HPB-SB-3-88

T i

vol. 3, p. 88

H. P. Blavatsky Scrapbooks

from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society

vol. 3 (1875-1878)

Legend

SBT, DT

• HPB note
• HPB highlighted
• HPB underlined
• HPB crossed out
• <Editors note>
• <Archivist note>
• Lost or unclear
• Restored

<<   ☰   >>

eng • рус

Latent Thought

A Reply to Dr. Carpenter`s Unconscious Cerebration Theory, as Applied to Spiritualism

A writer in the Contemporary Review, R. H. Hutton, on the subject of “Latent Thought,” replies to the unconscious cerebration theory of Dr. Carpenter, and in the course of his remarks he refers to Spiritualism, saying,—

For instance. Dr. Carpenter gives as a tenable explanation of certain supposed facts adduced by Spiritualists, that a person present at a seance, having some time ago known certain facts reported by the movements of the table, but having quite forgotten them, had yet involuntarily and unconsciously cause the table to move so as to assert them, they being at the moment, in this person's own belief, not only false, but completely imaginary: —

“Another instance, supplied by Mr. Dibdin (op. cit.), affords yet more remarkable evidence to the same effect; especially as being related by a firm believer in the ‘diabolical’ origin of Table-talking: A gentleman, who was at the time a believer in the ‘spiritual’ agency of his table, assured Mr. Dibdin that he had raised a good spirit instead of evil ones— that, namely, of Edward young, the poet. The ‘spirit’ haying been desired to prove his identity by citing a line of his poetry, the table spelled out, ‘Man was not made to question, but adore.’ ‘Is that in your “Night Thoughts?” ‘Was then asked. ‘No.’ ‘Where is it, then?’ The reply was ‘J O. B,’ Not being familiar with Young’s poems, the questioner did not know what this meant; but the next day he bought a copy of them, and at the end of the ‘Night Thoughts’ he found a paraphrase of the Book of Job, the last line of which is ‘Man was not made to question, but adore.’ Of course he was very much astonished; but not long afterwards he came to Mr. Dibdin, and assured him that he had satisfied himself that the whole thing was a delusion—numerous answers he had obtained being obviously the results of an influence unconsciously exerted on the table by those who had their hands upon it; and when asked by Mr. Dibdin how ho accounted for the dictation of the line by the spirit of Young, he very honesty confessed. ‘Well, the fact is, I must tell you, that I had the book in my house all the time, although I bought another copy; and I found that I had read it before. My opinion is that it was a latent idea, and that the table brought it out.’”

Now, Dr. Carpenter does not vouch for this fact, and of course it is not the fact itself which I am either accepting or questioning, but only the validity of the explanation suggested, if the fact itself be assumed. That explanation seems to me even less credible than the so-called spiritualist explanation. It is, at least, possible that invisible intelligences may correct our blunders of memory. But to ask us to believe that one and the same person can have, at one and the same moment, nervous arrangements for recalling accurately by the mediation of his muscles, yet without any act of memory, how a thing really happened, while he is making, by an act of recollection, an erroneous statement on the same subject through his consciousness and his voice, it, I think, to ask us to believe a much more improbable explanation in order to avoid a less improbable one. And this is why I think the former improbability the less. If the fact were as related, we should clearly nave evidence that the table’s movements were due to some agency which understood the structure of language and its meaning. Now, if that agency were that of the person who, after having once read Young’s “Job,” had forgotten completely both the existence of the book and the line in question, it would follow that at the same moment of time, within the limits of the same organization, there existed two distinct agencies, both able to use language as a means of conveying rational meaning, one of the however,—the one apparently in command of the speech and the brain,—without any memory of Dr. Young’s “Lob,” and of the particular line quoted from it, and the other of them—which must have had a certain control over the spinal cord mid the system of redes action,—retaining that memory perfectly. Now, while we have ample experience of successive phenomena of this kind within the limits of the same individual’s experience, surely not only have we no experience whatever of simultaneous phenomena of the kind, but il we had, our ideas of moral responsibility would be extraordinarily confused. Which of these two intellectual agencies is to be identified with the person of the individual who was the source of both? The one which remembered correctly and telegraphed the accurate memory through the table, or the one with a defective memory which asserted its accurate memory by the voice? If my spinal cord holds one view, and hay cerebrum another, as to the events of my past life, the one might turn Queen’s evidence against the other; but how one of them could be hanged, while the other received a free pardon. would be an embarrassing problem. Speaking seriously, it seems to me that this doctrine of a “latent” memory capable of articulate telegraphy, in direct contradiction to the conscious memory,—which denies simultaneously all knowledge of the matter so telegraphed,—passes infinitely beyond and hypothesis warranted by the class of facts I have hitherto dwelt with, and could hardly be true without our constantly coming across ample evidence of its truth. That men forget a thing one moment and remember it the next, is certain; but while they forget, they forget, and have, as far as we know, no oracle to consult in that part of their system to which the reflex actions are due, by the help of which the forgotten facts can be recalled. If some part of my body cannot only recover its hold of a story I have forgotten, but put it into human speech, while I continue quite sincerely to disown it, it seems to me perfectly clear that there are two intellectual agents under cover of my organization, and not one. But that is far more surprising than the spiritualist hypothesis itself. It is conceivable at least, that an invisible intelligence might use my hands to transmit ideas of which I am not the originator, just as any one strong enough to do so may guide my hand when I am blindfolded, so as to write a letter, of the contents of which I am ignorant. But it is hardly conceivable that I myself can do so, without sharing the knowledge communicated by the means in question. If that could be, then “latent thought” must mean thought which can be communicated and made intelligible to others without any one to think it; for I don’t think it, I deny thinking it; and the automatic apparatus which communicates it does not think it, for by the hypothesis, it is not attended by consciousness at all, and on appeal being made to consciousness, it is promptly disowned. Now, what is there in the facts which are universally admitted as to the latent physical condition of perception and memory, and as to the half automatic character of habitual actions, to justify so astounding a challenge to all experience as this? Observe that what seems so incredible in this theory is the use of language implying conscious thought without any consciousness behind it. I should not deny of course that a physical habit, say a nervous twitch in the fingers, might testify even against a man’s own conscious memory, to the truth of a story in which was to be found the explanation of the origin of that twitch, a story, that is, which the man himself had quite forgotten. Just so a scar is often a physical record of a blow of which the conscious memory holds no trace. Hut if letters were selected, one by one, to spell out the word “Job,” and the line quoted from it, “man was not made to question, but adore,” there would be far more evidence of consciousness somewhere than there would be, even if the line had been merely spoken. It is possible enough that in the case, for instance, of any one who repeats a given cry thousands of times in the same dry, like a newspaper boy or an old clothesman in the London streets, the muscles of speech may take so fixed a habit as to pronounce significant words without any corresponding thought to put them in motion. But suppose the mode of communication to be suddenly changed to a new one, like the individual selection of the letters, one by one, which go to make up the words,—and surely the hypothesis which denies consciousness to me agency selecting these letters, becomes utterly untenable. It is quite conceivable, of course, that in some abnormal sleep, under the influence of a different set of physical or mental suggestions. I might recall and correctly repeat a line I had completely forgotten, and refer it to its right author, while in my waking stale I fail to recall it. But if I am at the very same moment to be both in an abnormal trance and awake, with a distinct mechanism for communicating my dreams and my recollections, with an inconsistent set of statements to communicate, and with only one consciousness,—which lends its imprimatur to the wrong set of the two, even while I am carefully comparing them,—then I conceive that no beam of light doubly retracted by Iceland spar could be in a worse condition for tracing its historical identity than I.

Mme Blavatsky

Her Experience – Her Opinion of American Spiritualism and American Society

From a letter received from Mme. Blavatsky last week we make the following extracts, want of space alone preventing us from publishing it entire. It is written in her usual lively and entertaining style, and her opinions expressed are worthy of careful study, many of them being fully consistent with the true state of affairs. She says, —

As it is, I have only done my duty; first, towards Spiritualism, that I have defended as well as I could from the attacks of imposture under its too transparent mask of science; then, towards two helpless, slandered “mediums”—the last word becoming fast in our days the synonymous of “martyr;” secondly. I have contributed my mite in opening the eyes of an indifferent public to the real, intrinsic value of such a man <... continues on page 3-89 >

Editor's notes

Sources

• 

  Spiritual Scientist, v. 1, No. 13, December 3, 1874, p. 148