Letters to the Editor

I sent you this card, reading "Don't Look Back," because it reminded me of your philosophy. I'd like to share the story behind it.

Ten years ago, Dan and I were going through the "three-year-itch" in our marriage. When it looked as though we were separating, a friend sent me this card. I totally agreed with the philosophy I attributed it to at the time. Yes, Life had forced me to take a turn in my experience...Fate had forced the road which I had wanted to travel to become "No Longer an Option." But, I would continue down the other road that Life had provided. I envisioned the little character on the card with a sad little face, bravely facing what she was forced to face. However, I thought it was nice... "Don't Look Back," a lesson in persevering.

Then I read the Seth material and the books of Lynda Dahl. In Ten Thousand Whispers, I laughed when I read her words "Not an option." It made me think of my card!

The card remains poignant to me, however now it possesses a completely different meaning. Fate doesn't put the fork in the road...I do. "No Longer an Option" is not a road forbidden to me. It is the road which I do not choose to manifest. Of course, "Don't Look Back"—because the present is my point of power. And now the little character on the card is smiling and whistling as she eagerly approaches the reality she's creating. Funny, how I can interpret the same card once as a victim, and then later as a creator.

I am so thrilled to have discovered the Seth material, Seth Network International and all the CompuServe folks. I thought along with sharing my thanks, I'd share my little card with you. I'm sure in its illustration you'll see my more recent, lovely, empowering interpretation as well. Thank you for your part in helping me change the way I look at not only cards, but also all of reality!
Happy Creating!
Tracey Davis
Los Angeles, CA

Dear Miss Newcomb,

I have been a devotee of Seth's writings now for over six years and in those years, my reading, study and research have changed my life in many seeming miraculous ways.

In those writings, Seth has given us hints of innumerable and vast areas of the psyche that lie unexplored and untapped because we "never believed there was anything there." Early on, I chose one area to explore: the Psychic Mind and more specifically, The Belief System and The Emotional System, how they interact and how they control the mind-body unit.

I have found, and now firmly believe, that all behavior is simply a reaction to a stimulated belief. Change that person's belief and you change that person's behavior. At the moment, I call this Behavioral Psychology, although it bears no resemblance to our modern world version of behavioral psychology.

Over the years I have read, written and assembled a rather large quantity of data in hopes of someday writing a book on my explorations. My purpose in writing you is to see if others have been as inspired by Seth as I have, but are exploring different areas than I am—such as dreams, consciousness, psychic powers—and why some of us retain some of those powers in spite of all the anti-psychic programming we are subjected to as children. I would love to correspond with any and all explorers of the Psyche and compare notes and theories, giving us all a broader landscape of knowledge and understanding.

Sincerely

Charles Fulton, PO Box 573

South Yarmouth, MA 02664

I found much inspiration in the letter published in the second-quarter ('96) issue of RC by an anonymous, though perspicacious Ohio reader.

I have myself for many years "erased" most of the media, having cut out most of television, radio and newspapers. Not only am I spared the detailed relatings of the daily tragedies that affect the world, so that I do not build my reality around them, but I also avoid the garbage of soap operas, commercial films and omnipresent advertisements. As a Belgian, I am perhaps not quite sure who is our present king, but this does not seem really important.

This enables me to concentrate on reading books (Seth is the latest and most important news) and magazine articles, which give much more in-depth information than is contained elsewhere, while leaving me with enough time to write my own books—instead of always having to read other peoples'.

Having benefited considerably from the experience and having learned that one can keep sufficiently well-informed by just reading one or two newspapers a week, I can state that "erasing the media" is one of the best advices I ever read. And that the Ohio reader is not a "dangerous, solipsistic nut," but a benefactor of humankind.

Jean Amant, Belgium,
author of A Fundamental Investigation into the Theory of Relativity

Dear SNI,

I was very happy to receive as Christmas gifts The Seth Reader and The Combined Seth, Jane Roberts, and Robert f. Butts Index. I've already had reason to use The Index, but was disappointed to find no reference for Christ or Jesus. I needed the reference to check on what I believe to be an error in facts by Richard Roberts in his Editor's note for Seth Speaks in The Seth Reader (p. 137). I believe he has the historical Christ (Jesus) mixed up with the "teacher of righteousness," who Seth calls a probable Christ. I believe it was the teacher of righteousness who died in a cave near Damascus as a member of the Zealot Sect.

The Nag Hamadi may verify that Christ was not crucified. But I do not believe Seth has said anywhere that the historical Christ was murdered, either. My understanding is he finally willed himself out of his body and left the earth when he could not convince his followers he had not been crucified.

Nor do I find anywhere that Seth says Christ, the historical Christ, was kidnapped by the Essenes. He (Seth) was told by someone that this had happened, but Seth didn't believe him.

I think Jane, Rob and Seth worked too hard to see that the information they received was not distorted, and we as readers have an obligation to see that it stays that way. Other than the above, I think Mr. Roberts has done a great job with The Seth Reader and I am thrilled to have it in my library along with The Index.

Sincerely,

Anna Peck

Bellevue, WA

Editor's Note: Anna has since found the Index entries she sought, but would still be delighted to hear from others on her original questions about Christ.

After more than 20 years of devotion to Seth's and Jane's work, I was saddened to find that so many of their books were not being replaced on the shelves of the bookstores. I applaud your efforts to get these magnificent books back into print. For so many years one of my greatest joys has been to sit down with a new Seth book and warm my soul with words of real wisdom. I hope that now my daughter and millions of others may also find this probable.

Reality Change is a superb publication. It demonstrates understanding and creativity on the part of publishers, staff and readers as well. I'm pleased to see so much practical application all around, and encouraged to know I'm not the only enthusiast left.

Please apply my check to a full year of membership. Please, see that I don't miss an issue of Reality Change. The extra money is a contribution. I will send more soon. There is no more important place for extra dollars anywhere than SNI! Lots of people want to change the world by changing everyone else and manipulating physical conditions. It is encouraging that people are working to change the world starting with the area right between their own ears.

Thank you so much for all your effort to put together a really first class organization and publication.

Bill Herrman

Nashville, TN

To the Editor,

At our recent Seth group meeting, a topic was brought up that elicited much controversy. That topic was monogamy—or more precisely, the idea of intimate relations with only one person at a time. We are curious what Seth might have said about it.

Although I am unable to find any specific reference to it in The Seth Index, I think Seth may have discussed some of his ideas in Chapters 4 and 5 of The Nature of the Psyche. With my apologies to the various sides of the issue, I will attempt a summary of the group discussion.

Viewpoint A: Seth implies monogamy is the "best" type of relationship when he states, "Love implies loyalty. It implies commitment. This applies to lesbian and homosexual relationships as well as heterosexual ones."

Viewpoint B: Loyalty and commitment are desirable qualities, but they do not necessarily imply monogamy. Further, that a natural bisexual state necessarily excludes monogamy.

There may well be other viewpoints as well. We are wondering if any other readers have considered this subject, and if so, we would be interested in hearing from you. Thanks for your help.

Winter Calvert, Seth Group, Houston Texas

14760 Memorial Drive, #300-128

Houston, TX 77079 USA

Dear Editor,

I enjoyed reading the "From the Library of Jane" section in the last issue of RC on love as an altered state of consciousness. I am interested in both Seth's and Jane's treatment of human love as a basically unitary phenomenon, with no basic distinction between romantic love and other types. In The Nature of Personal Reality, Seth says, "There are no basic divisions to love. There is no basic difference between the love of a child for a parent, a parent for a child, a wife for a husband, a brother for a sister." It has always seemed to me that romantic love is treated quite differently from other types of love, which are all basically the same and that—more to the point—romantic love is a distortion of love (a "creative distortion" as Seth might put it). Why is romantic love quite different to other types of love? Apart from the "feel" of it—as I have not experienced the love of a parent for a child but have felt the love of child for parent, sibling for sibling, and friend for friend—there are three reasons that come to mind:

Firstly, as Jane says in her essay, "Love As An Altered State of Consciousness," "Love reinforces our sense of identity and expands it—even while it becomes affiliated with the identity of the beloved person." I would suggest that in romantic love our identity is not affiliated with the beloved but lost in them—that in romantic love, one's identity is not reinforced but lost. This may depend at least to some extent on the strength of self-identity of the lover to begin with. Seth says, "Love, as it is often experienced, allows an individual to take his sense of self worth from another for a time..." (The Nature of Personal Reality).

Secondly, romantic love seems so much more fragile than other types of love. Not only is it prone to "termination," but people can fall in and out of love quite suddenly, while other types of love change more gradually, less dramatically. And finally there is the fact that romantic love is such an extremely Western phenomenon: In pre-Western-contact cultures, romantic love is either non-existent or quite rare.

I'd like to explain why I think romantic love is a distortion of love, as well as why I think romantic love is so prevalent in Western society, compared to pre Western-contact cultures. It has to do with the status of science in Western culture. As Seth points out in a number of places, the picture of the universe painted by science sucks the meaning and drama that man intuitively knows life is—and has—out of life. I think in Western society, the high occurrence and cultural reinforcement of romantic love is an exaggeration of sexual love in compensation for lack of meaning and drama in the Western worldview. Romantic love is so meaningful for those involved, and it is so dramatic (although it may seem only melodramatic to those not involved!).

And why is only sexual love thus exaggerated? The answer to this might lie in a passage from The Nature of the Psyche: "Western society has attempted to force all expression of love and devotion into sexual activity, or otherwise ban it entirely. Sexual performance is considered the one safe way of using the great potential of human emotions." For sure, romantic love is not always expressed sexually, but there is always at least the potential for it. Romantic love involving distortions of love might explain why romantic love is so fragile compared to other types.

I would like to hear what other Seth readers think of my view of romantic love (which may itself be nothing more than a creative distortion!). I would also like to know if anyone knows of any channeling sessions in which Seth talked specifically about romantic love. Please write to RC or me.
Love,
Martin Stockdale,
6 Christensen Place,
Auckland 1310, New Zealand

Dear Fellow Seth Readers:

It seems to me that the most important problem to be faced with respect to the food we eat, within the principle that all of creation is sacred, as set forth by Seth, involves the production of animal products by the food industry with its tremendous amount of animal suffering. Seth addresses this issue in the published Seth materials in several places:

"There is a biological understanding that exists when one animal kills another one for food. The consciousness of the prey leaves its body under the impetus of a kind of stimulus unknown to you. I am speaking of natural interplay among the animals. This is not anywhere meant to justify the cruel slaughtering of animals by man." (The Nature of the Psyche)

"Animals are slaughtered under the most cruel of circumstances for human consumption—for they are treated simply as foodstuff...your entire culture is based upon the idea of the animals' 'natural' subordinate position. The men who slaughter animals cannot afford to treat those animals as possessors of living consciousness." (Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment)

Because of my strong belief that it is wrong, a "violation" to use Seth's term, to submit any creature to the unspeakable agony undergone by animals in the production of meat, eggs and dairy products, I have for the past twenty-five years been a vegan, a total vegetarian. In the early issues of Reality Change, published by Maude Cardwell, tenets based on the Seth teachings were printed on the back of the front cover, one of which originally read as follows: "All life forms are sacred. Regardless of the provocation, it is a violation...to kill more animals than are needed for physical sustenance...." When I pointed out to Maude Cardwell and to other Seth readers that it is never necessary to kill animals for physical sustenance, and that, in fact, humans live a much more healthy life by not ingesting animal parts, she changed the tenet to read, "All life forms are sacred, and should be cherished, respected and nurtured so that the quality of each life form's life will be enhanced."

Because most of us have never seen fear in the eyes of an animal about to undergo slaughter, nor witnessed the pain felt by a baby calf separated from his mother so that humans could have her milk, nor seen the deplorable physical condition of chickens crowded five into the space of a newspaper page so that eggs can be produced more economically, we avoid making the ethical decision to forego eating animal products. Animals, like humans, have the right to live a full life, free from pain. To deny animals this right merely because they are non-human is to practice speciesism, a practice exactly parallel to and objectionable on the same grounds as racism and sexism.

The time has come for a new ethic, one which is based on the notion that all of creation is sacred, one which includes full consideration of the rights of all creatures, not just humans, one that heeds Henry Beston's (The Outermost House) call for a "wiser and perhaps more mystical concept of animals," an ethic which recognizes that they, like us, are caught in the "net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth."

Cordially,

George DeMello

Iowa City, IA

As a regular reader of Reality Change, I appreciate the value of the letters page as a forum for sharing experiences and information. Since the kind of ideas in the Seth books can be found in many places, I'd like to invite readers to write in and share other sources of these ideas we all might enjoy. In particular, movies are frequently vehicles for revolutionary ideas. Here are two that stick in my mind as being more than a little "Sethian:"

First, there's an obscure old film called Zachariah that was made in 1970. As it happens, this was the first screen appearance of Don Johnson (later famous for Miami Vice). This hard-to-find movie (i.e., requiring a "coincidence" to locate) is Sethian in two respects. First, it displays a marvelous sense of humor in the way it plays with reality. It's a bit farcical at the beginning—Monty Python would have been proud—featuring Country Joe and the Fish as an electrified rock 'n roll band clumsily holding up banks in the old West! As the story continues, however, it becomes more serious, in particular dealing with the issue of violence versus non-violence as a means for settling problems and getting what you want. The heart of this movie is definitely in the right place. It also features the most wonderful death scene I can recall in any film. It was released on video in 1988. (I know, because I have a copy!)

Second, I recommend checking out a recent film called Powder. While it mixes in a few points of view that diverge from Seth's, it still does a better job of representing many of Seth's points than any other movie I've seen. It is very striking and moved several friends and me to tears a number of times. A very gratifying film that I believe any Seth reader would be sorry to have missed.

I look forward to reading other recommendations from Reality Change readers!

Chris Kent

Morrisville, PA

Hi Sheri (LoBello),

I'm the lady who called you in a panic over whether she should take a job in London or not. Well, I took it! Your words of wisdom (a mantra, really!) challenging my every negative thought were: "That's a belief!" Well, I'm not in London yet, but I'm training in Marin County before I go to London. Even though it is challenging, when I start to feel overwhelmed, like I'm never going to get it and I can't do it, I hear your words, "That's a belief." So thank you.

I hope you get through to Steven Spielberg. He's such a natural for Seth. Wouldn't we all love to see a film that captures the journeys that Seth leads us to?

I have to say that I don't have a whole lot of free reading time, so I'm still working my way through Seth Speaks, but I think RC is just incredible. Some of the articles have helped me in a very practical way, not to mention how inspiring they are. I'm just sorry that I won't be able to attend SethNet '97—whoops—that's a belief!

Warmest regards,

Regine Shatz

La Crescenta, CA

====================================================

*RC Submissions: If you have thoughts you'd like to share with other Seth readers, please send your comments and ideas to Reality Change Dialogues, P.O. Box 1620, Eugene, OR. 97440, or fax RC at 541-683-1084. Due to limited space, letters may be shortened by the editor.

If possible, please submit letters/articles to RC electronically. Our e-mail address is sethnet@efn.org and our CompuServe address is 76307.242@compuserve.com. RC submissions should be compatible with either Microsoft Word V5.1 for a MacIntosh computer, or Word V6.0 for an IBM pc.

Photographs are also welcomed, and should be scanned in grayscale, at 300 dpi, and may be submitted in either a TIFF or JPG Mac file format. Please include a photo credit with all photographs. And thanks for your help! We can't wait to hear from you….