“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

I am interested mainly in education, and with Ruburt’s training by me through our present methods, the processes themselves are more clearly seen and understood. Some information comes to Ruburt fairly automatically, in that he speaks for me without having to consciously translate for me.

At the same time, because of the methods we use, some translation is often necessary. In many cases this translation is done by the intervening psychological framework, which is simply the psychological point closest to the meeting of Ruburt’s personality and my own, for he does not fade out as a personality. He extends himself in an expansion. The psychological expansion on his end, and the psychological expansion on my end, form the gestalt, the psychological bridge, of which I have spoken.

As he is learning it is, however, often up to him to interpret the images that I send him. The psychological bridge can transmit, you see, and to some extent translate, but not interpret.

This psychological gestalt is a connector. I am dependent in a large measure upon Ruburt’s own knowledge, and lack of it, in that I cannot force for example from him, from his speech mechanism, concepts with which he is entirely unfamiliar. I must introduce them step by step.

I could not have explained moment points to you, for example, until I had clearly given the idea of the spacious present. It is not as simple a thing as it might seem, for there is no coercion involved, Ruburt always consenting to let me push concepts at him, which he interprets speech-wise with my assistance.

(Seth began talking about moment points in the 149th-152nd sessions. He began on the spacious present in session 44 in Volume 2.

Ruburt is of course much more familiar with sense impressions than he is with internal data, or with impressions that do not come to him through the physical senses. Therefore in our experiments, often, I will give him an impression, and he will automatically translate it into visual terms, although his eyes are closed. And then he is tempted to interpret it literally, as he would an ordinary visual image.

For simplicity’s sake, I say that I gave him the image, but actually I gave him the impression, which he translated into an image, so that he could deal with it in a more familiar way.

Then when we are successful there is a divergence from his associations so that he says the correct word, even though the correct word, for him personally, would be the wrong word as far as his personal associations are concerned.

The trick is to allow Ruburt’s associations free reign to a certain point, and then expertly insert the correct data. This is sometimes difficult. Ruburt’s associations may go for example from C, D, E, and F, but precisely where he would say G, we must insert X or Y, and do it so smoothly that he is quite unaware.

He consents for me, he consents to let me use his associations in such a manner. Nevertheless there is a small sense of alienation when the associations do not follow through, but are diverted to the desired end.

Here is a very brief example. Suppose I am trying to give him the impression of a glass of water. It is fairly easy to insert the idea of water, but this may lead him personally to think of the Gulf of Mexico, or the ocean off of Marathon, or even of the Atlantic at York Beach. I will use his associations until I am certain that he has the concept of the word water, but precisely where he is about to say the ocean for example, and after having made use of his associations to get him to this point, I must suddenly make him say a glass of water.

He holds it in his hands. Nervously, I believe. At least, tossing it from one hand to the other.

Gray threads, does he wear a gray suit? It would not seem so at a formal affair, yet I pick up that connection. And a connection with something round and red, of apple shape.

Music. He meets a woman who was a close friend of a male friend of his, who has since died. I believe the initial W here.

(In Volume 5, see the 232nd session for Feb. 9,1966. In that session Ezra is dealt with in the envelope data with the same type of data; Seth gave Jane the grave data, signifying Ezra’s death, but at that time Jane, who did not like the idea of graves, did not use the word. This time, Jane now said, she came out with it when Seth gave her the data. We believe the grave data was to refer to Ezra, who worked at Artistic before he died, and that this in turn was to lead Jane to identify Artistic as the source of the envelope object.

(“A G and H.” I thought this an inverted reference to the fact that the envelope object came from my place of employment, presided over by my boss, Harry Gottesman. Harry noticed the holly leaf in particular when it was first given to me about a year ago; and like I did, he pricked his finger on the exceedingly sharp points.