![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
[Note: The quotes mentioned here have been moved to the Seth Material article, so this comment no longer applies to this article.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb Murdock ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
As I have stated repeatedly now, the Seth Material section was originally part of this article and many people, including a mediator, suggested that it be spun off into it's own article, and that's why that was done. The Seth Material section had gotten too large and unwieldy for a biographical article. The Seth Material information belongs in its own article.-- Caleb Murdock ( talk) 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merge. Seth Material is obviously an independent topic, notable in its own right. Seth Material article is well-written, encylopedic and sourced. It was justifiably spun off from this article just a few months ago. Merging its contents back here will simply bloat this article to no benefit. Gandalf61 ( talk) 08:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support merge The current Seth Material article is not reliably sourced and doesn't establish notability, etc. It is also written in an essay style with an obvious bias, via an in-universe framing and a non-encyclopaedic tone. By merging relevant material into this article, and sourcing it, we are saving it from deletion. Also, the Seth material is by it's very nature entirely entangled with Jane Roberts. To separate it causes many neutrality concerns, amongst others. The salvageable material has already been copied here, and has made this article better. Verbal chat 09:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merge. I came to this discussion from this report at the fringe theory noticeboard. I did some research after reading the report and entered a comment there. Jane Roberts was a notable author of many books that were major bestsellers in the 1980s. Whatever the content of her books was, she was known as an author, widely published. Her books have been translated around the world and are mostly still in print today, 30 years later. As a biography article about an author, this topic is sufficiently notable.
The Seth Material is in itself notable as a separate topic. "Seth" was one of the most widely-known "channeled entities" (so-called) that were popular as part of the new age movement that was active in the USA in the late 1970s through the early 1990s. The Seth writings were discussed by multiple authors as religious or spiritual philosophy works, and have been used by various new age groups for meditations and other such activities. There is a lot of secondary source information available. All that's needed is for editors to find it and bring it to the article. There's no good reason to merge the article about the spiritual philosophy works into the article about the author. They are separate topics, each individually notable. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 10:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have notified the other involved parties, that haven't already commented, of this thread. Verbal chat 12:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
strongly support merge- maybe merge the roberts one to this one- either would be fine. I think the SM article is -probably- an accurate summary of the teachings- but it contains obscure detail unnecessary for an encyclopedia, and some of it is unimportant, but I wasn't sure what to take out. It should be summarised more briefly, at least. Sticky Parkin 12:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merge. The Seth Material is notable . . . whether or not other new age texts would be considered mainstream, today I do not know, but there are secondary sources available, but the problem is to track them down and insert them into the article. Since Roberts died over twenty years ago, this may take some research, but I have found a few myself. But at the time they were considered notable and there has got to be more data available to support the tenets. If you had to summarize the material, I would say the "create your own reality" stuff and the material on probabilities would be the main ideas. Seth mentioned Christ/God/Paul of Tarsus and even Reincarnation but none of these items were central to his message. 70.186.172.75 ( talk) 14:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
comment To clarify- the seth material is sort of notable, but not independently of JR in my humble opinion; what I mean by that is not that it lacks sources, but that we don't need both articles. Sticky Parkin 01:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Wait According to CM, the Seth Material article was created in response to many people, including an arbitrator, suggesting that it be spun off. Therefore I can understand if he is now miffed at the suggestion that it be merged right back. He is also fighting to preserve the product of "2 years work", as he says. I find that understandable, too. Nonetheless, a good number have voiced criticism of the Seth Material article, chiefly that it is written from an "in-universe view". The article's defenders seem to resist any suggestion that the article needs to incorporate critical viewpoints (a "bird's eye view" instead of a "worm's eye view", as I wrote on the SM Talk page). All the same, however, I don't see a need for speed here. I would reiterate my earlier suggestion, namely to give the article a chance to improve, and to revisit in a month.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
[Note: The quotes mentioned here have been moved to the Seth Material article, so this comment no longer applies to this article.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb Murdock ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
As I have stated repeatedly now, the Seth Material section was originally part of this article and many people, including a mediator, suggested that it be spun off into it's own article, and that's why that was done. The Seth Material section had gotten too large and unwieldy for a biographical article. The Seth Material information belongs in its own article.-- Caleb Murdock ( talk) 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merge. Seth Material is obviously an independent topic, notable in its own right. Seth Material article is well-written, encylopedic and sourced. It was justifiably spun off from this article just a few months ago. Merging its contents back here will simply bloat this article to no benefit. Gandalf61 ( talk) 08:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support merge The current Seth Material article is not reliably sourced and doesn't establish notability, etc. It is also written in an essay style with an obvious bias, via an in-universe framing and a non-encyclopaedic tone. By merging relevant material into this article, and sourcing it, we are saving it from deletion. Also, the Seth material is by it's very nature entirely entangled with Jane Roberts. To separate it causes many neutrality concerns, amongst others. The salvageable material has already been copied here, and has made this article better. Verbal chat 09:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merge. I came to this discussion from this report at the fringe theory noticeboard. I did some research after reading the report and entered a comment there. Jane Roberts was a notable author of many books that were major bestsellers in the 1980s. Whatever the content of her books was, she was known as an author, widely published. Her books have been translated around the world and are mostly still in print today, 30 years later. As a biography article about an author, this topic is sufficiently notable.
The Seth Material is in itself notable as a separate topic. "Seth" was one of the most widely-known "channeled entities" (so-called) that were popular as part of the new age movement that was active in the USA in the late 1970s through the early 1990s. The Seth writings were discussed by multiple authors as religious or spiritual philosophy works, and have been used by various new age groups for meditations and other such activities. There is a lot of secondary source information available. All that's needed is for editors to find it and bring it to the article. There's no good reason to merge the article about the spiritual philosophy works into the article about the author. They are separate topics, each individually notable. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 10:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have notified the other involved parties, that haven't already commented, of this thread. Verbal chat 12:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
strongly support merge- maybe merge the roberts one to this one- either would be fine. I think the SM article is -probably- an accurate summary of the teachings- but it contains obscure detail unnecessary for an encyclopedia, and some of it is unimportant, but I wasn't sure what to take out. It should be summarised more briefly, at least. Sticky Parkin 12:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merge. The Seth Material is notable . . . whether or not other new age texts would be considered mainstream, today I do not know, but there are secondary sources available, but the problem is to track them down and insert them into the article. Since Roberts died over twenty years ago, this may take some research, but I have found a few myself. But at the time they were considered notable and there has got to be more data available to support the tenets. If you had to summarize the material, I would say the "create your own reality" stuff and the material on probabilities would be the main ideas. Seth mentioned Christ/God/Paul of Tarsus and even Reincarnation but none of these items were central to his message. 70.186.172.75 ( talk) 14:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
comment To clarify- the seth material is sort of notable, but not independently of JR in my humble opinion; what I mean by that is not that it lacks sources, but that we don't need both articles. Sticky Parkin 01:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Wait According to CM, the Seth Material article was created in response to many people, including an arbitrator, suggesting that it be spun off. Therefore I can understand if he is now miffed at the suggestion that it be merged right back. He is also fighting to preserve the product of "2 years work", as he says. I find that understandable, too. Nonetheless, a good number have voiced criticism of the Seth Material article, chiefly that it is written from an "in-universe view". The article's defenders seem to resist any suggestion that the article needs to incorporate critical viewpoints (a "bird's eye view" instead of a "worm's eye view", as I wrote on the SM Talk page). All the same, however, I don't see a need for speed here. I would reiterate my earlier suggestion, namely to give the article a chance to improve, and to revisit in a month.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)