Putting the Seth insights to work in our daily lives may seem an easy and fun project at times. But what happens when those philosophies are put to the acid test in the work-a-day world as a military person in combat or as a police officer. As a Seth student do you ever wonder how well Seth philosophies mix with war and crime, after having been taught by Seth that the Universe is of good intent, and evil and destruction do not exist except as a scenario, and no violence is justifiable, not even in self-defense?

As a veteran police officer, and a student of the Seth/Jane Roberts books, I found that I could readily accept the Seth insights given. However, there was one glaring exception--that wherein Seth maintains a firm position regarding the basic goodness of human kind. On that point I felt Seth was mistaken. As a beat officer I handled many calls involving people purposefully doing terrible things to one another, often to members of their own family. Then at home, on those few occasions when I watched TV, all I found was programs with screeching sirens and reenactments of violence. Wasn't the real world terrible enough for all without having to fictionalize and dramatist those appalling wrongs?

One day I told Maude Cardwell, founder of the Austin Seth Center, about my dim view. Maude, who was always clever and full of surprises, promptly suggested that I give a presentation on that very topic at, what was then, an upcoming Seth Conference! At first I thought Maude had misunderstood me. I was wrong.

How could I possibly begin to help others reconcile such difference all the while being unable to do so myself? Clearly one of two things had to happen. Either I had to bring about a radical change in my beliefs, beliefs that were firmly anchored within daily personal observations, or Maude would be short one presenter. I then decided I would, in all fairness, make some attempt to change my outlook on life. If nothing happened I could always tell Maude to find someone else. Meanwhile I would have to begin my investigation close to the source--with Seth's close friend (smile) Robert Butts. I wrote to Rob, and this was his reply:

 "Last week I received a long letter from a woman bemoaning the fact that three of her women friends were getting divorces. The writer blamed the husbands exclusively, and exhibited no insight or understanding into what must have been three very complicated situations. She evidently failed to grasp that each of the six people involved were drawing from those experiences what they actually wanted, needed for various reasons. I'm sure that those people didn't understand consciously all that they wanted and needed--yet I do think they quite accurately acted out their goals in both the short term and the long term."

 "In your work it must be very difficult to realize that both parties, say, the victim and the victimizer, share the creation of a "crime," and that both achieve goals in that sharing. I don't mean the victim, say, wants to be robbed, assaulted, whatever, on a conscious basis, or enjoys the experience, whatever it may be--yet I do think both the victim and the victimizer create their encounters in order to achieve certain ends. Now our social system just doesn't think that way, and would consider what I'm saying inadmissible. But I do think it hits much closer to the truth. I think society as a whole will learn that, and that many people already know it but hesitate to stress it too publicly."

 "I also think that "fighting crime," for example, isn't the answer--that with more conscious understanding of human goals and motivations, there would be a drastically reduced crime rate, for people would understand themselves so much better, could creatively use their great energies in so many ways, that the need or urge for criminal activity would wither away. Do I sound like a dreamer? Many would say so. I hope my examples help you..." --Rob Butts

 After reading Rob's letter I began to look for evidence that would support Rob's statements. And much to my surprise I found it.

 The Real World:

 In crimes against persons, and cases where deadly weapons are used I began to see that the victim and the perpetrator knew each other. They had been in each other's company before and knew each other's temperament. They held no surprises for each other and had made know their potential for victim/perpetrator roles well in advance.

I also saw that, before the violent event, the victim often had ample opportunity to leave the other person's company, or perhaps to arm themselves and therefore fend off the attack. Sometimes the victim had a weapon of defense at hand but didn't use it. Often the perpetrator likewise had opportunity to leave or dissociate themselves from a heated event yet remained to become more enraged.

In those instances where the persons involved didn't know each other I sometimes learned the victim had voiced fears to others beforehand--voiced fears of being a victim someday. It's as if they had broadcast those fears to the world at large--they somehow "caused an attraction." I also discovered that they took no positive steps to protect themselves or remove themselves from an environment where such an event was likely to occur.

Later, when reporting such crimes to me the victims, if they survived the attack, never acted like they were totally and utterly surprised, not astonished by what had happen. This was seldom true of associated witnesses who were often in hysteria. Did these victims somehow become "comfortable" with the idea of being a victim someday? I think to some extent they did and therein lies the key!

A little imaginative expectancy of danger is not all bad as it can lead to preventive measures. However, it must not become a greater expectancy. Let that little expectancy lead to precautions, and let those precautions lead to a sense of security. Let those feelings of safety be the ones you broadcast to the world.

Whenever a resident in any of our larger cities read the crime statistics, and begins to examine the odds, the forecast may look very grim. They may then begin to see themselves as a potential victim. However we must not, on a personal level, take this mathematical approach because it can lead to false conclusions involving randomness, random numbers, random victims and so on, and according to Seth, there is nothing random about it.

You are each part of a very powerful psyche and that is your natural protection against violence. However you can weaken that protection with negative expectations which in turn may expose you to violent events. It becomes a contagion. If we cannot change our beliefs concerning violence then we are at the mercy of ourselves.

When Seth teaches violence is not justified, not even in self-defense, it implies we need not put ourselves into a position where such action becomes necessary. And as long as we do we will also feel a need for a military to defend our country, and police, acting on a local level, to protect those who are somehow determined to be victims someday. For now it seems violence will remain an integral part of, and a basic root assumption within our reality.

There is no scale that measures out violence; no degree minimum or maximum to which you are expected to experience it. All who do experience it do so for their own reasons whether they be law makers or law breakers, humans soldiers or soldier ants. All who experience violence, any violence, call that experience to themselves ahead of time. Speaking as a police officer--violence was sometimes our "version of fun." But when Seth said no violence is justified he, for me at least, took all the fun out of it.

There are realities within realities and two such are the worlds of turmoil and trouble, and the world of crime. I visited those places often by choice because of a profession I had purposefully selected. Within those alternative worlds I often met people who were in various stages of learning how to form their own reality, and quite frankly, some of those I met were not very good at it. Here I often tried to tell myself that those individuals who were involved in constant conflicts were somehow trying to teach themselves important lessons--an all too generous assumption. But then, wasn't I, by choice, doing the same thing?

As our apprehensions can carry us into fearful situations, we also can use the Seth insights, on a personal level, to lead ourselves into a reality where there is no threat; where there is no need to defend ourselves. We can work and live within the Seth approach, using all those insights, no matter what our profession, position, or circumstance. We can use those insights to our advantage, to benefit ourselves and the world.