“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(The 34th envelope experiment was held during the session. The object was the front of a recent letter to Jane from her publisher’s secretary. I folded it once, put it between two pieces of board and sealed it in the usual double envelope. Jane did not know I had saved it. I thought this object simple enough, while containing some good emotional charges, but as will be seen Seth picked up many connections. The experience turned out to be a complicated one. There were unexpected hits, and one not used.

Twelve people in a group, listening to him. A special group in which he is highly interested. A letter from an F W. Findings that are surprising to him, involving somehow X’s and Y’s. Perhaps on the third, thirteenth or twenty-third of this month. I am sure of the three but not of the other figures.

(See the tracing of the envelope object on page 289. I had used this for the object on the spur of the moment, more or less, without being concerned with whether Jane might know, or have on file, the letter the envelope had contained. Some of the data we could connect with the object, some we could not. When Jane began to go through her file of correspondence with her publisher, F. Fell, we began to see what complications could evolve from what seemed to be a simple envelope object.

(In order to understand the data it was necessary to write out a schedule of events; most of this was done after the session. As it was we spent about half an hour during break in an effort to begin to sort out the impressions. It developed that four letters were involved with the envelope object, and that one of these was enclosed in the experimental object. The common denominator here is that the date, January 25,1966, is somehow involved with all four letters. Seth uses this as a springboard for his impressions.

(First, a brief description of the four letters, including the dates written:

(Letter #1: Written January 20. Jane wrote Frederick Fell giving approval of the title given to her ESP book. She also offered her help in writing copy for mail order ads, and offered her small collection of ads for various ESP books which she has collected, as a guide. She told F. Fell copy for the ESP field is hard to write without experience in the field.

(Letter #2: Written January 25. This acknowledged Jane’s letter of January 20, and was written by F. Fell’s secretary, Rhoda Monks. She informed Jane that F. Fell was out of town for two weeks, and that he would be back in town—NYC—on February 7. F. Fell was out of town from Monday January 24, to Monday February 7. It developed that he was in Florida on a selling trip and vacation.

(Letter # 3: Written January 25. This too was from the offices of F. Fell, written the same day as letter # 2, and was a simple note from an Emma Hesse, of the bookkeeping department, requesting that Jane send in her social security number for tax purposes. Actually the letter was a form letter and Jane was addressed as “Gentlemen:”.

(Letter # 4: Written January 25 by Jane, before the receipt of the two lettersfrom F. Fell on the same day. Our mail arrives late in the day. In this letter Jane discussed the 200 pages she has finished on her first book on the Seth material itself. She also discussed the title for the ESP book, again offered her help on publicity ideas re this book, and told F. Fell that she was ready to help in any way she could.

(Both letters of January 25 from F. Fell to Jane, although on different-sized paper, bore fold marks that revealed either one could have been enclosed in the experimental object, which is an envelope front from F. Fell, postmarked January 25. Since the data obtained from the experiment this evening refers to both letters, as will be shown, we have no way of knowing which letter was actually mailed in the experimental object. I did not realize until after the session that it would have helped to ask Seth this.

(During the half hour that break lasted we made what connections we could, but most of our time was spent puzzling out the four letters, etc. Seth discusses the experimental results to some extent. On some points we did not see or get explanations.

(“With the numbers four three”, was also general. Jane speculated that it could refer to the age of either the publicity director of F. Fell, or to Rhoda Monks, the author of letter # 2. Jane telephoned Frederick Fell on February 8th, and in so doing spoke first to Rhoda Monks; to Jane she sounded as though she could be about that age.

(“A package.” A package was mailed to F. Fell on February 10. It contained the manuscript for the book on the Seth material, plus that of the poetry book. See page 269 of the 232nd session for Frederick Fell’s request to see the book plus the tape recording Jane made of some of the poems. The connection here with the envelope data is the January 25 postmark on the experimental object; Jane discusses the book on the Seth material in letter #4, written on January 25. Also, the tape was mailed to F. Fell on February 10 in a separate package.

(“Ruburt’s association is with something that did not arrive on time, but let that one pass.” After break Seth tells us he hoped to make this clearer, but could not. Jane and I thought this was a reference to the fact that F. Fell left for Florida on January 24, Monday, before reading Jane’s letter #1, of January 20, the previous Thursday. Letter #1 would not have arrived at his office by the next morning, Friday. Thus letter #1 was acknowledged in letter #2, written by F. Fell’s secretary, Rhoda Monks, on Tuesday, January 25.

(We think also that Seth’s statement above might refer to letter #4, written by Jane on January 25. At the time she wrote this letter Jane had yet to receive letter #2, and thus did not know F. Fell would be out of NYC until February 7. Actually Jane’s letter #4 was never answered by mail. It was discussed in the telephone call between Jane and F. Fell on February 8. This is the call discussed in the notes on page 269 of the 232nd session. And again, the connection here with the envelope object is the January 25 date on which Jane wrote letter # 4, and the January 25 postmark on the object.

(“An achievement and a scarcity.” We think this a reference to letter # 1, written by Jane on January 20. Achievement being a general reference to her ESP book, and scarcity being a more specific connection in that Jane offers her own small collection of ESP ads to F. Fell’s office for use as a guide in writing copy. The connection with the envelope object being that this letter #1 was answered on January 25, by letter #2, and that it is quite possible this is the letter contained in the object used in this evening’s experiment.

(“Three people in particular.” Three people wrote the four letters involved. Jane wrote letters #1 and #4, Rhoda Monks wrote letter #2, Emma Hesse was responsible for letter #3. But I did not ask Seth for clarification and so we are not certain.

(“A note—there is some confusion here—that was not sent, or did not arrive. This lead Ruburt to think of a note he wrote but did not send, to Father Martin. I mention this for your information.” There is an interesting example of association at work here. Jane saw it before I did. Father Martin is a monk in a nearby monastery close to Elmira, and the author of letter #2, possibly enclosed by the envelope object, is Rhoda Monks.

(Jane did write Father Martin a letter on December 2,1965 that she never mailed. In the 212th session for November 29,1965 Seth discussed various measurements that could be taken from Jane just before, during, and after sessions by a doctor. Father Martin was a doctor before entering the religious life; he knows of the sessions but has not witnessed any or read the material. We considered asking his help in the matter of getting some data on Jane’s physiological states, but did not go through with the idea because of lack of time.

(“A long passage of time, and then a meeting.” This is a connection growing out of letter #4, written by Jane on January 25, which is the postmark date on the experimental object. As stated, F. Fell did not answer letter #4 by mail. The letter was answered by telephone in the call of February 8, between Jane and F. Fell. Jane said the passage-of-time reference grows out of Mr. Fell’s questions as to when she was coming to New York, and her reply that she saw no use in it until the ESP book was out; then, in May, she wanted to be in NYC to help with publicity. Thus a year or so is involved from the time F. Fell agreed to publish the book and Jane began her final draft of it. The “meeting” grows out of Mr. Fell’s reference that in this telephone call of February 8, he felt he was getting acquainted with Jane as a person, meeting her personally; also that he looked forward to their meeting in May.

(“A willingness to achieve.” In both letters #1 and #4, Jane expresses her willingness to do all she can to help with publicity re the ESP book—write copy, appear on radio or TV shows, etc. In the February 8 phone call, F. Fell told Jane he would try to get her on some shows to publicize the book.

(“Paws, and netlike shapes, and triangles.” These are very good references to letter #3, and take the form of doodles executed by Jane. She remembers making these on February 8, just before her telephone call to F. Fell. Letter #3, again, was written January 25, and the date connects this letter with the January 25 postmark on the envelope experimental object. Either letter #2 or letter #3 was enclosed in the experimental object.

(Jane has the habit of making such doodles, but as it happens letter #3 is the only one of the four letters involved that has doodles on it. Nor, for the record, does Jane’s unmailed letter of December 2,1965 to Father Martin contain any doodles. The doodles from letter #3 are reproduced below as tracings from the originals, and are not in the same position as on the original, standard-size 81/2 x 11 inch typing paper; the doodles are scattered over the page.

(The “10 times” is the only other doodle appearing on the letter.

Now. We have various circumstances operating here, merely because of the several letters connected with the same date. The fact, also, that Ruburt was indeed overextended.

With good circumstances it would have been quite an achievement to separate all the impressions connected with these letters.

(Seth slipped up here, we believe. Rhoda Monks did author letter #2, but letter #3 was written by a woman, also; it is this letter that concerns Jane’s social security number.

The three letters of the same date brought about the difficulty, though the difficulty would have been far less had our circumstances this evening been better. There is no need to go into the meanings for other impressions which were not clear.

The twine was nearest I could get Ruburt to come. I was seeing however the January 25 letter Ruburt wrote, and was trying to get across the idea of a book to be mailed out. There was some small discussion, if you recall, when it was mailed, as to whether or not twine should be used.

(Seth is correct, and after he mentioned the twine connection Jane and I remembered it. This took place not on January 25, however, but on February 10, when the manuscript on the Seth material and the poetry book were mailed together. But Jane wrote letter #4, concerning the Seth material, on January 25. We did not use twine on the package, incidentally, but did use it on the package containing the tape recording Jane made of some of the poems in the poetry book. This was also mailed February 10. See page 269 of Session 232.)