 |
vol. title: vol. period: 1881 pages in vol.: 439 |
< A Philosophy of Materialisation (continued from page 11-337) >
Isolated facts in Nature, which maintain their existence through a breach of continuity in established generalisations, may very well be called miracles, but no occurrence into the production of which the human body enters as a factor being acknowledged by those who understand its workings best to be unnaturally miraculous, it is only in accordance with the spirit of scientific enquiry to substitute, if possible, an explanation where known principles receive novel applications, for one entirely provisional, and, in its detail, merely an expression in carefully chosen language of a difficulty which it professes to explain.
Speaking with reference to physical manifestations, Mr. Harrison quotes an article of his which appeared in the Spiritualist of May 5th, 1876, “as new facts exactly meet the requirements of the theory.”—The following is a brief outline of the theory then proposed:—“I assume that what we call ‘matter,’ consists merely of surface effects with an infinity of phenomena beneath; for although the now prevalent scientific idea that matter consists of the infinitely rigid particles of Dalton, or of Sir William Thomson’s vortex atoms formedin an infinitely elastic fluid,” (perfect fluid, i.e. one without friction, he should have said) “is useful in physical research, all analogy and past experience tend to show that as knowledge increases our ideas of the extent of the universe, atoms included, will have to be widened.” Then recurring to the idea that “matter consists merely of surface effects with an infinity of phenomena beneath,” he says, “Let us then suppose what we know and see of the human hand to be the result of an infinity of underlying phenomena, comprising a certain amount of energy which we will define by the number ten. I assume that when a spirit-hand first begins to form, say twelve inches from the hand of the medium, by means of will power or some unknown process, the controlling intelligence abstracts, say, one part of energy from every portion of the medium’s hand, thus leaving nine. This first stage in the creation of a spirit-hand I assume to produce an actual hand invisible to the human eye, yet capable of producing certain material effects.” He then says—“I further assume that in the process of further materialising a spirit-hand, spirits can by will-power, or by other means, abstract more and more energy of different kinds, but in unaltered relative proportions, from every part of the hand of the medium, until say, five proportions of energy are left in the hand of the medium, and five proportions are in the spirit hand. At this stage both hands ought to be palpable, visible hands to the spectators. Here I think we have the duplication of form-—that delicate state of balance of conditions which has existed on the few occasions when the medium and the spirit have been seen at the same time. Carrying this idea still further, I think that the power at the root of the phenomenon can go on abstracting energy from the hand of the medium till at last we have, say, nine parts of energy in the spirit-hand, and only one left in the hand of the medium. At such a stage as this—which as yet has only been reached in total darkness—the hand of the medium ought to be invisible, while the spirit-hand is densely materialised. This may be the condition of things when mediums are released from bonds;” and in conclusion he goes on to say—“These ideas, I think, also explain how, while the hand of a medium is held in darkness, a welded iron ring with no joint in it is frequently threaded on to his arm.” He winds up by saying—“From what has been said it will be seen that it is assumed that spirits can abstract energy from all parts of inanimate objects, as well as from human beings; that dresses, for instance could be thus duplicated.”
Now, can this be called a physical theory of materialisation or other externalisation of energy? I doubt it greatly. It is, however, entitled to every respect as it is proposed by the man who has had more exact experience than any non-mediumistic person in England, by one, moreover, who, assisted by other educated men interested in such subjects, attempted to prove experimentally that medium plus materialised image exhibited a conservation of mass, in the weighing experiments undertaken with the object of ascertaining the variation of the medium’s weight during manifestations; such at least being my reading of the main object of the research from the papers published on the subject With due consideration and respect, I will therefore examine the above hypothesis, and make a few remarks preparatory to introducing what I consider to be the rational application of known principles to the difficulties of mediumship, without calling in the aid of any finite directing intelligence other than that of the individual whose nervous system is involved.
Mr. Harrison’s first statement is that “matter” consists merely of surface effects, with an infinity of phenomena beneath. His second statement is that the result of this infinity of underlying phenomena comprises a certain amount of energy. His third statement is that this energy can be pictured in thought as removed in varying proportions by an intelligent being and manifested in another place. Though Mr. Harrison cites his theoretic considerations as finding an illustration and support in well-established facts occurring during manifestations of so-called spiritual power, including notably the variation in the weight of the medium, yet I cannot image that he confines the term energy as used by him to the potential energy of gravitation, for, if so, his attempted explanation would be without significance, as the weight of a body is no index of the amount of potential energy locked up and available in its substance, as for instance in the case of a loose and a coiled-up spring, which, having the same weight, are very different as regards the amount of energy they are possessed of; not to mention that finer energy stored up and more or less available in equal weights of zinc, gunpowder and fat bacon. Besides, he speaks of the energy as related to the phenomena underlying the “matter,” which he regards as surface effects. How can we have experience of that which does not exhibit itself? Why call it out of its name? Why not say at once that matter passes or flows from one hand to the other, which is what is really implied? To be sure, energy is a thing as real as matter and having as real an objective existence, and this objective existence is only manifested by its doing work or its preventing work from being done. But the idea of work is not embraced by Mr. Harrison’s theory at all. When therefore he makes energy pass from one real body to a body being constructed as its simulacrum or double, he introduces us to a form of energy which is neither energy of position (potential), nor energy of motion (kinetic), nor yet energy partly potential and partly kinetic, as is the case in the wave movement propagated through an elastic medium, consequently his hypothesis (apart from the deus ex machina he introduces), has, as yet, nothing corresponding to it in the continuity of thought and is therefore untenable as far as I can see; but in justice to Mr. Harrison, I must quote Professor Clark Maxwell when he says in his Theory of Heat—“We cannot even assert that all energy must be either potential or kinetic, though we may not be able to conceive any other form.”
Nevertheless the body of a medium must be a source of energy, but of what kind and how?
It appears to me that the true way to regard the <... continues on page 11-339 >