“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(John verified Seth’s material regarding his wife, Mary Ellen. She is getting into the sale of Sarah Coventry costume jewelry, and in fact is attending a business meeting tonight. Mary Ellen is scheduled to attend, or have, a Sarah Coventry party soon, on a Thursday afternoon or evening, John said, and will be involved with four other women in particular. The five total could be that Mary Ellen herself is the fifth; as well as Mary Ellen herself, the other four women are holding Sarah Coventry parties for her. There will of course be more than five women at the parties.

Now. Philip’s name mentioned at a party. I am not clear here: 4, 2, and one or two other numbers, and something drive, you see—the name of a road or location. Tonight I play the role of a doctor and politician.

([John:] “This tiff: Will I be a party to it, or will my name be the subject of it? Is it related to the political activity?”)

([John:] “Will I be involved—actually a party in the argument?"

(Here are some corroborative notes re pages 436-37 of the last session, dealing with our invitation to a party given by Tom Hartley on Saturday, November 29. [...] Seth talked about two men connected with me in the past in various ways; I would meet these men at the party. [...]

(Bill Gallagher, who was at the party also, wondered if Pete Tomoski. [...] Checking with Tom Hartley’s wife after the party, Jane learned for sure that Pete Tomoski does wear a toupee, being self-conscious of his baldness because he is a barber... [...]

(Both men approached me at the party, at separate times, and introduced themselves; both recognized and called me by name; I did not recognize either of them. [...]

[...] At the party however, I do not recall Jane leaping with recognition when she met Don Simmons...

Many of the methods used to find solutions actually involve the setup of negotiations on the part of nations—the third party or parties—who in the beginning can communicate with each side, explaining one side’s viewpoint to the other. [...]

[...] The person held in protective custody had someone to talk to, and another party to help in the negotiations. A trusted party, a highly important point. [...]

[...] Now you are actively acting as a trusted party, working for the release of the portion held in relative captivity, and your assurances at this point can be extremely important. [...]

[...] It seems a connection with a party. [...] At that time Seth didn’t come up with a party connection with mirth, although he mentioned party later on. [...] Here above, he is also unsure about the party connection, the something unpleasant data interfering.

[...] Here Jane said she had the impression of a party, but decided to drop this line of association. [...] Again, Seth expresses uncertainty about the party-mirth connection in answer to my third question.

(Jane now said that her personal association of mirth hooked it up to party ideas, so my question may have called this to her mind. Jane pointed out that the glass and cigarette in the sketch might also be called party props, however.

[...] It seems a connection with a party. [...]

[...] Since it was a pleasant summer evening on July 1, we held the party out on the back lawn, leaving the cake upstairs in our apartment as a surprise for Bill. When the time came to get the cake Jane and I went upstairs together, lit the candles on the cake while hiding on the stairs, then carried the cake out to the party.

[...] Peggy of course was present at the small birthday party we gave Bill on the evening of July 1.

[...] We recall that the Gallaghers were somewhat late in arriving for Bill’s surprise birthday party last July 1, and that they did come at about 9:00. [...]

[...] This refers to a long and involved story told us by Peggy Gallagher during the evening of the birthday party, for which Jane and I wrote the poem used as object. [...]

[...] I do not see your party faces—you had them on earlier. You may sing “happy birthday” to me—I will give you a list of my birthdays and you can have a party at every class.

[...] I do not see your party faces—you had them on earlier. You may sing “Happy Birthday” to me—I will give you a list of my birthdays and you can have a party at every class! [...]

At this party affair, mentioned before session, there are two men who will give you fine ideas for portraits. [...]

(At about 8:50 PM Jane received a phone call from Tom Hartley, a newspaper friend of ours, inviting us to a party next Saturday, November 29. [...]

[...] I thought it odd at the time; but since we usually go out on Saturday evening anyhow, the thought of dropping in at the projected party did not unduly disturb.

[...] I do not know whether I have met the two men mentioned by Seth or not; I am inclined to think I haven’t. On the other hand Tom Hartley told Jane the party was primarily for newspaper people, and I have met some of this local group... [...]

(I stopped at a Convenient Market to buy potato chips to contribute to a party the staff is giving for one of the aides who’s changing jobs at the hospital. Carla saved me a plate of food from the party, and I brought it home for supper. [...]

(“The object—an envelope or letter, and some reference to a third party.” [...] We are not sure about Seth’s reference to a third party; there could be several possibilities.

The object—an envelope or letter and some reference to a third party. [...]

(“Can you say anything more about the third party?”)

(1st Question: Can you say anything more about the third party? [...]

I replied, “Haven’t you ever known that someone was going to call you, just a moment before the party actually called on the phone? [...]

[...] Another personality from whatever realm had joined the party.

(Saturday, June 13, Jane and I attended a cocktail party in honor of Dee Masters, who was leaving as director of the art gallery where Jane is employed part time. At the party we also met the new director.

[...] Your cocktail party, however, I found immensely amusing, and at a later date I may give you some reasons for its rather explosive nature.

[...] We’ll have a little party

(I talked about the first session for Jane’s symptoms — the private portion of Session 208, for November 15, 1965 — yet she said that for her the whole thing really started the day before we went to a party in June 1966 regarding How to Develop Your ESP Power. Our friends wanted to celebrate the publication of her first “psychic” book, her first mention of Seth, but she read poetry at the party and wouldn’t talk about the ESP book — too embarrassed. [...]

(Jane’s first thought was to skip the session, but as the party downstairs got under way in a quiet fashion, and we were not called upon as 9 PM approached, she decided to hold it as usual.

[...] We thought this stemmed from the fear of interruption because of the party downstairs, though we heard nothing.

[...] She states that the material at the beginning of the Dr. Instream test data, on page 113, applies to a cocktail party she attended in Washington on Monday, December 6. Peggy states Seth’s description here of the cocktail party is quite correct, even to the fact that a woman was the main hostess, and that a man, her husband, was present with her. [...]

[...] Ten people in a separate party or gathering, in which she took part. [...]

[...] Nor does the above example mean that Dr. Instream did not attend a cocktail party.

(Bill states that on or somewhere either just before or after July 29, the date of the 75th session, he attended a party at Larry O’Toole’s cottage. Attending the party were Bill, Gary, Larry, and two other men Bill did not know. [...]

(The party broke up rather early that evening, and Bill then went to the Atlantic House bar with Garry and Larry, where he saw the keg. [...]

(Regarding Seth’s statement about a string of shells, the only association with shells that Bill recalls is that shell ashtrays were used at the party. [...]

[...] It is extremely difficult for me, however, to make you understand quite clearly the role that your own attitudes play—for when issues hit close to home you have both the old tendency to blame the other party or parties for what is involved. [...]

[...] According to logical thought and language you may say: “I am going to a party today because I was invited last week, and said I would attend.” [...] You cannot say: “I am going to a party today because I am going to meet an individual there who will be very important to my life five years from now.” [...]

[...] There seems to be in his memory an affair—the two of you in a car, after a party many years ago. I am not sure of names here, so there may be a distortion, but the name “Estelle” seems somehow in the background, as if Estelle gave a party or was involved with it—that you attended. [...] After the party there seems to have been an argument between you and your husband—and something to do with a lamp. [...]