What is the logical conclusion to be drawn from the data offerable
in evidence of some supersensory form of thought-transference,
and whence the disposition to believe in the existence of such a
procedure?--these remain the central questions of the discussion.
As to the former, I can say no more in dismissing the topic than
that to me the phenomena represent a complex conglomerate, in which
imperfectly recognized modes of sense-action, hyperæsthesia and
hysteria, fraud, conscious and unconscious, chance, collusion,
similarity of mental processes, an expectant interest in
presentiments and a belief in their significance, nervousness and ill
health, illusions of memory, hallucinations, suggestion, contagion,
and other elements enter into the composition; while defective
observation, falsification of memory, forgetfulness of details, bias
and prepossession, suggestion from others, lack of training and of
a proper investigative temperament, further invalidate and confuse
the records of what is supposed to have been observed. Many of the
reported facts are not facts at all; others are too distortedly and
too deficiently reported to be either intelligible or suggestive;
some are accurately observed and properly recorded, and these
sometimes contain a probable suggestion of their natural explanation,
sometimes must be put down as chance, and more often must be left
unexplained. To call this absence of an explanation telepathy is
surely no advance; to pose this hypothetic process as the _modus
operandi_ of any result that can be even remotely and contingently
otherwise accounted for seems superfluous; to actually use this
hypothesis to account for still more obscure and more indefinite and
less clearly established phenomena is a most egregious logical sin.
As to the natural tendency to believe in telepathy, it may be
regarded as part of the anthropocentric and egocentric view of
the universe and its happenings, and as an exemplification of the
persistence of the mystical view of mundane events,--both of which
are dominant in primitive philosophy, remain conspicuous wherever
superstition still has a hold, flourish in pseudo-science and in
esoteric cults, and will probably never become wholly obsolete.
Mr. Clodd's remarks concerning the general notions underlying
"sympathetic magic" may be applied to the bias in favor of the
telepathic theory: "The general idea has only to be decked in another
garb to fit the frame of mind which still reserves some pet sphere
of nature for the operation of the special and the arbitrary."
However difficult it may be to realize fully and in detail that the
objective order of things is not arranged for our several personal
benefits, that conclusion is inevitably forced upon us by a true
insight into the inexorable logic of events, and harmonizes with the
reflections of our more logical moods. Whatever tide there may be
in human affairs is largely of our own making; there is nothing to
mark the flood except our own judgment and insight. We may select
and arrange and adapt circumstances according to our needs, but the
selection is made by us and not for us: "We must _take_ the current
when it serves." Some effort is necessary, some schooling must be
gone through with, to enforce this attitude and to give it the
practical effectiveness of a living conviction. The attitude of
conformity with current belief, the easy acceptance of the plausible,
the avoidance of careful and questioning analysis, are far more
inviting and less exacting than the regulation of belief by the logic
of matured principles. The strenuous life has quite as important a
mission in intellectual as in practical affairs. It will be a decided
advance when it becomes generally acknowledged that the discussion of
such an hypothesis as telepathy presupposes an intimate acquaintance
not merely with the facts concerned, but with the logical aspects of
their interpretation; that the probability of forming a sound opinion
on such matters is measured not by the fervor of the interest in
them, but by the intellectual requisites necessary to steer one's way
among the intricacies and dangers of such an expedition. No persons
are more deeply interested in the successful issue of a voyage than
the passengers; but this interest does not qualify them to form an
intelligent opinion upon the proper direction of the machinery or
the setting of the course,--much less does it fit them to take an
active part in the actual navigation. Yet there are always those
who confidently criticise the actions of captain and pilot, and
are anxious to display their ability to form opinions of their own
in regard to the intricate navigation over nature's highways. The
most efficient antidote to the too ready inclination towards the
popular or the superficial interpretation of the phenomena involved
in mental telegraphy is doubtless the cultivation of the logical
vigor and prudence so frequently referred to; and next to this is an
appreciation of the marvelous complexity and unfathomable subtlety of
mental operations.