January 3, 1979

[DELETED SESSION]

[JANUARY 3, 1979. 9:35 PM WEDNESDAY]

(In the last session Seth promised to begin dictation on his latest book after a long layoff, but as things turned out the book was not begun anew. Instead I asked that he deal with the challenges Jane and I still face, and apparently are unable to resolve---her symptoms, and my own feelings of panic, and related symptoms, as mentioned also in the last session.)

(I also planned to start reviewing the first deleted sessions Seth gave on Jane's symptoms, for I've never really forgotten them and always felt they were as good as any Seth has ever given on those subjects. The main one, the breakthrough session as I think of it, was the 367th for October 1, 1967. I read it over just before tonight's session began, and was able to reaffirm my opinion that it's still one of the best; at the same time it aroused questions, for it deals with causes in the past.

According to Seth's suggested use of the point of power, and his late deleted material, one isn't supposed to dwell on the past, but go forward from the present---two major blocks of material, I told Jane this evening, that at first glance seem to contradict each other.)

(I added that I doubt if they really do, but that the views need integration for us to understand it all clearly as a unified theory---sort of like field theory in physics, perhaps. I assume it will take lots of work to accomplish this, but am inserting these thoughts here as a remainder of one of the things I want to accomplish this year in this area. Jane and I also plan a list of questions for Seth on the whole situation, and I see these as accumulating into a notebook to accompany these sessions. I think we've already achieved some insights that we've let slide or didn't understand.)

(At this writing at least I plan to spend evenings typing new session material, and in the time left over to restudy the past material in the hopes of putting it all together with and/or without Seth's help. But out of this work I expect our questions for Seth will come. I'm deeply troubled by Jane's condition, and by what I regard as her strange assivity in the face of it; clues to this attitude exist in the 367th session. I'm sure my own role in the whole thing is a strong one, and that in my own way I'm as badly off as she is, although it may not show hysically.)

(I especially think Seth's remarks in the last deleted session---for January 1, 1979, to be apropos: "You question your own characteristics, and so your accomplishments fade in your eyes." I suppose what I want to know is why we must question those characteristics---or at least why we, meaning anyone, cannot live in harmony with them. Then at least we'd know some little peace of mind. As it is, that quality is very rare to us.)

[(Jane too read over the 367th session before the session this evening.

It seems that essentially our situation is unchanged, 12 years later, which doesn't say much for our learning capacities, I'm afraid. When the session began I half expected Seth to tell us to stay away from old deleted sessions, since as mentioned delving into the past can cause too intense a focus there, and reinforce problems, whatever they may be. But he didn't. I said to Jane later that it seems Seth will tailor his material to suit our needs and/or moods of the moment, which may be one of the ways to integrate blocks of his material into a larger whole, which can display many facets or approaches.)]

Now: Because of your frames of mind, this will be the first of several sessions dealing specifically with your problems.

Before we begin, let it be understood that your problems are no more upsetting, disagreeable, or exhausting than other people's. Many do not even reach your ages. Problems are a part of human life---a condition of your existence. They are challenges, highly characteristic of all living matter.

Your own problems can appear so large that you forget this. You are not inferior because you have problems. You are simply human, and if you need any proof that you are a part of the human species, and not so isolated from others, that is it. Again, however, creative challenges are set by each individual, challenges that involve achievements, of course, of one kind or another, simple or sublime. You are not inferior because you have problems.

Perfectionists, however, not only take a dim view of problems, but consider each one a blot, a proof of inferiority in themselves or others and they see such blots everywhere. They are in a certain fashion overly conscientious, and they fear spontaneity lest it be less than perfect.

They fear flaws.

Now in close marriages or those of long duration, there is a kind of superimposed family personality, a composite, to which each member contributes, and to which all members respond. In a relationship like yours and Ruburt's this applies in a very intense manner. What you read in the old session this evening still applies to a large extent. It should be noted, as Ruburt said, that the poverty angle was largely eradicated---yet you (to me) preserve it in your worries about taxes, for example---for those feelings of resentment still help you continue to feel impoverished and virtuous. They serve to disconnect you from any opulent income status---put you back with the oor where you feel you belong; and hence you imagine the greater, the far greater incomes of other people, and in that comparison you come out ut-upon---but again, virtuous.

Before you moved here you imagined, both of you, what oddities you would be in the neighborhood, and exaggerated your differences from others.

Ruburt did not mind spending the money for the porches. Since he would be "increasing the value of the plant"---the working establishment. He would write on the back one (humorously) to show the porch was not after all for pleasure.

This session you read (the 367th) applied mostly to Ruburt, yet you also have what I will call an overly conscientious self in battle with the spontaneous self (a fact I'm well aware of, and had discussed with Jane before tonight's session) . You have actually grown somewhat more spontaneous. Why not---since Ruburt was nicely expressing the overly conscientious selves of both of you?

No one can completely do that for anyone else, of course, so you have your own struggles with spontaneity. Ruburt's spontaneous self was by far the most active, and so his defenses against it, as the overly conscientious self, were more obvious than yours.

Your struggles earlier, before you met Ruburt, involved relationships, in that you had no deep ones, allowing yourself to become close to no one. When you fell in love with Ruburt, a part of you was appalled, for it felt it must hold itself ever aloof---and in those days Ruburt's spontaneous self often met a response from your overly conscientious self, so that you appeared cold to him, and in repelling his spontaneity you were of course frightened to reveal your own.

(9:55.) You showed him often the face of the overly conscientious self.

Now: you had of course other problems that he was not experienced enough to see, and at the time the sessions began you were both at a low point.

The release of psychic energy involved, regardless of me, was literally a new birth, bringing forth an impetus for change and creative activity.

In an important sense, Ruburt's abilities as a writer found their forte.

He had found his direction ---though that direction did not follow his beliefs. He was naturally meant to go in areas that would confound his earlier upbringing.

His concern about your health also operated as a strong impetus, allowing him to break through usual frameworks, and the sessions did give you the knowledge you needed to recover.

Both of you realized from young ages that you were different from others, relatively speaking, and you gloried in the differences. When you came together you wanted to be alone together. You wanted to be alone and to work at your pursuits.

You set up, little by little, certain barriers against the world. As you grew older the failings of the human condition became more noticeable.

Your own differences from others became more apparent. As the books became more popular, you were suddenly threatened in terms of privacy, of exposure personally---and perhaps, Ruburt felt, being forced one way or another into that other world in which, after all, the two of you did not belong.

To skip ahead: it is true that Ruburt has not asked you to take him for a ride, and it is equally true that you have not offered (although I mentioned it last week) . He would have gone to the party (at Bumbalo's on December 29) with some encouragement from you, and you gave him none---for cleverly, when one is ready to move the other is not.

Your perfectionist tendencies tell you not to go out into the world until Ruburt can walk normally and proudly. Your perfectionist tendencies---I refer to both of you---tell you that it is a crime for either of you to have a problem, whether or not the rest of the world is filled with chaos.

You gloried in being alone. It was what you wanted. Now it seems that aloneness is a trap. You think of isolation and being cut off from the world, while at the same time you want little to do with it.

Ruburt's condition, in a way, stops you from hurting others. If you close the door in the world's face, it is because Ruburt cannot walk roperly. The overly conscientious self on both of your parts to a strong degree becomes a composite personality. Its beliefs are invisible because you accept them unthinkingly. The next few old sessions should be read. You have both largely, except in your work, now, cut spontaneity from your lives; your habits are so set.

In that regard you do not challenge yourselves, and to that extent your work also suffers. Instead of (hypnotic) advisors, try to set up a dialogue, each of you, with the overly conscientious self, reminding it that spontaneity knows its own order---and that its defenses are overdone, with the best of good intent.

You must think in terms of surprises, of spontaneity, of changed rhythms. Between now and our next session, read that group of old ones, and each of you attempt to reach your own overly conscientious self.

Behind all of this is the feeling that exposure is dangerous, that your true feelings must be hidden, and that the world is unsafe---hence your need for defenses. Read this session also over together, and follow all the suggestions I have given you.

That is all for this evening---but hardly all.

("Good night, Seth.")

(10:14. I was surprised at the early ending of the session. "I probably had more," Jane said, "but I was feeling so sickly by then that I just quit....")

("Well, take a break then and see what happens. ")

[("I'll come back briefly because I hear a few sentences in my head."

Then at 10:15:)]

Ruburt's reaction to my following simple suggestions shows how badly they are needed, and you will doubtlessly experience your own weaker version.

You need the idea of change---an idea that Ruburt once used to find exciting. Change your living room furniture, your bedroom, your kitchen or whatever you can---simply to symbolically and slowly break you in to the idea of change, and to break up the invisible bulk of mental atterns that are connected with your present state.

I do not care, for example, what you change. Change your hours---but think in terms of change---and now for change's sake---to show that you can operate quite well without rigid patterns of behavior.

What you simply need is a change of scene. You could indeed take a van and make it to Florida. I do not see you doing this now. You must increase your view of your own operations.

What I want to say will wait, for I want you to read those old sessions first ---and in all of this remember Framework 2, which deals with creative change, which is growth. End of session, and a fond good evening.

("Thank you, Seth." 10:27 PM. As usual, I think the material is excellent.)