“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...]

[...] Some use religious dogma, and others rely upon scientific dogma to prove their cases, but in any case, they are presented with a world of deception and vengeance.

[...] When I follow through with such demonstrations, I will do so not in the confines of this room and not under conditions set by you, but in a situation in which the claims are clearly recorded with the results in which there is no possibility that anyone will say suggestion is involved; in which no one will be able to say that scientific principles were not clearly set upon and not to satisfy your curiosity! [...]

[...] And incidentally, the way he set up that experiment was atrocious for a man with scientific training.”)

[...] That is a kind of qualitative event that in its own way cannot be judged or ascertained, and it presents a certain kind of emotional evidence—a living knowledge—that is transmitted to others, and is in its way more valuable than any scientific treatise that might validate our work.

[...] What a heretical thought from the scientific viewpoint!) But each atom of whatever element is an amazingly complicated, finely balanced assemblage of forces and particles woven together in exquisite detail—one of the more basic examples of the unending and stupendous creativity, order, and design of nature, or consciousness, or All That Is.

[...] I like to think of such research from the particle’s point of view, though, a consideration I haven’t seen mentioned in the few scientific journals I read. [...]

[...] This may not sound like a very scientific document, yet in many ways it may be more scientific than you imagine, for its effects will indeed be felt.

Adequate scientific proofs, such as science so surely needs, requires the enlargement of consciousness; not, my dear doctor, on my part, but on the part of science. [...]

[...] I know indeed that you lean toward a belief in immortality, while at the same time you cannot entirely accept the possibility without some sort of scientific proof.

[...] I have trained Ruburt and taught Ruburt so that his valid clairvoyant experiences can be put on some sort of scientific basis. [...]

[...] It can, even in scientific terms, never be proven. [...]

(10:05.) These ideas went a long way to justify later scientific experiments that involved giving pain to animals, for example: nature itself had no feeling. [...]

In view of Jane’s own limited knowledge of the scientific vocabulary man has devised to classify just the multitude of living forms alone on our planet, it’s very interesting that Seth used what I think is the correct popular terminology as he went through the session. [...]

I found the scientific, systematic categorization of organisms to be fascinating. [...]

[...] They are even more entangled with scientific concepts, and with science’s views of life in general. [...]

[...] He had a scientific turn of mind and will, I believe, help you in your experiments.

[...] They do not appear very well under the auspices of the scientific method, because the scientific method is itself programmed to perceive only information that fits into its preconceived patterns. [...]

[...] It was hardly scientific enough, even if the results were 100 percent accurate, which they were not, for Dr. Instream. [...]

[...] Even scientific investigations can flourish in such an atmosphere. [...]

[...] Ruburt’s concentration so briefly upon Hoyle’s book was picked up by Ed Young, and Ruburt’s opinion of Hoyle’s world was picked up by Ed Young, who has the same opinion of the scientific establishment. [...]

Your scientific principles have been formulated either through direct interpretation of matter as perceived through the outer senses, or formulated indirectly but in accordance with such perception. [...]

[...] Present scientific methods will not discover such laws, however.

[...] In your society people have been taught in many areas that change can only lead to a deterioration, and this seems to have a scientific justification. [...]

[...] Yet as the approach of the scientific age appeared, before its blossoming, so new tendencies are now showing that do indeed signal a new era, in which the emotions and intellect are no longer regarded as opposing tendencies in man.

(Pause at 10:42.) Give us a moment… In your society scientific medical beliefs operate, and a kind of preventative medicine, mentioned earlier, in which procedures [of inoculation] are taken, bringing about in healthy individuals a minute disease condition that then gives immunity against a more massive visitation. [...]

[...] It’s very difficult in our society to rely upon beliefs alone where other people are involved, particularly in the face of medical and scientific propaganda. [...]

We are rather slow with this material, since it is new, but mainly because I would like it translated into as precise terms as possible; and without a scientific background on Ruburt’s part, I must use ingenuity.

(Nor according to Seth would the voice effects be accepted as any kind of evidence, until certain measuring instruments were used in a scientifically-controlled experiment. [...]

[...] In Texas, very clear giant-sized human tracks, dating from the Cretaceous Period of 140 million years ago, have been found intermixed in rock with those of several kinds of great dinosaurs — a discovery completely at odds with current scientific ideas that man is at most but a few million years old. [...]