“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(For the moment I’d forgotten the notes I wrote concluding the last session, deleted for November 12, having to do with Seth suggesting we throw our hassles with Prentice and foreign publishers into Framework 2; I’d written that I didn’t know whether or not I was capable of doing that at this time. But the questions I’d posed in those notes furnished the background for tonight’s session, somewhat to my surprise.

Now. (Pause.) Your questions about the operation of Framework 2 seem certainly to be simple, straight-forward questions, answerable in three or four or five pithy paragraphs (with humor)—and of course I will try to give you a straight-forward reply.

Behind your questions, however, there lies a vast area of unasked questions that we have barely touched upon. In dealing with Frameworks 1 and 2 alone, I have been simplifying, and those frameworks in a way represent (underlined) dimensions of events. How events happen is perhaps one of the greatest “mysteries” that you will encounter in physical life. Often I do need analogies, for to me that simultaneous, creative, cooperative nature of events exists with a sublime simplicity—a simplicity I am afraid that of necessity becomes complex as I try to describe it in terms that will make sense in your space-time framework.

(Pause.) All of our analogies taken together, you see, only hint at the true picture, but if I cannot describe clearly to you in your terms the interaction between Framework 1 and 2, then we will have difficulty with other later material. So we will try again this way.

Without consciously knowing how his body performs such manipulations, he trusts it—the hands to hold the brush, the fingers to type or whatever, and the idea becomes reality. The idea comes from Framework 2, and Framework 2’s activity fuels the body’s actions.

Your reality, and the reality of those people, exists primarily in Framework 2. Already in Framework 2 decisions beyond number have occurred, computations beyond number have been made, resulting in this particular reference frame of probabilities existing at the time. In one way or another, there are connections uniting everyone involved in such processes. There are reasons beyond business that make the people at Prentice involved with books rather than, say, toy manufacturing, or other even more profitable ventures.

(9:19.) The artistic acts always directly involve strong direct interactions with Framework 2. In the production of our book we want, say, people we may not even know to come together in certain fashions to make certain decisions that will be in direct agreement with our own creative intent. They each have their own lives and their own interests and intents, their own problems. We cannot move them around like toy people on a game board. When you continue to think of events—and publishing is one—as multidimensional creativity, involving many people instead of one, then you have some leverage to help you understand. In Framework 2 each person is connected to each other person. I have given you a good deal of material explaining how information is communicated both on a cellular basis and on a mental one—how it is communicated through the dream state, and I have explained the importance of impulses as direct nudges from Framework 2.

Ideally that force is to a large extent self-protecting. It is also perceived to whatever degree possible (underlined) by all those at Prentice who are involved. At Framework-2 levels those people want to produce an excellent book. Their desire is not as vigorous as yours. It is watered down by far more Framework 1 activity. There is much “static” at that level.

Now: When you concentrate mainly (underlined) in Framework 1 and its communications with Prentice, then while overall you do achieve results of a beneficial nature—the publication and distribution of the books in a largely adequate form—there are glaring discrepancies also: entanglements that you do not like because you have taken your intent from Framework 2, where the creative event began, and placed it into Framework 1’s communication system almost entirely. Obviously you need Framework 1, with its letters, telephone calls, and so forth—but Framework 1’s communication system, while physically handy, also is somewhat like a very poor telephone connection, with static at both ends.

Now: Framework 2’s communications system is set into motion as a primary rather than as a backup system of communications. When you learn to cut through the static—if you trust the system of communication—this is how it works.

(9:38.) First of all, you clear your wires by trying to clear your mind, and simply by trying to understand how Framework 2 works. You think of, say, any event in a book’s production, distribution, translation or whatever, as the kind of multidimensional creative effort and event I have tried to explain. All of those other people are connected to that event in Framework 2 on a nonphysical level, as they are connected on a physical level. Framework 2’s communication system is at once simpler and more complex that Framework 1’s. Just as, say, your intent to paint a picture automatically has your fingers all moving in the proper directions, and your body manipulating properly, so that the desired painting results, so in a larger fashion your clear intent is communicated to each of the people involved—at a level without static—yours or theirs.

You set a far more favorable group of probabilities into motion, a group that aids you and them as well, for they are also seeking creativity from their separate viewpoints. They are also fighting their own static. You do not have to contact them one by one in Framework 2. The book itself is like a magnet—any book. The same kinds of reactions, however, are involved in all activities, and it is sometimes frustrating for me that you cannot perceive the fascinating facets of any event. All group interactions of course are involved here. (Pause.) You still —and I do not simply mean you two alone—do not feel the unsurpassable force that thoughts have. You do not understand that they do form events, that to change events you must first change thoughts. You get what you concentrate upon. To brood or worry, or become resentful, is as regrettable as it would be if you, say, painted a big X over one of your paintings because you were dissatisfied with a detail or two. Over a period of time, resentments X out large areas of otherwise productive experience.

I have one other point to mention, apropos: our session regarding the two men (see the deleted session, for me, of April 18, 1979). You get in trouble only when you identify too strongly with the socially inoculated man, so that you can say “With my beliefs, I do not think I can learn to put Prentice in Framework 2.” (See my closing notes for the last deleted session.) The “my” there, in that sentence, refers to the socially inoculated man. The other man has no difficulties at all in that regard, and that man is you, too. You could at least ask his opinion.

(10:10. “I had a funny feeling before the session,” Jane said. “That it was one of those times when he had to dribble the material down to me word by word. It made me feel real impatient—not on his part but my own. I also had the feeling that there are about five frameworks out there, but that everything has to come down to us through Framework 1 before we can understand it.”

(We’ve been talking about Frameworks 1 through 4 in recent days because of my notes for Mass Events. I felt somewhat relieved after the session. Seth had confirmed my own opinions, yet I fully acknowledge that I had been worrying about physical hassles for some time, and sometimes wondered whether I was right or should seek medical help.)