“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

You are not selling cosmetics now, and now Ruburt does not go door-to-door, but people come to you either physically or through their correspondence, and now you have far more to offer. You are not trying to pretty-up the world. You are trying to restructure the daily experience of the people who live in it.

Ruburt once received a few interesting pages from a world view, in which the author spoke, in archaic terms, of being a person who was a “life-taster,” sent by God to taste the quality of man’s experience, so that God might know what new ingredients might be added.

It is highly important, again, that you remember the context in which the letters are written, and the great thrust of creativity that supports the world. I must remind you both that peoples’ good intent, their constructive creativity, their desire “to do better,” is far stronger, far more vital and all-pervading than any of their negative qualities—or, quite simply, you would not have a world, in your terms.

The honesty and the good intent of most of the people holds the world together. The letters are meant as an education. Learn what you can from them.

Now (President) Carter is a man of good intent. He is very cleverly trying to appeal to the misdirected good intent of Sadat and Begin, and by doing so to redirect the policies of the world. At the same time he must deal with the chicanery of politics itself, and the face-saving devices known so well to religion and politics both.

(Perhaps the most upsetting or enraging part of such behavior is that the best our society can do is to reward men for such actions. A clear indication of where we’re at as a world society, and of how far we have to go.

(Both Jastrow and Hebb are brilliant men, I told Jane as we lay in bed after the session last night, and this brought up once again a basic question I have. Simply put, it concerns the fact that our world society is now run by these brilliant men who think that way. I wondered aloud why other brilliant men weren’t around who questioned people like Hebb and Jastrow, who told them their ideas were severely limited and distorted, who made a case for the kind of thinking Jane and I believed in. Most discouraging, I tell myself, to see that in our society at this time that’s the overwhelming, prevailing view—with no one of stature asking any embarrassing questions. I wanted to know what happened to the loyal opposition, I told Jane. Did it disappear when it found itself badly outnumbered? Did those who could have made a dent in such mechanistic thinking simply drop out of such fields when they realized what the score was? Or hadn’t they ever existed to begin with? Much could be written about these questions.)