THE SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND PROBABLE IMPORTANCE OF THE HIGHER-SPACE
CONCEPTS.
In the preceding chapter I have tried to explain what is meant by the
term "four-dimensional space" and to demonstrate some of its more
important properties from the point of view of ourselves who live in
space of three dimensions.
I am now in a position to state the basic hypothesis which I propose to
discuss in the pages which follow.
Briefly stated it is this:--
"Higher space is a Physical reality and not a mere mathematical
idea. In waking life the individual consciousness functions in a
three-dimensional 'vehicle,' namely the physical body. But it may also
possess at least one other vehicle--a four-dimensional one--and in
this it may function after death and, possibly, during sleep, trance,
anæsthesia and other forms of insensibility."
This hypothesis is not my own and I am not prepared to defend it
as being necessarily correct. But, as I hope to show, there are a
number of considerations which tend to support it and I do think it
is sufficiently plausible to make it worthy of serious consideration
before it is finally rejected by those who are students of these
matters.
In this chapter I propose to deal with the different ways in which it
is likely to prove of importance.
First of all, then, it has strong claims to be adopted as a working
hypothesis by those who are students of Psychical Research, especially
by those who are convinced of the validity of the Spiritistic
explanation of communications purporting to emanate from the deceased.
Secondly, I believe that if accepted as valid it would do much to
provide a common meeting ground for opposite schools of religious
and scientific thought. Between these there was a most marked and
unfortunate cleavage during last century and though there has been a
very considerable rapprochement since the days when controversy was
at its height there is still much to be done before we can hope for a
complete community of thought and expression.
It is hardly necessary to say that these two spheres of application are
very closely allied, but it is none the less convenient to separate
them for purposes of discussion.
THE NEED OF A WORKING HYPOTHESIS IN PSYCHIC SCIENCE.
The studies of Psychical Researchers must necessarily cover a very
wide area which is bounded on the one hand by Physical science proper,
on another by Philosophy, on a third by Psychology and on a fourth by
Religion. With each of these subjects it has close relations and yet
possesses features which serve to distinguish it from any of them.
Sir William Barrett writes as follows of the scope of Psychical
Research:
"The subjects to be considered cover a wide range, from unconscious
muscular action to the mysterious operation of our sub-conscious self;
from telepathy to apparitions at the moment of death; from hypnotism
and the therapeutic effects of suggestion to crystal-gazing and the
emergence of hidden human faculties; from clairvoyance, or the alleged
perception of objects without the use of the ordinary channels of
sense, to dowsing, or the finding of under-ground water and metallic
lodes with the so-called divining-rod; from the reported hauntings
of certain places to the mischievous pranks of poltergeists (or
boisterous but harmless ghosts whose asserted freaks may have given
rise both to fetishism and fairies); from the inexplicable sounds and
movement of objects without assignable cause to the thaumaturgy of the
spiritualistic séance; from the scribbling of planchette and automatic
writing generally to the alleged operation of unseen and intelligent
agents and the possibility of experimental evidence of human survival
after death."
(_Psychical Research, p. 10_).
In view of the heterogeneous nature of this list I do not think
it practicable to frame any hard and fast definition of Psychical
Research. Moreover certain of the phenomena which it once studied--such
as Hypnotism--have been largely taken over by "orthodox" science,
and others, such as Telepathy and Clairvoyance, although of great
intrinsic interest and some relevance, may ultimately be regarded as
comparatively remote from the main body of psychic phenomena.
Roughly speaking, the characteristic feature of the latter is a
suspicion, or _prima facie_ appearance, or allegation that they emanate
from, or are in some way connected with the activities of extra-mundane
intelligences--notably the "spirits of" the deceased.
It is this feature which has caused their rejection by the sciences
with which they would naturally appear to be associated and although
our studies may in many cases show that the appearance is wholly
spurious it must be remembered that, until every phenomenon is so
disposed of and relegated to its appropriate "orthodox" science, the
ultimate problem of Psychical Research is largely a matter of the
provision of answers to such questions as:--
"Is there any scientifically valid reason for supposing that Individual
Human Personality survives bodily death?"
"If so, under what conditions does it persist?"
"What is the relation between these new conditions and those with which
we are acquainted?"
Any investigation into Human Personality of a scope less than this
can be included under the heads of Physiology or Psychology which are
prepared to investigate any conceivable intricacy in the mental or
bodily states of the living.
It is only when the investigator refuses to be limited by bodily death
that Psychic science differentiates itself as a separate study.
I do not propose to consider here whether psychical research has yet
given any satisfactory answer to the above mentioned questions or even
whether there is any considerable chance of its ever being able to do
so.
I merely wish to point out the nature of the problems with which it is
concerned and which alone distinguish it as a separate science.
It follows that any hypothesis advanced with a view to co-ordinating
the observed facts _may_ find itself called upon to give an
intelligible explanation of discarnate personalities, that is to say of
human personalities not functioning through the flesh and blood bodies
in which we are accustomed to meet them.
So far as our present knowledge goes and on the balance of all the
available evidence I am inclined to think that this necessity is at
least imminent.
The adoption of some form of working hypothesis is moreover imperative
in the light of scientific history.
All who are interested in psychical research will agree that it is in
the highest degree desirable that it should be recognised as a Science
of a dignity commensurate with its intrinsic importance and on a level
with the sciences more generally accepted as such.
That it has not, hitherto, attained this position in the eyes of the
world in general is largely due to the fact that it has not yet fully
reached that stage of development which chiefly distinguishes a
science properly so called from mere speculatory observation.
This is no reflection on the many able and genuinely scientific men
who have worked on the subject ever since it first became prominent
in modern times some seventy years ago but is, on the contrary, a
necessary and inevitable stage in the growth of any science whatsoever.
The processes of acquiring scientific knowledge are as invariable as
those of logical thought. Just as all accurate reasoning may be reduced
to a series of syllogisms, so the process of acquiring exact knowledge
may be reduced to a series of analogous sequences.
These are:--(1) Observation.
(2) Induction.
(3) Deduction.
(4) Experiment.--A special form
of observation.
I do not say that this sequence of operations is always consciously
performed any more than when "thinking a thing out" we always
consciously reduce our reasoning to its simplest syllogistic
constituents.
But every time we acquire a new item of knowledge it would be possible
to reduce the process by which we acquired it to a series of the
sequences mentioned above.
It is worth while considering these steps in slightly greater detail.
OBSERVATION in the last analysis means no more than the recording and
classifying of sensations, which are the only form in which we get any
information as to the outer world.
INDUCTION means the process of concluding from a study of the observed
and collected facts that there is some specific co-ordinating principle
at work by virtue of which the facts exist. This is the process known
as forming a working hypothesis.
DEDUCTION. In this stage we consider more closely the working
hypothesis which we have formulated, and we conclude that if it be true
certain other consequences must inevitably follow.
EXPERIMENT. This simply means that we turn again to the outside world
and examine it to see whether these deduced results do actually obtain
in practice.
If they do we argue that our hypothesis is, probably, a correct one and
we retain it until it is shown that if it be correct some result must
inevitably occur which in fact does not.
There is a difference between a _valid_ hypothesis and a _true_
one--or, as the latter is commonly termed, a Law.
Any hypothesis is valid which explains the observed facts or at least
explains some of them and contradicts none. But the epithet "true" can
only properly be applied when it has been shown that all necessary
deductions are invariably borne out in practice. As a matter of fact we
can never say this with absolute certainty for it is always conceivable
that some exception may some day be found which would necessitate the
remoulding of the hypothesis.
The most we can say is that certain hypotheses have stood the test in
such a very large number of cases without a single failure that there
is a very high degree of probability that they are really true.
The hypothesis that the Chemical "Atom" was the ultimate and
indivisible unit of matter was a perfectly valid one in the light of
the facts that had been observed at the time of its formation and of
its apparent proof by Lavoisier and others.
It is only the facts which have been elicited by the study of
Ionisation, of Radio-active substances and similar phenomena that have
proved it to be untenable and necessitated the substitution of the
electronic theory.
Again the Corpuscular theory of light affords a very pertinent
illustration of the point I wish to make.
A number of facts regarding the phenomena of light were observed and
classified and it was found that these could be explained by the
hypothesis that light consisted of a stream of very minute particles
moving at very high speed which impinged upon the eye and thus gave
rise to the sensations observed. Up to a point this explanation was
perfectly satisfactory and for a long time it held the field, partly
because of the great prestige of Newton to whom much of its development
was due and partly because it continued to explain subsequently
observed facts without much straining.
But among other things it was demonstrated that in order to account for
the observed phenomena of refraction it was necessary to suppose that
the "Corpuscles" travelled faster in water than in air.
At first there was no means of determining directly whether this was so
or not. But later the researches of Foucault made it possible to settle
the point by direct measurement. When the velocity of light in air
and water respectively was measured directly by Foucault's method it
was found that the velocity in water was _less_ than that in air. The
Corpuscular theory was therefore untenable.
It is only by this process of forming, testing and, if necessary,
rejecting hypotheses that we gradually attain to exact knowledge. As
Prof. Richet says:
"La science n'a jamais été qu'une serie d'erreurs, approximations
constamment evoluant constamment boulversé, et cela d'autant plus vite
qu'elle était plus avancée."
(Annales des sciences psychiques, 1905, p. 15.)
From this brief resumé of the steps involved in scientific progress
it is clear that the formation of a working hypothesis, by inductive
reasoning from the observed facts, is a normal, necessary, and
invariable step in the progress of any science whatsoever.
For this reason I do not think it likely that Psychical research
will attain any widespread recognition as a science until it is in
possession of a valid working hypothesis capable of explaining at least
the more important of the observed facts. I believe that the higher
space hypothesis fulfills this condition and if so it is clearly worth
while adopting, purely provisionally and tentatively of course, by
those who concern themselves with the subject.
I have said that I think that the conception of higher space has a
bearing on the relations between Religious and Scientific thought.
I shall reserve for a later chapter the treatment of the question
from the purely religious stand-point, and shall only examine here
the reasons which seem to me to have led so many sincere and able
scientific men to a position at variance with the religious and
spiritual point of view.
This is, of course, closely bound up with the whole topic of the
various attempts which have been made to satisfy the perennial demand
for light on the mysteries of life and death and on the spiritual and
non-material aspects of the universe.
It is out of the question for me to attempt to classify here the
countless religions, sects, and philosophies which have arisen from
time to time. But they do seem to fall into three main groups and
although it is impossible to label these in any really satisfactory
manner I think one may say that the Materialistic Scientists are the
representatives of one school, the Orthodox Theologians of another, and
the Occultists of a third.
By the Materialistic Scientists I mean those who see in matter or ether
the ultimate and only permanent reality and who attempt to explain
every experienced phenomenon in terms of matter and ether and of these
only.
According to their view, Thought, Emotion, Consciousness, are no more
than electro-chemical changes in the protoplasmic constituents of the
brain cells. "The brain secretes consciousness as the liver secretes
bile."
The idea of "spirit" is inconceivable to them; for the whole essence of
Spirit is that it is not matter nor, so far as we can imagine, ether.
Now although this attitude is utterly repugnant to me, I can yet easily
understand and sympathise with the state of mind which occasions it.
I, too, feel that if there is one thing above all others to which
one's intellect must cling at all costs it is the general proposition
of the coherence and continuity of the universe--in other words the
great Law of Causation. If ever we let go of that we find ourselves in
chaos--which is insanity.
Within the "ring-fence," so to speak, of matter and energy the
law holds good, but anything outside appears to the scientist as
"discontinuous" and therefore, quite rightly, revolting. As against
this point of view my contention is that it is quite possible to form
an intelligible concept of Reality, different from and yet perfectly
continuous with, the physical reality of the scientist.
This first purely materialistic school admits of fairly easy
delimitation whereas the other two schools mingle together and
diverge within themselves in so complex a manner that it is much
more difficult to distinguish them from each other than to separate
either of them from the first. But I think the difference is something
of this kind. The school of which the Occultists are typical seem
to me to tend to replace logically coherent explanation by mere
descriptive nomenclature. On the other hand the Orthodox Theologians,
while dogmatically asserting the existence of spirit and constantly
emphasising the supreme importance of the spiritual life, are apt to
ignore the intellectual demand for intelligible explanation altogether.
It is merely foolish to ignore or to ridicule on 'a priori' grounds
the statements of those who claim to have investigated the problems
with which we are concerned by the cultivation of abnormal or commonly
latent faculties.
If such faculties exist, as is very possible, it is clearly no more
than common sense that they should be exercised to the full in the
solution of problems which present especial difficulties to the more
normal methods of investigation. The results might be of the very
highest possible value. Indeed, it may well be that the cultivation
of such faculties is by far the best way of attacking the whole
question. I am by no means prepared dogmatically to deny it. None the
less I think we are entitled to expect that those who claim to have
attained knowledge by these means should take some pains to make their
results continuous with existing knowledge and to eliminate needless
obscurities.
At present the application of the word "Science" to the utterances of
the Occult schools--as commonly presented--is a complete misnomer.
In Theosophical literature, for instance, we are confronted with a
scheme of things built up of such terms as "Astral Plane," "Etheric
Double," "Causal Body," "Karma" and so forth.
With all due deference to my Theosophical friends I submit that this is
not scientific explanation and cannot be so unless its exponents are
prepared to tell us what is the relation between the astral plane and
the physical world, between the etheric double and the body as known to
physiologists.
Thus it is intellectually unsatisfying and little calculated to arouse
the sympathetic interest of the strictly logical thinker.
I do not mean to say that none of the words of the type quoted have
any real significance. On the contrary I think it very probable that
many of them have and that they do represent real parts of the actual
scheme of things. The trouble is that they are only names; and to name
a thing is not the same as to explain it. In common fairness I ought,
however, to admit that in several passages Mr. Leadbeater--one of the
best known Theosophical writers--makes a distinct effort to escape
from this tendency and it has further been opined by a very eminent
Occultist that the bulk of contemporary literature on the subject will
be out of date in a few years.
I am inclined to suspect that this failing was the cause he had in mind.
I repeat that my primary quarrel is not with the accuracy or otherwise
of the statements made. Every word of them may be perfectly correct,
but so long as they are expressed in terms wholly unrelated to
pre-existing concepts I must, _qua_ scientist, remain unconvinced.
The third school which includes the Orthodox Theologians sometimes
resembles the Occultists in the use of unintelligible terms but their
chief weakness is their failure to recognise and to cater for the
intellectual demand for coherent explanation.
They never weary of insisting, quite rightly, on the paramount
importance of Spiritual things, but no effort is made to show the
continuity which must, in a sane Cosmos, exist between Matter and
Spirit, or to state the "common factor," so to speak, which unites
them as parts of a coherent whole.
For myself I refuse to believe that no such common factor is
discoverable. As Sir Oliver Lodge says, "I have learned to believe in
intelligibility."
This omission on the part of theologians did not so much matter in the
days before Physical Science had attained to its present degree of
development. Men knew so little about the material Universe that they
experienced little difficulty in finding a place in it for Spirit and
the Spiritual life. "Heaven" was conveniently represented as being
somewhere "above" and "Hell" as somewhere "below." But now things have
altered and we know quite a fair amount about the material world.
Consequently the scientist demands--not unreasonably, I think--an
explanation of "Spirit" which shall not conflict with the fundamental
laws of continuity and causation.
So far the theologians have failed to meet this demand and to provide
the necessary habitat for consciousness which shall be independent
of, and yet causally continuous with, the material world which the
scientist knows.
It is this illogical discontinuity which has alienated the sympathies
of so many men of scientific mind and forced them to attempt to reduce
all mental and spiritual phenomena to terms of matter.
The foregoing should be sufficient to show how important it is that
Psychical Research--the connecting link between the study of the
material and that of the purely spiritual--should adopt as soon as
possible some form of working hypothesis which is not repugnant either
to religious or scientific thought. It is only by doing this that we
can hope to retain the sympathies of both classes of thinkers and this
is surely worth an effort quite apart from all other considerations.
Here again I believe that the higher space hypothesis meets the
requirements of the case and this is my second chief reason for urging
its adoption.