“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(I sought to reassure her, but later when I went into her study to ask about something else, I found her looking quite distressed as she sat at her typewriter. My words had had more of an impact than I’d intended. I apologized. But Jane had written some chapter headings, which were very good, and half a page of commentary for Seth’s hypothetical book. Once again I insisted that I wasn’t suggesting she try for the project. Jane believed me, finally, and in the course of the conversation I learned that she’s also been worrying about which of Seth’s recent sessions should be presented in Mass Events. She agreed with the decisions I’d made in that area, but she also wanted Seth “to get back to the book per se, and call his sessions dictation.

(“Well,” she finally said after we’d sat for the session, “I guess I’m about ready….” Then Seth came through without his customary greeting:)

Religion and science both loudly proclaim their search for truth, although they are seemingly involved in completely opposing systems. They both treat their beliefs as truths (underlined), with which no one should tamper. They search for beginnings and endings. The scientists have their own vocabulary, which is used to reinforce the exclusive nature of science. Now I am speaking of the body of science in general terms here, for there is in a way a body of science that exists as a result of each individual scientist’s participation. A given scientist may act quite differently in his family life and as a scientist. He may love his family dog, for example, while at the same time think nothing of injecting other animals with diseased tissue in his professional capacity.

(9:58.) A recent article in a national magazine speaks “glowingly” about the latest direction of progress in the field of psychology, saying that man will realize that his moods, thoughts, and feelings are the result of the melody of chemicals that swirl in his brain. That statement devalues man’s subjective world.

Now those beliefs separate man from his own nature.¹ He cannot trust himself — for who can rely upon the accidental bubblings of hormones and chemicals that somehow form a stew called consciousness (louder and quite ironic) — an unsavory brew at best, so the field of science will forever escape opening up into any great vision of the meaning of life. (Long pause.) It cannot value life, and so in its search for the ideal it can indeed justify in its philosophy the possibility of an accident that might kill many many people through direct or indirect means, and kill the unborn as well.²

(10:22.) Now Seth came through with some material for Jane and me, including his interpretations — in his usual acute manner — of three of my recent dreams. End at 10:41 P.M.)