“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(The 41st envelope experiment was held during the session. See the tracing on page 20. The object was an unused ticket to a VFW ball and entertainment. It is printed in heavy black type on yellow card stock; the back is blank. It was given to us on the evening of Saturday, November 20,1965, by a friend of our neighbor across the hall. Our neighbor is Leonard Yaudes. As Jane and I were leaving our place to go dancing that evening Leonard called us into his place to meet two friends of his, a man and a woman, not married; we have forgotten their names. The man, who was also planning to attend the VFW affair later that evening, gave Jane and me a free ticket.

(The session was held in our front room. There was a chance that Peggy Gallagher would be present with a press camera, to take some pictures of Jane while she was in trance. Jane’s publisher has written requesting some photos, drawings, etc., in connection with the book Jane is now writing on the Seth material. Peggy is a writer for Elmira’s newspaper, the Star-Gazette, and has access to the necessary equipment.

(Once again Jane began speaking while sitting down and with her eyes closed. Her head rested on her left hand, but she soon became quite restless in her Kennedy rocker and began to shift about. She used some pauses. Her voice was average.)

A survival personality in many respects is psychologically much different from the individual that he was. The ego is now under the control of what may be loosely called the inner self. When communications take place between a survival personality and a personality who exists within the physical system, then this involves a reshuffling, again, on the part of the survival personality, where the ego is momentarily given greater reign.

There is the same sort of disorientation that the ego experiences within physical reality when an individual dreams. The same sort of psychological reshuffling occurs. If it did not occur, then in most cases communication would not be possible, simply because the survival personality would have such difficulty in impressing the personality who was still ego-oriented within the physical system.

(Seth began talking about these points in the very early sessions. By the 15th session he was explaining Jane’s role as a translator for him, putting concepts into words, etc. See Volume 1.)

(Break at 9:31. Jane was dissociated as usual for a first delivery. Her eyes had opened once briefly, when she sipped wine. She did not smoke. Her pace had picked up considerably and her restlessness in her chair had continued. She hadn’t been aware of this. See Seth’s psychological-bridge material on page 14.

(Break at 9:59. Jane was dissociated as usual. Her eyes had remained closed and her pace had been slow toward the end of the delivery.

(It was now time for the 48th Dr. Instream experiment. Jane spoke with her eyes closed once more; her pace, although broken by many short pauses, was good overall. Resume at 10:05.)

(Her eyes still closed, Jane now made a full-armed gesture in front of herself. I made a quick drawing of what I thought she was indicating, with both hands. My sketch is below on the left. Jane’s is on the right, made at next break:)

(Jane paused at 10:15. Her eyes still closed, she took the usual double envelope from me. This time she did not hold it to her forehead but in her lap. Her left hand was raised to her eyes. This was our 41st such experiment.)

A note was sent, I believe, concerning the object.

(Break at 10:25. Jane was dissociated as usual, and her eyes had remained closed. We made what connections we could, but missed some that Seth later pointed out; these then seemed to be rather obvious. It also developed that we had some conflict of terminology, as will be seen, and as Seth hints at in the last data above.

(“White paper with small implied border. A July date. A note, short, that does not take up all the available space.” This is the data I asked Seth to connect with the envelope object. His answer was that a note was sent, presumably to our neighbor across the hall, Leonard Yaudes, concerning the object. Jane and I do not know if this is so, and probably will not ask Leonard; he does not know of these sessions.

(“Symbols or initials in the lower left hand corner. Having something to do with a house, or residence.” Near the lower left hand corner of the object is printed the name of the hotel in which the VFW affair was to be held, along with the specific rooms. We wonder if Seth/Jane mentioning a house or residence referred to a hotel, via a close distortion.

(“The appearance of a neat, even, script, with small letters. The main paragraph forming a neat rectangular form. But neatly squared off. A block of matter.” Jane said this data referred to the printed envelope object, even though she used the word script instead of type. I was wondering if her use of the word script was a reference to the note sent in connection with the object, but Jane said no. She is not aware of the difference between the terms script, lettering, and type, for instance. She had an image here, of small even words on a rectangular shape; but my questioning could not elicit whether she could distinguish, here, between type, script, etc., on this rectangular shape. She merely knew there were words present.

(After we had discussed this point, Jane added that it is possible she also had an image, very vague, of the note referred to earlier in the data. This seemed to return to mind after our discussion; she didn’t mention it during the session, but when I was typing up these notes. This could account for the reference to a “main paragraph” above. But in giving the above data, Jane had the image of a rectangular form and block of matter with neat borders.

(“Connection with a dog.” I drew a blank here. Jane offered a connection perhaps twice removed from the object. Leonard Yaudes has a girlfriend who has a dog; occasionally they leave the dog in Leonard’s apartment when they go out on a date. The connection would be that the object came from Leonard’s apartment. It is a weak one, in that the girl in question is not the girl who was present in the apartment on November 20,1965, when Jane and I were given the object. Jane didn’t know whether her interpretation was correct.

(“A note was sent, I believe, concerning the object.” This was Seth’s answer to my question about the “white paper, July, note,” data. See page 26.

Now. I do not know if it was worthwhile to go into this test in detail.

A good deal was legitimate, but not precisely-enough interpreted. Whether or not a test such as this were involved, Ruburt’s terms and your own would not agree as to the printed material and so forth.

The street or “avenue of escape” should have been separated. A street was mentioned on the object, and you wished to escape attending the event referred to on the object.

The color mentioned was not clear, and the connection was to the street, which was Gray Street. The—shall I say printed material—was neatly blocked off by strips of black.

The four, unfortunately, went completely astray. I was trying to get the word war to Ruburt. I wanted the word war in the plural; however the plural gave him the idea of the number, which was blended with the sound of war, into four.

(Check the printed copy in the center of the object. Beside the word “wars” there, we see the words “for” and “foreign.” Seth mentioned “the number four in the center of a square.” The envelope object is rectangular rather than square. We wondered whether the square reference was to the “larger white object,” mentioned at the end of the envelope data. See page 27. The inside envelope used in these experiments is almost square.)

The dog was legitimate, but too far afield. You received the card in a friend’s apartment. The friend has a girlfriend with a dog. She takes the dog with her on her visits there.

(“Was this the girl who was visiting Leonard the night we were given the object?”)