“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Jane and I certainly do not hold creationist views [see Note 1]. As I wrote near the beginning of this appendix, to go very far into religious history would lead away from the subject matter I planned to cover; but to us science is as far away from Seth’s philosophy in one direction as religion is in the opposite direction. The species’ religious drives have been around a lot longer than its scientific ones, however, so I found myself looking for broad correlations between the two, in that under each value system the individual carries a very conscious sense of personal vulnerability. Before Darwinism, to use that concept as an example, man at least felt that God had put him on earth for certain purposes, no matter how much man distorted those purposes through ignorance and war. According to Judaism and Christianity, among many religions, man could seek forgiveness and salvation; he had a soul. After Darwin, he learned that even his physical presence on earth was an accident of nature. He was taught — he taught himself — that ideas of souls and gods were ridiculous. Either way, this very fallible creature found himself vulnerable to forces that consciously he couldn’t understand — even though, in Seth’s view, down through the millennia man had chosen all of his religious and antireligious experiences.

(In the current literature I read that a typical famous scientist — one of many leaders expressing such views these days — is very pessimistic about the state of the human species, given its many dilemmas. I also note that he seems to be most unhappy while stressing his agnosticism,²⁰ which is the kind of belief system that perpetuates standard evolutionary doctrines. Building upon those limited assumptions, the individual in question tells us how ironic it is that the “new” portions of the human brain, those that have evolved within the last two million years, are responsible for the moral and technological problems our species now faces. The brain’s great creative neocortex is held especially accountable for problems that may lead to humanity’s self-destruction. None of these challenges, as Jane and I habitually call them, are seen as distorted expressions of the kind of creativity Seth has described many times.²¹

6. Ever since Seth came through with the material in this (44th) session 10 years ago, I’ve been interested in comparing his second law of the inner universe with the second law of thermodynamics of our “camouflage” physical sciences. Both deal with energy, yet to me they’re opposites. At the same time I see them as linked through our distorted perception of that inner reality, thus pointing up Seth’s statement just given, that “the so-called laws of your camouflage universe do not apply to the inner universe.” (When this session was held Jane knew nothing of the three laws of thermodynamics, or how they define energy/heat relationships in our universe. Nor is she concerned with them now, per se; they’re simply outside of her interests.)

I think it obvious that by “energy transformation” Seth doesn’t mean that the energy (or consciousness, to my way of thinking) in our system is inevitably decreasing. I can best express it intuitively: In physics, that well-known second law of thermodynamics may usually be so reliable for us, distorted as it is, just because of our limited physical interpretation as mediated by the central nervous system.