“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(10th Question: What’s the shape of the object? “I believe rectangular.” Here I meant the shape of the envelope object; Seth could have referred to the larger object containing the colored squares, however, because I did not make any distinction. As it happens, both the object and the op painting which contains the small colored squares are rectangular.

It is not generated from the objective world. The objective world is the end result of inner action. You can indeed manipulate the objective world from within, for this is the means and the definition of manipulation.

(The typing below the photo and on the back sums up the content of the news stories on the object. Jane last saw the object about three weeks ago, but did not know it was in my possession particularly, when I decided to use it as an object. I folded it once as indicated on page 168 before inserting it in the usual double envelopes.

(“A square object, perhaps a small square shape at the top center of the object, balanced by another shape at the bottom center.” [...] Although none of the shapes on the original object are square, they do give the impression of being balanced one upon another. Any object produced like the envelope object will give a feeling of balance, no matter what the design, as long as both halves are printed or impressed in full. [...]

(“I do not get the feeling that the object has to do with the immediate present, in that it was not a part of your experience, directly.” [...] The object was part of my experience, in the immediate past. Jane had never seen the object or any like it, since I had never made any before; perhaps this data came out because she herself was thus not involved with the object in any way.

[...] The object was a homemade pattern made on light-colored paper, with hand-ground gray brown earth color for pigment and polymer medium for binder. [...] Since it is a heavy-bodied pigment, it was built up in spots on the object as much as 1/32 of an inch thick. [...] I placed the object, folded once, between the usual two pieces of Bristol and sealed it in the double envelopes.

[...] One bending down or over… Now these may be objects, or representations, rather than persons, but I have the impression of two persons… In any case these two objects seem to be together, toward the lower center of the object perhaps, holding the object this way.” These are excerpts from succeeding impressions as a group, and are given here because Jane thinks the bending over idea here derived from the way the wings of the eagle bend in and down toward each other; they are together, or close, at the base, and in the center of the object.

Now these may be objects, or representations, rather than persons, but I have the impression of two persons, and the impression that they are both women. In any case these two objects seem to be together, toward the lower center of the object perhaps, holding the object this way.

(See the tracing of the object on page 217, and the notes concerning it on page 218. As usual at break Jane and I went over the data to make what connections we could with the object. [...] Since we could pick out a few items in the data that seemed to apply to the object, we took it that Seth had correctly tuned in on the object itself, and that Jane’s translation of the data had been distorted most of the time. [...]

[...] The object was torn by me from pages 11 and 12 of the New York Times’ first news section for Sunday, November 6,1966. [...] I chose the object at random by a method which will be explained later. Suffice it to say here that I did not see the object until Jane opened the usual double-sealed envelopes after giving the data. I did however know the object came from the New York Times. [...]

(There are many numerals 2 on both sides of the object. See pages 152 and 153, plus the [missing] object, etc. On the page 11 side of the object is the line in heavier type: Prime quality 2-skin natural male mink, etc. On the page 12 side of the object is the word twin.

(This procedure left me knowing only one thing about the object: that it came from some section of the New York Times, date unknown. Jane and I have often speculated on what part telepathy plays in the envelope experiments, since I usually am consciously aware of the object in detail. [...] As it was we think the results were good; Seth evidently clairvoyantly read the object. [...]

[...] The numeral 4 appears four times on the object’s back. [...] Also—there are four handwritten names on the back of the object. There are a total of six personal names on the object, the other two, Don Sieburg and Lincoln, being printed.

Vertical objects close together, as a woods. [...] A small circular object with something on top of it, perhaps like a stem.

[...] The only 8 on the object, although there are 28 other numbers on the object, including the denomination on the stamp.

[...] This is the reason for its inclusion with the actual object, since much of the following data actually deals with the greeting card. This is a case where the actual object, Leonard’s note to us, served as a springboard. The connection between the object and the greeting card is a legitimate and close one, and presumably would not have developed had Jane not correctly divined the nature of the object itself to begin with. The connection between the two being the fact that the object concerned a phone call to us from my mother; and that my mother was also the sender of the card to us.

(“Several events happening together, or a series of objects strung together on the object.” [...] The objects strung together being words. This could apply to the envelope object, but this data is sandwiched in with others applying to the greeting card.

[...] Four plus one could apply to the date Leonard wrote the note used as object. See the copy of the folded slip I clipped to the object, on page 319. [...] Thus there is a five on the object itself in the time noted: 10:05. [...]

[...] That is, tomorrow as far as the object is concerned, or to do with the future, this being indicated on the object.” When the Wilburs discovered they couldn’t attend the 248th session as witnesses on April 4,1966, the day the photo used as object tonight was taken, I saved the object for future use when they could be witnesses, as explained. In this sense perhaps it can be said the object had a meaning assigned to it concerning the future. But there is nothing on the object itself to indicate this.

[...] The object twirls. There are four objects that seem to be connected, four vertical wooden polelike objects, with one horizontal bar approximately in the middle. [...]

[...] (Pause.) The top portion of the vertical objects moves. The objects stand on a small wooden platform with wheels. We have an object that seems to be something like a child’s toy.

(2nd Question: Are you saying this is the object? [...] It may or may not be the actual object, but seems to be strongly connected with it. [...] More on the taxi-auto connection regarding Jane’s teaching, from whence comes the envelope object: Probably the multitude of numbers on the object also related it closely in the data to the license and auto ideas. By asking this question I hoped to lead Seth to be more specific about the object itself.

[...] Jane said this is a reference to the fold in the object, made when I inserted it in the double envelopes. [...] Note that Jane held the envelope to her forehead in a horizontal position, as she almost always does; this means the fold in the object would be vertical in relation to the long dimension of both the object and the envelopes. The long dimension of the folded object paralleled that of the envelopes.

(3rd Question: The object isn’t embossed. “I did not say the object was. [...] By telling Seth the object wasn’t embossed, I once again hoped to get more specific data about the object itself.

[...] Either four numbers, the number four many times, or four separate indications on the item or object.” The only connection we see with the object here is that a number on it is repeated—1 cent is shown twice. [...] There is a string of symbols across the bottom of the object, but mainly of letters, rather than numbers.

(The 79th envelope object was a drawing made by me on Friday, November 25th, at work. [...] I thought also that Jane saw the object that evening, but as it developed she did not. [...]

[...] As indicated by the pencil line on the object, the object was assembled from two pieces of white paper, with the inside piece pasted in position. [...]

The object is a chain, or connected with a chain. [...] Two other objects are connected with it. Two other objects have been on the chain at various times. One, a fairly oval object, of an inserted brown background, and a raised cream-colored area.

(“Now, I have the impression that the object is roughly divided into four areas, in this manner, you see, with fairly dark lines.” [...] Jane, while holding the envelope, and the object inside it, horizontally, made a vigorous crossing and vertical motion with an arm. [...] With the object held horizontally, the stick is also horizontal and divides the drawing in half easily enough; the horizontal attribute of her gesture was stressed by Jane. The fairly dark lines on the object are obvious.

(Nor had she ever seen the drawing used as object, nor did she even know it existed. [...] I placed the object between the usual double Bristol and sealed it all up in the usual double envelopes.

(The 61st envelope object is an announcement Jane and I received in the mail a few days ago. This contrasts with the object in the last session, which Jane had never seen and did not know existed. Tonight’s object is printed in black on lightweight card stock, which is an off-white color. The object was prepared for the experiment in the usual manner, using the two pieces of Bristol and the double envelopes.

[...] The object is a notice Jane and I received in the mail recently, stating that a local artists supply store was continuing in business under new management. [...] I had thrown away the envelope the object arrived in, but both of us remembered receiving the object last Friday, on June 10. [...]

(Jane continued, gesturing with the object held vertically: “This way, the impression of a long line, approximately down the center, or a thin dark object”, refers we think to the stem of the milkweed drawing on page 1 of the object, running from top to bottom. [...]

(Seth gave 24 impressions about the envelope object in the 257th session. He gave 21 impressions concerning the same object in the 258th session. [...] There can be as many interpretations of this material as there are individuals, and nowhere did Seth say that the same object was being used in both experiments.

(Personally I believe it quite likely that Seth was perceiving impressions related to the object in some manner, or concerning the object itself, in both sessions. There are a total of 45 impressions from both sessions, and it seems that many of them were relevant to the object in some way.

[...] The object was the same object used for the last session, the 257th. [...]

First, a connection with a scroll for the above object. The object which we have dealt with is Monday’s object. [...]

(See the tracing of the envelope object on page 301. As stated, Jane was the first to notice that some of the data given for the Instream object of Monday, February 21, appeared to apply to our own envelope object for this evening, February 23.

(“Well, it seems the data on the Instream object for last Monday became entangled with tonight’s envelope object data. Did you pick this up from me, telepathically, or clairvoyantly from the envelope object itself?”)

[...] My first question concerned colors on the object. We don’t know what the red and green refers to, since these are not present on the object. The object is however printed in black, against a light background. Seth’s description of a dim yellow is a most apt description of the color of the cardboard stock used for the object.

Now, for our object. One or two small white objects, perhaps dice. [...] The objects may be connected with a small chain, in the manner of cuff links. [...]

[...] The front cover of the object contains five lines of large type against the black background. The object was presented flat or opened up in the envelope, so also visible at a glance would be more than five lines—eight to be exact exclusive of the name on the caricature. [...] The phone number on the top fold of the object contains a five, but we don’t know whether this means anything.

The object is a small round object in a small square box. [...] The object is shaped somewhat like a ring, but it is not a ring. [...]

[...] Jane offered a connection perhaps twice removed from the object. [...] The connection would be that the object came from Leonard’s apartment. It is a weak one, in that the girl in question is not the girl who was present in the apartment on November 20,1965, when Jane and I were given the object. [...]

(Jane said it is possible that the “larger white object” referred to the inside envelope used as a matter of course in our experiments. This envelope is perhaps half again as large as the largest dimension of tonight’s object, and is almost square. I put the object in this envelope, place it between two pieces of heavy Bristol board which are cut to just fit inside the second, or outside, envelope. [...]

(I found the object in my jacket pocket on December 1, without knowing how it got there. I decided to use it as an object, then forgot about it. [...] Jane emptied the jacket’s pockets, and so handled the object; but it was folded and she did not recognize it. To the best of her recall she hadn’t seen the object, or needed it, since shortly after November 8,1966.

(“Something with depth and dimension suggested—that is, the object. The feeling now, about the object, of something transparent, or that opens up without actually opening up.” As stated, the object was folded once upon insertion into the double envelopes. [...] The object also bore earlier crease marks from a vertical fold. [...]

[...] Jane said the memo page used as object is much like ones she saw when she worked for an art gallery a few years ago. [...] She thought at first that the object might also come from such an arrangement; upon close examination, however, we can only tell that the object came from a pad that was bound at the top of the page; the edge there is slightly roughened, as though torn loose.

(I now asked Seth to name the object: “I have the impression, holding the object this way” [gesture in the same fashion as above], “of a rectangular object, a card that is connected with a picture”, resulted in Jane having a mental image here. [...] Upon seeing the object, Jane realized the dark areas of the leaves matched the dark areas she had seen mentally, yet the image hadn’t been sharp enough to see as leaves; it came through in a generalized picture interpretation instead.

(“Something on the back or inside of the object. Did the object once open up? [...] As stated, Jane saw the plant which furnished tonight’s objects, as a Christmas present in Miss Callahan’s apartment at Christmas of 1964. [...]

(The objects for the 57th envelope experiment were two leaves taken from our poinsettia plant. [...] Note that the word “top” is penciled on the back of the Bristol; this was done by me after the experiment, but before Jane saw the objects, as will be shown later.

Dream locations exist in so-called physical space as truly, or as falsely, as physical objects exist in physical space. As you should know by now, physical objects are only the results of your own perception, and this perception is based upon your psychological makeup, your physical structure, certain combinations of nerves and chemical reactions. As any physicist will tell you, you perceive objects, and you perceive solid objects—

(“Three of a kind here, perhaps three strong parallel lines on the object.” We regard this as a good reference to the parallel lines dividing the subject matter on the object. The object contains four lines, rather than three, however.

—in a dimension where neither solidity nor objects exist. You perceive certain patterns of energy as solid objects, and that energy which you do not perceive as solid, you call space.

(“A miscellany of objects.” A reference to the Mount Savior Arts and Crafts Exhibit, mentioned in the letter used as object. Many kinds of objects will be on sale at the exhibit, other than paintings. [...]

(7th Question: Do you want to name the object? [...] There is a strong connection with a photograph, but I do not know whether the object itself is a photograph. [...] Some distinction is made, either by Seth or Jane, in that a photo is not definitely named as the object. [...]

[...] Objects, you see, are symbols. These objects in dreams are symbols of realities that the ego could not otherwise perceive.

(The envelope object was a bill I had received this afternoon for art supplies, and which Jane had never seen. [...] The object is printed in dark blue ink on yellow paper, with the writing in carbon blue. [...] I placed the object, folded once, as indicated, between the usual two pieces of Bristol, then sealed it in double envelopes.

(See the copy of the envelope object on page 115 and the notes on the next page. As stated the object was a bill for art supplies from The Art Shop. Jane had never seen the object; I obtained it today, October 24, from Marjorie Buck, the proprietor, when I bought pencils and paper stumps with which to do the job my old friend, Bill Ward, mailed to me over the weekend. [...]

(The object is printed on bright yellow paper in dark blue ink, with the large serial number at the bottom in red. [...] The bill is not dated by Marjorie; when I obtained it I had no notion of using it as the object. [...]