Your transcription didn’t include the fake-tastic and highly variable accent(s) she used for her “Seth” persona, ending every other word and/or syllable with “-a”.
(Curiosity got the better of me and I finally went to Youtube to see what was so convincing to our OP.) Oy vey! :smack:
Let’s stop right there. You cannot comprehend the meaning of
which part of this scientifically inaccurate nonsense is beyond your comprehension? Either what she said is true, or it is not true-what say you?
what about this piece of agricultural news(for which she had no background training in whatsoever):
What part of this needs explaining to you? If none, what parts of it are you buying?
Anyone else have a problem figuring out what Jane Roberts/“Seth” is trying to say?
What’s your beef with Steken? She/He is citing secondary literature about Western esoteric movements. Do you think that you have to subscribe to their specific opinions if you scholarly handle supernatural phenomena, that a neutral or antagonistic POV is impossible? Further, her/his argument is that those cites show that some 19th century esoterics believed in their delusions. Is that surprising? There are millions of religious folks proselyting every day wholeheartedly believing the claptrap they’re selling. Why should it have been different with some of the esoterics of the Victorian era?
While the OP has a lot to answer for, you’re fighting windmills against Steken.
My beef is with the handwaving done by the statement “I have no idea what Roberts / Seth is trying to say.” after I post several examples of pseudoscientific nonsense straight from the horse’s mouth. I would have bought maybe “I don’t wish to get into it”, but the response he gave was silly-anyone with a high school education could understand why those statements were wrong.
Frankly, that’s exactly what I thought after reading Roberts’ quotes you provided: I have no idea what she was trying to say, because it’s a load of rubbish. That doesn’t mean that I don’t know that it’s wrong (of course it is). So what?
Pretty much, yeah. I, too, think it sounds like a load of rubbish, but not knowing neither the specific context, nor Mrs. Roberts’ - er, I mean Seth’s - definitions of the terms used, I can’t really say I understand what the hell she’s on about. For one thing, you haven’t told us if the quotes in question come from Mrs. Roberts’ openly fictional sci-fi work, or if they come from her supposedly “channelled” work. You also haven’t told us if the quotes are supposed to describe conditions on planet Earth (in which case the term “pseudoscientific” seems apt; Mrs. Roberts’ falsifiable claims could easily be put to the test), or if they are supposed to describe conditions on whatever lofty meta-empirical plane of existence this Seth character is supposed to call home (in which case those of us who dig empirical science and falsification of falsifiable claims are, alas, shit outta luck). And so on and so forth.
To sum up: As of yet, I know next to nothing about Mrs. Roberts’ work - and I will not pretend otherwise.
You see, I am not in the habit of passing judgment on a book before I have thoroughly familiarised myself with it. Starting with, you know, actually reading the damn thing.
Which brings us back to that dictionary. You claimed that “there is no woo this ‘dictionary’ doesn’t praise to the heavens.” This would seem to imply that you have read it - surely you wouldn’t pass judgment on a book before actually reading it? So, will you back that up, or will you admit that you in fact you have not read the dictionary in question, and so retract that statement?
As I have said since the beginning, I think a lot of the channeled material could be bogus, so I’m not going to try and defend any of it.
The point is that I think that in a lot of cases that the medium himself or herself is genuine and not faking, and just passing on information they are receiving.
All I have wanted since the beginning is a decent discussion about the possible sources of this information, subconscious or otherwise.
My reason for mentioning Jane Roberts / Seth is because in the early books they go into a lot of detail about the process itself, what happens during the channeling process, how it all started, what the other people in the room experiences also, etc. I’m not sure from memory which if the first two books describe all this, possibly the history/build-up is in “Seth Speaks” and more indepth information into the process etc. is provided in “The Seth Material”, but I’m not sure. Likewise you get the same sort of information / detail in “The Betty Book” and “The Unobstructed Universe”.
“The Unobstructed Universe” is interesting as Betty, the medium for the information in the earlier book “The Betty Book”, has passed-on at this point and it is the deceased Betty’s spirit that a medium friend of hers and her husband are allegedly contacting. This book includes descriptions of a bunch of tests they performed to prove that the Betty being contacted was indeed the “real” Betty by asking a number of questions to the medium that only the husband would know, receiving accurate answers each time. If one accepts this, then this rules out the possibility of the information coming from the subconscious, but still allows for a collective unconscious to explain what is happening. Of course, they could all be lying and again proof is impossible I think, but its an interesting read.
If you are not going to try to defend any of it, and you say that whether a medium comes out with valid information or not does not factor into whether or not they are truly a medium, then how are we to test them to see if channelling is valid or not? What would it take to convince you that someone is definitely not a channeller?
There’s no way to verify these extraordinary claims, HenryH, if the claimants won’t or can’t be scientifically evaluated. Generally, in such a case, it is good logical policy to assume that such claims are therefore no more valid than any other unsubstantiatable claim.
For example, someone might claim that they have an invisible friend that only he can hear, who gives him advice about what to order at a restaurant. This may be a true claim, but there’s no way to evaluate it – so there’s no reason to treat it as anything besides delusion or fiction. Why should we treat these claims of channeling any differently?
Confession to faking on the behalf of the medium is one way I can see to prove this (for a particular medium). Absence of any confessions, on death-beds or otherwise, over decades I think is significant. Some other tests? I don’t know … is there a way to measure the conscious interactions in the brain or something like that? E.g. to monitor a channeling and see that while the medium is speaking or just before hand, the medium is definitely using their reasoning facilities (implying possible faking) or the medium is in a deep semi-sleep state with none of the brain areas needed to produce coherent thoughts/speech are active (implying genuine transmission of information). I’m not sure if tests like this have been done or not - the scientific arguments seems to always tend to be judging the material itself. Most mediums, at least the ones I would imagine best for any testing of the medium state in this way, seem to have no recollection whatsoever of the information being received or of the room they are in etc. during the channeling, so is it possible then that something like this could be measured in some way? Or possibly voice analysis? Facial expressions analysis? Mediums reaction to stimuli while channeling? Lie-detectors?
I’m open to be convinced, just like, although it was a bit of a shock, I became convinced my self some months ago that the information itself was possibly bogus. But nothing convinces me so far that they are faking it, all evidence (as I see it) points to a lot of them being genuine in their efforts.
If they are faking it, sure as shit they aren’t going to confess to faking it, right? Nothing else you’ve mentioned is within the realm of possibility, save perhaps the lie detector test, and there are two problems with that:
You claim to be open-minded, but as far as I can see you will accept anything that supports the idea that they are real, and either deny or ignore anything that says they aren’t.
You keep saying this, but it’s pointless - the people who think it’s entirely bogus aren’t interested in the majority of cases that they agree with you about; they want to examine and discuss the ones you think are not bogus, if indeed there are any of such.
What form do you expect that discussion to take - apparently not critical examination of the quality of the information, so what then?
Discussion without examination is totally pointless.
These two statements, taken together, pretty much ensure that this discussion will be futile and frustrating. Anyone can make up false information - there is no way to verify the source.
No, it’s not interesting. It’s stupendously uninteresting. You are trying to figure out if someone is faking by asking them if they are faking. It’s hopelessly naive. It’s 180 degrees opposite of what a real investigation would be.
I am sure you understand, HenryH, that we cannot discuss why a car gets 100 miles to the gallon unless you show us a car which gets 100 miles to the gallon in repeated, independent tests.
“Channeled material” does not exist. Because “channeling” is not a real phenomenon. These facts render meaningless any attempt to discuss the attributes of “channeled material.”
Well, that puts us in quite a pickle. We are suddenly obligated to read every book that’s published. Because to decide to not read a book is to pass judgment on that book.
Don’t be so quick to judge. Last year I employed services of a medium who claimed she should contact the dead, and other unworldly spirits. She began the seance by speaking in the voice of a middle-aged man with a prim and proper British accent, then suddenly switched to a young Southern belle whose drawl was peppered with phrases and idioms from the 1800’s, then sudddenly switched to an elderly Chinese man who barely spoke a lick of English, then suddenly switched to a verbose Native American who claimed to be a raven in the sky, then suddenly switched to a Valley Girl who was shocked to learn that the Sherman Oaks Galleria had shut down, then suddenly switched to some type of pre-hominid australopithecine who could only communicate in clicks and grunts.
Clearly, she was channel-surfing.
(Thank you! I’ll be here all week!)
The first definition I can find by googling the term - here - states that the term “pass judgment on” is only used “to EXPRESS a STRONG OPINION about someone or something.”
We do not need to “express a strong opinion” before deciding not to read a certain book. A simple lack of interest in the book’s subject matter - whether expressed or unexpressed, whether backed by a strong opinion or by a not-so-strong opinion or indeed by no particular opinion at all - may do.
If, as it seems, you are using some other definition of the term, do feel free to bring it forth, preferably with a cite to a serious, scholarly dictionary.
And hey, speaking of serious, scholarly dictionaries… Wasn’t there something else I wanted to say about one of those? Didn’t I need to remind somebody of something, with regards to serious, scholarly dictionaries, and passing judgment before actually reading 'em, and whatnot? Ah, well, 'twas probably nothing. Have a good Sunday, everyone. 
Once the dictionaries come out, the thread is screwed (unless its a thread specifically about semantics)