“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.

(We had some reservations however about trying it now, but decided to see what Seth would say. We didn’t want to give rise to a feeling of pressure on Jane during sessions, and wondered whether it was wise to try three regular tests. We want room for other material also. For this reason we had let the candle-flame tests go for the moment, even though they appear promising.

(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.

(It was now time for the 29th Dr. Instream test. As usual Jane sat quietly with her hands raised to her closed eyes. Her pace was quite slow, broken by many pauses that ran to 15-20 seconds. Resume at 10:09.)

There is no reason why the test results cannot be repeated, intrinsically. Dr. Instream however fears that they will not be repeated, and unless this feeling is changed on his part such will be the case. He wants a repeat, but he fears he will not get it, simply because he wants it so badly, and the student reacts to this subconscious inhibiting factor.

Do you have a test for me Joseph?

(It was 10:31. I handed Jane the 26th double sealed test envelope, and as usual she took it without opening her eyes. She pressed it to her forehead and continued to hold it there, speaking with many pauses.)

(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.

(Jane said she had rather strong images visually of the data; twice she saw her white coat quite strongly. In the test she was unable to tell when she got off on the track of personal associations; somehow the fine discrimination was lacking. Jane said that by the time she approached break she knew the test had been a poor one. But she also knew the test was poor, something she wouldn’t have been able to distinguish not too long ago. She could, she said, feel herself getting involved with what she knew were incorrect images.

(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.

(End at 10:57. Jane was dissociated as usual. Her eyes were closed for the most part. She said that in poor tests she is aware of a slight feeling of strain, mentally, that could be compared to the physical feeling of strain involved when she doesn’t do a Yoga exercise quite right, or goes a little too far without adequate preparation.)

(Copy of the letter used in the 27th envelope test, in the 222nd session for January 12,1966.)

(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.)