1 result for (book:tps5 AND heading:"delet session decemb 1 1980" AND stemmed:protect)

TPS5 Deleted Session December 1, 1980 6/30 (20%) disclaimer thematic protection legal criticism
– The Personal Sessions: Book 5 of The Deleted Seth Material
– © 2016 Laurel Davies-Butts
– Deleted Session December 1, 1980 8:49 PM Monday

[... 2 paragraphs ...]

(At 8:52: “I sort of feel him around, but I don’t think it will be very long.” Jane had been tempted to pass up the session and continue work on God of Jane, but I reminded her that I could use Seth’s information on the disclaimer in our reply to the legal department at Prentice-Hall. We knew by now that we were resigned to having the disclaimer inserted into Mass Events, but we wanted to have our say—partially out of anger and partially out of self-protection, since we didn’t believe all the legal department had told us; we wanted them to know we understood the subterfuges involved.

[... 5 paragraphs ...]

(Softly:) Your existence is protected, your works are protected. Those statements are self-evident to me, while you of course are still in the process of thinking them over, and trying to fit them into the context of life as you know it. To that extent, then, of course our attitudes would be different. In any case, when you were first working with Frameworks 1 and 2, you saw many examples of Framework 2’s activities, as they impinged into your reality, and you were quite pleased. Your living experiences often gave you clues one way or another that added to the thematic material.

[... 3 paragraphs ...]

When you realize that you are indeed protected, such issues are absorbed along the way. They are actually changed in character, so that they work for your benefit rather than against it. It is extremely difficult for me, however, to make you understand quite clearly the role that your own attitudes play—for when issues hit close to home you have both the old tendency to blame the other party or parties for what is involved.

[... 2 paragraphs ...]

(Long pause.) Because the book met criticism at Prentice does not mean that you or it were not protected. (Pause.) The word “protection” in this context is interesting, of course, since the disclaimer is supposed to protect Prentice from any court action. It is in its fashion an attempt at protection at that level. The level is one where every bit of preventative protection is needed in a world where people constantly need insurance, preventative medicine, and so forth – again, all issues dealt with in the book.

[... 2 paragraphs ...]

I am making no recommendations, but hopefully adding to the information that you have at hand, and offering another framework from which you can view the situation. Your feelings about it are as important as your actions. You have every right to call them on any points you desire, of course. (Long pause.) In the overall cultural picture (long pause), “psychic matters” are no longer as easy to dismiss as they used to be. People’s curiosity has been aroused, and the established methods of gaining knowledge have been found less than satisfactory—so in a fashion the idea of the disclaimer is a kind of backhanded recognition. You and your works are protected. Your lives are aware as they are meant to be. You have made no great errors in your lives. You are doing what is right for you. If you accept those statements as true, then you will begin to feel an emotional sense of rightness with yourselves. You will drop habits of self-disapproval. You can even take it for granted that intellectually you may not know all of the reasons (underlined) for your own actions.

[... 5 paragraphs ...]

To the extent that he questions his own natural protection. Give us a moment.... You are dealing with two issues also. The natural person—the creator, the artist—in Ruburt, wants the book out without any interruptions, and cares little about other issues. The socially knowledgeable person does not want to be taken for a fool, be insulted, and wants to be treated with respect. To some extent that is a simplification, of course. Nothing is that simple, but the explanation does serve to clarify contradictory issues. Certainly the entire affair is to be used creatively. Art, including writing, of course—creativity itself—is bound to be, as per the Cézanne passage (I’d called to Jane’s attention a couple of weeks ago) sometimes disruptive. It brings into being that which was not there before. It rearranges some aspects of the world, and it is in its fashion as brilliant as a child’s clear eye. It sees truth clearly. Because it does, art can often make disclosures that offend the pious, the well-mannered.

[... 4 paragraphs ...]

Similar sessions

TPS5 Deleted Session November 19, 1980 disclaimer legal processes department hips
TMA Session Twelve September 22, 1980 disclaimer Parker textbooks Prentice intellect
TPS5 Deleted Session December 8, 1980 Bufferin hips controversy editors issues
TPS6 Jane’s Dream/Notes April 12, 1981 adulteress disclaimer ok liar wicked