“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Before what we expected to be our regular session for Monday evening, Jane told me that she’d awakened in the middle of the previous night with insights about two practice elements¹ Seth would discuss — but we didn’t hear from Seth even though she felt him “around” as we prepared for the session.

(We were discussing the letter and half-facetiously wondering whether Seth might respond in any way, when Jane suddenly told me that she was picking up material on the “essence” of William James. Because of his own persistent melancholy, she said, James had been able to understand others with the same kind of disposition. As she continued to give her impressions, though, I wondered: Why James? He wasn’t mentioned in the psychologist’s letter, for instance. Why this picking up on, and identifying with, a famous dead personality? Most likely my own interest in James’s work exerted some kind of influence upon Jane’s newly developing abilities, I thought; but still, that didn’t answer my questions.

(10:22.) Ruburt picked up on William James’s world view because their interests coincided. A letter from a Jungian psychologist helped serve as a stimulus. The psychologist asked me (deeper and with humor) to comment about Jung. Ruburt felt little correspondence with Jung. In the back of his mind he wondered about James, mainly because he knew that Joseph (Rob) enjoyed one of James’s books.

However, it is quite possible for him to tune in to James’s complete book if he desires to, for that work is indeed a psychic reality, a plan or a model existing in the inward order of activity (as Jane had explained to me in similar terms this afternoon).

(“I felt out of the James thing until you read it to me before the session,” she said, “then a lot of aspects about it came back. We won’t bother doing that book of his, I know, but I could get it — the whole thing. It’s right there in the library….” We talked about what an interesting product The Varieties of Religious States would be, and the many implications involved, without intending to do anything more about such a work.

(11:49. Jane rested a minute or so, still in trance. Her fly experience of last Monday afternoon is mentioned in the opening notes for this session. When Seth returned, he delivered half a page of material for Jane and me, including this passage: “He [Ruburt] has made an extraordinary leap into his [psychic] library, and it is freeing him physically. You have made as vital a leap, and it is freeing you artistically. The library is valid, and in the most legitimate of terms it is far more important, for example, than a physical library….” Seth finished his personal material at 12:10 A.M., and we thought the session was over. Jane was very tired, much more so than she usually is after a session. She wanted only to sleep.

(When Jane first read my question after she’d held the 697th session, she told me that she “didn’t get it” — that perhaps I was drawing inferences from Seth’s material that weren’t intended. I tried to explain the point at issue to her on several different occasions, and discovered each time that it was an oddly elusive one to put into words.

(Idly now, not intending that Jane do any more work this evening, I read my question aloud. She raised a hand in dismay. “I’m tired,” she said, “but wait a minute — I’ve got the answer. Seth’s all ready. Get me a pack of cigarettes, and I’ll do it….”

8. Seth’s information here, that scientists and inventors often tune in to the world views of other such individuals, at once reminded me that a similar long-term situation could have existed within the Butts family.

Do probable selves actually communicate with each other through their world-view frameworks, then, or can such an interchange of idea or emotion take place more “directly” at times — simply between the probable personalities involved? Either situation can apply, it seems to me, or the two methods may merge at any given “time.” We plan to ask Seth to elaborate.