HPB-SB-5-61: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |What is the Intelligence?|5-60}} | {{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |What is the Intelligence?|5-60}} | ||
{{Style P-No indent| | {{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:— | |||
{{Style P-Quote|Ǣtas parentum, pejor avis, tutit | |||
Nos nequiores, mox daturos | |||
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, | |||
But indicate that underneath there’s some unknown reality.}} | |||
{{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.}} | |||
| Line 18: | Line 34: | ||
| item =1 | | item =1 | ||
| type = article | | type = article | ||
| status = | | status = proofread | ||
| continues = 62 | | continues = 62 | ||
| author = | | author = | ||
| Line 24: | Line 40: | ||
| subtitle = | | subtitle = | ||
| untitled = | | untitled = | ||
| source title = | | source title = London Spiritualist | ||
| source details = | | source details = No. 176, January 7, 1876, pp. 3-4 | ||
| publication date = | | publication date = 1876-01-07 | ||
| original date = | | original date = | ||
| notes = From The Times, December 28 | | notes = From The Times, December 28 | ||
| Line 32: | Line 48: | ||
}} | }} | ||
... | {{Style S-Small capitals|One}}''' '''day at Parell His Royal Highness had an hour of quiet amusement in camp, watching the tricks of some Indian jugglers and snake-charmers, which have been described a hundred times over, and which never lose their interest for the spectator. After breakfast a ragged train of fellows leading apes and carrying bags was seen coming up the main street of the camp to one of the tents. These were followed by seven or eight ugly, shapeless elderly women in bright drapery, carrying what are considered here musical instruments. They all squatted under the shade of the trees in front of one of the tents apart—conjurors, ape leaders, singing women. Presently the Prince sauntered down from the house and took a seat in front of the tent, and his suite sat or stood around him, while the charmers and conjurors prepared for their exhibition, but the natives had no idea of the illustrious person’s identity. The camp followers gathered round, and soldiers from the tents near at hand, till one of the suite, remembering what occurred on a similar occasion in India, cleared them away. The jugglers and snake-charmers were the first to show off. They were only two—old chatty fellows whose skin hung on their bones as if it were cracked brown paper. They did some clever “passes,” swallowed and spat out fire, produced an enchanted inexhaustible water vessel, walked on wooden pattens held on by the action of the feet making a vacuum —in fact the withered, vivacious old juggler and his ragged old confederate performed all the orthodox tricks of their confraternity. Where did he get the cobras which he produced suddenly out of two baskets which had been turned over, inside out, in our presence? It was not the drumming of his friend or the playing on the dry gourd which drew the reptiles out of coyer. A little thrill went through the spectators as the reptiles raised their flaming eyes and hooded crests, hissing fiercely, reared on end as if to strike the garrulous charmer. Dr. Fayrer opened the jaws of the larger with a stick while the man held it, and showed the Prince where the fangs were ''not.''''''' '''''The snakes danced to the music of a gourd drum, but it was with rage and fear, not with pleasure. Meantime a mango under the dirty cloth was growing, and in an interval of snake work, the old fellow dashed at the latter and exposed a fresh bright green mango tree some eighteen inches high in the ground, where he had apparently only put in a mango seed. Expressions of wonder followed; then the cloth was thrown over the tree and another of the famous legendary legerdemain feats was executed. A shallow basket about 18in. high and 3ft. long, with a cover, was placed before the Prince. It was plain there was no deceit. It was a basket and nothing more or less, and it was put on the bare earth before our eyes. At a call there came out from the group of natives near at hand a lad of 12 or so, slight of figure and pleasant of face, with not an article of dress save his loin cloth and a dirty turban. Him the old man, chattering the while, bound hand and foot ''a la''''''' '''''Brothers Anyone in twine. Then a sack, made of strong netting, was produced, and the old fellow slipped it over the lad, whom he squeezed down on his haunches so that he could tie the cords securely over his head, and lift him from the ground to prove how secure he was. He seemed to use great force to put the lad into the basket, and to have much difficulty in fitting the lid on the top of him. When that was done the music was renewed by one, and the other juggler began to talk to his basket. Presently the lid was agitated, and the cord and net were jerked out and fell on the ground. Then the juggler ran at the basket in a fury, jumped on the top, crushed in the lid, stamped on it, took a stick and drove it with force through the wicker {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|5-62}} | ||
{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | {{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | ||
{{HPB-SB-footer-sources}} | |||
<gallery widths=300px heights=300px> | |||
london_spiritualist_n.176_1876-01-07.pdf|page=5|London Spiritualist, No. 176, January 7, 1876, pp. 3-4 | |||
</gallery> | |||
Latest revision as of 17:01, 5 March 2024
Legend
< What is the Intelligence? (continued from page 5-60) >
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:—
Ǣtas parentum, pejor avis, tutit
Nos nequiores, mox daturos
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—
Appearances, he seems to think, do not exhaust totality,
But indicate that underneath there’s some unknown reality.
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.
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.
The Prince of Wales Among the Indian Jugglers
One day at Parell His Royal Highness had an hour of quiet amusement in camp, watching the tricks of some Indian jugglers and snake-charmers, which have been described a hundred times over, and which never lose their interest for the spectator. After breakfast a ragged train of fellows leading apes and carrying bags was seen coming up the main street of the camp to one of the tents. These were followed by seven or eight ugly, shapeless elderly women in bright drapery, carrying what are considered here musical instruments. They all squatted under the shade of the trees in front of one of the tents apart—conjurors, ape leaders, singing women. Presently the Prince sauntered down from the house and took a seat in front of the tent, and his suite sat or stood around him, while the charmers and conjurors prepared for their exhibition, but the natives had no idea of the illustrious person’s identity. The camp followers gathered round, and soldiers from the tents near at hand, till one of the suite, remembering what occurred on a similar occasion in India, cleared them away. The jugglers and snake-charmers were the first to show off. They were only two—old chatty fellows whose skin hung on their bones as if it were cracked brown paper. They did some clever “passes,” swallowed and spat out fire, produced an enchanted inexhaustible water vessel, walked on wooden pattens held on by the action of the feet making a vacuum —in fact the withered, vivacious old juggler and his ragged old confederate performed all the orthodox tricks of their confraternity. Where did he get the cobras which he produced suddenly out of two baskets which had been turned over, inside out, in our presence? It was not the drumming of his friend or the playing on the dry gourd which drew the reptiles out of coyer. A little thrill went through the spectators as the reptiles raised their flaming eyes and hooded crests, hissing fiercely, reared on end as if to strike the garrulous charmer. Dr. Fayrer opened the jaws of the larger with a stick while the man held it, and showed the Prince where the fangs were not.'' The snakes danced to the music of a gourd drum, but it was with rage and fear, not with pleasure. Meantime a mango under the dirty cloth was growing, and in an interval of snake work, the old fellow dashed at the latter and exposed a fresh bright green mango tree some eighteen inches high in the ground, where he had apparently only put in a mango seed. Expressions of wonder followed; then the cloth was thrown over the tree and another of the famous legendary legerdemain feats was executed. A shallow basket about 18in. high and 3ft. long, with a cover, was placed before the Prince. It was plain there was no deceit. It was a basket and nothing more or less, and it was put on the bare earth before our eyes. At a call there came out from the group of natives near at hand a lad of 12 or so, slight of figure and pleasant of face, with not an article of dress save his loin cloth and a dirty turban. Him the old man, chattering the while, bound hand and foot a la'' Brothers Anyone in twine. Then a sack, made of strong netting, was produced, and the old fellow slipped it over the lad, whom he squeezed down on his haunches so that he could tie the cords securely over his head, and lift him from the ground to prove how secure he was. He seemed to use great force to put the lad into the basket, and to have much difficulty in fitting the lid on the top of him. When that was done the music was renewed by one, and the other juggler began to talk to his basket. Presently the lid was agitated, and the cord and net were jerked out and fell on the ground. Then the juggler ran at the basket in a fury, jumped on the top, crushed in the lid, stamped on it, took a stick and drove it with force through the wicker <... continues on page 5-62 >
Editor's notes
- ↑ The Prince of Wales Among the Indian Jugglers by unknown author, London Spiritualist, No. 176, January 7, 1876, pp. 3-4. From The Times, December 28
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 176, January 7, 1876, pp. 3-4