“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Timothy Foote, senior editor in charge of the book review department for Time Magazine, interviewed Jane and me today in connection with a cover story he is to write about Richard Bach and Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

Ruburt is beginning to get the picture, as the saying goes. And of course it is no coincidence that Timothy Foote, being the kind of man he is, came here, and is doing the Seagull’s story.

For he is a kind, well-intentioned, intelligent man, searching to make sense of the nature of reality by using the yardstick of available beliefs. His kindly inner skepticism is the same as that that is within many of the magazine’s readers. They will (in quotes) “want to believe” Seagull and its story, for example, but they will not come from any homogenous background of acceptance, necessarily. Do you follow me?

An individual who completely accepted what was going on here, and Seagull without question, could (underlined) also possess a fervor that would, or could, overstate the case, rouse instead within people conflicting beliefs. So Timothy’s approach is an excellent one. (Note: November 7: Timothy’s article bears this out very well.)

He has always been deeply concerned with the nature of reality, both from an intellectual and emotional standpoint, and where Seagull did not reach him personally, he was fascinated by the phenomena of belief behind it, and then was fascinated by the phenomena of belief behind the Lourdes healings.

(Pause at 9:00.) His intellect however leads him to ask questions that are basically (underlined) intuitive. Seagull does not intellectually reach him—that is, it does not intellectually by itself inspire him, while the phenomena behind it does.

This has to do with his personal characteristics and inclinations. It is not meant as a reflection on Seagull therefore, but on the various ways in which different people will receive such information.