[To the Editor of Tim SPECTATOR.] Joad contributed an interesting
article to your last number on the subject of a new theory that the dual nature of most " spirit communications," as on the one hand persistently, yet unsatisfactorily, referring to " dead " persons, and on the other hand generally consisting of vague and unoriginal remarks and often bearing traces of the living medium's personality, is explained by the hypothesis that the messages result from a temporary combination between the medium's body and a " psychic factor," i.e., an inunaterial element or activity which has survived " for at any rate a limited period " separation from its own body, and may for that period combine with another body to form a new sort of vague mind.
This explanation seems to cover more of the facts than some other theories, but the very brief article leaves a munber of points unexplained.
(1) What is the evidence about the period for which this " psychic factor " survives ? The genuineness of the factor is admitted in the article. That being so, we must usually accept as genuine the statement often made by communicators that they " died " hundreds of years ago. At any rate, therefore, the limited period must be a long one.
(2) What is the precise difference between a " psychio factor," the existence of which is admitted in the article, and a " surviving spirit " (in the ordinary sense), the existence of which is stated " never" to be certainly proved ? Apparently the assumption is that a real human spirit is a combination of a psychic factor and its own body, so that a "psychic factor" alone is merely part of a spirit. This, of course, assumes a good deal about the nature of spirit. Is it also assumed that a " psychic factor," anyhow, is a temporary part of the Time- Space world, as distinguished from a " surviving spirit," by which is meant ordinarily a permanently surviving resident of " another world." That also wants some proving.
(3) Mr. Joad says that the new theory is compatible with all known facts and " covers a larger area of fact than any other proffered explanation." But why is the theory superior in these respects to the ordinary religious view of psychical phenomena ? Apparently, merely because the vagueness of the " spirit messages " raises doubts about real survival. But just as Socrates received quite explicit and important messages from a voice which he called the Voice of God, and many of the Saints saw clear visions and heard clear voices which they believed to come from Beyond, and which they recorded in detail, so in the present day many highly-educated persons in. all parts:, of the world habitually hear voices, or see, signs and " visions," which they can only interpret as coming from Beyond, and have received definite messages which they regard as of the highest value to them, a few of which they feel certain have come with the full force of the personality of a friend or relation who says he or she has " died " and yet is alive, and many of which are original, interesting and scientific in character and claim to come from persons who say they " died " and are alive. Mr. Joad himself admits, by implication, that sometimes messages are detailed, definite and original, and without traces of the medium's personality. My limited experience confirms this. How does the " psychic factor " theory explain better than the ordinary religious theory the modern messages which pass these tests, or the historical messages of Socrates and the Saints ? All these phenomena must be considered together as, roughly, of a piece. Surely the " psychic factor " theory breaks down ? There is no vagueness here to necessitate it, or to be explained by it. It would be interesting to hear Mr. Joad's further explanations on these points.
Why should people be so reluctant to admit that there is " another world " which " science " •refuses to recognize but which nevertheless consistently guides us, and would communicate with us more and more if we tried to make ourselves more recipient, and' which assures us that we do live again fully after " death " Y—I am, Sir, &c., ENQUIRER.
Previous page
