“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] When your scientists examine them for example, they do not examine the nature, say, of an atom. [...]

[...] It can be perceived within your system only at certain points in this fluctuation, so it seems to scientists that the atom is steadily present. [...]

Now, the seed cannot yell out to a scientist who happens to pass and say, “Hey, look at me, I exist. [...] For the scientist, if he would heed the call and if he would take a spade and dig in the middle of February perhaps down into the earth to find our seed, would find simply a shell. [...] And though you speak and exist and have your being, the emotions that you feel, that make you you, cannot be packaged in a laboratory, cannot be proven by any scientist, you exist. [...]

[...] Then you are like the flower who accepts the sunshine, and in accepting the sunshine knows far more about the reality of sun than any scientist who measures the spectrum of light without feeling. [...]

The same ideas are so dead-ended, however, that they often trigger a different kind of response entirely, in which a scientist who has held to those beliefs most stubbornly, suddenly does a complete double-take. This can propel him or her into a rather severe schizophrenic reaction, in which the scientist now defends most fanatically the same ideas that he rejected most fanatically only a short time before.

(By M.H. Her query was based on a theory that, as it happened, I’d heard of also: A group of scientists has postulated the existence of a class of subatomic particles called “tachyons,” or “meta-particles,” that always travel faster than the speed of light.

Your light, again, represents only a portion of an even larger spectrum than that of which you know; and when your scientists study its properties, they can only investigate light as it intrudes into the three-dimensional system. [...]

[...] Most scientists believe they exist on the edge of our observable universe. [...]

Now: Earlier today, Ruburt wondered if I might dictate more in reply to your scientist’s letter. As he wondered, I very briefly responded to the effect that since we come from such different perspectives, it is actually quite difficult to give your scientist what I would consider a full response. [...]

I should add that the passages on science and scientists in Appendix 12 aren’t intended to add up to any general indictment of what are very powerful cultural forces, but to give insights into “where we’re at” at this time in linear history. Many scientists are agnostic or atheistic. [...] A number of scientists, representing various disciplines, have written Jane about the Seth material, and many of them have expressed such views.

[...] [An undetermined number of scientists hold creationist views, by the way, but I have no statistics to offer on how many do.] The Bible certainly advocates at least a relative immutability of species, rather than a common ancestry in which a single cell evolved into a variety of ever more complex and divergent forms. [...]

[...] The same was true for many scientists and theistic thinkers in succeeding generations, and in my opinion this holds today. [...]

(But to some degree many scientists outside physics regard such esoteric particle relationships as being of theoretical interest mainly within that discipline; the concepts aren’t seen as posing any threat to biology, zoology, or geology, for instance, nor do they tinker with naïve realism. [...]

[...] At best your scientists will only discover more of these camouflage patterns, but the entire system will simply not be perceived by any one species, and you will never perceive camouflage patterns outside of your own patterns. You are simply blocked in the pursuit of knowledge beyond a certain point as long as your scientists persist in the lines of their present development.

When the physical origin of your universe is finally discovered, your scientists will be no better off than they are now. [...]

[...] When you develop your time theory and realize that present, past and future are merely effects and distortions caused by your own perspective, then your scientists will realize that cause and effect is a passé and antiquated theory, useful only for a short time—I hope you appreciate the pun with the word time—and should be discarded.

[...] Now your scientists realize that the living human being is indeed alive in the womb. [...]

(“I’m a professional artist,” I wrote to the scientist, “and at times have been puzzled enough by questions about evolution to consider making my own series of drawings that would show the transformation from reptile to bird, for instance, just to see if I could do it convincingly…. [...]

(The scientist in question may never answer my letter, but it’s already had one unexpected beneficial effect: Tonight, after he finished book dictation, Seth gave an excellent summation of his own version of what our species like to call evolution. [...]

[...] “It would destroy the world of a scientist who believed in evolution. [...]

[...] Whether Atlantis actually existed in historic terms, its location, the time of its suggested demise, and so forth, are of course points strongly contested by scholars, scientists, and others.

They represent a more or less true account of the nature of your camouflage universe, but if they are understood as being limited to your camouflage environment only, then your scientists would not attempt to use them as yardsticks to measure other universes.

[...] But as mankind grows even more ambitious then the idea will cease to work for him, and it will be actually discarded on theoretical terms while it is still utilized in its limited fashion in practical mundane terms, as you still find the table useful in practical terms; although theoretically you realize that it is not a solid you still manufacture tables, and you will still use watches long after your scientists discover that the theory of successive passage of moments is antiquated and itself passé.

Your apparent laws of the universe have been broken in isolated instances often enough so that this point should certainly be clear, and yet your scientists constantly ignore such problems.

In our terms, then, it’s certainly foolish for scientists to expect that the peoples of the world are simply going to dispense with religion just because scientists want them to, calling them “deluded” or worse. It’s just as foolish for those who are religious, even though they outnumber the scientists by far, to expect most scientists to embrace religion, to surrender their agnosticism or atheism, to give up their mechanistic, reductionist views of life—their attempts to use a series of “logical” steps to reduce the human being, say, to his or her ever-lower components, right down to the atomic level. [God is, therefore, unnecessary.] And this, of course, even though the scientists cannot explain where the universe we know came from, or where “it” may be going. [...] Nor can scientists tell us, any better than the religious-minded can, what life itself is, or where “it” came from, or where “it” may be going.

[...] [I do believe that this kind of thinking is totally unacceptable to most businessmen, as well as generally to the public they serve, the irony here being that neither businessman or scientist can explain what that fantastic nuclear energy—or any energy, for that matter—really is. [...]

[...] Some schools of thought, then, have it that only the genetically superior should be allowed to reproduce, and there are scientists who believe that all defects can be eradicated through judicious genetic planning.

(With pauses): Your scientists are finally learning what philosophers have known for centuries — that mind can influence matter. [...]

[...] Each thought and emotion spontaneously exists as a simple or complex electromagnetic unit — unperceived, incidentally, as yet by your scientists.

Your scientists are generally, now, intellectually oriented, believing in reason above the intuitions, taking it for granted that those qualities are opposites. [...]

[...] They are behind large issues, involved in the [Three Mile Island] nuclear fiasco, for example, and in the scientist’s idea of power and creation.

Your scientists are, generally now, intellectually oriented, believing in reason above the intuitions, taking it for granted that those qualities are opposites. [...]

[...] They are behind large issues, involved in the [Three Mile Island] nuclear fiasco, for example, and in the scientist’s idea of power and creation. [...]

(With amusement:) The male scientist considers the rocket his private symbol of sexual power. [...] Now many scientists are “idealists.” [...]

[...] “Subatomic particles,” however, appear in your present, rippling into your system’s dimensions, creating their own “tracks,” which scientists then try to observe. In some cases, unknowingly, your scientists are close to observing the birth of time effects within your system. [...]

4. I doubt if by his statement Seth means that physicists are attempting to study his CU’s (see Note 2) — certainly not yet, although a few scientists who have written us thereby show that they’re familiar with Seth’s thinking here. [...]

With yourself and Ruburt, I was amused to think that a scientist was conducting experiments on a serious level in order to discover whether or not dreams actually exist.

[...] Your scientists would learn more about the nature of dreams if they would but train themselves to recall their own dreams, and then study them in relation to their own normal activities and physical events.

The scientist of whom you have read, in his experiments attempts to deprive the individual of sleep.

The fact remains that psychologists or scientists cannot really speak of so-called ESP as either below normal or above normal as far as the species is concerned, just because Western man finds such difficulty in using it with any effectiveness. [...]

Your scientists with their instruments have succeeded in inducing the emotions of fear, sorrow, and so forth in some operations, but the experience itself remains subjective and psychological. [...]

[...] In the first place, your most pragmatic scientist is even now forced to admit, as even Ruburt knows, that solid objects are not solid; and the interesting sidelight of this fact must be that your faithful, tried and true, so-called dependable outer senses are in reality lovely liars, since the eyes see a chair as solid while the chair is not solid at all.

This duality is so artificial that it is amazing that your scientists have not stumbled upon the false hypothesis behind it.

There are effects, not as yet ascertained by your scientists, that appear in such areas: effects that were known however at the time of Atlantis, and also utilized by the Lumanians. [...]

Some of my readers may be familiar with “black” and “white holes” in space, that your scientists have recently discovered.