“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Pause.) In larger terms, there are really only scientific and religious men and women, however, and fields of science and religion would be meaningless without those individuals who believe in their positions. As those men and women enlarge their definitions of reality, the fields of science and religion must expand. [...]

Give us a moment… There is no civilization, no system of science, art, or philosophy, that did not originate in the mind. [...]

[...] Science and religion have each contributed much to man’s development. [...]

[...] In those terms also, your science is also quite mythical in nature. [...] Others will be willing enough to see science in its mythical characteristics, but will be most reluctant to see religion as you know it in the same light. [...]

Science often says that nature cares little for the individual, only for the species, so then you must often see yourselves as victims in a larger struggle for survival, in which your own intents do not carry even the puniest sway.

[...] To some extent the same type of policy is still reflected in your current societies, though science or the state itself may serve instead of the church as the voice of authority. [...]

In the time those fears originated, he shared the belief framework of Christianity, so that he believed that outside of that framework there could indeed be nothing but chaos, or the conventional atheism of science, in which the universe was at the mercy of meaningless mechanistic laws—laws, however, that operated without logic, but more importantly laws that operated without feeling. [...]

The dream representing his grandfather symbolically allowed him to go back to the past in this life, to a time of severe shock—his grandfather’s death—which occurred when he was beginning to substitute scientific belief for religious belief, wondering if his grandfather’s consciousness then fell back into a mindless state of being, into chaos, as science would certainly seem to suggest. [...]

[...] The interview ended up as a highly-charged psychic and practical version of a reality as seen by medical science. [...]

[...] More than that, the interview —friendly enough, good humored enough, as it seemed on the surface, made Ruburt realize in an immediate practical fashion the limitations of medical science. [...]

[...] I am saying that you must turn quickly away, however, from any of medical science’s ministrations that are not absolutely necessary. [...]

“Science has unfortunately bound up the minds of its own even most original thinkers, for they dare not stray from certain scientific principles. [...]

Your ideas of sexuality follow both your religions and your sciences, then, for you have created each. [...]

[...] Regroup your ideas so that you automatically think of sexuality in relationship to your religions and sciences. [...]

I also believe, however, that generally speaking science still views our genetic systems in mechanical, deterministic, and reductionistic terms, and will continue to do so for a long time: So that evidence is being accumulated to support that overall view that at this time science has no need to seek for other, larger, and more unsettling frames of reference encompassing consciousness, intent, and genetics. [...]

Nor do I think that establishment science will soon be interested in Seth’s ideas that exchanges take place involving our genetic systems, the environment, and cultural events like politics and economics; or that our genetic systems react to our thoughts and emotions—let alone that there’s any genetic planning for future probabilities! [...] Science could grant Seth’s ideas their own realities outside of the scientific framework, of course, and thus be free of them.

[...] You count your religions, sciences, archeologies, and triumphs over the environment, and it seems to you that no other consciousness has wrought what man’s has produced. [...]

There are organizations of consciousness, however, that leapfrog the species, that produce no arts or sciences per se — yet these together form the living body of the earth and the physical creatures thereon. [...]

[...] The arts, sciences, agriculture — all of these reflect natural contours and tendencies inherent in man’s mind, as general rather than specific attributes emerging first in the dream state, and then sparking specialized intellectual tendencies in the waking state.

Now all of this certainly sounds unscientific to many people, yet most of my readers have already picked up a different version of the nature of science, or they would not be reading this book to begin with. [...]

[...] Unfortunately, science as it has developed in your time has resulted in a mistrust of the individual, and saddled him or her with a sense of powerlessness, subjectively, even while it has added a seeming sense of objective power. [...]

[...] Because science has made an effective barrier to that method of approach, the power seems to reside in the gadgets rather than in man. [...]

Now: Drawing of that nature flourishes in your times in an entirely different fashion, divorced to some extent from its beginnings—in, for example, the highly complicated plans of engineers; the unity of, say, precise sketching and mathematics, necessary in certain sciences, [with] the sketching [being] required for all of the inventions that are now a part of your world. [...] It is through the use of technology and science that you have sought to understand your relationship with the universe.

[...] Some of da Vinci’s sketches already show that tendency, and he is fascinating because with his undeniable artistic tendencies he also began to show those tendencies that would lead toward the birth of modern science.

(Pause.) Science has until recently provided you with a unified belief system that is only now eroding—and if you will forgive me (smile), your space voyages have simply been physical attempts to probe into that same unknown that other peoples in other times have tried to explore through other means. [...]

Again, to a certain degree, religion and science — and the medical sciences in particular — seem devoted to encouraging the most negative beliefs about human nature. [...]

[...] Note: The next afternoon Jane gave a telephone interview to a staff member of Frontiers of Science magazine....)

(“I haven’t had too much time to think of questions, but today we were talking about the relationships between Jonestown and Three Mile Island — how those two events stand for the extremes of religion and science.” [...]

None of them want any disaster, and yet some of them think it would serve the people right — for then the people might realize that politicians do not understand science, and that the scientists should after all be put in control: “We must have enough money, or who knows what can go wrong?”

“Both religion and science are based upon such beliefs. [...]

[...] I am aware of his emotional ideas, of course, and to an important degree I am free of his prejudices, but more than that, in certain terms, my consciousness is not limited, so that I can take from Ruburt’s understanding his good comprehension of where science is, and then tell you where an enlightened science might go.

[...] She felt the men didn’t pay her serious attention at the science-fiction conference 27 years ago because she was a woman. [...]

[...] In your society, however, it would be almost impossible to get along without medicine or medical science.

Many ancient and so-called primitive peoples utilized play — and drama, of course — for their healing values, and often their effects were quite as therapeutic as medical science. [...]

THE IDEAL, THE INDIVIDUAL, RELIGION, SCIENCE, AND THE LAW

(Pause at 9:45.) “The Ideal, the Individual, Religion, Science, and the Law” (all with some humor and emphasis). [...]

[...] (Pause at 11:35.) Your concepts of personhood are now limiting you personally and en masse, and yet your religions, metaphysics, histories, and even your sciences are hinged upon your ideas of who and what you are. [...] Your religions do not explain your greater reality, and your sciences leave you [just] as ignorant about the nature of the universe in which you dwell.

[...] The affair reminded me of an incident when I was a kid, in science class, as a freshman in high school. [...]

[...] A continuity that Ruburt overlooks, having to do with his continuing interest in religious matters from the time of childhood, echoed in the poetry and in the science fiction. [...]

[...] The workings of the personality led to the science fiction direction, and could have short circuited him, ending far before the inner goal was even glimpsed. [...]

In science as it stands, it is necessary that self-contradictions do not arise. [...]

If it were scientifically inclined, the body would know that such spontaneous performance was impossible, for science cannot explain the reality of life itself in its present form, much less its origins.