“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Friday evening Jane and I were visited by a psychologist [Ed Ostrander] from Cornell, after an exchange of letters over a period of several months. I’m afraid that the encounter was typical of others we’ve had with the members of academia, and once again we were rather taken by surprise. It wasn’t until the next day that we realized the visit had upset us more than we knew, because of the various connotations aroused. Although we liked him personally, we came to understand that he used words as a barrier to any real communication, asked Jane few questions. At the same time he thought himself liberal-minded, he repeatedly couched Seth’s ideas in the terms used by the respected, well-known members of his profession. He told us often that while he liked a good idea “no matter where it came from,” he wouldn’t use Seth’s name in conversations with others, but would try to work in Seth’s ideas under the guise of others’ works. Jane and I were slow: we didn’t realize that such thinking should have been challenged by us on the spot. Instead, we passively let it go by.

(In sum, we probably got exactly what we expected out of the deal, although it was certainly valuable as a reminder of how the psychic field and its members are regarded by the “straight” scientific community. Ed called himself a “closet” devotee of psychic matters. But Jane and I have seen the pattern demonstrated again and again: the visitor walks in the door, starts talking, usually about himself or herself, and seldom stops until leaving x-number of hours later. Although we now see that we should have said more—interrupted more—such behavior doesn’t appear to be too easy for us, whether because of beliefs or what. But we don’t really feel like confronting guests. At the same time, we end up wishing we’d done exactly that, so we feel caught in some ways that we don’t think others have to bother with, or understand in life.

Now: you should reread Ruburt’s library material in the Cézanne book, on authority and creativity, for it is excellent.

Your friend—Professor “Crazies”—thought himself on the one hand very avant-garde to come here, and on the other he felt the need to protect himself, to maintain the stance of a professor. You should indeed have spoken more freely, but you also should have seen him simply as an individual, and not as a symbol of a school, or a structure, or as a scientist.

Ruburt dislikes authority. He lived under the authority of Welfare, as well as the church. That dislike was to serve as an impetus, as it did, but the adult should see—the adult Ruburt—that there is no authority in those terms. There is nothing to fight in those terms. The authorities are simply people doing their best to preserve a status quo—with which many are already dissatisfied. Their authority becomes a trap for them, for to preserve it they must keep themselves in ignorance.

In the deepest of terms, each person must be his or her own authority, and equally respect but not bow down to, the same innate psychic authority within each other living individual. That should be the basis for your democracy.