“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.

(Jane began speaking in trance while sitting down and with her eyes closed. Her pace was rather slow.)

(Break at 9:39. Jane was pretty well dissociated, she said. Her eyes opened just once, briefly, during the delivery. She had a vague idea of what she had said. She resumed in the same manner at 9:50.)

(Her eyes still closed, still holding the envelope to her forehead with her right hand, Jane made a large horizontal curving motion with her free left hand. The gesture was gently curving rather than circular.)

(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.

(Jane now opened the double sealed envelopes and examined the object, as she always does at break. At first it had little meaning for her, and as is often the case she said the data obtained pertaining to it was incorrect. True, the data was not as specific as it has often been, but it did contain a number of valid points. Some of these were subjective on our part.

(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.

(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.

(“It seems some connection with cars or transportation.” As stated, the object contained a letter describing the reunion of perhaps half a dozen artists who worked together in the early 1940’s. The reunion was attended by the writer of the letter. All of the reunion participants live in the New York City and New Jersey area just across the Hudson River. In his letter Wendell does not name the town or city in which the reunion, at a restaurant, took place, but from following data Jane and I surmise it took place in New York City.

(There is another possible travel connection here, depending upon interpretation. The envelope object is postmarked Ridgewood, NJ, which lies on the outer rim of the commuter towns attendant to New York City. The letter the object contained, however, was written by Wendell at his home in Edgewater, NJ, which is just across the Hudson from New York City. The two towns are at least 25 miles apart—a trip Wendell makes daily.

(“A string, as of lights, or pearls, in a string of succession, of items in succession.” We interpreted this as a possible reference to street lights at first, or a theater marquee, since the reunion was held at night, and nighttime travel would involve lights, etc. But “items in succession” could just as well refer to words in succession—i.e., the letter that had been enclosed in the envelope object or the printing and typing on the object itself.

(“A building, more like an office building than a residence. Something like the Star-Gazette building.” Was the restaurant in which the reunion was held located on the ground floor of a building like the Star-Gazette building here in Elmira? A large brick two-story building typical of many we remember in the metropolitan New Jersey-New York City area. This is only speculation on our part. Later note RFB: Newspaper comics.

(“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.

(“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.

(Jane spells out: M-i-s-s-i-n-c or e-n-c. At break Jane said this data was actually two impressions, Miss and Inc or Enc. But we still couldn’t make connections. According to the object, for instance, the Crowley-Taylor Lumber Company is not incorporated.

(“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.

(“It seems a definite connection with your studio.” Beside the connotations mentioned just above, the envelope used as object was kept in the studio, at the back of our apartment, for five months, or from its receipt in late May until now, October 3,1966.

(“A bottom or middle drawer, next to something financial.” The object was not kept in a drawer of my desk in the studio, but lay beneath a pile of papers on a shelf of the desk, perhaps a foot above the desk drawer which contains our financial records.

(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.

The i-n-c was a distortion or misrepresentation of ink, i-n-k, for inking comic strips.

(See page 78.) Too disconnected, I am afraid. Your friend wrote a letter to a man in Michigan, immediately before or after writing this letter. This was the M also—a name something like Murray. No, more like Musach—

(Jane was interrupted here, unfortunately. One of our cats jumped up on her lap as she sat in trance. She did not leave trance, but her delivery was disrupted. Her eyes remained closed. I left my chair to put the cat in another room.)

The studio connection was legitimate, but Ruburt associated it with you primarily when two studios were involved. These are the main points.

(“How successful was Jane’s projection attempt, that we made the drawings for?”

It was fairly successful.

(End at 10:55. Jane was out as usual.)