Talk:Jane Roberts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jane Roberts article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Follow this link to complete a request for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)
To-do list for Jane Roberts: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Archive
    Archives
    /Archive 1 - /Archive 2

    Contents


    [edit] Fair Use (please keep this note on top)

    It is my belief that the quotes in this article are permitted by the Fair Use doctrine, since they serve as examples of the Seth Material and they explicate the statements made in the text. If you feel that the quoted material is too long, please respond here before deleting it. I believe, although I cannot know for certain, that the current owner of the Seth books, Robert Butts, would be pleased to see examples of the Seth Material given to the public. Mr. Butts is around 90 years old, and I am concerned about contacting him given his age. Furthermore, he may not understand what Wikipedia is all about. Nonetheless, if I believed that the quotes in this article exceeded the Fair Use standard, I would contact him.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Perfection

    To 75.135.74.160. I don't remember Seth talking about perfection in relation to God, and I've read more than ten of the books. Indeed, I believe that Seth would say that perfection is a moot concept since everything is always in a state of becoming and nothing ever attains a final, perfect state. I suspect that this obsession with perfection is your "thing". I would appreciate it if you would find a cite in one of the books.

    My second objection to your revisions is that they don't fit into the existing paragraph very well. Nonetheless, I've revised the paragraph to reflect your comments, using language which I think is a better fit.--Caleb Murdock 08:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Scientific Research on the Texts

    I think leaving out reference to books exploring specific scientific validity and scientific parallels in Seth's theories of reality and matter (comparing them to David Bohm's theories of Wholeness and the Implicate Order) - I.E. Norman Friedman's 'Bridging Science and Spirit' and 'The Hidden Domain' - is a big oversight which needs to be corrected IMHO (and not meaning to sound critical). I don't consider myself well versed enough to write the addition and I thought it would be better to seek consensus before making any edits anyway (such as simply adding his books to the Seth-related book list). Of all the various channelers of the 19th and 20th century, Jane Roberts produced arguably the most intellectually and scientifically sophisticated material and it would be good to discuss, even if briefly, serious investigation into the material. Many of the tenets of the Seth books have been embraced sort of nonspecifically by the New Age movement (as well as other channelers, E.G. Abraham, Elias, and Kris (this also might be a useful addition - other channelers expanding on specific ideas proposed by Seth)) and it would be good to give people a link to further serious study of the claims that thoughts creating reality is backed up by Quantum Physics. Thank you for the time you've spent editting this valuable resource for people, it is much appreciated.R. Chappell (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

    A note: Perhaps calling an omission of Normal Friedman's books a big oversight is a poor way to put it. Reviewing all of the edits and archives of discussions you've already gone through to perfect this page, I think it must be a seemingly insurmountable task to appease all of the people affected by the Seth books who care about the material and how this page is written. I think if someone was willing to write it, a brief paragraph on Norman Friedman's contentions that Seth's theories (which were written either approximately concurrently with or prior to the publishing of David Bohm's 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' - 'Nature of Personal Reality' was published around the same year if I'm not mistaken) bear many similarities to David Bohm's work (a highly respected theoretical physicist). I am plenty versed in Seth's books but I do not feel adequately confident in my grasp of Quantum Physics to write an eloquent synopsis of Friedman's contentions. One of the reasons New Age material, like the "You Create Your own Reality" tenet - originating with Seth, gets mocked and not taken seriously is the fact that the New Age and Parapsychology movement does not have a peer review system and people who have a very amateur grasp of what they are talking about often get published (or interviewed by Oprah) right alongside the educated professionals, destroying professional credibility in the eyes of the scientific and academic establishments and furthering public opinion that all investigations into the paranormal are simply Pseudoscience. If you feel like adding to this page at some point, or if anyone with a good background wants to submit a trial paragraph on this, provided it meets your (Caleb's) approval, I think it would be a good thing.R. Chappell (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

    I appreciate your comments.
    First of all, no one needs my approval to edit the article. That doesn't mean, of course, that I won't make my own changes if I don't like the new additions -- that's just the way it works on Wikipedia. I don't own this article, though I wish I did.
    You have me at a significant disadvantage. I know very little about the rest of the New Age movement. Starting as a teenager, I read about (1) ghosts (reading plausible stories about ghosts was the first thing that made me realize that there is more to life than physical reality), (2) then moved on to Edgar Cayce, (3) and read some Castaneda/Don Juan, (4) then read about near-death experiences, and (5) then discovered Jane Roberts/Seth. Having found Seth, I didn't go any further. Indeed, I haven't even finished all the Seth books. I have done very little reading of other psychics, just enough to conclude that the quality of their material was inferior. Seth is my Bible.
    I agree that it would be nice to tie Seth's statements into other things, such as quantum mechanics, but I question if that is an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are supposed to deal in cold, hard facts. Finding common ground among various sciences and disciplines gets us into theoretical areas which are best explored in books or magazine articles -- don't you think?
    As for peer review, it seems to me that the parapsychology field is too chaotic for that. Also, isn't peer review something of a yoke? Isn't that one of the problems with science, that it is somewhat straight-jacketed? Even with peer review, science will never give parapsychology any credence.
    Getting back to the article, why don't you take a stab at making the changes that you would like to see? You clearly have more knowledge than I do of the field as a whole. Just remember that the article is about Jane Roberts and Seth, not about parapsychology in general.
    By the way, if you find ANYONE who is versed in both Seth and quantum theory, you have found a very remarkable person indeed! Perhaps YOU are that remarkable person.
    One more thing: this article has plenty of defects, especially insofar as its being comprehensive is concerned. I haven't added any of Seth's statements and theories from the later books, like frameworks. Also, I haven't even read Jane's biography yet, and I know little about her non-Seth writings. This article is very lopsided towards the early Seth readings, and I think it should have more information about Jane herself.
    Are you the one that I exchanged some emails with?--Caleb Murdock (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


    Hi, Caleb. Are you still using the address at purebeads? I sent you an email going into further discussion on this (since we already have two huge archive pages of discussion already and the email was a bit lengthy).R. Chappell (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Seth vs. Jane Roberts

    Not to criticize . . . but wouldn't it be a good idea to spin most of this off into a separate "Seth" article? There is very little information here about Roberts herself as opposed to Seth's ideas, and Roberts had plenty of books herself, none of which are really discussed here. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. And if you look at the section The Seth Material, you'll see a notation that that will be done (but I haven't had the time, since I run a small business).
    The situation is this: I have been doing most of the editing on the article, but I have read only one of Jane's non-Seth books, so it is the Seth material that I am mostly familiar with. It's my intention to read all her books, but who knows when I will be able to.
    If you know a lot about Jane herself, then you should add what you know to the article. Once the Seth Material is spun off, I would expect to most edit the new article, since that is what I am familiar with.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    How about materials from Jane's introductions? She makes a fascinating point towards the skeptics that she didn't feel able to match Seth's flawless control in her "regular" condition. In addition, she says that however the Trance state worked, it didn't give her the creative fulfillment of her standard creative process. There's something to be learned here about command of one's powers - she/they calmly proceeded to produce a colossal wealth of information *without any hint of "Writer's Block". In that sense, it's lovely to read Robert's notes. (Something like) "Jane had the flu and was ill for two weeks. Seth was not remotely perturbed. He continued in the same paragraph he left off." --TaoPhoenix (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I didn't see you post this comment two weeks ago. To be honest, I'm just plugging along reading the early material and I'm not focussed on Jane's biographical stuff. What I plan to do is to read her biography and update the article when I do that (sometime this year). But as I said, you should add whatever information you know to be accurate. I don't own the article, and you don't have to wait for my initiative. However, you can expect me to be interested in whatever you add, and possibly to adjust the language to be consistent with the tone of the article.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    OK, that's cool. I have bought The Oversoul Seven Trilogy and want to start reading it after I finish up with Unknown Reality . . . I can maybe make some notes as I read it and see what we can make of that. I am not much of a writer and you have done an incredible job with the article so far, so at the moment I am just adding citations as I find them n the books I have. So anything I add you might want to come behind and cleanup. Could create a subpage so we can experiment without messing the article up. But I think Roberts' work deserves much more attention than it has got . . . I seemed to have run across it by "accident" but wil do my best to help out. Cheers! 70.186.172.75 (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    Hey Caleb, I like what you're doing with this article, I have read 10+ books in the Seth series, and have also made a personal visit down to Yale University to see Jane's original writings and notes on the Seth Material. Trust me on this one that making a visit and seeing the originals, along with the stuff she never published, is amazing, and lends even more credence to what Seth is saying through her. I would like to say a lot more, but maybe if you want to shoot me an email at dlkoepke@gmail.com, I can tell you anything that comes to mind from my visit down there. Also, I have read Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm, and I believe it is essential reading for anyone interested in Seth. A lot is hard to understand from someone without a science background, but he makes a great attempt to break it down to the layman and does a great job of making it clear what he is trying to say. His thesis is essentially what Seth says, reality is an unbroken whole with little slivers of consciousnss/energy that are separate in their identity yet still part of the greater whole. I will add a section to this article once I feel that I understand Bohm's book a little better. I will also have a lot more to add down the line. Email me, Caleb, I'd love to talk to you. - David K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.230.132 (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Channelling William James

    Under "Non-Seth books" it states: "She also purportedly channelled other personalities, including the philosopher William James, the painter Paul Cézanne, and the painter Rembrandt, all deceased". In Session 718 in "The Unknown Reality, Vol.2", it is stated that Jane tuned into the "world view" of William James, but that she did not channell him personally (a world view being a "real thing" can thus be tuned into by others). Seth says that this is usually what happens when famous people are channelled rather than direct contact by the entiity itself. Can you check up on this? Thanks. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

    I guess that I goofed. Interestingly enough, the William James book is the only non-Seth book of Jane's that I have read, but that was about 20 years ago. However, is it really so far off to say that she channelled James when she just channelled his world view? I'm not sure.
    Can you suggest some language as to how to change it? Perhaps we should just eliminate James' name from that sentence. To specifically say that she purportedly channelled James' "world view" may not make sense to many readers.
    Where would I check? I may have the James book around somewhere.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I see the problem. I just thought I would bring it to your attention. For most readers, the notion that ideas or perspectives in themselves are "real" as a chair is real will be a bit hard to explain in such a short space. Frankly, it would probably be best to leave it as it is, but I just wanted to make sure that this was what you had intended. Simplifying Seth is no easy task. ;) 70.186.172.75 (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Robert F Butts passed away

    Robert Butts just passed away not too long ago: http://www.newworldview.com/blogs/helfrich/archive/2008/05/29/in-memoriam-robert-f-butts.aspx Can someone add this to the material? I'm not very good at editing pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmkreeg (talk • contribs) 07:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

    I added dates after his name to indicate birth and death . . . Caleb does most of the real editing on the article. You might want to ping him to see if he can spin off an article on Butts or add some more notes about him. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)