1 result for (book:tps5 AND heading:"delet session decemb 1 1980" AND stemmed:issu)

TPS5 Deleted Session December 1, 1980 4/30 (13%) disclaimer thematic protection legal criticism
– The Personal Sessions: Book 5 of The Deleted Seth Material
– © 2016 Laurel Davies-Butts
– Deleted Session December 1, 1980 8:49 PM Monday

[... 12 paragraphs ...]

When you realize that you are indeed protected, such issues are absorbed along the way. They are actually changed in character, so that they work for your benefit rather than against it. It is extremely difficult for me, however, to make you understand quite clearly the role that your own attitudes play—for when issues hit close to home you have both the old tendency to blame the other party or parties for what is involved.

[... 2 paragraphs ...]

(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.

[... 7 paragraphs ...]

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.

[... 4 paragraphs ...]

Similar sessions

TPS5 Deleted Session November 19, 1980 disclaimer legal processes department hips
TMA Session Twelve September 22, 1980 disclaimer Parker textbooks Prentice intellect
TPS5 Deleted Session December 8, 1980 Bufferin hips controversy editors issues
TPS6 Jane’s Dream/Notes April 12, 1981 adulteress disclaimer ok liar wicked