HPB-SB-5-61: Difference between revisions

{{Style P-No indent|which Mr. Massey has indicated its possible application, I am unable to perceive the manner in which an assumed current passing through assumed ideomotor nerves, whose functions have no relation to any of the sympathetic centres of the body, could not only pass beyond the limits of the medium’s body, but generate a separate entity outside it. And when that separate entity is capable of free volition; when it shows hands whose action involves that of trachial, and possibly of shoulder, muscles; when the force which ''e.g., ''lifts a chair or touches a coat, acts from a centre at a distance from the medium’s body, I cannot see how such force can be said to be analagous or identical with that cerebral or even reflex action by which the medium may move his own hands or feet. I accord with Mr. Massey that the battle of Spiritualism will have to be fought over the “intelligence.” I confess that the spiritual theory, merely as a provisional hypothesis, is far more convenient than that of the physiologists; at the same time, that, as I have already expressed, the truth may lie between the two extremes. For if the old Epicurean philosophy is once disinterred from the oblivion of which it is unworthy, the conditions under which duplication of the ''forma ''of an object by the production of its ''simulacrum ''may be effected are clearly comprehensible and definable. Such ''simulacra ''or ''eidola'' may be like the body of Dr. Slade; they may imitate his handwriting; their hands may be similar to and capable of as free volition as his own, and yet they may not be in any way “spiritual.” Such “form” may be diminished to a less extent than that of the original body, which may account for the writing by a slate pencil fragment in a space less than half an inch in vertical diameter. The form producing this writing may not be, and probably is not, as large as that of an ordinary human hand. I am merely indicating this line of argument, premising that the account of the Epicurean philosophy given in ''Diogenes'' ''Laertius ''is perfectly unintelligible without comparison with the ''Fragmenta ''of which we must regret that so little is preserved to us.}}

I may also remark that a duplication of form by no means involves a duplication of matter, nor of substance. Of course I use the word substance in the sense of Aquinas; and while wishing to avoid all theological controversy, would express my opinion that the teaching of the schools as to matter and form has in England, at least, been steadily going down hill:—

 

 

 

Progeniem vitiosiorem.}}

 

I know that no follower of Locke or Berkeley can see the matter as I see it; perhaps some Fichtians may. And I would be curious to know how many (Spiritualists are in accord with me. For the assumption of duality of form is in no way irreconcilable with the views which Miss Kislingbury so clearly expressed some weeks ago in her excellent letter, “Form-manifestations ''versus ''materialisations.” An assumption of duality of substance (taking as above the old scholastic definition) would involve more dilemmas than I could venture to refute within your space. And an assumption of duality of matter is (at least to my mind), besides being physically impossible, liable to grave objections from the schools of Chrysippus, and perhaps from that of Carneades. I must on this subject speak with diffidence, not having the slightest leaning towards the teachings of the Neo-Academicians, and submitting my opinion to' the judgment of an authority which is final on all matters relating to the definition of substance, and the phenomena of Being, Still, I see nothing in some hints which Rosmini has thrown out, contrary to my opinion. And if the matter be left as an open scientific question, I would be strongly inclined to deny (even potentially) any duality or duplication of matter. But the whole subject has (even before the Christian aera)''' '''been thought out by wiser and better men than the fag-end of the nineteenth century has as yet produced. The ''jeu d’esprit ''which some time ago put in the mouth of Herbert Spencer the words—

 

{{Style P-Quote|Appearances, he seems to think, do not exhaust totality,

 

 

{{Style P-No indent|conveys the idea to which a disciple of the old schoolmen is led.  Friends will bear with me if my spectacles are twenty-one''' '''hundred years old. They are the best I have.}}

 

{{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|I have as yet failed to obtain any solution of the extraordinary message, “133 is Charles F. Crokats.” Whatever meaning may be attached to it, the whole subject was entirely unknown to Dr. Slade, and as seventeen years have now elapsed, the matter is not now in my memory.}}