“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(A note: I’m not referring to the ordinary scientific concept of naturalism here—that the so-called natural world is all that exists. [...]

[...] Until I’d first read the piece a couple of days ago, I hadn’t realized that much progress had been made scientifically in the detection of psychic metal-binding on a micro scale. [...]

(One of the letters, from a doctor in Canada, referred us to an article in Scientific American in which a discussion of the many-worlds view of quantum mechanics clearly vindicated a number of Seth’s ideas. [...]

[...] To be “illogical” is a scientific “crime” — not so much because it is an unscientific attribute, but because it is considered a feminine one. [...]

[...] I certainly realize that this is hardly a scientific statement — yet the moment that All That Is conceived of a physical universe it was invisibly created, endowed with creativity, and bound to emerge.

[...] You take it for granted as a rule that your current knowledge as a people rests upon scientific data, at least, that is unassailable. [...]

[...] It is possible, with much training, to arrange such meetings; for any kind of scientific proof of course this would be a necessary preliminary. [...]

A study of any up-to-date scientific thesis on the nature of sensual perception in general will show you that sense data exists independent of the perceiver, yet not necessarily in physical terms.

An idea, that cannot be scientifically observed in any of your laboratories, definitely exists. [...]

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. [...]

[...] In it Jastrow goes on to talk about how silicon-based computer life is going to replace man and his messy emotions—theories quite in keeping with current “scientific” thinking about man’s innate worthlessness and his accidental creation. [...]

[...] And many who do not believe in religion per se certainly believe in man’s sinful nature—though perhaps giving it a more scientific name. [...]

[...] I think this kind of material offers a rich source for future scientific investigation.

In important ways, Jane’s work is outside of society’s accepted frameworks — scientific, “occult,” philosophical, or whatever. [...]

[...] In a very real way of speaking, your concept of reality as seen through your physical senses, scientific instruments, or arrived at through deduction, bears little resemblance to the facts — and the facts are difficult to explain.

[...] If anything, these provide humanity with a great rich structure of psychological activity from which all of the later cultural, religious, or scientific elements emerge. [...]

[...] The scientist begins tipping tables or whatever, and suddenly disgusted by the limits of scientific knowledge, he turns all of his dedication to what he thinks of as its opposite, or pure intuitive knowledge. [...]

[...] … In any sense in which a psychologist of the Western scientific tradition would understand the phrase, I do not believe that Jane Roberts and Seth are the same person, or the same personality, or different facets of the same personality. [...]

[...] It’s easy for me to forget my earlier feelings that Seth should prove himself; easy for me to forget that I, too, insisted on my “wonders,” and on several occasions even denied the evidence of my own senses out of the mistaken belief that I was somehow being more scientific that way. [...]

You have read, or Ruburt has read, a scientific article having to do with biological, electrical, or magnetic man. [...]

The time will come shortly when such experimentation as we are carrying on will be the only accepted kind, and the only valid scientific investigation. [...]

[...] Our subject of interest itself was largely denied validity by the social, psychological, and scientific establishments. [...]

[...] Nor would the idea of reaching Jane’s world view be considered, or telepathy from me, for both of those concepts are scientifically unacceptable. [...]

I may be projecting my own fears here, but I don’t agree with the scientific rejection of all portions of the schemata listed above. [...]

(The surprise, Seth went on, would embarrass scientific personnel, but would also lead to clearer understanding of the Seth phenomenon. [...]

That note makes a handy reference for related concepts, for in it I also briefly discussed subatomic “particles”; the components of atoms; molecules; supposed faster-than-light particles (tachyons); Seth’s CU’s, or units of consciousness; his assertion that consciousness can travel faster than light in out-of-body states; Jane’s scientific vocabulary; and Einstein’s special theory of relativity. [...]