativity.

Your preoccupation with Ruburt's condition, however, was beneficial for a while, because it upset the status quo, shook him up, and started him more firmly in the proper physical direction. It should not continue, however. It was necessary to unite you both.

Period. End of session. My heartiest regards and a fond good evening.

(Thank you, Seth.)

Unless you have questions--- (No.)

Some of this can be used, if you want to, in an appendix to the new book.

("All right." 12:12 AM.)