Talk:Jane Roberts/Archive 2

message: That's a lot of it, please correct me if there are other changes I forgot about.  My take on it is that if inaccuracies emerged as a result of my edits, it's because those areas were already unclear and I interpreted them incorrectly as many other readers would.  If you feel that information is mis-catagorized now, my take on it is that at least there are subcategories, now!  It's trivial to move tidbits from one section to another, but those logical separations didn't exist before and now they do.  I'm reverting back to the most recent version.  If you feel that my qualifications here really don't justify the work I did, than feel free to revert again.  I won't start a wheel war, and I'm glad to work out what changes you don't like and put them back, but I think for the most part the most important stuff I changed was the overall structure which will be hardest to re-create, and much easier to revise. 
:--Dwiki 20:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: Dwiki, I have many objections to what you did.
First of all, your headings are illogical.  "Claims made by Roberts about Seth" does not accurately describe the paragraph that follows.  And "Contentions made by Roberts about Seth" is merely redundant of the previous heading.
Your prose is awkward.  In addition to that, your use of the word "claimed" is one which I object to.  "Claimed" is NOT a neutral word; it has a negative connotation.  There are better ways to convey to the reader that the channelling of Seth was a phenomenon that could not be proven.  Specifically, I am going to rewrite the article in this way:  I am going to remove words like "claimed" and "contentions" and I am going to refer to Seth as "the Seth personality".  No one will disagree that Seth represented a different personality from Roberts' usual personality.  What is in contention here is whether Seth was indeed a separate entity -- a spirit, if you will -- so using the term "the Seth personality" should satisfy the critics.  It will be far less clumsy than language like this:  "Roberts began to claim that she was hearing the messages in her head ...".  Such language is extremely awkward.  Furthermore, there is no evidence to dispute that she heard the words in her head, so there is no need to say "claimed".
One more thing:  It should be enough that Roberts "said" something without saying that she "claimed" it.  There is a difference in connotation between writing that a person "said" something and describing that person's words as "claims".
I haven't decided whether to revert the article or work on your new draft.  The bullets aren't bad and I'll keep them, but your category headings are inappropriate.
Incidentally, in case you are curious, most of The Seth Material section was written by me.  The article was a mess when I first found it a year ago.  I have read ten Seth books so I know something about Roberts and Seth.
--Caleb Murdock 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caleb Murdock's response

message: Everything I'm saying in this section is contained in paragraphs further up, but this page has gotten so long that I want to summarize here.
The phrase "the Seth personality" is a compromise between saying simply "Seth" and using other phrases which have yet other problems.  Here is an example of the various options:
*"Seth said that Jesus was not crucified ..."
*"The Seth personality said that Jesus was not crucified ..."
*"Seth, as dictated by Roberts, said that Jesus was not crucified ..."
*"Jane Roberts, as Seth, said that Jesus was not crucified ..."
Here are my thoughts on each one:
"Seth", when used exclusively, implies that Seth was most definitely a separate entity from Roberts, and that can't be proven.
"Seth, as dictated by Roberts," is simply too cumbersome to use throughout the entire article.
"Jane Roberts, as Seth," implies that Roberts was assuming a personality, and that the source of Seth's statements was actually Roberts.  That isn't unbiased either and doesn't satisfy people, like myself, who believe that Seth was independent of Roberts.  Also, sentences like this can't start with "Jane Roberts, as Seth":  "The Seth personality described himself as an 'energy personality essence no longer focused in physical form'".
I came up with "the Seth personality" because it seems factual and impartial.  When Roberts spoke as Seth, she WAS assuming another personality (one who called himself Seth).  Whether that personality was actually part of Jane Roberts, or was an independent being, is not implied by that phrase, and that's why I like it.  The phrase "the Seth personality" doesn't try to decide the issue of who Seth was, but it does acknowledge that Seth was a personality distinct from Roberts' normal personality.  I think it is a good compromise.
In those cases in which I revert to "Seth", it is only to keep the language from being overly cumbersome.  Toward the beginning of the article it says, "Roberts held regular sessions in which she went into a trance and purportedly channeled messages from Seth (hereinafter referred to as the 'Seth personality' or simply 'Seth')".  By using the word "purportedly" in that sentence, we are alerting the reader right from the start that the issue of Seth's origin is in dispute.  I think that's good enough to make this article impartial.--Caleb Murdock 08:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the Seth personality" as opposed to other phrases 

message: I inserted in the text that most people reincarnate less than ten times.  I am presently reading the Early Sessions books, and that was a remark that Seth made in one of those books.  The problem is, those books do not have indices or tables of contents, so finding the passage is quite difficult.
At the time that Seth said that, I recall that he said that some people enjoy the earthly experience and incarnate many more times than ten.  However, I'm sure that Seth never said that anyone reincarnates thousands of times.  Of course, we are all immortal, and when it is all said and done (which it never is), our lives may number in the thousands -- but not EARTHLY lives -- and that's what I'm talking about here.
The Seth Material in the Chapter "More on Reincarnation" mentions that we must incarnate at least two or three times, but Roberts doesn't mention a maximum number, or even an average number, in that chapter.  I'll keep looking.--Caleb Murdock 14:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seth on Reincarnation 

message: Why, on some occasions when I make revisions, does the history list identify me as "Another fake account" instead of as me?--Caleb Murdock 08:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Another fake account" 

message: I purport that an article should be created wholly devoted to Seth in general; where the material written about Seth can be expanded upon and not just have the Seth Material part of it. This would involve a great deal of courage since Jane Roberts wrote so many books under the channelship of Seth. Lighthead þ 04:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's something that I would like to do.  However, I am mostly familiar with the Seth material and less so with her other writings.  I would have pulled out the Seth material into its own article a long time ago, but because of other demands on my time, I haven't been able to do it.--Caleb Murdock 04:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be good to have. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've read Seth Speaks, The Unknown Reality Vol.II, and The Magical Approach. The only thing is that I have a bad memory when it comes to specific details about books. Although I have read Seth Speaks a number of times over the course of approx. 10 years. And the other thing I'm really bad at is with referencing. So... Lighthead þ 01:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I just learned how to reference recently. Lighthead þ 22:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seth article

message: Categories have been changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration on the paranormal, specifically 6a) Adequate framing, and Cultural artefacts. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category change

message: I just took it out because unless my search mechanism is faulty, it's mentioned nowhere else in the article, and the summary is supposed to summarize, not give the first and only mention.  See WP:LEAD. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[William James]] and the painter Paul Cézanne