“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(The 59th envelope experiment used as object a tag that had been attached to a rifle we had bought in October 1962. Jane hadn’t seen the tag since. See the tracing on page 217. The tag is printed on typical card-weight stock in two colors, red and black as indicated. The face of the tag is gold coated, the string red. The object was sealed in the usual double envelopes, between the usual two pieces of Bristol. The results of the experiment were quite unusual, and Seth goes into the mechanisms involved.

Some such data will never be utilized. Some such data will be utilized time and time again. Now you see the energy does not reside within any given physical object, but in the idea form that is within it. Physical objects do not exist as such in a basic manner. You can only perceive large areas of reality data however by transforming it into terms that can be picked up by the physical senses.

Every thought therefore has this kind of reality, which is the only reality, basically speaking. (Long pause.) Sense data itself has a reality independent of any given object. This sense data has its own intensity. If you can tune into that intensity, so to speak, you will automatically translate it into physical data, and you will perceive a physical object.

If you tune into that intensity imperfectly, you will have a pseudophysical object, that is in one or more respects different from a normal object. It may be obvious for example to some of your physical senses, and not to others. It may be only partially materialized.

In such cases however definite atoms and molecules are utilized. Now. In our seance we were, again, manipulating energy and forming objects from it—objects that you could perceive with your physical senses. The whole matter, if you will forgive my pun (smile) on matter is highly intriguing, and we shall have several sessions at least, dealing with the reality of sense data, and the unreality, comparatively speaking, of matter itself.

The whole discussion will be leading us to an investigation of the similarities and differences between such data as dream objects, hallucinated objects, and physical objects.

There is no basic difference you see between a hallucinated object and a so-called physical object, except for the number of persons who perceive them.

Again, these images are as real as any physical matter is. (Long pause.) Now once energy is formed into any kind of a pattern, the identity of the pattern is maintained. If it will help you, think in terms of a memory image. Except you see that in many cases the object may never have existed in physical reality.

The objects that you will see and the places that you will visit, in dream or out-of-body experiences, are basically as real as any physical object or location, because neither are basically real. Nor of course are they unreal. As soon as you begin to translate an idea you are distorting it. The inner senses you see do not distort the data, but when you attempt to make such data available to the ego, then distortion to some extent must enter in.

The object is something like this, but that is not it precisely. I believe it is larger, and sits on a table with a white cloth. Dr. Instream recently received a package of books, I believe. There is some question as to whether or not he will be at the same university next year. Uncertainty on his part, and some speculation.

Now these may be objects, or representations, rather than persons, but I have the impression of two persons, and the impression that they are both women. In any case these two objects seem to be together, toward the lower center of the object perhaps, holding the object this way.

A four and seven, perhaps, though I am not sure, connected with the upper left-hand corner, holding the object this way. (The same gesture repeated.)

A connection with an initial expense. The impression on the object, on the lower bottom, of very small rectangles or squares, (pause) one after another—bright, but outlined in darker color, as perhaps a transparency of some kind.

(“What colors are connected with the object?”)

The impression I mentioned of dark, and perhaps purple. Also a brownish tone. Perhaps a blue dress. Or the object that I pick up as a woman is a blue one.

(“Do you want to name the object?”)

I have the impression that it is a picture or transparency of some sort, or strongly connected. That is if the object is not a picture or transparency it seems to be strongly connected with one.

(See the tracing of the object on page 217, and the notes concerning it on page 218. As usual at break Jane and I went over the data to make what connections we could with the object. Without Seth’s help, in some detail after break, we were greatly puzzled by the data. That is, we could speculate on the reasons for what seemed to be many distortions, but had little idea of the causes. Since we could pick out a few items in the data that seemed to apply to the object, we took it that Seth had correctly tuned in on the object itself, and that Jane’s translation of the data had been distorted most of the time. For this reason, immediately below will be listed only those parts of the data we think apply. The rest is cleared up by Seth after break. Actually we found the experiment most interesting, and unique in the series so far.

(Clues were available however. As soon as she opened the double envelope and saw the front of the object, Jane announced that the picture thereon was of a moose. Actually it is a black line drawing, in some detail, of an eagle. We pursued this impasse for some little time. Jane insisted the drawing represented a moose; she interpreted the spread of the eagle’s wings as stylized antlers. My tracing is quickly done on page 217, and shows little detail, but the drawing on the actual object is very well and finely done, including individual feathers on the wings, etc. I could see little relationship between an eagle and a moose here except in the most abstract sense. It was easy for us to agree that Jane saw a moose instead of an eagle because she wanted to. Intellectually she agreed that the drawing was of an eagle, but said that she saw a moose.

(As I began typing these notes on Saturday June 11, two days later, I showed Jane the envelope object again. Her opinion on the drawing had not changed; she still regarded the drawing as that of a moose, with the eagle’s wings representing stylized antlers. As for the rest of the drawing other than the wings or antlers, she said she couldn’t see anything in it “in particular” that represented an eagle.

(As soon as she saw the object and identified the eagle as a moose, Jane said the M and “munch” data, given first, applied to the moose idea.

(Below are a few points that apply to the object itself. Seth concurs that a few such items did come through the general distortions.

(“The impression of an empty area, perhaps with a border.” There is such a comparatively large empty rectangular area at the bottom of the object on the back: a boxed-in area for a price to be inserted. No price showed on the object however.

(“The impression of two people. One bending down or over… Now these may be objects, or representations, rather than persons, but I have the impression of two persons… In any case these two objects seem to be together, toward the lower center of the object perhaps, holding the object this way.” These are excerpts from succeeding impressions as a group, and are given here because Jane thinks the bending over idea here derived from the way the wings of the eagle bend in and down toward each other; they are together, or close, at the base, and in the center of the object.

(Jane held the envelope with the long dimension horizontal, but we do not know the position of the object inside them at that time. It is possible the tag was simply upside down. Perhaps this gave rise to Seth’s mention of lower center.

(“The impression on the object, on the lower bottom, of very small rectangles or squares…” On the back of the object is the phrase “Side-opening loading-port for easy rapid-load.” As soon as she read this Jane said this was the source of the above data, well distorted. But Jane was subjectively sure.

(“I have the impression that it is a picture or transparency of some sort, or strongly connected….” My fourth question asked Seth to name the object. There is a picture on the object. According to Seth after break his data was legitimate as given to Jane, but was distorted by her.

(“Also the number 9.” In the upper left-hand corner on the back of the object, in very small type, is the number: Part 999-30.

(At the end of the session she was still convinced the eagle looked like a moose, although she agreed it was actually an eagle because I said it was. Jane mentioned showing the object to others to get their opinion.

(As stated, she still felt this way two days later. She again suggested, today, June 11, that we show the object to others.)

(Copy of the drawing of a begonia plant, used as the object in the 60th envelope experiment, in the 267th session for June 13,1966.)