Author Topic: Integrity of the Material: Seth confronts Rob about a note-taking error  (Read 262 times)

Offline Deb

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2408
  • ~We are the black sheep of the Universe.~
    • Like us on Facebook!
As a natural born skeptic, this is the type of stuff that opened me to the Seth material:

I came across this exchange between Seth and Rob by chance today and it was outside of the usual flow of things we usually read. It's from Session 34 in the Early Sessions 1, March 11, 1964.

Background: A regular planned session, Seth, Jane and Rob only. Seth described a scene how we observe with our outer senses (a view out a window, cars going by) with sight, sound. The inner senses add exponentially to the experience. If we would be able to observe the same scene from an inner-sense perspective, we would experience directly the essence of everything in the scene: smells, the air, trees, branches, hidden insects and birds, personalities of the people in the cars, the past and future experiences of everything.

Seth then went on to talk a little bit about the potential for mind altering drugs breaking our current consciousness out of the constraints of our limited, sense-based reality, which is not always a good thing. It could cause certain types of personalities to lose their ability to manipulate our camouflage patterns.

This is where it gets interesting:

Rob: "I remember you said once that the inner senses weren't as fluent."  (Here a surprising thing happened. As soon as I voiced this thought, Jane stopped in her pacing and stared at me. Her eyes were very dark.)

Seth: "As fluent?"

Rob: "Yes. As fluent as the outer senses."

Seth: "I do not recall saying that."

Rob: (I had a peculiar feeling of something gone wrong. It was the first time in all our sessions that any problem like this had arisen. Jane continued to stare at me as she stood by the window.)

Seth: "The word fluent is the word that bothers  me, and I do not know to what you refer. I am not sure of your meaning of the word fluent in that particular context."

Rob: "Well, I can't remember the whole context now, but I think you were comparing the inner senses to the outer senses. Somewhere back around the 15th or 16th sessions."

Seth: "The word fluent simply does not strike me in that context."

A little more material delivered, and then a break at 10:45. Rob tracked down the session in question: 17.

Seth: "We have uncovered an error on someone's part, my dear Joseph—"

Rob: "It's probably mine."

Seth: "—and this time we have no distortion but a simple mistake I believe in notes. I certainly did not say what I have just seen through Ruburt's eyes. The error is in one word; not fluent but "inner." The outer senses are not as fluent as the inner. For some reason the word was either mistaken or transposed, I do not know. The outer senses dealing with rigid camouflage patterns could not be as fluent as the inner senses.

"This could lead to errors in the interpretation of the material itself. The outer senses are schooled to interpret data in rather narrow terms, and therefore are not fluent. I hope that this is cleared up, and anything else like it should be instantly brought to my attention as soon as you become aware of it."

Rob: "It's the only one like it that I'm conscious of at the moment."

Seth: "The error could have been on Ruburt's part, although I believe I would have known it in that case and corrected it at once."

Rob: "I'll check my original notes. It's quite possible I made the mistake."

Seth: "You may have taken the word down wrong but your performance has certainly been excellent irregardless. I am certainly glad that this was caught."

Rob: "That line has bothered me at different times though." (This was true. Recalling this statement as I had first recorded it, I had wondered about its accuracy more and more as Seth gave us additional information on the much wider abilities of the inner senses. Later, checking my original handwritten notes, I found that I had indeed taken the statement down that way, then typed it up that way. So, although we didn't pinpoint the exact cause of the error, at least it has been corrected.)
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 07:34:18 AM by Deb »

Offline Sena

  • ****
  • Posts: 755
Deb, thanks for this. A sceptic reading the Seth books might say that Jane invented Seth. The above dialogue shows that such invention is very unlikely.

Offline usmaak

  • **
  • Posts: 33
I've been a skeptic forever and likely will be one until the day I'm done here.  Truly, in some ways I envy those who so believe something, that there is absolutely no question in their mind that they are correct.  I say "in some ways" only because I feel that this mindset closes you off to other ideas.  Like many, I have a healthy fear of death.  There have been times in my life since starting Seth when I've been convinced that it is nothing but "fake news".  I've been reading Seth ever day for the last five or six years now; usually a little bit at night and it keeps me focused on it.

One thing that has always struck me about Seth is the prodigious amount of information that was generated over the 20ish years that Jane was alive.  Some might say that "teachers" like Abraham have produced large quantities of information, but I believe that they'd be wrong.  The information generated is watered down to the extreme.  Abraham books are short.  Seth books are a commitment in time.  They are not easy reading and it has taken me a long time to understand.  Much of it, I'm sure that I still don't understand.  Seth, Jane, and Rob were on that venture for many years.  It seemed like intense, time consuming work.  They weren't touring the country in a large motorhome or going on yearly cruises.  They weren't raking in millions of $$.  It just seems too complex and time consuming to merely be a fraud.

Offline chasman

  • ***
  • Posts: 101
I very much enjoyed reading your post.
just a quick thought here.
the way I see it:

Jane and Rob for sure, seemed to be completely honest people.
and as soon as they realized how good awesome excellent amazing the Seth stuff was......... they were on a mission.
and the mission was to help people and make the world a better place, by producing the Seth books.
 



Offline usmaak

  • **
  • Posts: 33
Quote from: chasman
I very much enjoyed reading your post.
just a quick thought here.
the way I see it:

Jane and Rob for sure, seemed to be completely honest people.
and as soon as they realized how good awesome excellent amazing the Seth stuff was......... they were on a mission.
and the mission was to help people and make the world a better place, by producing the Seth books.

Sounds right.  If there was some other motivation, I sure can't figure it out.


Offline jbseth

  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Quote from: usmaak
I've been a skeptic forever and likely will be one until the day I'm done here.  Truly, in some ways I envy those who so believe something, that there is absolutely no question in their mind that they are correct.  I say "in some ways" only because I feel that this mindset closes you off to other ideas.  Like many, I have a healthy fear of death.  There have been times in my life since starting Seth when I've been convinced that it is nothing but "fake news".  I've been reading Seth ever day for the last five or six years now; usually a little bit at night and it keeps me focused on it.One thing that has always struck me about Seth is the prodigious amount of information that was generated over the 20ish years that Jane was alive.  Some might say that "teachers" like Abraham have produced large quantities of information, but I believe that they'd be wrong.  The information generated is watered down to the extreme.  Abraham books are short.  Seth books are a commitment in time.  They are not easy reading and it has taken me a long time to understand.  Much of it, I'm sure that I still don't understand.  Seth, Jane, and Rob were on that venture for many years.  It seemed like intense, time consuming work.  They weren't touring the country in a large motorhome or going on yearly cruises.  They weren't raking in millions of $$.  It just seems too complex and time consuming to merely be a fraud.


Hi usmaak,

While I think it's possible to be too gullible, I also think it's possible to be too skeptical.

My personal experience, has been that many people who believe in something so strongly, that there is absolutely no question in their mind that they are correct, are often just very close minded.

I personally know several people who have very deep beliefs in Christianity and they are absolutely convinced that they know what life is all about.

I have another good friend who has a very strong scientific background and he is absolutely convinced that there is no such thing as ESP, there is no life after death and consciousness is an artifact of the brain.

Finally, I have another friend who is a massage therapist. She is very intuitive and picks up messages from her "guides" which often help her in her life and with her clients.

My Christian friends, my scientific friend and my massage therapist friend have very different belief systems about how life works. Furthermore, for the most part, they are largely not compatible with each other.

I believe, the real trick here is to remain open minded while guarding yourself against becoming too gullible and then figure out what makes the most sense and what works best for you.



 



others that help her he


is a  God wants for people and I'm not convinced that they  are so sure


I know that people can be too gullible and fall for some half baked belief system that turns out to be totally wrong. On the other hand, I also know that people can be so skeptical that that completely close themselves off to concepts and ideas that, may, in fact, be true.




 



For many of my

Offline Deb

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2408
  • ~We are the black sheep of the Universe.~
    • Like us on Facebook!
Quote from: jbseth
I believe, the real trick here is to remain open minded while guarding yourself against becoming too gullible and then figure out what makes the most sense and what works best for you.

I agree. While I've always been a skeptic, my definition of skeptic is someone who is inclined to question ALL accepted opinions, research them if they are interesting, decide what feels right. Some people think a skeptic is someone who automatically rejects everything (usually outside of science), but I see it more as being neutral.

It seems to me there are too many people who are willing to blindly accept what they hear or read, especially if it comes from a source they consider an authority (a trusted news agency, government and its agencies, medical associations, religion, doctors, vets, politicians). I see it as a real problem. I feel it's good to question everything, while keeping an open mind. You never know what you'll learn as mainstream beliefs are usually more trend than truth.

Jbseth, there seem to be some random sentence fragments at the end of your post(?).

Offline jbseth

  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Hi Deb,

Yeah, there was some extra sentences and sentence fragments at the end of my post, that I intended to delete but didn't. Just ignore those.


I find it interesting that my friend Chris, who has the scientific background and is critical (critical as in  critiquing something, not as in "criticizing" something) of all things non-scientific, never seems to turn his keen critical eye on science itself. In regards to his beliefs, he is absolutely convinced that he is right and that anyone who doesn't see things the way he does is completely wrong about how things work.

In regards to this topic, I like what Seth says below from the Appendix of Seth Speaks, Session 596:

"Again, those who are so certain of their answers will lack the need to know that can lead them into still greater dimensions of understanding."

 

Offline usmaak

  • **
  • Posts: 33
Quote from: jbseth
"Again, those who are so certain of their answers will lack the need to know that can lead them into still greater dimensions of understanding."
Great quote.  Love this!

 

With Quick-Reply you can write a post when viewing a topic without loading a new page. You can still use bulletin board code and smileys as you would in a normal post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.
Name: Email:
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image
Type the letters shown in the picture:
The opposite of black:
Twelve divided by two (word):