“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

It is no coincidence that Ruburt does not possess a scientific vocabulary, though he does possess a scientific as well as intuitive mind. The very attempt to describe reality in scientific terms, as they are currently understood, pays, my dear friend, undue tribute to a vocabulary that automatically scales down greater concepts to fit its rigors. In other words, such attempts further compound the problem of considering a seemingly objective universe, and describing it in an objective fashion.

Unscientific questions? I tell you that these are the most scientific of all. To some extent the attempt on the part of science to consider such material may possibly bring about those qualities of true scientific intuition that will help science bridge the gap between such divergent views as its own and ours.

That statement, therefore, must be the basis for any new scientific theories that hope to accomplish any performances at all leading to an acquisition of knowledge.

The same applies to your universe. It has meaning, coherence and order not only because of those realities that are obvious to you, and that appear, but also because of those inner realities that are “unspoken,” or hidden. I am not speaking merely of hidden variables, in scientific terms, nor am I saying that the universe is an illusion, but a psychological reality in which “objectivity” is the result of psychological creativity.

[...] Very understandable, then, that Jane, both for herself and for Seth, would write so eloquently about the disparity between her psychic abilities and “the currently scientifically-oriented blend of rationalism,” as Seth describes that quality earlier in this Session Six for The Magical Approach.

So far, metaphysics has only been entertainment, a step-science of our culture; part of the extended family of science for the purposes of inspiration and ideas, but not given credit as scientific truth. [...]

Scientific truths have always been rewritten through the centuries. [...]

The Magical Approach is a perfect example of a scientifically-unacceptable method of working with reality. [...]

[...] This would represent a personal belief or interpretation of the events—not any scientific evidence at all—but personal conviction cannot be ignored—personality can’t be scientifically established with living personalities. [...]

3. Originally I’d planned a series of notes for this session, in which to explore Seth’s ideas on genetics versus those held by the scientific establishment. [...] We’re in the early stages of an extensive scientific growth involving genetics, and certainly by the time this book is published much more information will have been acquired, even if it’s of the same general kind. If they knew about it, I expect that most members of the scientific community would disagree with much of the excellent material Seth gave in this session. [...]

[...] I can even see Seth’s material in this session being scientifically dismissed as another version of old, discredited Lamarckian theories. [...] It still has value, and recently has been employed in some remarkable scholarly studies that show how, in scientific terms, evolution can take place through means other than natural selection and chance mutations.)

[...] Consciousness is just as amenable to having some of its physical manifestations scientifically studied, its parts manipulated through “genetic engineering,” as it is to encompassing Seth’s material. [...] That the scientific approach has limitations is obvious. [...]

[...] Using animals in the laboratory is imposing human goals and values upon other life forms, even though the modern scientific method is supposed to be value-free. [...]

[...] As a rule such theories are proven “true” by the simple process of excluding anything else that seems contradictory, and so generally your scientific theories carry the weight of strong validity within their own frameworks.

[...] For example: No matter what information or data you receive as the result of animal experimentation or dissection for scientific purposes, and no matter how valuable the results appear to be, the consequences of such methods are so distorted that you comprehend less of life than you did before.

(10:17.) The answers to the origins of the universe and of the species lie, I’m afraid, in realms that you have largely ignored — precisely in those domains that you have considered least scientific, and in those that it appeared would yield the least practical results.

[...] The poet’s view of the universe and of nature is more scientific, then, than the scientists’, for more of nature is comprehended.

“Science has unfortunately bound up the minds of its own even most original thinkers, for they dare not stray from certain scientific principles. [...] That one sentence is basically scientific heresy, and in many circles it is religious heresy as well. [...]

[...] We already had the perfect title for the book, one we’d jokingly originated following last Monday night’s session: Seth on Jonestown and Three Mile Island: Religious and Scientific Cults.

In scientific terms there was no fallout involved in the disaster at Jonestown. [...]

[...] You have scientific cults as well as religious ones.

That possibility is indeed written in the scientific program. [...]

[...] Your so-called scientific, so-called objective experiments can continue for an eternity, but they only probe further and further with camouflage instruments into a camouflage universe.

The subconscious, it is true, has elements of its own distortions, but these are easier to escape than the tons of distortive camouflage atmosphere that weigh your scientific experiments down.

Any scientific personage of your generation will immediately panic at such suggestions as I am making. [...]

[...] He would have discovered much more had he been able to trust his intuitions even more, and able to leave more of the so-called scientific proof of his theories to lesser men, to give himself more inner freedom.

[...] I think it most interesting that the theory of evolution is now challenged by those who, like Jane and I, simply want to know whether it has a basis in scientific fact; and that it’s also come under virulent attack by those who generally believe in fundamentalist religions. The controversy over whether evolution ever really happened—and/or is happening—is far from resolved, whether in scientific, religious, or lay terms.

[...] She’s been reading the book on scientific creationism I suggested to her. [...]

2. “Rob wanted me to do a paragraph or so about my reactions to the book on scientific creationism that I’ve just finished reading,” Jane wrote, “so here goes. [...]

[...] But how could they be, in a book on scientific creationism?) There was no evolution. [...]

[...] He did poorly in science in college, for that matter, for if his mind was too scientific for religious dogma, it was too creative and emotional for conventional scientific thought. [...]

[...] He felt free, and he immediately leapt toward what you can generally think of as the scientific viewpoint. [...]

(Long pause at 9:02.) The Sinful Self shows itself in a period of transition from its religious to scientific format in science fiction or fantasy in particular, where you can almost trace the translation of religion’s self, tainted by original sin, to the Darwinian and Freudian concepts of the flawed self, bound to destruction one way or another, propelled by the unbridled unconscious or evolutionary defect. [...]

[...] Its expression directly contradicted first religious then scientific precepts. [...]

1. Recently, I bought two books written by “scientific creationists.” [...] After the session I suggested that she start reading it also, in order to acquaint herself with theories radically different from the “ordinary” scientific ones espoused by evolutionists. [...] Science also believes, however, that the study of a “first cause” involves not scientific but philosophical and theological questions. [...]

[...] I agree, since I think that in their own ways the views expressed by the scientific creationists are just as limited as those held by the conventional scientific establishment. [...]

1. Seth certainly touched upon a question that’s loaded with ethical and legal dilemmas; many of these have grown out of recent scientific advances in genetics. [...] Years are expected to pass before our legal system alone catches up with the scientific progress in genetics—but, ironically, continuing advances in the field are bound to complicate even further the whole series of questions.

[...] The entire scientific view of illness, however, is quite as distorted (with amused emphasis). It is as laboriously conceived and interwound with “nonsense.” [...]

The scientific framework is basically, now, just as senseless, though within it the facts often seem to prove themselves out, also. [...]

[...] If life itself is seen scientifically as having no real meaning, then suffering, of course, must also be seen as meaningless. [...]

[...] I also learned that once I began to study it, a great amount of material presented itself seemingly without effort on my part, the information ranged all the way from paleontological studies to current biological research on recombinant DNA, and I found it in newspapers, scientific journals and popular magazines, in books and even on television. [I’m sure others have had similar experiences: Once a subject is focused upon, data relative to it seem to leap out from the background welter of daily events and “facts” surrounding one’s life.] Almost automatically, many of the notes for this appendix came to deal with the scientific thinking about evolution, and I realized that I wanted them to show the differences [as well as any similarities that might emerge] between Seth’s concepts and those “official” views prevailing in our physical reality.

[...] Then I ended up shocked to discover how little real evidence there is to back up the idea of evolution, and fascinated by the limits of scientific thinking. [...] But some time passed before I realized that our ruling intellectual establishments were advancing notions about evolution that were not proven in scientific terms — then teaching these “facts” to succeeding generations. [...]

[...] For Darwin and his followers — even those of today, then — nature’s effects gave the appearance of design or plan in the universe without necessitating a belief in a designer or a god; although, as I wrote in Note 7, from the scientific standpoint this belief leaves untouched the question of design in nonliving matter, which is vastly more abundant in the “objective” universe than is living matter, and had to precede that living matter.

[...] Through Jane, he grapples with the mysteries of existence in emotional terms, rather than through the impersonal, “scientific,” and really unproven concepts that life originated by accident [more than 3.4 billion years ago,⁸ to give a late estimate], and perpetuates itself through chance mutations. [...]

(Long pause at 9:33.) Unfortunately, with the development of the scientific era, a development occurred that need not have happened. [...]

[...] (Long pause.) Modern psychology was an attempt to make man conform to the new scientific world view.

Even your poor misguided moral/religious organization is saying in its fashion to the scientifically-oriented society: “How is faith not real, then? [...]

The scientific elite could of course present a probability in which a world was created [where] the common man could have little knowledge of its workings. [...]

[...] As of now there are no solutions in sight for these extremely vexing scientific and political challenges. [...]

“In the same way the scientific community speaks of grandiose ideals, of man’s triumph over the planet and nature. [...]

[...] Therefore, the scientific community often sabotages its own efforts.”

[...] A mass meditation, it has an economic structure in back of it: The scientific and medical foundations are involved. [...]

[...] Many individuals cannot unify the various areas of their belief and feeling, and at Christmas they partially recognize the vast gulf that exists between their scientific beliefs and their religious beliefs. [...]

[...] Those beliefs do not exist alone, but are of course intertwined with religious and scientific ones, as separate as they might appear. [...]

At certain times, and most particularly at the birth of medical science in modern times, the belief in inoculation, if not by the populace then by the doctors, did possess the great strength of new suggestion and hope — but I am afraid that scientific medicine has caused as many new diseases as it has cured. [...]

[...] No scientific language would be used — not that I know any — but that would structure what I’m trying to do; and unwittingly, perhaps, it might lead me into a scientific dogma without recognizing it. [...]

[...] They seek out leaders — political, scientific (humorously), or religious — who will order their lives for them.

There are religious cults, and there are also scientific ones. [...]

The other heading he gave helps make up the title for the next chapter (6). Add to it: “Religious and Scientific Cults, and Private Paranoias.”

[...] The majority of accepted beliefs — religious, scientific, and cultural — have tended to stress a sense of powerlessness, impotence, and impending doom — a picture in which man and his world is an accidental production with little meaning, isolated yet seemingly ruled by a capricious God. [...]

Religious, scientific, medical, and cultural communications stress the existence of danger, minimize the purpose of the species or of any individual member of it, or see mankind as the one erratic, half-insane member of an otherwise orderly realm of nature. [...]

[...] Obviously I am speaking here of scientific dogma, but such dogma is far more religious than scientific, for it also expects to be believed without proof, on faith alone.