archive.orgarchive.org/download/psychicalresearc00hysliala/psychicalresearc00... · THEQUESTSERIES EditedbyG.R.S.MEAD,B.A., PRESIDENTOFTHEQUESTSOCIETY. Crown8vo.2s.6d.neteach. FIRSTLISTOFVOLUMES

LIBRARYUNIVERSITY OFCALIFORNIASAN DIEGO

The Quest Series

Edited by G. R. S. Mead

PSYCHICAL RESEARCH ANDSURVIVAL

THE QUEST SERIESEdited by G. R. S. MEAD, B.A.,

PRESIDENT OF THE QUEST SOCIETY.

Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. net each.

FIRST LIST OF VOLUMES.

PSYCHICAL RESEARCH AND SURVIVAL. ByJAMES H. HYSLOP, Ph.D., LL.D., Secretary of the

Psychical Research Society of America. [Ready

THE QUEST OF THE HOLY GRAIL. By JESSIEL. WESTON, Author of 'The Legend of Sir Per-

ceval,''Sir Gawain at the Grail Castle,' etc. [Ready

JEWISH MYSTICISM. ByL. ABELSON,M.A.,Lit.D.,Principal of Aria College, Portsmouth. [Ready

Also in the Press

BUDDHIST PSYCHOLOGY. By C. A. F. RHYSDAVIDS, M.A., F.B.A., Lecturer in Indian Philo-

sophy, Manchester University.

THE MYSTICS OF ISLAM. By REYNOLD A.NICHOLSON, M.A., Litt.D. , LL.D., Lecturer in

Persian, Cambridge University.

LONDON: G. BELL & SONS LTD.

PSYCHICAL RESEARCHAND SURVIVAL

BY

JAMES H. HYSLOP, PH.D., LL.D.SECRETARY OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL RESEARCH

LONDONG. BELL & SONS LTD.

1913

THE QUEST SERIESEDITED BY

G. R. S. MEAD

PSYCHICAL RESEARCH has to proceed onscientific lines. The chief of the manyproblems which confront it is concerned

with phenomena purporting to establish thefact of the survival of human personality after

bodily death. It has first to authenticate

scientifically the existence of such pheno-mena, next to investigate and accuratelydescribe their nature, and then to attemptsome explanation of them. Finally, if itfinds itself unable to do so on any other

supposition, it should not shrink from ad-

mitting what has been the oldest belief inthe world as a scientific hypothesis, and ifthis is found to explain the phenomena more

easily than any other theory, to give it atleast that credit. In the following pagesDr. James H. Hyslop, the Secretary of the

vi EDITOR'S PREFACE

American Society for Psychical Research,describes the genesis and the work of psychi-cal research with special reference to this

central problem, and deals at length withits scientific, philosophic, religious, and moral

implications. Nor does he leave the subjectin the air, as is usually the case in books on

psychical research, but, basing himself onthe experience of many years of personalinvestigation, and after testing the other

hypotheses brought forward, he declares,with a full sense of responsibility, that, so

far as he himself is concerned, he finds the

fact of survival the only one that will in

any satisfactory way co-ordinate and explainthe phenomena. In the present age ofextreme scepticism, such a declaration on

the part of a scientific investigator requires

great courage ; and whatever else the open-minded reader may think of this summaryand conclusion, he should at least be per-suaded that there is in such phenomenasufficient to engage the serious attention of

thoughtful minds and the unstinted energiesof the best equipped workers.

CONTENTS

PAGE

PREFACE . . . . . ix

CHAP.

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . .1II. MATERIALISM . . . .17

III. SPIRITUALISM . . . . .37

IV. THE PROBLEM... .57V. TELEPATHY . . . . .83

VI. THE SURVIVAL OF PERSONAL CONSCIOUSNESS . 103

VII. METHODS AND DIFFICULTIES OF COMMUNICATION 119

VIII. APPARITIONS AND PREMONITIONS . .135

IX. THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL WORLD . 151

X. 'MOTIVES AND SEQUEL.... 165BIBLIOGRAPHY . ... 207

PREFACE

THE size of this book compels me to sum-marize, in a somewhat dogmatic manner,the problems and the results of psychicalresearch. It is impossible to give the evi-

dence for the convictions expressed, as anyattempt to do this in so limited a space,after outlining the problems, would simplylead to the objection that the evidence wasinsufficient. I can, therefore, only sendreaders to the vast literature of the subject,and more especially to the records of theSocieties for Psychical Research, in the

belief that an intelligent study of thoserecords will result in at least a favourableconsideration of the views herein presented.It is, in any case, desirable that we shall havean outline of the main ideas at the basisof the work and of the possible conclusionsto which the facts lead. These have beenstated as briefly and cogently as possible, sothat students of a philosophical turn of mind

x PREFACE

may have some conception of what the authorthinks has been proved and what has notbeen proved scientifically. There has been

a great deal of a priori criticism of the work,which has been as bad as much of the cred-

ulity or hasty speculation on the other side,and this summary endeavours to fix thebars for scepticism quite as definitely as for

belief. The destructive critic has had hisown way for a long while, and it is now timeto do some constructive work. This smallvolume tries only to point out the directionin which this can be done.

JAMES H. HYSLOP.

NEW YORK CITY.

PSYCHICAL RESEARCH

AND SURVIVAL

CHAPTER IINTRODUCTION

THE term ' psychic research'

is easily mis-understood by two separate and opposedtypes of mind. Both classes assume that it

primarily has to do with spirits ; but oneridicules the subject, while the other looks toit for proof of its hope or belief. This limita-tion of import, however, is a mistake. Theonly thing that will make this clear is a historyof the movement which names its work bythis term.

In 1882 the English Society for PsychicalResearch was founded by a group of menwho felt that it was a scandal to sciencethat certain apparently supernormal pheno-mena had not been scientifically investi-gated. Professor Henry Sidgwick of Cam-

bridge University was its first President;Mr. Arthur J. Balfour, then a Member of

2 PSYCHICAL RESEARCH AND SURVIVAL

Parliament and afterward Prime Ministerof England, Professor W. F. Barrett (nowSir William Barrett), Professor Balfour

Stewart, Richard Hutton, and others wereVice-Presidents. Mr. Frederic W. H. Myers,Mr. Edmund Gurney, Mr. Frank Podmore,Professor Barrett, and others made up theCouncil. Before many years had passed theSociety numbered among its officers ormembers of the Council a large number ofable scientific men in England. Among themwere Sir William Crookes, Lord Raleigh, SirWilliam Ramsay, and others. The Mem-bers and Associates went into the hundreds,and their number has steadily increasedsince that time.The motive for organizing the Society

was the existence of current stories about

mind-reading and the general phenomena of

spiritualism. They had all been classed

together by one type of mind and referredto the interference of spirits in the pheno-mena of mind and matter, whether therewas any ground either lor the acceptance ofthe facts as alleged or the explanation ofthem was the problem to be solved. Therewas no doubt as to the fact that unusual

phenomena were frequently alleged, but the

question for science was whether they werewhat they appeared to be. In his firstaddress to the Society Professor Sidgwickasked and answered the question why a

INTRODUCTION 3

Society should be formed. He said : "Inanswering this, the first question, I shall beable to say something on which I hope weshall all agree : meaning by

'

we,' not

merely we who are in this room, but we andthe scientific world outside ; and as, unfor-

tunately, I have but few observations tomake on which so much agreement can behoped for, it may be as well to bring thisinto prominence ; namely, that we are allagreed that the present state of things is ascandal to the enlightened age in which welive. That the dispute as to the reality ofthese marvellous phenomena, of which itis quite impossible to exaggerate the scientific

importance, if only a tenth part ofwhat has been alleged by generally crediblewitnesses could be shown to be true, I sayit is a scandal that the dispute as to the

reality of these phenomena should still begoing on, that so many competent witnessesshould have declared their belief in them,that so many others should be profoundlyinterested in having the question deter-

mined, and yet that the educated world,as a body, should still be simply in the atti-tude of incredulity."

This was in 1882, and the memoirs of JohnAddington Symonds tell us that ProfessorSidgwick was experimenting on his ownaccount as early as 1867, fifteen years priorto the organization of the Society, with

4 PSYCHICAL RESEACRH AND SURVIVAL

mediums to ascertain if he could find evidenceof human survival of bodily death. Justwhen the interest of Mr. Myers arose I do notknow, but very early he had seen the im-

portance of the subject and enlisted in thecause. His father was a clergyman in theChurch of England, and between that en-vironment in his early life and his classicalstudies he imbibed scepticism, while he lostno ethical interest in the ideals of religion.Others felt the same, and it was quite fittingthat one of the authors of The Unseen Uni-verse should be conspicuous in the formationof the Society.

It was thus no idle curiosity that led to thefoundation of this research. It was a keen

appreciation of the wide significance of such

phenomena, if they could be scientificallysubstantiated. They had been safely laidaway by the materialistic movement as unin-teresting to its outlook or of no concern inits theories. But they refused to remainin that condition. They were for ever re-

appearing in each generation, as if the cos-mos were determined to see that they didnot die at the command of a respectablehierarchy of intellectuals. It seemed tothese open-minded men whom I have men-tioned, that it was high time to investigatewhat had been rejected without this ordeal,and the Society for Psychical Research wasthe result.

INTRODUCTION 5

It was inevitable that the claims of spirit-ualism should occupy a prominent place inthe work. They were the object of intenseinterest to one class and a good buttfor ridicule by the other, and anything thatdid not savour of this alliance or offer some

practical outcome was a matter of curiousinterest to people who had nothing else totalk about. The men who founded thework, however, placed it on a comprehensivebasis. It was not to be devoted exclusivelyto estimating the claims of the spiritualists,but it was made to include a large numberof alleged facts which presented no super-ficial evidence of ' supernatural

'

agencies.These other phenomena were dowsing,telepathy or thought-transference, \ hypnot-ism and the various phenomena of the sub-conscious and secondary personality, to-gether with certain types of hallucinations.The spiritualistic phenomena inviting atten-tion, whether they had that explanation ornot, were apparitions, mediumship, andcertain types of coincidental dreams. Someof the last phenomena shared their meaningwith telepathy.There are just two ways in which we may

study such phenomena. First, we may assumethat the scientific materialism of the age hasestablished itself sufficiently to be accordedthe right of judgment regarding them, andso make every concession to its prejudices.


This means that we shall assume that theprobabilities are against the hypothesis of

any spiritual meaning for the world. Thisis the sceptical attitude of mind, and it maybe held by the man who wishes to believebut feels that evidence is lacking for a

spiritual interpretation of nature, or it maybe held by the man who refuses to revise theverdict of materialism and insists on theresolution of all the alleged facts into somesort of illusion or superstition. The secondway of looking at the facts will be that fromthe assumptions of normal life a spiritualmeaning for human life and its developmentis desirable and possible. The materialist,whether he avows or ignores this view,assumes that the present life is sufficient untoitself and will not listen to the monitions of anormal mind and conscience. But the religi-ous mind, not always safely ensconced in a

salary for indulging in intellectual athletics,insists on trying to find if life is worth

living, and it will not surrender without a

fight to the dark fate which the materialist

assigns to consciousness. This second classof minds intends to take the wider view of

things, and not to evade or ignore facts inthe interest of a scientific dogmatism that

may only have substituted the worship ofmatter for that of spirit.But there have been so many illusions,

and so much superstition and error associ-

INTRODUCTION 7

ated with past religious beliefs, that the

triumphs of physical science have gainedfor it the admiration and confidence of all

intelligent minds who see no assurance forthe existence of spirit and fear the restora-tion of the ages of barbarism in which

spiritualism prevailed. Ever since the re-vival of science, which followed on the intro-duction of Copernican astronomy, the studyof nature has dissolved a host of beliefsthat had taken refuge in religion, and hasassociated intelligence with scepticism andthe emancipation which it brought thehuman mind. The age of authority whichrested on tradition declined, and in its placecame the demand to verify, in present ex-perience, every assertion made about nature.This was the essential feature of science ;the interrogation of the present moment forits testimony to the nature of things. Thecultivation of this method has established itin authority, and made it the judge of whatis valid about the past, instead of accept-ing the past as the standard for measur-

ing the present. Its exclusive devotionto physical phenomena gives it the prestigewhich success always guarantees, and ituses that criterion to justify its interpretationof nature. It has supplanted the authorityof religion, and with its predilection for

physical conceptions and phenomena, whichare by far more universal for normal


experience, it can sustain a position whichis not to be easily questioned. This makesit necessary for any belief that circumscribesthe claims of physical science to make con-cessions to its method if that belief is tomodify scientific authority, and this whetheror not it accepts the assumptions by whichthe power of physical science has been

acquired.There is no use in disguising the fact that

the controversy about psychic phenomena isbetween those who sympathize with material-ism and those who sympathize with the desirefor a spiritual interpretation of the world.

Prejudice is probably about equally distri-buted on both sides, and accusations of itare justified only as a tu quoque defence.We may try to disregard the nature of thisdispute by talking about the scientific aspectof the phenomena, thereby trying to makeourselves and others believe that we haveno ulterior interests in studying the pheno-mena ; but the real nature of the issue willnot be evaded in this way. It is correct

enough to treat the facts in this manner asa means of insisting that prejudices on oneside or the other must be suppressed andthe conclusion established in the light ofcold reason and truth. But that is not a

good ground for saying or believing thatthe facts have no relation to the ancient

controversy between matter and spirit, even

INTRODUCTION 9

though we come to the conclusion that theyare pretty much the same thing.The study of primitive culture shows

unmistakably that spiritualism has been

perhaps the universal belief of savage races,and it is that fact which makes it the sourceof so much ridicule on the part of thecultured and the scientific. It is so muchthe habit to use savage beliefs as evidenceof ignorance and superstition, that onewonders why they are not also made thesubject of abuse for believing in the existenceof matter. It has always been the mark ofprogress that a man shall have escaped thedominion of beliefs and customs of the un-civilized, and spiritualism among savageswas marked by such immoral practices thatthe belief had to go the way of its associatedideas and customs. All the great religionshad to face this primitive belief, and for

political reasons usually compromised withit, where they could not displace or modifyit. It was the revolt against its inhumani-ties and its superstitions that instigated anew civilization and determined new stand-ards of morality. No wonder that thebelief in a future life inherited the badodour of its associated incidents and

practices. The philosophic point of viewwhich had represented the study of nature,a well-ordered and stable cosmos, as againstthe capricious interferences of divine beings,


soon became the criterion of culture andintelligence, and ever since that time thebelief in the

'

supernatural' became the

mark of weak intellects. Whether thependulum had not swung too far the otherway is not a matter of interest here. I amonly indicating the actual facts of historywhich determine the standard of judgmentfor most men in regard to everything. Theintellectual and moral interests associatedwith one or the other point of view have

perpetuated themselves through all ages,and will do so as long as men differ inregard to the general meaning of things,or in regard to the place of imaginationand hope in human belief and action.But it was not the controversy between

materialism and spiritualism that was theavowed interest in the organization of psychicresearch. That was but the latent issuebehind the scenes. The scientific spirit was

triumphant enough to insist that the humanmind must be indifferent to consequencesin the investigation of the facts. Sciencehad succeeded in making Stoics of devotees.

They were men who were interested in thetruth for its own sake, and who wouldsacrifice the dearest interests of the heartto their passion for the facts, and this

passion allowed no choice between theemotions and the intellect in the determina-tion of the truth. Moloch was no more

INTRODUCTION 11

implacable a divinity than science. Hencethose who asked for the investigation of

psychic phenomena, could not beg for anypreconceived conclusions or theories to

account for them. They had to abide the

judgment of scepticism. Investigationmight dissolve the alleged facts into illusionsor explain them by some other cause than

spirit. Consequently the inquiry had tobe made on the basis that there was onlya residuum of real or alleged phenomena as

yet unexplained by existing hypotheses.What investigation might establish no onecould forecast, least of all that it shouldissue in confirming a theory which had beenthe favourite of savages and the contemptof the civilized.

Besides, there were phenomena whichcould not lay any claim, superficially atleast, to the spiritualist's explanation. Theywere certainly not evidence for such a

view, and it was necessary to investigatethe subject discriminatingly. The laymanhad simply resorted to one general explana-tion of all incidents which seemed a little

mysterious to him, and it had frequentlybeen found that he was too hasty and hadmade no allowance for slight extensions ofwell-known laws of events. Hence thefirst duty of science was to classify its factsand determine those which were relevantand those that were not relevant to the


spiritualist's claims. The Society, there-fore, announced as the object of its inquiriesthe following several fields of phenomena :"

1. An examination of the nature andextent of any influence which may be exertedby one mind upon another, apart from anygenerally recognized mode of perception."

2. The study of hypnotism, and theforms of so-called mesmeric trance, with its

alleged insensibility to pain ; clairvoyanceand other allied phenomena."

3. A critical revision of Reichenbach'sresearches with certain organizations called

sensitive, and an inquiry whether such

organizations possess any power of per-ception beyond a highly exalted sensibilityof the recognized sensory organs."

4. A careful investigation of any reports,resting on strong testimony, regarding ap-paritions at the moment of death, or other-wise, or regarding disturbances in houses

reputed to be haunted."5. An inquiry into the various physical

phenomena commonly called spiritualistic ;with an attempt to discover their causesand general laws."

6. The collection and collation of existingmaterials bearing on the history of these

subjects."It will be noticed that several types of

phenomena now considered as important inpsychic research are omitted from this

INTRODUCTION 13

list, and that the conception of spiritualismis limited to the physical phenomena, with

apparent ignorance of the mental phenomenain mediumship that have much more signi-ficance than the physical. This may havebeen the fault of the people who had soemphasized the physical phenomena as tomake scientific men think there were noothers ; but it is a conspicuous fact thattrance and other mediumship than phyiscal,and dowsing, secondary personality andthe whole field of the subconscious, havebeen added to the problem since the in-

ception of the Society.Among these groups of phenomena, dows-

ing, telepathy, physical phenomena, after-wards technically named telekinesis, andhypotism contain nothing that can be re-

garded as evidence of spiritualism, whatever

explanation we may give them. They, orsome of them, were quite evidently super-normal in some sense of the term, but theyafforded no evidence of transcendental agentslike spirits, and hence they suggested the

possibility of eliminating spiritistic influencesfrom the whole field of the supernormal.But whatever the case, the scientific prob-lem required that conclusions should notbe preconceived, and the popular conceptionof the phenomena as to their meaning hadto determine the first form of stating the

objects of the Society, which would change,


and did change, as the observation of facts

required it to do.It was inevitable, however, that spiritual-

ism should occupy the first place in the

general conception of the Society's work,and this in spite of any or all efforts tocircumscribe it. Human interests are toogreat to meet with repression on this point,except for respectability, and they willtolerate rival phenomena only by compul-sion. It is the resolute purpose of thescientific spirit, however, to insist that

personal interests, no matter how important,shall wait on critical investigation, andhence the Society insisted upon its duty to

respect the best scientific method it knewin the study of the facts.

Telepathy seems to have been the firstfield in which results were plentiful oraccessible with any degree of assurance.But this term soon began to be misunder-stood and has not yet been made clear.From being a term to express mental co-incidences between living people not due tochance or normal sense perception, it becamean explanatory term of wide import, thoughthe fact is that we have not the remotestconception of what the cause is that deter-mines the coincidences. It, however, offeredthe best field for the study of phenomenathat could have no superficial claim to

being spiritistic, and hence would encounter

INTRODUCTION 15

less prejudice than the hypothesis of spirits.Gradually, however, the phenomena of

apparitions and mediumship came into con-sideration, and though they were modifiedor explained away by telepathy of a wonder-ful and incredible sort, they remained andstill remain to plague the inquirer. Inrecent years there has been little experi-ment in telepathy ; most of the work has

gathered about mediumship of some sort,and opinion remains divided as to its

meaning. But the recognition of somethingto investigate is now well-nigh universal,and animosities are shown on both sides ofthe problem.On the one hand, the materialist is keenly

conscious of the consequences to his generalinterpretation of nature, and fears a reactiontoward the 4 supernatural

'

against whichmodern science had fought its most success-ful battles. On the other hand, there aretwo interested classes. One is the Church,which plays a waiting game to see what theresult will be, and the other is the enthusi-astic spiritualist who has abandoned boththe Church and the materialistic school,and cares for no prejudices based upon the

finality of past theories. The scientific manwho has hitherto felt safe in the achieve-ments of his method for the last threecenturies, having excluded superstition, ashe calls the ' supernatural,' from his con-


sideration, has at last been brought to feelthat it is a life-and-death struggle for the

supremacy of his results. It is no place toforecast this here. It suffices to remarkthe critical nature of the situation, andmen will ally themselves on one side or theother of the controversy according as theyfeel about the meaning of nature. Thosewho wish to widen the significance of humanconsciousness and its ideals will hope thatscience will find a way to protect them.Those who do not care for spiritual idealsand are joined to materialistic theories willcontest any other view of the cosmos. But

spiritual idealism will always be strongenough to have its votaries and to challengeany application of science which does not

respect it or offer it some means of ex-

pression.

CHAPTER IIMATERIALISM

THE term ' materialism ' stands for threesets of ideas or points of view about things.The first is a general theory of the worldand man; the second concerns the limita-tions of knowledge; and the third relatesto ethics or the moral consequences of the

general theory. They might be calledmaterialism, sensationalism, and sensualism,if we desired distinct terms in the discussion.But this is not the place to carry out tech-nical controversies. They will each comeunder notice in the proper way. All thatI desire to impress on the reader is thatthere is the metaphysical, the psychological,and the ethical aspects of the general theory.

Materialism means that all phenomenaare phenomena of matter, whether they areevents of the physical or of the mentalworld. We are so accustomed from tra-dition to think of mental states, the pheno-mena of consciousness, as implying a soul,that we seem not to realize how muchscepticism has done to discredit this view.


Men in practical life have so associated theterm materialism with sensuous habits of

conduct, and the philosophical idealistshave so equivocated with the term, that wethink materialism has no standing in court,when the fact is that it was never strongerthan it is to-day, though men protest thatthey do not believe it. They are talkingof the sensuous life as opposed to intellectualand aesthetic behaviour. Though they denytheir belief in materialism, they are neverardent in advocating survival from bodilydeath, and in this betray their equivocationswith the terms of the problem. The primaryissue with all of them is whether what iscalled materialism in its metaphysical sense

adequately accounts for consciousness. Tounderstand the meaning of its claims weshould examine just what the theory in itswidest aspect means. It is a theory of theuniverse that is not confined to moderntimes. Many of the Buddhists were inreality materialists, and they precededGreek thinkers. As a well-defined andelaborate doctrine, it did not take form

among the Greeks until the decline of theircivilization. It clearly lay in embryo duringthe whole period of Greek philosophicreflection, but it was only latent until

Empedocles, Democritus, and Epicurusdeveloped it.The main genius of Greek philosophy

MATERIALISM 19

was shown in the search for the elements of

things, 'elements of the world,' as St.

Paul called them. It was the'

stuff' out

of which things were made that enlistedthe main interest of the reflective Greeks.

They were less interested in the forces orcauses that arranged the order of the worldthan they were in escaping the beliefsabout such causes. The popular beliefs in

religion and polytheism had so degradedand irrationalized the causes of phenomena,that the scientific and philosophic mind

sought some theory which would accountfor the stability of things, and so looked inthe direction of matter for its explanationof the cosmos. In matter men found thestuff out of which the world was made,and they could seek the explanation of thecosmic order either in causes outside ofmatter or in its own activities and changes.The materialists thought they had foundit in the atomic theory, Anaxagoras andPlato sought it in some sort of divinebeing, and later Christianity made thedivine being the creator of the elementsas well as the disposer of the cosmicorder.

The difference between the two schoolsof thinking began with the distinctionbetween efficient and material causes, thoughthis distinction was not definitely and con-sciously carried out in Greek philosophies.


Aristotle recognized the distinction, butdid not make it the basis of a distinctionbetween philosophic systems, and it had towork its way out unconsciously in thespeculative systems of history. By amaterial cause I mean the stuff or materialout of which things are made, and by anefficient cause I mean the force or agentwhich puts them together. For instance,in the case of a machine the material causewould be the iron and wood of which itwas constituted, the efficient cause wouldbe the man who made the machine. Nowit was the former that chiefly interestedthe Greeks, though the latter crept now andthen into their systems. The earliestthinkers tried to find the primitive matterout of which the world and organic lifewere made. Some made the ultimate ele-ment water, some air, some fire or heat,and some what they called the

'

infinite,' or

some indefinite and supersensible conditionof matter which developed in the forms of

physical things that we see and touch.Some made the elements four, and thencame the atomists who made them innumer-able and infinite in number. Besides these

elements, Empedocles introduced into themthe efficient forces of

'

love' and ' hate,' or

what we should call attraction and repul-sion ; but this idea was not carried out,and the system in its later development

MATERIALISM 21

supposed that the atoms were eternallyfalling, and in order to get into combinationsswerved from the perpendicular directionin which they were falling by a free act oftheir own. The Greeks had no such con-

ception of gravitation as we have, in which

particles of matter exercise attraction onother particles. Gravity with the Greekswas simply the weight of the object itself,and this was capable of self-motion. Withthe eternity of the atoms and the power ofself-motion, the materialist philosopherthought he could explain the whole orderof the world. He denied the action of thegods on nature, though admitting theirexistence curiously enough. It sufficed tohave the atoms and their motion, andhence the cosmos, as we know it, was theresult of a fortuitous concourse of theseelements. Strangely enough, too, the samesystem admitted the existence of a soul,but denied its immortality or survival of

bodily death. The soul, being a complexorganism of ether or finer matter, dissolved,as did all complex things. It was at this

point that materialism met opposition onthe part of all who were interested in thepersistence of consciousness. There would

perhaps have been no difficulty with its

theory of the physical world, had it notbeen for this accompaniment of the material-istic theory. It had no direct evidence


that the soul perished, but its reason for

denying survival or affirming its perish-ability was the essentially ephemeral natureof all complex things or combinations ofatoms. It might have had its way withthe explanation of the physical world butfor its attack on a belief so tenacious as

immortality. But with or without a reasonfor denying immortality, it got this denialassociated with its cosmic ideas, and eversince has fixed that conception of its mean-

ing in history.

Christianity attacked this position in three

ways, the first scientific in method, and theother two philosophic. Its first attack wasan appeal to a real or alleged fact, theresurrection. It had relied on miracles toestablish the divinity of its founder, andthis perhaps before it had to meet thefact of his death. But after his death itasserted his resurrection. The story, whetherfounded on an hallucination, an apparition,or some other more real fact, was believed,and it succeeded in founding a new religion.But the events that centred about thelife and death of Christ have such a psychicsemblance that we may well imagine thatsome phenomena, no matter how badlydistorted by reporters and the influence of

legend, occurred to suggest survival afterdeath

;and we must remember here that the

doctrine of the resurrection was fully

MATERIALISM 23

developed in human thought before thestory of Christ's was told. The controversybetween the Sadducees and Pharisees isevidence of this. The Sadducees were therationalists, the materialists, and the scepticsof the Hebrew people at this period. ThePharisees were the chief sect of religiouspeople, and we can well imagine that theyhad answered the Epicurean materialistsdenial of immortality by appealing to appari-tions as evidence that the ethereal organ-ism did not perish as the materialists affirmed.This was all that was necessary to set up adoctrine of the resurrection. We must re-member that antiquity had no such theoryof gravitation as we have. They had no

conception of matter attracting matter andthus causing its motion, except in Empe-docles, whose idea was not retained. Theythought it could move itself by virtue ofits weight. Its weight was a property whichaccounted for its falling, and free will, as wehave seen, accounted for its swerving asideto enter into combinations. They might aswell have made it fall by free will. Lightermatter, they say, rose upward, and there wasno conception of the cause of this whichwe now know. It was simply the natureof heavy matter to fall or move downwardtowards the earth, and lighter matter torise. As spirit was fine matter or ether itrose, and the idea gave rise, even in such


men as Aristotle, to the belief that thestars were divine, because they were situatedso far from the earth, all heavy matter

coming to the earth naturally. Souls at-tached to their bodies and interested in thecarnal life remained, for a time at least, inSheol or Hades for purification. This idea

figured even in the mythical view stated byPlato when discussing immortality. It wasthe finer spirits that rose to the stars. Thisidea is found also in ancient hero worship.But for us here we desire only to understandhow the idea of a resurrection might ariseand obtain currency. If Christ appearedas a phantasm after His death whether ornot as an hallucination due to excitementor other causes, makes no difference thecommon people might be pardoned for theirinterpretation of the phenomenon, and itwould involve a direct denial of the material-istic theory. It would be interpreted asevidence that the ethereal organism or souldid not perish with the grosser physicalbody. Epicureanism would then have eitherto concede survival or change its view ofthe soul. It chose the latter alternativein the course of its development, being moreinterested in a position that would remove

superstition and the fear of death than itwas to believe in a soul and its survival.It took time, however, to bring about this

change of conception.

MATERIALISM 25

The two philosophic attacks on materialismwere as follows : The first assumed the

point of view of Anaxagoras, Plato, andAristotle. It set up a divine being ; Reasonas Anaxagoras called it, Demiourgos or

World-disposer as Plato named it, andPrime Mover, First Cause, as Aristotletermed it. Whatever matter was, it couldnot move itself, and, whether it was eternalor not, it was supposed to be influenced inall its combinations bythis divine intelligence.In this way Christianity obtained a leverageon materialism which enabled it to assertor believe with greater confidence thanwould otherwise have been the case, that asoul existed to account for the voluntaryactivities of living organisms. That once con-ceded, the presumption was for its survival.But it went a step further. It refused to

admit that matter, the elements even, couldbe eternal. It regarded the very atomsas created, and thus it cleared an easy wayfor the existence of spirit. It sought out-side of matter the cause both of the existenceof matter and of its cosmic arrangement insystems. Spirit was the eternal backgroundof things, and hence, with this conception,it was easy to have faith in the existenceand destiny of a human soul. Spirit beingnaturally immortal and matter ephemeralor transient, it would appear to be anomalousindeed if a human soul did not survive.


But this philosophic view developed onlywith time, and after the age of miracleseither ceased to exist or became distrustedas legendary. It ruled history until therevival of science. When this came it waswith a terribly revolutionary change in the

point of view, whose consequences were seenat the outset, but could not be made clearto the common mind, which held to itsbeliefs without any knowledge of the philo-sophic point of view. This revolutionarychange was initiated by the discovery of the

indestructibility of matter and the con-servation of energy. The first of thesereinstated the atom or elements as the

permanent basis of things ; and the second,the eternity of motion or energy. Theattack on the theistic position was direct, atleast in popular conceptions of the problem.Matter became the eternal thing and intelli-

gence the transient function of it. Spiritseemed no longer the basis or cause, but theeffect or function of matter. The materialistthen gave up the existence of a soul, andmaintained that intelligence or consciousnesswas a functional action of the organism orof the brain. The atomic theory came intoits own again, except that the materialistdid not return to the Epicurean admissionthat there was a soul. He kept clear ofthat position, because his own doctrine ofthe eternity of matter would have decided

MATERIALISM 27

the probabilities for survival on that assump-tion. He simply gave up the soul andexplained mental states by the same meansthat we explain digestion, circulation, secre-tion, etc. The development of physiologyand physical science, with what we know ofchemical action, and all the phenomenaof abnormal psychology, especially as con-nectedwith disease and accident, as they affectthe integrity of consciousness, strengthenedthe idea that mental states were but activitiesof the brain or organism. The materialistic

point of view became triumphant, andremained so until the organization of psychicresearch.

The defence of the spiritualistic point ofview, using that term in its older philo-sophical sense, was based on Cartesianassump-tions. These were that matter and mindhad no common properties. Consciousnesshad no qualities that in any way identifiedit with material properties, and hence it

required a soul to be its subject or basis.Matter was the subject, ground, or substanceon which weight, density, extension, motion,and all other properties of physical substancerested. Consciousness being irresolvable into

anything like physical phenomena, sup-posedly, could not be explained by a physicalsubstance as its ground. Hence, with this

assumption of its absolute difference frommatter and material properties, it was easy


to suppose a soul, and the permanence ofsubstance and energy would render it morethan probable that a soul would survive.In this way Cartesianism, while applyingstrictly mechanical laws to the behaviourof matter, had no difficulty in setting up adefence for the existence and survival ofthe soul.But this view of things had to encounter

the difficulties which it set up in the veryneed of defending the existence of a soul.It implied that matter and mind were sodifferent that they could not act on eachother. The most evident fact in the world,however, was that they either did so act oneach other or seemed to do so ; and philo-sophies were constructed to overcomethis appearance of disconnection impliedin the definition of the two substances.With those systems we have nothing to dohere, but they represented the natural de-mand of human thought that things shouldhave a greater unity than this dualism, asCartesianism was called, offered. Then thespirit of science with its eternity of matterand motion made it easy to give up thesoul and obtain that unity without tryingto defend the religious conceptions of things.It found in the discoveries of physical sciencea sufficient relief from the superstitions ofthe past, and a means of protecting thefundamental demand of philosophy for the

MATERIALISM 29

unity of things ; and finding all the pheno-mena of human experience coinciding withthe hypothesis of an ephemeral existencefor consciousness, it rested satisfied withthat explanation of it. Physiology gaveup the need of a soul for its explanation.Biology did the same, also giving up the

supposition that there was any'

vital iorce,'and psychology became an experimentalinvestigation of reaction time, association

time, and various psychophysical pheno-mena alone. The older psychology wasrelegated to the mortuary, though treatedin its obsequies with some regard for its

poverty and age, just to save its children fromthe charge of ingratitude.Such has been the history and nature of

human thinking, on the side of science,regarding the soul, whenever it inclinedtoward the materialistic theory. It is not

necessary to enter into any theory of Whatmatter is in order to understand what mater-ialism is and was. Even the atomic theorywas not necessary to the materialistic pointof view. That theory only happened to

get associatedwith what is called materialism.Its fundamental idea was and is that allorganic things are compounds of differentsubstances and are dissolvable into the ele-ments which constitute them. It is not

necessary to regard those elements as atoms,a term meaning indivisible things. It seemed


necessary for ancient philosophers to setthese up for their purpose, which was to

explain what things were made of, not somuch how they were made. If, however, theancient thinkers had seen the problem rightlythey would not have taken the troubleto define their elements as atoms. Theywere as much interested as the Christiansin something eternal, and sought to find thisin the ' atoms ' or indivisible matter, as theChristians sought it in spirit, which wasalso made indivisible. But materialism didnot need to complicate its theory of conscious-ness with an atomic doctrine. It could haverested content with the idea that physicalorganisms are compounds, and that thefunctions, manifested as a consequence ofthe complexity of their organization, perishedwith the dissolution of the body. Elementsand atoms may only be relatively whatthey are called ; and this seems to have beenthe view which has finally prevailed in themodification of the atomic theory by thedoctrine of ions and electrons, which assumesthat the elements or atoms are not simpleand indivisible. They are or need be theonly things which come together in physicalorganisms and give rise to functionalactivities that do not exist in the elements

by themselves, whether simple or complex,divisible or indivisible.

Now this has become the real position of

MATERIALISM 31

materialism in the last stage of its develop-ment. Whatever it believed about atoms,they did not figure in the construction of

its theory of mind. Having abandonedthe Cartesian view that the nature of con-sciousness might protect the existence ofa soul, it simply regarded consciousnessas a resultant of composition, just as the

light in burning gas is the resultantof combining oxygen and carbon, to dis-

appear whenever that combination ceases.It makes no difference whether oxygen andcarbon are elements or not. It is their unionthat is the significant thing. Here it is thatmaterialism gets its strength, whatever viewwe hold as to the nature of atoms or whetherthere is anything else in the cosmos or not.The scientific facts of all human experienceare that consciousness, as normally known,is always associated with physical structureand organism, and that we have no normalknowledge of its existence apart from thisassociation. The consequence is that itis supposed to have no other connection,and that it is unable to exist when thisorganism dies. It is supposedly a functionlike the ordinary bodily functions of diges-tion, circulation, secretion, assimilation, etc.

These are admittedly bodily functions, andas undoubtedly perish with death. It makesno difference to this point of view what con-

ception you take of consciousness. It may


be as different from ordinary physicalphenomena as you like. It is not its naturethat determines the case, but the evidential

problem. We must leave the nature of con-sciousness to be determined otherwise than

by introspection if it can be done at all. Itis the one fact that we know it normally asassociated with material organism, and wehave no normal traces of its continuanceafter dissolution of the body. All the factsthus evidentially coincide with the hypo-thesis that it depends for existence on associa-tion with the physical body as do the vitalfunctions. True it is that this view does not

prove it perishable. It is not a function thatis sensibly known, and it might exist super-sensibly without sensible knowledge of thatexistence. But, apart from psychic pheno-mena, there is no alleged or apparent evidencefor this independent existence, and we haveonly to discredit all the claims for super-normal phenomena to hold on to the materi-alistic interpretation of mind. The evidencethat we have normally, confines its associa-tion to the body, and the absence ofthe body is followed by the absence ofevidence for consciousness if we refuse toconsider what psychic research has to say.All the facts, so far as known and recognizednormally, exclude evidence of survival, andhence stand as evidence for materialism, inso far as that is convertible with the view

MATERIALISM 33

that consciousness is a function of the

physical organism. If you would overthrowit you must produce evidence that conscious-ness is not a function of the body, and the

only way to do this is to appeal to thefact of its survival, if that can be shown, andnot to speculations about its nature. Thatis, we must find facts in human experiencewhich cannot be explained by supposing thatconsciousness is a function of the organism.Until this is done the materialist has the

right of way. Apart from psychic pheno-mena, he can say that all the normal evidencefavours the view that mental states are likeall other bodily functions, if not in nature,

certainly in connections ; and it becomes a

question of fact whether they survive, notone of their nature. I repeat that he cannot

prove its destruction. He can only infer itfrom his theory, which will be a legitimatehypothesis as long as no evidence is producedfor isolating human consciousness, that is,finding it existing apart from bodily associ-ations.

Many will tell us that materialism hasbeen refuted or abandoned long ago, especi-ally since the time of Kant. This statement,however, is not true ; and I unhesitatinglyassert that any man who maintains thatmaterialism has been abandoned is ignorantof both philosophy and of scientific viewsof the relation between consciousness and


the organism. It is sensationalism andsensational realism that have been aban-doned. Materialism has never been con-vertible or synonymous with these ideas

except in untutored minds. The philo-sopher has always based his materialismon the supersensible atoms or upon therelation of consciousness to the organism ;and though he appealed primarily to sensa-tion in experience for his data of knowledge,it was never a sensational view of knowledgethat he took when he was explaining therelations of mental states to the brain or

organism. Hence it is only a piece of

equivocation to say that materialism hasbeen refuted and abandoned. The idealistswho assert this so constantly are never veryforward in asserting and defending immor-

tality, and they never appeal to scientificfacts for it. They are quite as saturatedwith the idea that consciousness is a re-sultant of composition as any materialist;and as it is not the nature of matter or eventhe existence of atoms that affects the

question or defines the meaning of material-ism as related to this problem, all the essentialfeatures of the materialistic theory remainintact and without refutation by idealism.

It is only convenient to throw a sop tothe populace by denying materialism, solong as one is careful not to tell them thatthe idealist's conception of materialism is

MATERIALISM 35

not theirs. Subterfuge will save a salarywhere frankness and honesty will not.Common men will not put up with equivoca-tion, and that is known well enough by thephilosophers. It is not, however, the bestmethod of meeting the instinct for persecu-tion to deceive it by concessions to its

phraseology without making concessions toits views. The proper thing to do is to facethe issue and to educate the public. HenceI shall not admit for a moment that materi-alism is defunct. It was never more aliveand powerful than it is to-day, and that isevident in the stubborn and persistent as-saults on psychical research from physicalscientists, and the contempt of the generalpublic which is intelligent enough to knowthat, apart from psychic phenomena, thereis no evidence of a scientific sort for thesurvival of personality. It is the meaningof materialism as expressed in this view ofthe evidential situation that defines and

preserves it as a theory, not some refinedand equivocal conception of matter or the

vague theories of idealism which are truefor all of us without having any relationwhatever to the problem of survival.

I repeat, therefore, that materialism wasnever stronger than it has been since Kant,though it has begun to weaken partly fromthe influence of the theories of ether andother supersensible realities which tend to


resolve matter into something apparentlynot material, and partly from the influenceof psychic research which has called attentionto a vast body of phenomena that are in-consistent with every form of materialism,in so far as it pronounces against the exist-ence and survival of a soul or human con-sciousness. But apart from these pheno-mena the physicist and physiologist haveall the evidence on their side for at leastan agnostic verdict. Those who refuse torecognize psychic phenomena of any super-normal kind are entirely right in questioningsurvival, and as long as they make normalexperience the standard of evidence thefacts will be in their favour. Materialism is

simply and only an affirmation of the uniformassociation of consciousness as a fact with

bodily organism and the absence of scientificevidence for its existence apart from that

organism. This criterion of the problem hasto be accepted and the contention of thematerialist met before he can be dislodgedfrom^hi sJposition .

CHAPTER IIISPIRITUALISM

THE term c spiritualism'

has three ratherdistinct meanings. Since the time of Im-manuel Kant it had almost dropped out of

usage, except with that despised class ofbelievers who think they can communicatewith the dead. More recently many of theContinental thinkers are reviving the termin its older comprehensive meaning, andalso to include a view, that of the modern

spiritualists, which they do not hold. Butthe older meaning of the term, one actuallyrecognized by Kant properly to denotethe theory opposed to materialism, wasthat it denoted the doctrine that man hadan immortal soul. It was thus the Christian

theory as opposed to Epicurean and otherforms of materialism. But the influenceof Kant was to abandon the term and tosubstitute for it idealism. He had con-tended that we could not prove the existenceof a soul or its immortality from any a priorigrounds as to its nature, and though headvanced what he called the moral argument


for immortality, it has had no speciallyenthusiastic support. He held that dutydemanded of man more than it was possibleto realize in his bodily existence, and asvirtue should have happiness for its reward,a reward man could not get in this life,he must have an infinite time to realizewhat the moral law commanded. Other-wise he could not conceive the world to berational. But Kant seems not to havenoticed that he assumed the world to berational, which is the thing to be proved ;and it is quite possible that we cannotsuppose it rational until we prove survivalafter death. Hence the problem would beturned round. It was probably this fact,with the general feeling of his agnosticoutcome, from the philosophic point of view,even though it was correct, that made menthink there was no satisfactory evidence or

proof of immortality. When the philo-sophic arguments, which had seemed to dosuch good service, had been resolved intofallacies, it was natural to think that themoral argument was only a disguised philo-sophical one, and manufactured to satisfythe religious Cerberus. Then, as Kant him-self substituted idealism for spiritualism,the opposition became one between theoriesof knowledge and not theories of thingswhose nature we did not know. The whole

practical outcome of his system was to

SPIRITUALISM 39

discourage a positive belief in the existenceof a soul, and the term spiritualism even in

philosophy fell into desuetude.Later the term was adopted by certain

people to denote the possibility of com-

municating with the dead. It had all the

meaning of the older view, but added whatthe older and more respectable meaningdid not assert namely, communication withthe dead. It was suggested, possibly, bythe work of Swedenborg, which Kanthad actually studied and rejected for hismore philosophical view. But it was sometime after this that the term obtained

general vogue. Wherever certain types of

phenomena occurred, such as apparitions,mediumistic phenomena, genuine or other-wise, a large class of people appealed tothem in proof of another life. Idealismwas the subject of interest in the greatphilosophies, but the common people, notbeing able to master Kanto-Hegelian am-biguities, went off to the vulgar phenomenaof mediumship for their evidence, and calledtheir proof and theory by the name ofspiritualism. They even succeeded inlimiting it to the idea of communicationwith the dead, and separating it from anyof the reigning ideas of philosophy and

religion. It was not born and bred in the

larger views which had characterized re-

ligion, and so got no farther in its meaning


than the phenomena that interested its

popular votaries. It was intended to bethe source of a hope which philosophicagnosticism could not supply.The third meaning of the term is not found

in its use to express a theory of the souland its survival, but appears in the adjec-tival form,

'

spiritual,' to describe certain

modes or attitudes of mind. It is applieddifferently according to the school whichuses it. In this meaning the term was, ofcourse, borrowed from the religious world,where it originally implied or was associatedwith the doctrine of immortality, and sodescribed the states of mind and beliefswhich were supposedly necessary for salva-tion. When idealistic agnosticism arose, itwas retained in that school to denote the

things that were more important than asensuous life, and had no implications of

immortality connected with it, while the

religious world meant by it states of mindthat had no meaning apart from the beliefin the existence of God and immortality.The religiously

'

spiritual'

is a man'sattitude of mind toward God and a futurelife leading to right living. This rightliving comprehends all that is implied inthe term moral or ethical, and includeslove, reverence, faith, obedience, all of these

having a definite object to which they aredirected. God and man are these objects,

SPIRITUALISM 41

and the ' spiritual'

is more conspicuouslyan emotional attitude of mind toward them,leading to salvation. But with agnosticidealism, the

'

spiritual'

is the intellectualand aesthetic, the philosophical and artisticlife, as opposed to sensuous gratificationalone. It is not necessarily complicatedwith the belief in the divine or in immor-

tality. It claims to be opposed to material-

ism, but its materialism, as explainedabove, is only sensationalism, or what maybe called ethical materialism, and is not inthe least opposed to metaphysical material-ism. As religion had emphasized the highermental life, whether intellectual, aesthetic,or ethical, the idealistic school took this

conception, and appropriated it for its

description of duty without involving the

things that made it a duty. The'

spiritual,'in the conception of the intellectual andaesthetic man, is compatible only with aneconomic ideal. It requires an income andleisure for its realization, at least as soughtand practised by those who extol it, and the"dull millions that toil foredone at thewheel of labour" have little chance torealize it, save by the fortune which mayplace them on the necks of their fellows.The intellectual and the aesthetic are valu-able, but not at the expense of those whohave to pay for it without getting it. The1

spiritual'

in this sense is the mark of an


aristocracy, itself not wrong where thosewho suffer from it have no desire to riseabove their dead selves, but yet not theideal of life unless it looks to the social andethical virtues, which require no income orleisure for their practice, and unless it looksto time for attainment where materialismcuts it short at the grave. The intellect-ualist's and the aestheticist's ' spiritual

'

is wanting in all that will inspire, thoughit is a thing that the great objects of inspira-tion must stimulate

;but it is too closely

affiliated with a philosophic conceptionwhich, though it calls itself idealistic, is notsevered from the fundamental associationsof materialism namely, the ideals of physicalknowledge and of art, things necessaryboth where nothing else can be won, andwhere all else can be won, but not possiblewhere economic conditions forbid it. It isthe ethical, the right attitude of mindtoward the cosmos or God and his laws,that constitutes the ' spiritual

'

attainable

in any condition of life whatever that isdesired, and only immortality and Godcan give security against the vicissitudesand corrosive influences of doubt.

This point of view could be called ethical

spiritualism, but it has never been dignifiedwith such a name. If it had been, thedistinction would be clear between theother uses of the term. They might sever-

SPIRITUALISM 43

ally be termed philosophical, scientific, andethical spiritualism. The first characterizedsome of the Greek philosophers, and thewhole of Christianity after them resorted to

metaphysics for its defence. The secondcharacterized the inception of Christianity,when it appealed to real or alleged facts,and became the dominant influence incertain classes of modern times when thephilosophic and theological point of viewlost power under the influence of scientificmaterialism. The third meaning representsthe dominant practical spirit of Christianityand philosophic idealism, where material-ism has had to yield to the ethical ideasof religion while undermining its philosophy.But with the first and third meanings or

points of view, we have nothing to do here.It is common spiritualism with which wehave to deal, and this can be called scientific

only in respect of the appeal to fact, orcommunication with the dead as proof ofsurvival, instead of to a priori reasoning.It has never been regarded as a scientificattitude of mind, and certainly much of itswork since its alleged rise has offered nothingto entitle it to that dignified name. But inso far as its point of view is concerned, itis entitled to such a description of its function.While the philosophical point of view hassuccumbed to the triumphant spirit ofscience, psychic research claims sufficient

attention to recover for the ordinary spirit-ualism the right of investigation. Henceit is only this point of view that can receivenotice here.The use of the term spiritualism, then,

varies somewhat in different countries andbetween different men. In America it is nota respectable term among philosophers andpsychologists. It obtains the colour of its

meaning from association with a despisedsect, which has set up a rival propagandismwith the Church. In Germany and Franceit has a philosophic recognition, and tosome extent restores the usage which Kantonce gave it, but is not associated withthe particular ideas of those who make itonly a belief in the communication withthe dead. It rather combines the first andsecond meanings with a sceptical tempertoward the claim of communication. Pro-fessor Flournoy uses

'

spiritualism'

in theolder philosophic sense, and employs4

spiritism'

for the scientific conception of

communication, though not yet feeling con-vinced that

'

spiritism' has sustained its

claims. There is no objection to this useof the term, though it might conduce tobetter understanding with the Englishthinking public were this conception of itconsistent with its habits. This, however,

may be the fault of our deviation fromContinental habits of thought, which are

SPIRITUALISM 45

truer to philosophic tradition. In this dis-

cussion, however, I must remain by the

popular conception of the term'

spiritual-ism ' among English-speaking peoples, if

only to make clear the approach which wehave to make to the problem.The spiritualists, in the modern sense of

the term, trace their origin to the Foxsisters of Hydesville, N.Y. There is noexcuse for this view of their history exceptignorance of all history. It is unfortunatethat the writer of the article on

'

Spiritual-ism ' in the ninth and eleventh editions ofThe Encyclopedia Britannica perpetuatesthis delusion, though it is supposedly qualifiedby the term 'Modern.' It would have beenfar more intelligent to have traced it to

Swedenborg, whose system was confessedlyascribed to communication with the dead,and obtained the serious conisderation ofImmanuel Kant as well as of a whole sect of

people. But even this origin would have

ignored far more ancient claims ; as, how-ever, these were not known to Swedenborgand his followers, it is right to give him thecredit of prior claim to what was almost a

discovery. Spiritualism at least obtainedthe status of philosophic recognition fromsuch a man, whatever qualifications thescientist has to give his work from theinfluence of Swedenborg's own mind. Thereare evidences of other cases exhibiting similar


phenomena before his time, and history aswell as legend has preserved traces of themduring the whole period of the Middle Ages.But not even these times, or times far earlier,originated the phenomena and the belief incommunication with the dead.

It was primitive animism that was reallythe origin of spiritualism, and this representsthe religious belief of savages all over the

globe at one time. One has only to readTylor's Primitive Culture to see this. Itsurvived everywhere in the form of

'

ancestor

worship,' a term which conceals in Westernideas the real nature of the belief. Those,however, who know the beliefs of China andJapan, which are called

'

ancestor worship,'find in them nothing but spiritualism pureand simple, modified, of course, by nationaltraditions and practices. But the primitiveform which this worship took is found moreor less intact among savages to-day who havenot come sufficiently in contact with civiliza-tion to modify it, and it is connected withsuch frightful orgies or superstitions that itis hard even to discover its real meaning.Human sacrifices are a relic of it, and in theform of widow-sacrifice it remained long innations that had abandoned much of theirprimitive ideas. It is noticeable that all

the early great religions, such as Taoism,Buddhism, Brahmanism, and all philosophicsystems everywhere, were revolts against

SPIRITUALISM 47

these primitive beliefs. They had to com-

promise with them usually for political safetyand in the end modified them, but amongcommon people some form of spiritualism hassurvived almost every attack; so that it is

only ignorance to trace its origin to the Foxsisters. If intelligent people had not scoutedthe phenomena that occurred in their ownfamilies, it would not have been left to the

ignorant followers and imitators of the Foxsisters to set up a new gospel from table-tipping and cracking toe-joints. Men willnot have intelligent ideas on this matteruntil they abandon both respect and ridiculefor the Fox phenomena. The conceptionswith which their followers have surroundedthe subject is the great obstacle to theserious consideration of what is really im-

portant in psychic research, and sciencecannot afford to let the ignorant classes

pre-empt the view which is to be taken ofthis research.

It is nevertheless true that the phenomenawhich have been most emphasized in moderntimes, and especially during the period ofthe Fox sisters' performances and a long timeafterward, were calculated to give a dubious

conception of the problem. They werethe alleged levitation of physical objectswithout contact, tying and untying mys-terious knots, alleged escape from impossiblecabinets, alleged penetration of matter by


matter, and various other alleged physicalmiracles. These took various forms in everycase, each supposed to overcome the diffi-culties arising in the others. They lentthemselves to easy imitation by conjuring,which was usually far superior in appearanceto anything that the spiritualists could show,and yet was palpably illusion and publiclyavowed as such. Soon after the Fox sistershad created sufficient interest, the conjurerbegan a course of public exhibitions, andsecond-rate performers of the same kind

duped and mulcted the gullible innocents;until psychic research put an end to it, orat least reduced it in amount and opportunity,so that it no longer enjoys the immunity itonce possessed.We can then hardly attribute the origin

of modern spiritualism to an intelligentattack on scepticism on the part of those whoexcited the first interest in it. But variouscircumstances combined to attract the atten-tion of those who were not committed to theChurch in their views either of religion or

immortality. One of the first effects onreligious belief of the very principle on whichWestern society was founded, namely, theidea of liberty, was to emancipate many ofthe leading minds from its thraldom without

removing the interest in a future life onwhich Christianity rested. This class was

willing to look in any direction for consola-

SPIRITUALISM 49

tion and hope when it could not receiveassurance from the Church. It was this, andnot the peculiarity of the Fox sisters' pheno-mena, that excited interest. Their vulgarperformances would have aroused no enthu-siasm but for the intensity of the interest ofthe human mind in a belief in a future life.They would have been dismissed as lesscurious even than conjuring but for the all-

absorbing influence of what the Church had

taught us to expect but could not prove.In the ever-growing success of the scientificmethod which never relied on faith of anykind but demanded proof in present experi-ence, the reasoning mind would no longertrust authority or faith. It had

'

to be

shown,' as a Western phrase tersely puts it.The evidence of this is more clearly seen inthe books of Judge Edmunds and AndrewJackson Davis. Their work was surroundedwith some respectability at least, whateverother judgment be passed upon it, and sowas that of the Rev. Stainton Moses. Intelli-

gence and probity more or less protectedthem, and the breath of scorn never suc-ceeded in attaching moral reproach to theirlives and doctrines. It was otherwise withthe Fox sisters. Their reputation and theirnotoriety were due entirely to the tenacitywith which ignorant and unidealistic pepoledefended their phenomena, and to the casewith which they could be attacked by

4


intelligent and respectable people. The lifeof one of them at least became so saturatedwith debauchery, that peoplejgwith moralideals could not attachJany value publiclyto what might have been scientificallygenuine. Those spiritualists who havealways endeavoured to keep the memoryof the Fox phenomena green, have had nosense of humour or of idealism in theirdevotion. They have .been wholly ignorantof the influences which affect mankind whenasked to accept a new gospel namely, somemoral idealism of belief and conduct inthose that bring the message. It was thisthat gave Christianity its advantage andits durability. No fault of base living couldbe discovered in the history and behaviourof its founder. He stood in history as anideal, and this regardless of all theoriesabout his personality. Not so with theheroes of modern spiritualism among thevulgar classes. It is probable that there weresome genuine psychic phenomena connectedwith the Fox sisters, but history is not goingto preserve them. What history and tradi-tion will know best about them is theimmoral life associated with the phenomenaand the records of real or alleged fraud inwhich the public of the intelligent sort wasmore ready to believe than in miracles.There will be no disposition to revise theverdict that has been put upon them, and

SPIRITUALISM 51

it would not be possible to do so if wedesired. The confession of Margaret LaneFox, though the circumstances make itworthless, will always remain a fatal obstacleto the hypothesis of anything genuine in her

career, and it would have been wiser for

spiritualists to have accepted the situationand to have allied their fortunes with

something more ethical and ideal. Someof the later heroes of the movement wereno better, and it cannot be expected ofidealists that they should fall down andworship something less interesting and more

illusory than conjuring. The course theyhave taken has so distorted the meaning ofthe term by which they denote their beliefthat intelligent people, at least in the Westerncontinent, hardly dare use it in a favourablesense. Whatever of association it may haveof correct method in respect to proof is lostby association with vulgarity and fraud, andeven people just rising from unculturedconditions and insisting upon at leastaesthetic ideals, would demand that so im-portant a belief as immortality, so long underidealistic auspices, should be surroundedand protected by good taste and moralityas well as scientific method.

There is abundant evidence, however, thatthe phenomena have characterized all ages;the Church was able to keep them in abey-ance or in its service during its triumph,


and it was only the passing of its power that

gave the subject the influence which it

possesses to-day. Men are more interestedin the future than they are in the past, andthis is true without regard to any life beyondthe grave. It is the future that absorbsthe attention of every man and woman,even when he or she does not believe inimmortality. It is only in an aristocratic

age that the past has any special attraction,or if not in an aristocratic age, certainly inan aristocratic mind. The past is given usand we cannot modify it by any act of ours.It is different with the future. We can makethat, if we have any assurance of the timein which to make it. All realization thatdepends on hope and the will makes no

reckoning with the past except to ascertainthe law of probabilities or the conditions ofachievement in the future. It is the fruitionof the future we all seek with a thousandfoldas passionate an interest as we read history,and the human race cannot be robbed ofthis instinct without abortive development.It was the appeal to this beyond-the-gravebelief that gave Christianity most of its in-fluence, and this heritage was seized by itsapostates when they turned to the claimsof spiritualism for protection.

It is quite possible that the Fox sistersand other interested people, including such

persons as Judge Edmunds and Andrew

SPIRITUALISM 53

Jackson Davis, would have received as littleattention as similar types in the Middle

Ages, or have been as ruthlessly suppressed,but for the wider and deeper impressionthat scepticism had made upon the dogmasof religion. As I have already remarked,sceptical minds were and are quite as muchinterested in human survival as any believer,only they are more careful about theirevidence, and have more confidence inscientific methods and results than haveeither the religious mind or the untrainedmasses. Just in proportion as this scepti-cism retained its personal and its moralinterest in survival, would it give attentionto the claims of the spiritualists, and it wasthis that got the Fox sisters a hearing beyondthe limits of the class to which they belonged,as well as the easier attack to which theywere exposed than were men like JudgeEdmunds and Davis. The literature ofthis period is full of books on the subject,both for and against, and many a writerhad far better phenomena with which tosupport his claims, than most of those ofthe Fox sisters which history will preserve.But either because the facts were harderto refute rand explain away, or becausematerialism was too strong to accept a re-action into supernaturalism, at any rate,the gauntlet was thrown down and thechallenge accepted, and scepticism was finally


asked to face the organized effort of the

Society for Psychical Research in 1882 tosettle the controversy once for all.Whatever we may think of the spiritual-

ists and of the character of their facts, theywere, in respect of method, much nearerscience than were their antagonists in re-

ligion. They had turned away from traditionand dogma and toward actual experimentin the present for a belief. Whether the

hope or endeavour was foolish or not has

nothing to do with the spirit of the method.This was the interrogation of the presentmoment for the determination of belief.Hitherto religion had relied upon the pastand its bequest for the fixing of the most

important of all beliefs in its own estimation,and scorned all effort of the present to provewhat it held as a faith. Spiritualism, on the

contrary, insisted that it must find the proofin present human experience or it wouldjoin the ranks of the agnostics and material-ists. Hence it would have been easy for itto form an alliance with science, at least in

respect of the general principle of its method.But it forfeited its opportunity by thefanaticism of its beliefs, which were not less

rigid and uncompromising toward strictscientific method than had been the generalattitude of religion toward science in its

inception. It maintained equal indiffer-ence or hostilitv to the ethical ideals of the

SPIRITUALISM 55

Church without reflecting how much thatbody had fallen from grace in its use ofthem and cultivated as much hatred to-ward scientific men as they maintainedtowards it. It did not see that it mightdivide with science the support of method,and attack it for want of an open mind. Butit found in science as much of an enemy asit did in the Church, and had to do what itcould between the upper and the nethermillstone.

Its assemblies were the hustings for per-formances which ranged from the ravingsof hysterics and deceptions of tricksters tothe half-illiterate talks of people who, what-ever of idealism they had, were not fitleaders of the intelligent public or even theentertainers of such. They were too slowto expel fraud from their ministers, and neversaw that the cause of immortality has littleor no importance unless associated with atleast some moral idealism in the charactersand teachings of their leaders. Twaddle inexhortation will not redeem messages fromthe dead anywhere except in the laboratory.A public educated in intellectual as well asartistic aesthetics will notlpbe attracted toilliterate teachers in this *age, and muchless is it going to take its revelations from

hysterical or uneducated bawlers, far lessfrom frauds who can claim neither hysterianor ignorance as apologies for their conduct.


It was this fatal situation that preventedspiritualism from invoking the interest ofscience earlier than it did. It fell to the

intelligent agnostic to attack the problemin the face of three enemies, the devotee oftradition and dogma,the scientific materialist,and the despised spiritualists who wereneither religious nor scientific.

CHAPTER IVTHE PROBLEM

WE resolved the meaning of the materialistictheory of human consciousness into theproposition that consciousness is a functionof the brain or organism, and its evidentialstatement into the formula that conscious-ness in normal experience is always associ-ated with physical structure, and with theabsence of this organism no ordinary tracesof its independent existence are found.This is to say that consciousness and or-

ganism are always associated, and thatconsciousness is not present when theorganism disappears. This conception ofthe situation makes nothing of the natureof consciousness. It does not raise anyquestions about its nature, but only as tothe fact of its connections. As already ex-plained, the traditional schools of ^thoughtmade the question of the soul depend oncertain well-defined conceptions of whatconsciousness was, distinguishing it radicallyfrom physical phenomena. But materialismabandons this point of view and insists that

57


it is an open question as to what mentalstates are, while it is not an open questionas to its associations and connections.Science investigates facts, or the uni-formities of co-existence and sequence, andthe nature of a thing is secondary to its beinga fact. The consequence is that it asks forevidence that will appeal to all men andthat will not be left to a priori opinions aboutthe nature of mental states. It finds theuniversal fact that consciousness in normal

experience is always connected with the

physical body, and when that body dissolvesafter death consciousness ceases to manifestitself in the same way. It is but naturalto suppose that, like other functions of the

body, it has ceased to exist. The burdenof proof, therefore, rests upon the man whobelieves that it is not a function of the

organism.The situation as defined by materialism

requires its antagonist, spiritualism, to showthat a particular individual consciousness hasnot ceased to exist, even if it cannot mani-fest in its old way. This is to say that wemust get evidence that it exists in isolationfrom the^body. In some way, therefore,this consciousness must get into communica-tionJwith the living, and prove its personalidentity by telling its memories to an extentthat will make it scientifically clear that weare dealing with a surviving personality.

THE PROBLEM 59

How this is to be done I do not mean for thepresent to explain. I am here only in-dicating the situation and the nature of the

problem. It means nothing more nor lessthan the isolation of individual conscious-ness from its original associations, andcommunication with it to establish its per-sonal identity. The necessity for this andfor proving its identity is determined bycertain facts which have greatly altered the

problem for modern times.With antiquity it sufficed to believe that

we had a soul to decide the issue. But witha further and more careful analysis of the

problem we distinguish between the souland its activities, between the subject andits functional actions. We can conceivethat a soul should survive without theconsciousness of its identity. It is per-sonal identity that interests us most. Wewant to know if we can retain memory ofthe past and consciousness of who we are.In other words, we have an interest in beingthe same that we were, and in remaining thesame in the future, even if that identity benothing else than the stream of conscious-ness with its recollections as the conditionof the only identity that interests us. Butmodern psychology shows us that, what-ever theory we take about the existence ofa soul, it may change its personality sogreatly as to lose even the sense of personal


identity, at least apparently. This is illus-trated in the phenomena of secondary per-sonality. Whether by accident or disease,many persons fall into an abnormal conditionin which they have no recollection of their

past, and go on living a new life without theslightest knowledge of what their past hasbeen.The Ansel Bourne case is a celebrated

instance of this phenomenon. This mandisappeared from home in Providence,Rhode Island, and no trace of him could befound. Eight weeks later he awakenedout of an abnormal condition in a smalltown in another state, where he had been

keeping a junk shop, and had no recollec-tion of how he got there, or of the nameby which he had called himself when there,namely, William Brown. He was hypnot-ized by Dr. Richard Hodgson and Pro-fessor William James, and in the state of

hypnosis told the story of the eight weeks,but remembered nothing of it in his normalstate. I have a case in which this secondarystate continued for four years, and the manthen awakened from it in almost preciselythe same way that did Mr. Bourne.There are many such cases. What they

mean is that, whatever we say about thesoul, or whatever we say about the brainand its identity, the functional activity ofconsciousness may be so different at different

THE PROBLEM 61

times, as to appear to be a totally different

personality. That is, the soul, if there be

such, may so change its functional activityas to lose the consciousness of personalidentity ; and then the problem arises todetermine whether death may not producejust such an alteration of personality as wesee in cases such as that of Ansel Bourneand others. The consequence is that itdoes not satisfy to show that somethingmore than the brain is required to provethat we survive in the manner which has a

personal and moral interest for us. Wehave to ascertain if the soul has a memoryof its past and retains a consciousness of its

identity such as it normally does whenliving in association with the physical body.The consequence is that our problem isdetermined for us in this way. We mustprove the survival of personal consciousnessand its knowledge of personal identity.

It should be apparent to any scientificman what the method is which we have topursue. I say

'

scientific man,' because Iam referring to the scientific problem, notthe problems of philosophy and faith.Whether the philosophic and religiousmethod be valid or not and with these wehave nothing to do here it is clear whatthe scientific procedure must be. It mustget into communication with the discarnate,if such exist, and obtain facts which will


prove survival of personal identity. The

ways in which that may be possible may beexamined again. There are certain pre-liminary questions to be briefly considered,which may be regarded as assigning limitsto the confidence which the materialistic

theory has in its conclusions. While thatview rightly approaches the problem withthe idea that it is a question of the facts ofhuman experience, it assumes too posit-ively that our knowledge of the real situ-ation is clearer than is the case. What Iwish to do, therefore, is to show that, at the

very point where we are supposedly sure ofcertain facts, or, if this is not the way toexpress it, sure of what our knowledge is,we may have to qualify it by proving anamount of actual ignorance that is not atall assumed by the materialist about con-sciousness and its associations. I refer tothe processes by which we obtain our assur-ance about the existence of consciousnessin our normal experience. We forget thatwe have entirely different methods of de-termining when and where consciousnessexists, one of them direct, and the otherindirect; but the materialist neglects toconsider what the indirect method meansfor the modification of the certitude withwhich he holds that consciousness is afunction of the organism. Let us there-fore approach the definition of our problem

THE PROBLEM 63

by the various steps in normal experiencewhich will lead us up to the method of ascer-

taining whether personal consciousness sur-vives bodily death.

The first fact about which there can beno dispute is, that each man is directly awareof his own consciousness. I shall not enterinto any nice definition of what direct

knowledge is. I mean that a man is im-mediately aware that he is conscious. Hecannot be argued out of this. Any attemptto dispute the fact involves the conscious-ness itself, so that scepticism can never bearoused against the personal existence ofconsciousness in the man who is himselfconscious of his own mental states. Nowthe interesting thing is, that he has formsof mental activity which may not even beaware of the body which is the supposedorgan of consciousness. The most con-spicuous instances of this are certain dreamswhich we remember when we awaken. Inthem we have no knowledge

Documents

archive.orgarchive.org/download/psychicalresearc00hysliala/psychicalresearc00... · THEQUESTSERIES EditedbyG.R.S.MEAD,B.A., PRESIDENTOFTHEQUESTSOCIETY. Crown8vo.2s.6d.neteach. FIRSTLISTOFVOLUMES