“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(The object for the 72nd envelope experiment was an empty envelope, as shown. I kept the letter that had been enclosed in the envelope for reference, and as expected needed it to decipher some of Seth’s data. The object was a standard white business envelope, printed and typed in black. The back was blank. I sealed it in the usual double envelopes after placing it between two pieces of Bristol board. Jane had seen the envelope in a casual way upon its arrival here last May, but not since then.

(“Good evening, Seth.”)

(At 10:03, her eyes closed, Jane took the double sealed envelope from me for the 72nd envelope experiment. She held it to her forehead in a horizontal position, lightly, without attempting to determine its contents by obvious feel, etc. Early in these experiments Seth announced that he would give no data resulting from Jane’s sense of touch, and he has stuck to this procedure. Jane’s eyes remained closed, her pace average.)

(Break at 10:17. Jane said she was dissociated as usual during the delivery. Her eyes remained closed. She reported no images within at first, but memory of a few did return as we discussed Seth’s data.

(Seth helped us out with our interpretations after break, as sometimes happens. Whenever possible we prefer to make as many connections between the data and the envelope object as we can on our own. Our purpose in conducting these experiments in this manner is to see what Jane, or Seth, can pick up about a concealed object that bears some kind of emotional charge related to us personally. To this end, envelope objects are often deliberately chosen by me with emotional involvement in mind, since Seth has said many times that his abilities have an emotional basis; this primary emotional basis is then disciplined and given shape by the intellect.

(However, Seth has done as well with objects quite separated from the personal emotional life of Jane and mine. It doesn’t matter, either, whether Jane has ever seen the object before; or whether she saw it ten minutes before the session, or five years ago.

(Seth will occasionally comment about the lack of emotional impetus surrounding an object if I pick one that happens to bear little charge. I cannot be sure that I am choosing an object that carries little charge, however, for Seth’s data will often shoot off at an angle entirely unexpected by me. This data can be related to the envelope object in a variety of quite valid ways. I make no conscious effort to dwell on the object chosen for an envelope experiment, and when I do choose an object it is usually a spur-of-the-moment decision.

(See the tracing of tonight’s envelope object on page 71 and the notes on the next page. The empty envelope used as object was mailed to me last May 26,1966, by an old friend, Wendell Crowley, and contained a letter detailing a reunion of a group of friends, all artists, that Wendell and I worked with in 1941-43. The letter was not in the envelope but was kept separate by me for reference after the session. As I suspected, some of Seth’s data referred to the contents of the letter rather than the envelope object itself.

(There follows the interpretations Jane and I made, at break, of Seth’s envelope data. It is noted where Seth agrees with us, after break. As stated, Seth’s comments regarding the data after break definitely help.

(“A double, or something twice, or a negative.” Relatively little of the data refers to the envelope object itself. Instead the empty envelope from Wendell serves as a springboard. This data is a case in point. After break Seth agrees with Jane and me when we assign the double or twice mentioned here to the frequent use of the numeral 2 on the second page of Wendell’s letter.

(The negative mention in the data is interesting, and has several connections, both here and in the rest of Seth’s data. Jane and I did not think of negative in connection with the word no, for instance, but in relation to pictures or visual images. On page two of his letter Wendell tells about a friend who works for the Neilson TV survey people—having to do with pictures. But also, negative, meaning pictures, is called to mind because Wendell’s letter deals with a group of artists who worked together in a studio, drawing comic strips, in 1941-3. In addition I personally have a studio here in the apartment, and the envelope used as object was kept in this studio. These references about studios, pictures, and the object crop up again later in the data also.

(“Something standing vertical.” Jane said this referred to trees. Note that Wendell Crowley, who mailed us the object, is partner in a lumber company. Also, the object was mailed to us from Ridgewood, NJ, as shown by the postmark. After break Seth says this interpretation is correct.

(“A connection with Michigan.” We were able to make no connections here, but Seth does after break.

(“My fair lady—I do not know to what this refers.” In his letter Wendell makes no reference to this in any way. Seth begins to clear this up after break but an interruption interferes.

(“A corridor. A circular corridor or path. Not circular but curved.” [Gesture.] This would seem to be part of the following data, as Seth/Jane tries to become more explicit.

(“The travel connection again. Now the feeling of trains, or a tunnel, as a train tunnel would be. This is an attempt to get at the curved corridor connection more clearly.” This is difficult to interpret without place names, and I did not think to ask Seth for any at the time. In any traveling Wendell might have done from his home in Edgewater, NJ, to New York City, trains and cars could very well have been involved.

(“Some connection with a February event.” Wendell’s letter of May 26 was in answer to a letter I wrote him last February. I do not have a copy of my letter, but am sure it was written in February because Wendell discusses my references to snow and poor weather. Our weather last winter was quite peculiar—we had no snow at all until the massive three-day storm of February 1, one of the worst in local history. Seth has more to say about February in answer to my first question.

(“A photograph. Ruburt here thinks of the photographs taken in your studio, of him.” The picture data begins to emerge again. Seth here mentions some test photos I took of Jane in my studio here last week. Studio is the link here with Wendell’s letter, and hence the envelope object. In his letter Wendell specifically mentions the studio we artists shared back in 1941-3.

(“The photograph connection is strong [pause] but I do not believe the item is this precisely.” [Pause.] Seth tried to help Jane discriminate here, as he often does. Tonight’s object of course is not a picture or photo, but an envelope that contained a letter about people who make pictures. Also, I was taking pictures of Jane last week, as explained. Thus it can be seen how all such related data, even though separated by much time, comes together in these session experiments. This particular chain of association was not anticipated by me when I picked the Crowley envelope as object for tonight. The two studio settings—the studio I worked in with Wendell Crowley in 1941-3, and my present studio, are separated by as much as 23 years.

(“There seems to be a dual impression of printed matter with a photograph.” Seth comes even closer with this data. He deals with the photo-picture-artist impressions on the one hand, and the actual envelope object, containing both printing and typing, on the other. We regard this as good data. Tonight’s empty object also contained Wendell’s typed letter. In the past Seth, or Jane, has used lettering, typing, writing and printing interchangeably. Thus it is possible that tonight “printing” could refer to both the printing and typing on Wendell’s envelope, and to the letter it had contained.

(“One thirty-five.” My hunch was that this referred either to the end of the reunion discussed in Wendell’s letter—at 1:35 AM, or the time Wendell himself left the party. Inspection of his letter showed that Wendell states “I left at about 12:30 AM,” but that other member of the party remained after he left. Seth is more specific after break.

(Had Seth stated something about a round design or print, rather than object, we could have considered the circular postmark on the object itself.

(“And a connection with an older man here.” Jane and I felt reasonably sure here that this referred to the boss of the studio at which both Wendell and I worked in 1941-3. His name is Jack Binder, and he is in his 60’s now—perhaps twenty years older than the crew of artists he had working for him. Seth agreed with our interpretations after break.

(2nd Question: Got any initials on the older man? “The letters M and J, though these are not necessarily connected with the man.” The J here could apply to Jack. Seth began to comment on the M after break, but unfortunately was interrupted, as will be shown.

(Seth called for break after the second question, taking me by surprise. Usually I can ask more questions, and attempt them without being leading about it. I owe Wendell a letter, and may ask him to clear up some of the points mentioned in the data, and by Seth after break. It is however difficult to explain briefly in a letter just why such questions are necessary, and so Jane and I usually forego trying. But any additional information obtained will be attached to this session at a later date.

(See the 286th session for Seth’s discussion of these envelope experiments—why and how he presents the data, etc.

(This passage may be somewhat distorted. I do not know that it is possible to travel part way through a tunnel, then park. Seth/Jane may have meant that Wendell drove to New York City via one of the tunnels, then parked at the tunnel exit, which is possible, and took a subway to the restaurant, rather than one in New Jersey. Another point to check out with Wendell.)

(“Good night, Seth.”