“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(On Saturday January 8 Jane and I received a letter from Dr. Instream, asking that Seth do his best to give data on but one object during tests. Dr. Instream also mentioned his difficulty in attempting to repeat an experiment with ESP cards, involving odds of a million-and-a-half to one. Jane and I mentioned that we would like Seth to say something on both points in tonight’s session.

(Over the weekend Bill and Peggy Gallagher agreed to try mutual concentration upon a single object in their home at session times. They would keep a record of the chosen objects for a month, without telling us what they were, then we would compare the list with Seth’s data after the experiment ended. We have thought of trying this before.

(See the tracing of the envelope test object on page 190. It is a humorous drawing made by Ann Diebler, who works in my office at Artistic Card Co.; Piggie, incidentally, refers to pigeon. I had mentioned the drawing to Jane several weeks ago, but not since, and of course she did not know I had brought it home. I put it between two pieces of Bristol and sealed it in the usual double envelope.

We will try here to give you an example. Take for example then the house in which Ruburt spent his childhood. Now as you know, that was never one definite unchanging object. That house was a conglomeration of atoms and molecules, perceived generally as a house, but perceived specifically by everyone who saw it as a slightly different house. For each observer quite literally created from his own subconscious energy an approximation of a house, a general shape then perceived as a house, and further embellished by personal judgments.

I do have a few words for Dr. Instream. I believe I mentioned earlier that an object will work best if it has emotional significance for him.

If it is an emotionally charged object this will make our task easier. Though he need not concentrate upon it then with too great an intensity, since the object itself will send out information of its own.

Now this will be considered as the object. (Pause at 10:17.)

The word nondescript as applying to the Gallagher object.

(See the tracing of the test object on page 190. As can be seen practically none of the data applies to the test object, with the exception of the white coat; the connection here is tenuous, and will be explained. I thought “November” might be correct also.

(The white coat connection referred to the fact that Jane wore it last Saturday evening, when it was bitter cold. Now the test object contains a poem referring to shivering pigeons and snow—hence the connection. I thought the November reference might be legitimate, since the originator of the test object, Ann Diebler, could have visited our apartment during that month. A check showed this to be so—Ann witnessing the unscheduled session for November 5,1965.

(Tracings of the two Kodachrome transparencies of Jane that Loren enclosed with his letter. They were not used as test objects, but were referred to in the test data.)