“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Now: any disclaimer would not insult me. The entire idea of the disclaimer is a living example of the book’s thematic material. It shows the elements of the society that we have criticized in action. It becomes almost an exterior extension of the book itself. Certainly it shows why the ideas in the book are so important at this time. I consider such a disclaimer as a mildly amusing case in point: a living example—almost as if indeed you had requested one—a proof of the pudding.

In other words, the books are considered to have some social life. (Pause.) You are, or we are, certainly criticizing many of the aspects of your society. In that particular book (Mass Events)—rather powerful honored aspects, and criticism will (underlined) meet criticism. At the same time, as the book’s criticism has a good import, so is the disclaimer in its fashion a creative example, again, of the book’s premise, and also would serve for that matter in a way that may not have been anticipated: with the disclaimer the book may well sell more copies by far than it would otherwise (humorously), for people will be curious about what such a volume might contain that will be dangerous to the public good.

(Long pause.) Because the book met criticism at Prentice does not mean that you or it were not protected. (Pause.) The word “protection” in this context is interesting, of course, since the disclaimer is supposed to protect Prentice from any court action. It is in its fashion an attempt at protection at that level. The level is one where every bit of preventative protection is needed in a world where people constantly need insurance, preventative medicine, and so forth – again, all issues dealt with in the book.

(Long pause.) The disclaimer is also Prentice’s way of allowing itself some freedom thematically, without getting its feet wet in any possible court actions. The company, as stated, is in its fashion a capsule of your society and its present climate. (Long pause.) The disclaimer in no way lessens the power of impact of the book. It only manages to stress many of the pertinent issues, and in its way it would point out the situation quite clearly. No one is seriously concerned about the possibility of a person dying of a disease because they followed any of the advice given in the book. They are afraid to some extent of being sued for such a purpose because they themselves dwell in a mental situation in which threats are everywhere, in which all precautions must be taken.

To the extent that he questions his own natural protection. Give us a moment.... You are dealing with two issues also. The natural person—the creator, the artist—in Ruburt, wants the book out without any interruptions, and cares little about other issues. The socially knowledgeable person does not want to be taken for a fool, be insulted, and wants to be treated with respect. To some extent that is a simplification, of course. Nothing is that simple, but the explanation does serve to clarify contradictory issues. Certainly the entire affair is to be used creatively. Art, including writing, of course—creativity itself—is bound to be, as per the Cézanne passage (I’d called to Jane’s attention a couple of weeks ago) sometimes disruptive. It brings into being that which was not there before. It rearranges some aspects of the world, and it is in its fashion as brilliant as a child’s clear eye. It sees truth clearly. Because it does, art can often make disclosures that offend the pious, the well-mannered.