Illnesses can be seen as impeding actions representing actual blockages of energy, action turned into channels that are not to the best interests of the personality. The anergies appear concentrated and turned inward, affecting the whole system. They represent offshoots; not necessarily detrimental in themselves, except when viewed from the standpoint of other actions that form the personality framework.

A certain portion of the energy practically available to the personality is spent in the maintenance of this impeding action or illness. It is obvious, then, that less energy is available for actions more beneficial to the personality system as a whole.

The situation can be serious in varying degrees, according to the impetus and intensity of the original cause behind the illness. If the impetus is powerful, then the impeding action will be of more serious nature, blocking huge reserves of energy for its own purposes. It obviously becomes part of the personality’s psychological structure, the physical, electrical and chemical structures, invading to some extent even the dream system.

At times, 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. The illness is often quite literally accepted by the personality structure as a portion of the self. Once this occurs, a conflict instantly develops. The self does not want to give up a portion of itself, even if that part may be painful or disadvantageous.

For one thing, while pain is unpleasant, it is also a method of familiarizing the self against the edges of quickened consciousness. Any heightened sensation, pleasant or unpleasant, has a stimulating effect upon consciousness to some degree. It is a strong awareness of activity and life. Even when the stimulus may be extremely annoying or humiliatingly unpleasant, certain portions of the psychological framework accept it acquiescence to even painful stimuli is a basic part of the nature of consciousness and a necessary one.

Even a quick and automatic rejection or withdrawal from such a stimulus is, in itself, a way by which consciousness knows itself. The ego may attempt to escape such experiences, but the basic nature of action itself is the knowing of itself in all aspects. In a very deep manner, action does not differentiate between enjoyable and painful actions.

These differentiations come later, on another level of development. But because personality is composed of action, it contains within it all action’s characteristics.

These differentiations come later, on another level of development. But because personality is composed of action, it contains within it all action’s characteristics.

The ways in which various kinds of consciousness react to painful stimuli, ending up with a statement that at deepest cellular levels, all sensations and stimuli are instantly, automatically and joyfully accepted, regardless of their nature. At this level, no knowledge of threats exists. The “I” differentiation is not definite enough to fear destruction.

Here we have action knowing itself and realizing its basic indestructibility. It has no fear of destruction, for it is also a part of the destruction from which new actions will evolve.

The complicated organism of human personality with its physical structure has evolved a highly differentiated ‘I’ consciousness, whose very nature is such that it attempts to preserve the apparent boundaries of identity. To do so it must choose between actions.

But beneath the 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, the physical structure would never maintain itself, for the atoms and molecules within it constantly accept painful stimuli and suffer even their own destruction. They are aware of their own separateness within action and of their reality within it.

Now you should understand why even an impeding action can be literally accepted by the personality as a part of itself and why efforts must be made to coax the personality to give up a portion of itself, if progress is to made.

We are also helped, however, by several characteristics of the personality, in that it is ever-changing, and its flexibility will be of benefit. We merely want to change the direction in which some of its energy moves. It must be seen by the personality that an impeding action is a hardship on the whole structure and that this particular part of the self is not basic to the original personality. The longer the impeding action is accepted, the more serious the problem.

The whole focus of a personality can change from constructive areas to a concentration of main energies in the area of the illness. Now in such a case, often the illness represents a new unifying system. If the old unifying system of personality has 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.

In this case, the illness could not be called an impeding action unless it persisted long after its purpose was served. Even then, without knowing all the facts you could not make a judgment, 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 principle should fail.

Unifying principles are groups of actions about which the whole personality forms itself at any given time. There may change and do change in a relatively smooth fashion when action is allowed to flow unimpeded. When action is not allowed to follow the patterns or channels for its expression that have been evolved by the personality, then blockages of energy occur.

These must be understood not as something apart from the personality, but as a part of the changing personality. Often, they point out the existence of inner problems. Often, they serve temporary functions, leading the personality from other more serve areas of difficulty. I am not saying here that illness is good. I am saying that it is a part of the action of which any personality is composed, and, therefor, it is purposeful and cannot be considered as an alien force that attacks the individual from without.

The personality is simultaneous action; it is composed of actions within actions. Portions of it are conscious of its awareness as a part of action, and portions try to stand aside from action. This attempt forms the ego, which is itself action.

If illness were thrust upon action or upon the personality from the outside, then the individual would be at the mercy of outside agencies, but it is not. Personality is affected by outside agencies, but in a most basic manner, it chooses those actions which it will accept.

An illness can be rejected. The habit of illness can be rejected. When action is allowed to flow freely, then neurotic rejections of action will not occur. An illness is almost always the result of another action that cannot be carried through. When the lines to the repressed action are released and the channels to it opened, such an illness will vanish. However, the thwarted action may be one with disastrous consequences, which the illness may prevent.