“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.

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.

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.

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.

If you want, make a list of questions that you want to ask. Remember, however, to concentrate now upon, say, Prentice’s failings are an exercise in negative meditation, in negative suggestion, so try, each of you, to avoid that. This session can help, particularly if you make comparisons yourselves along these lines between the private creative event and the mass one. Do you have questions?