{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_64055/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_64055","id":"gutenberg_64055","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/64055","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Fourth dimension","Parapsychology"],"text":"A THEORY OF THE\n  MECHANISM OF SURVIVAL\n\n\n\n\n  A THEORY OF THE\n  MECHANISM OF SURVIVAL\n\n  _THE FOURTH DIMENSION AND ITS\n  APPLICATIONS_\n\n  BY\n\n  W. WHATELY SMITH\n\n  LONDON:\n  KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., LTD.\n  NEW YORK: E.P. DUTTON & CO.\n\n  1920\n\n\n\n\n  _TO\n  MY MOTHER_\n\n\n\n\n\"_When we can no longer interpret a phenomenon by the known, we must\nneeds try to do so by the unknown...._\"\n\n\"_It is well, in spite of everything, to seek an explanation of the\ninexplicable; it is by attacking it on every side at all hazards that\nwe cherish the hope of overcoming it._\"\n\n  MAETERLINCK. \"The Unknown Guest.\"\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n  CHAPTER                                                  PAGE\n\n  I. The meaning of Four-Dimensional Space                    1\n\n  II. The scope of application and probable\n  importance of the higher space concepts                    21\n\n  III. Application to certain of the facts\n  elicited by Psychic Research                               39\n\n  IV. Some other possible applications of the\n  hypothesis                                                 92\n\n  V. Vitality and Will                                      113\n\n  VI. Higher Space and Physical Science                     122\n\n  VII. The Connecting Link                                  136\n\n  VIII. The Religious Aspects of the hypothesis             168\n\n  IX. Summary and Conclusion                                181\n\n  Appendix                                                  187\n\n  Index                                                     196\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe highly speculative and extrapolatory character of this book will be\nevident to all who are bold enough to read it.\n\nI wish to make it perfectly clear that I have no intention of\ndogmatising on so obscure a subject. The suggestions which follow are\npurely tentative, and I am well aware that some of them are likely to\nprove mutually incompatible.\n\nBut it is only by the bold formulation and ruthless rejection of\nhypotheses that progress is made, and even if we are compelled\nto abandon the Higher Space Hypothesis altogether--as is very\npossible--the negative information so gained will be of the greater\nvalue if the hypothesis has first been given the fullest possible trial.\n\n  W.W.S.\n\n\n\n\nA Theory of The Mechanism of Survival\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE MEANING OF FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE.\n\n\nThe main line of thought developed in these pages has no claims to\noriginality. Professor Z\u00f6llner of Leipsic was an ardent exponent of the\ntheory in the \"seventies\" and some authors hold that even the ancient\nwritings of the East contain attempts to express Four-Dimensional\nconcepts.\n\nWhether this is actually so is open to doubt but it must be remembered\nthat in the days when these writings were produced mathematical\nknowledge was itself in its infancy and that there was, therefore,\nno terminology available in which the Higher Space concepts could be\nsuitably expressed even supposing that the ancient philosophers had\nthem in mind.\n\nIt is only through accumulated knowledge, especially the work of Gauss,\nLobatschewsky, Bolyai, Riemann, and others that modern mathematicians\nare able to deal easily with space of more than three dimensions.\n\nIt may be noted that Kant says:\n\n\"If it be possible that there are developments of other dimensions of\nspace, it is very probable that God has somewhere produced them. For\nHis works have all the grandeur and glory that can be comprised.\"\n\nAccording to Mr. G.R.S. Mead similar ideas are to be found in certain\nof the Gnostic cosmogonies.\n\n (Fragments of a Faith forgotten, p. 318.)\n\nBut a detailed historical review would be out of place here and I will\ntherefore proceed at once to a discussion of what is meant by the\nterm \"fourth dimension\" and will try to explain how it is that we can\ndetermine some of the necessary properties of four-dimensional space,\neven although we cannot picture it to ourselves.\n\nAt this point I would urge the reader to try to believe that the\nsubject is not one of great difficulty. As a matter of fact it is\nreally exceptionally straightforward if only one faces it and does not\nallow oneself to be frightened.\n\nI know that it is impossible to form any clear mental picture of\nfour-dimensional conditions, but that does not matter. The ideas\ninvolved are admittedly unprecedented in our experience, but they\nare not contrary to reason and I do not ask more than a formal and\nintellectual assent to the propositions and analogies concerned.\n\nLet me start, then, by defining what is meant by a Dimension. The\nbest definition I can think of is to say that, in the sense in which\nthe word is used here, a Dimension means \"An independent direction in\nspace.\"\n\nI must amplify this by saying that, \"Two directions in space are to be\nconsidered as independent when they are so related that no movement,\nhowever great, along one of them will result in the slightest movement\nalong, or parallel to, the other. That is to say, at right angles, or\nperpendicular to one another.\"\n\nThus in Fig. 1 AOA\u00b4 and BOB\u00b4 are independent directions. One might move\nfor ever along OA or OA\u00b4 and yet one would not have moved in the very\nleast in the direction of OB or of OB\u00b4.\n\n[Illustration: _Fig. 1_]\n\nNow on a flat surface, such as a sheet of paper, it is not possible to\ndraw more than _two_ such directions. Any other line that can be drawn,\nXOX\u00b4 for instance, is in a compound direction, so to speak. That is to\nsay it is partly in the direction AOA\u00b4 and partly in the direction BOB\u00b4\nand it is possible to reach any point in it, Y for example, by moving\nalong OA\u00b4 to _a_ and then moving in the direction of OB\u00b4 a distance\nequal to O_b_, or _vice versa_ or by doing the two simultaneously.\n\nFor the benefit of those who are absolutely ignorant of the rudiments\nof Geometrical knowledge, I would point out that Parallel lines are\nsaid to point, in fact _do_ point, in the same direction.\n\n[Illustration: _Fig. 2_]\n\nThus, in Fig. 2, the direction of the line ZZ\u00b4 is the same as that of\nAOA\u00b4 and the direction of the line PP\u00b4 is the same as that of XOX\u00b4.\n\nThus we see that in a flat surface we find only _two_ dimensions\nand consequently we can refer to a flat surface as \"Space of two\ndimensions\" or \"Two-dimensional space.\"\n\nBut if we refuse to be restricted to a flat surface we find that it is\npossible to draw a third line through O which is quite \"independent\"\nof the directions of the two lines we have previously drawn. We can do\nthis by drawing it vertically, that is to say, perpendicular to the\nplane of the paper. Call this line COC\u00b4.\n\n[Illustration: _Fig. 3_]\n\nI have shown it _in perspective_ in Fig. 3. This line fulfils the\ndefinition we gave of an independent direction in space for it is at\nright angles both to AOA\u00b4 and to BOB\u00b4. But we have now exhausted our\nresources. Try as we will we are unable to draw a fourth line which\nshall be at right angles to AOA\u00b4, BOB\u00b4, and COC\u00b4 simultaneously.\n\nOn other words--In the space we know we find only three dimensions and\nconsequently we can refer to it as \"Space of three dimensions\" or\n\"Three-dimensional space.\"\n\nNow the idea of a fourth dimension of space is simply this: That,\nwhereas in three-dimensional space, we can draw, through any point\nin it, _three_, and only three, lines mutually at right angles: in\nfour-dimensional space, it would be possible to draw, through any point\nin it, _four_, and only four, lines mutually at right angles.\n\nExtending the idea to \"Higher space\" in general, we may say that,--In\nspace of \"n\" dimensions we can draw, through any point in it, \"n,\" and\nonly \"n,\" lines mutually at right angles.\n\nNow I admit, that, at first sight, the idea that it might be possible,\nunder any circumstances, to draw more than three such lines through a\npoint, seems utterly staggering and inconceivable. And indeed the more\none thinks of it and the more thoroughly one grasps what it means, the\nmore absolutely impossible does it appear.\n\nAll the same, as I hope to show very soon, it _is_, as a matter of\nfact, quite possible that there may be another independent direction\nfulfilling the prescribed conditions, in spite of the fact that we are\nat present ignorant of it.\n\nThis we can only realize by a consideration of the time-honoured but\nindispensable analogy of a two-dimensional world, or \"Flatland.\"\n\nThis analogy I propose to examine in some detail in the paragraphs\nwhich follow.\n\nBut before doing so I wish to point out, and I do not think it will\nbe necessary to do more, that a \"line\" which has length, but neither\nbreadth nor thickness, can be correctly described as \"One-dimensional\nspace\" _i.e._:--space having only one dimension.\n\nA mathematical \"point,\" which has only position and neither length nor\nbreadth nor thickness, can similarly be called space of no dimensions\nor \"Zero-dimensional space.\" Also I wish to take the opportunity of\ndefining one or two words which I may have occasion to use and have the\nmerit of brevity.\n\n (1) Lines which are drawn through a point for the sake of determining\n direction are called in Geometrical parlance, \"Axes.\"\n\n Thus in Fig. 1 AOA\u00b4 and BOB\u00b4 are axes. The former would be known as\n \"the axis of A,\" the latter as \"the axis of B.\" Similarly in Fig. 3\n COC\u00b4 is \"the axis of C.\"\n\n (2) The point in which two or more axes meet, is called the \"Origin\"\n and is commonly denoted by the letter O.\n\n (3) When convenient, I shall use the terms, \"Two space,\" \"Three\n space,\" \"Four space,\" etc., instead of writing \"Two-dimensional\n space,\" \"Three-dimensional space,\" \"Four-dimensional space,\" etc. in\n full each time.\n\n\nTHE ANALOGY OF A TWO-DIMENSIONAL WORLD.\n\nThe consideration of the analogy of a two dimensional world is\nnecessary because, as Mr. C.H. Hinton says in his book, \"The Fourth\nDimension,\" p. 6.\n\n \"The change in our conceptions, which we make in passing from the\n shapes and motions in two dimensions to those in three, affords a\n pattern by which we can pass on still further to the conception of an\n existence in four-dimensional space.\"\n\nLet us start then by imagining a very large, flat and perfectly smooth\nsurface; such for instance as the top of a highly polished table or the\nsurface of a sheet of still liquid.\n\nWe have seen that such a surface constitutes space of two dimensions,\nbecause through any point in it we can only draw two lines at right\nangles to one another. In order to draw a third such line we must get\nout of the surface altogether and draw the line perpendicular to it.\n\nNext we must try to imagine that this surface is populated by a race of\nbeings of an extraordinary thinness.\n\nIn order to grasp the analogy properly we must imagine them to be so\nconstituted that they are incapable of realising any direction in space\nwhich does not lie in the aforementioned flat surface on which they\nlive.\n\nWe can imagine this by supposing that their thickness, _i.e._:--their\nextension in the third dimension perpendicular to their surface,--is so\nsmall as to be invisible to them and also that their \"nerve endings\"\nall lie on their periphery. This last is equivalent to saying that they\nhave no \"sense organs\" facing the third dimension and that therefore\nthey cannot receive impressions, or respond to any stimuli that come to\nthem from that direction.\n\nIt follows, therefore, that unless they develope special sense organs\nwhich face the third dimension they will be acquainted only with such\nobjects and events as lie, or take place, in their surface.\n\nIt is of course inconceivable that they should be truly \"plane\" beings\nin the mathematical sense and possess no thickness at all. But if we\nsuppose that their thickness is of the same order as the diameter of\na chemical \"Atom\"--that they are \"one atom thick\" so to speak,--the\nconditions laid down as to their limitation will be fulfilled.\n\nNow we have supposed the flat surface in our analogy to be _perfectly_\nsmooth in the true sense of the word. That is to say of such a nature\nas to offer no resistance whatever to the passage of objects over it.\n\nThis means that plane beings will not be sensible of any opposition to\ntheir movement as far as the surface is concerned. Also, as we have\nsupposed that they have no nerve endings facing it, it follows that\nthey cannot feel any pressure from it. In short they will be totally\nunaware of its existence.\n\nBut for the purpose of strict analogy this is insufficient, because a\nbeing placed on such a surface would be as incapable of movement as\nwe should be if we were freely suspended in infinite space, remote\nfrom all the material objects we know. There would be nothing, in\nany direction known to him, from which he could \"push off.\" We must\ntherefore further suppose that the force of gravity operates in his\nworld in a manner similar to that which we know,--every particle of\nmatter attracting every other particle.\n\nThis will mean two things; first, that every particle on the surface\nwill be held against that surface and that plane beings will,\ntherefore, never be able to move away from it; and, second, that matter\non the surface will tend to collect together in a manner precisely\nanalogous to what we observe in our space.\n\nFinally, we may suppose that these hypothetical beings whom we are\nconsidering live on the rim of a very large disc of plane matter, which\nhas collected and is held together by the action of gravity, just as we\nlive on the surface of a very large sphere of solid matter. They will\nbe kept up against the rim of the disc by the force of gravity, which\nwill attract them towards its centre, in the same way that we are kept\nagainst the surface of the earth.\n\nIt is easy to realise that the existence of such a plane being will be\nvery limited indeed. He will be conscious of two directions only. One\nwill be \"up and down\" that is to say, towards or away from the centre\nof his plane earth: the other will be \"forwards and backwards\" along\nits rim. Again any object, that projects beyond the rim of the disc on\nwhich he lives, will be for him an obstacle, which can only be passed\nby climbing over or burrowing under it. He cannot go round it, because\nthat would mean coming out of the flat surface, which he is unable to\ndo. Thus in Fig. 4, if the curved line AB represents a portion of the\nrim of the disc or \"plane earth,\" and C a plane being, then he can only\npass from A to B by \"climbing over\" any intervening object such as D,\n_i.e._:--by following the path indicated by the dotted line. Otherwise\nhe would have to get out of the plane of the paper, which is impossible\nfor him.\n\n[Illustration: _Fig. 4_]\n\nNow that I have described in outline the strict analogy of a race of\nplane beings inhabiting a smooth surface, I shall take the liberty,\nin the course of developing the idea more fully, of treating it in\na slightly less rigid fashion. That is to say I shall assume that\nthe reader has grasped the main idea and I shall not trouble about\nthe \"Plane earth\" etc., unless it is desirable to do so for the sake\nof bringing out some special point; and I shall substitute for the\nforegoing somewhat elaborate representation the simpler one of a thin\nobject free to slide on a smooth surface lying in front of us.\n\nBut before doing so I would point out that already we begin to see our\nway a little. We can understand for instance that the fact of a Fourth\ndimension of space being unknown and inconceivable to us, is no proof\nthat it does not exist. We have seen that a Third dimension would be\nequally unknown and inconceivable to a being limited in the manner\ndescribed above; although we know that a third dimension does exist.\n\nWe have only to suppose that analogous limitations obtain in our own\ncase to see that a Fourth dimension might well exist of which we would\nstill be unaware.\n\nWe must, for instance, suppose that we have no sense organs facing that\nway and that we are prevented from moving in that direction by some\ncircumstance analogous to the smooth sheet on which we supposed the\nplane being to live. The plane being would think that he could see all\nround his plane objects although we know that he could not really do\nso, and similarly our conviction that we can see all round our solid\nobjects may be an illusion.\n\nThus we are already in a position to appreciate the fact that our\ninability to perceive or imagine Four-dimensional space or objects\nin it, is no argument against its existence. There is, therefore, no\n'a priori' reason for supposing that four dimensional space is not\na reality. It is a point which must be settled by an appeal to the\nevidence.\n\nIf, in the course of our investigation, we find that there are in our\nspace phenomena, which closely resemble those which would in \"two\nspace\" indicate the existence of a third dimension, then we shall be\nentitled to say that these phenomena indicate the probable existence of\na fourth dimension.\n\nWe can now proceed with our consideration of a two dimensional world,\nremembering that,--\n\n Shapes and events in four space bear to shapes and events in three\n space, the same relation that those in three space bear to those in\n two space.\n\n[Illustration: _Fig. 5^{[a=]}_]\n\n[Illustration: _Fig. 5^{[b=]}_]\n\nThe very small three-dimensional thickness which we have supposed to\nexist in all the objects of our plane world is imperceptible to the\nplane beings which inhabit it and the objects which they perceive\nthey will accordingly think of as geometrical figures and of their\nboundaries as geometrical lines, having length but no breadth. A circle\nwill appear to a plane being as a completely closed space. He will, as\nhe thinks, be able to go all round it without being able to find any\nopening in its bounding line. It will in fact be to him what a sphere\nis to us. A two space room will be a thing like the figure shown in\nFig. 5_a_. He will be able to get into or out of it by the gap in the\nwall which is shown and which corresponds to the door. But he will not\nbe able to conceive of any other mode of entry or exit, although we can\nsee that from the direction of the third dimension it is not closed at\nall. Similarly, if Fig. 5_b_ represents a closed two-dimensional box,\nwe see that this is absolutely open to us, who are three dimensional\nbeings, though appearing to be closed on all sides to a plane being. If\nwe took advantage of this fact we could play all sorts of tricks on him\nfor we could put things into the box or take them out of it, by way of\nthe third dimension, while to the plane being the box would appear to\nbe tightly closed the whole time. It will be noticed that as the path\nof an object in transference would lie wholly outside the plane being's\nspace he would not be able to form any conception of the nature of the\nprocess involved. If he tried to understand it at all he would probably\nimagine that the object has been disintegrated into particles inside\nthe box, passed in this condition through the minute interstices\nwhich he might suppose to exist in its walls, and reintegrated on the\nother side. Whereas the true explanation is far simpler. The very\ngreat importance of this will become apparent when we come to consider\nthe question of the positive evidences for the existence of a fourth\ndimension.\n\nIt is because of this importance that I have dwelt on a point which to\nmany readers will have been obvious as soon as stated.\n\nSimilarly we could make things appear \"from nowhere\" and disappear\nequally mysteriously simply by putting them down on to his flat surface\nand picking them up again.\n\nI may as well repeat here that I do not for a moment expect that the\nreader will have been able to visualise four-dimensional space. But\nI do hope that he will have seen the force of the analogy and will\nbe prepared to admit that so far as we have gone at present four\ndimensional space is by no means inconceivable though it may not be\ndistinctly imaginable.\n\nThe foregoing is really all that is necessary on the mathematical or\ntheoretical side for the understanding of the basic ideas with which\nI am dealing but for the benefit of those readers who like that sort\nof thing I have added a few simple propositions and extensions of the\nanalogy in the form of an appendix.\n\nThe only other question that need really concern us here is that of the\nphenomena of _change_ in a two-dimensional world.\n\nWe have already seen that a cube laid on a flat surface will present\nto a plane being, in that surface, the appearance of a square. It is\nalso clear that if it is pushed through the surface it will continue to\npresent the same appearance until it has passed right through, when it\nwill suddenly vanish away.\n\nHe would be unconscious of any movement on the part of the cube unless\nthere was some difference between the first and last sections which he\nperceived.\n\nIf, for instance, the bottom face was red and the top face blue he\nwould be conscious of a colour change on the part of the square which\nhe perceived. It would start by being red and would pass through\nvarious shades of purple till, just before its final disappearance, it\nwould be pure blue. But now suppose that it was pressed through his\nsurface not \"normally\" but corner wise as indicated in Fig. 6--that\nis to say with one of its corners leading and one of its diagonals\nvertical. The plane being would then see quite a different set of\nfigures. First would be a point; this would grow into a triangle which\nwould increase in size until it reached a certain maximum when it would\nbegin to develope three new sides at its corners which would grow, at\nthe expense of the original sides, until a regular hexagon was produced\nwhen the reverse process would set in and the hexagon gradually change\nback into a triangle which in turn would dwindle away and disappear.\nIt is easy to work out what would happen in the case of other solids,\n_e.g._, Sphere, Cone, Tetrahedron, etc. All such changes would appear\nvery mysterious to the plane being if he had formed no conception of\nthree-dimensional space or the shapes of bodies therein.\n\n[Illustration: _Fig. 6._]\n\nLet us now extend this idea rather further.\n\nSuppose we were to take a series of cinematograph pictures of the\ntwo-dimensional world, from the direction of the third dimension. We\nshould obtain a succession of pictures each representing the precise\nstate of affairs at some given moment in the two space world. Every\nthing in it would be represented in each. There would be no question\nof one thing being hidden by another because we are regarding them\nall from the direction of the third dimension in which they have an\ninappreciable extension. If we imagine the two space world to be\nvery small or our camera to be very large there is no difficulty in\nsupposing that each of our pictures includes the whole of the two space\nuniverse,--plane beings, earth, sun, planets, etc., all complete.\n\nImagine further that these pictures are reproduced, as cinematograph\nfilms actually are, on a transparent substance and then let us\nsuperimpose these successive pictures on one another in order so as to\nform a block. By this means we can represent the disposition of all the\nobjects in a two space system at a number of successive instants in\none single three space figure. For instance, the motion of a two space\nplanet round its sun would become a part of a helix or spiral. If we\nnow cut away from our block all the blank material which intervenes\nbetween the representations of the various two space objects we shall\nhave a complete synthesis in three space of a succession of two space\narrangements. If we were now to pass this three space object through a\npenetrable two space surface, _e.g._, a soap film, we should exactly\nreproduce for the two space beings in it the changes which we had\noriginally recorded.\n\nBy analogy we can see that it would be possible to account for all the\nchanges in our three-dimensional space by supposing them to be due to\nthe passage through it of suitably shaped and arranged four-dimensional\nsolids, of which we only perceive at any moment a section whose\nextension in the fourth dimension is imperceptibly small.\n\nIt will appear later that I do not think that this is literally the\ncase. The point I want to make here is that the phenomena of change or\nsuccessive arrangement in space of a given dimensionality are capable\nof explanation in terms of forms in the next space higher, which latter\ndo not change within themselves.\n\nThe precise import of this will appear when we come to consider the\nbearing of the higher space theory on the problem of the nature of\nTime.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND PROBABLE IMPORTANCE OF THE HIGHER-SPACE\nCONCEPTS.\n\n\nIn the preceding chapter I have tried to explain what is meant by the\nterm \"four-dimensional space\" and to demonstrate some of its more\nimportant properties from the point of view of ourselves who live in\nspace of three dimensions.\n\nI am now in a position to state the basic hypothesis which I propose to\ndiscuss in the pages which follow.\n\nBriefly stated it is this:--\n\n\"Higher space is a Physical reality and not a mere mathematical\nidea. In waking life the individual consciousness functions in a\nthree-dimensional 'vehicle,' namely the physical body. But it may also\npossess at least one other vehicle--a four-dimensional one--and in\nthis it may function after death and, possibly, during sleep, trance,\nan\u00e6sthesia and other forms of insensibility.\"\n\nThis hypothesis is not my own and I am not prepared to defend it\nas being necessarily correct. But, as I hope to show, there are a\nnumber of considerations which tend to support it and I do think it\nis sufficiently plausible to make it worthy of serious consideration\nbefore it is finally rejected by those who are students of these\nmatters.\n\nIn this chapter I propose to deal with the different ways in which it\nis likely to prove of importance.\n\nFirst of all, then, it has strong claims to be adopted as a working\nhypothesis by those who are students of Psychical Research, especially\nby those who are convinced of the validity of the Spiritistic\nexplanation of communications purporting to emanate from the deceased.\n\nSecondly, I believe that if accepted as valid it would do much to\nprovide a common meeting ground for opposite schools of religious\nand scientific thought. Between these there was a most marked and\nunfortunate cleavage during last century and though there has been a\nvery considerable rapprochement since the days when controversy was\nat its height there is still much to be done before we can hope for a\ncomplete community of thought and expression.\n\nIt is hardly necessary to say that these two spheres of application are\nvery closely allied, but it is none the less convenient to separate\nthem for purposes of discussion.\n\n\nTHE NEED OF A WORKING HYPOTHESIS IN PSYCHIC SCIENCE.\n\nThe studies of Psychical Researchers must necessarily cover a very\nwide area which is bounded on the one hand by Physical science proper,\non another by Philosophy, on a third by Psychology and on a fourth by\nReligion. With each of these subjects it has close relations and yet\npossesses features which serve to distinguish it from any of them.\n\nSir William Barrett writes as follows of the scope of Psychical\nResearch:\n\n \"The subjects to be considered cover a wide range, from unconscious\n muscular action to the mysterious operation of our sub-conscious self;\n from telepathy to apparitions at the moment of death; from hypnotism\n and the therapeutic effects of suggestion to crystal-gazing and the\n emergence of hidden human faculties; from clairvoyance, or the alleged\n perception of objects without the use of the ordinary channels of\n sense, to dowsing, or the finding of under-ground water and metallic\n lodes with the so-called divining-rod; from the reported hauntings\n of certain places to the mischievous pranks of poltergeists (or\n boisterous but harmless ghosts whose asserted freaks may have given\n rise both to fetishism and fairies); from the inexplicable sounds and\n movement of objects without assignable cause to the thaumaturgy of the\n spiritualistic s\u00e9ance; from the scribbling of planchette and automatic\n writing generally to the alleged operation of unseen and intelligent\n agents and the possibility of experimental evidence of human survival\n after death.\"\n\n  (_Psychical Research, p. 10_).\n\nIn view of the heterogeneous nature of this list I do not think\nit practicable to frame any hard and fast definition of Psychical\nResearch. Moreover certain of the phenomena which it once studied--such\nas Hypnotism--have been largely taken over by \"orthodox\" science,\nand others, such as Telepathy and Clairvoyance, although of great\nintrinsic interest and some relevance, may ultimately be regarded as\ncomparatively remote from the main body of psychic phenomena.\n\nRoughly speaking, the characteristic feature of the latter is a\nsuspicion, or _prima facie_ appearance, or allegation that they emanate\nfrom, or are in some way connected with the activities of extra-mundane\nintelligences--notably the \"spirits of\" the deceased.\n\nIt is this feature which has caused their rejection by the sciences\nwith which they would naturally appear to be associated and although\nour studies may in many cases show that the appearance is wholly\nspurious it must be remembered that, until every phenomenon is so\ndisposed of and relegated to its appropriate \"orthodox\" science, the\nultimate problem of Psychical Research is largely a matter of the\nprovision of answers to such questions as:--\n\n\"Is there any scientifically valid reason for supposing that Individual\nHuman Personality survives bodily death?\"\n\n\"If so, under what conditions does it persist?\"\n\n\"What is the relation between these new conditions and those with which\nwe are acquainted?\"\n\nAny investigation into Human Personality of a scope less than this\ncan be included under the heads of Physiology or Psychology which are\nprepared to investigate any conceivable intricacy in the mental or\nbodily states of the living.\n\nIt is only when the investigator refuses to be limited by bodily death\nthat Psychic science differentiates itself as a separate study.\n\nI do not propose to consider here whether psychical research has yet\ngiven any satisfactory answer to the above mentioned questions or even\nwhether there is any considerable chance of its ever being able to do\nso.\n\nI merely wish to point out the nature of the problems with which it is\nconcerned and which alone distinguish it as a separate science.\n\nIt follows that any hypothesis advanced with a view to co-ordinating\nthe observed facts _may_ find itself called upon to give an\nintelligible explanation of discarnate personalities, that is to say of\nhuman personalities not functioning through the flesh and blood bodies\nin which we are accustomed to meet them.\n\nSo far as our present knowledge goes and on the balance of all the\navailable evidence I am inclined to think that this necessity is at\nleast imminent.\n\nThe adoption of some form of working hypothesis is moreover imperative\nin the light of scientific history.\n\nAll who are interested in psychical research will agree that it is in\nthe highest degree desirable that it should be recognised as a Science\nof a dignity commensurate with its intrinsic importance and on a level\nwith the sciences more generally accepted as such.\n\nThat it has not, hitherto, attained this position in the eyes of the\nworld in general is largely due to the fact that it has not yet fully\nreached that stage of development which chiefly distinguishes a\nscience properly so called from mere speculatory observation.\n\nThis is no reflection on the many able and genuinely scientific men\nwho have worked on the subject ever since it first became prominent\nin modern times some seventy years ago but is, on the contrary, a\nnecessary and inevitable stage in the growth of any science whatsoever.\n\nThe processes of acquiring scientific knowledge are as invariable as\nthose of logical thought. Just as all accurate reasoning may be reduced\nto a series of syllogisms, so the process of acquiring exact knowledge\nmay be reduced to a series of analogous sequences.\n\n  These are:--(1) Observation.\n              (2) Induction.\n              (3) Deduction.\n              (4) Experiment.--A special form\n                    of observation.\n\nI do not say that this sequence of operations is always consciously\nperformed any more than when \"thinking a thing out\" we always\nconsciously reduce our reasoning to its simplest syllogistic\nconstituents.\n\nBut every time we acquire a new item of knowledge it would be possible\nto reduce the process by which we acquired it to a series of the\nsequences mentioned above.\n\nIt is worth while considering these steps in slightly greater detail.\n\nOBSERVATION in the last analysis means no more than the recording and\nclassifying of sensations, which are the only form in which we get any\ninformation as to the outer world.\n\nINDUCTION means the process of concluding from a study of the observed\nand collected facts that there is some specific co-ordinating principle\nat work by virtue of which the facts exist. This is the process known\nas forming a working hypothesis.\n\nDEDUCTION. In this stage we consider more closely the working\nhypothesis which we have formulated, and we conclude that if it be true\ncertain other consequences must inevitably follow.\n\nEXPERIMENT. This simply means that we turn again to the outside world\nand examine it to see whether these deduced results do actually obtain\nin practice.\n\nIf they do we argue that our hypothesis is, probably, a correct one and\nwe retain it until it is shown that if it be correct some result must\ninevitably occur which in fact does not.\n\nThere is a difference between a _valid_ hypothesis and a _true_\none--or, as the latter is commonly termed, a Law.\n\nAny hypothesis is valid which explains the observed facts or at least\nexplains some of them and contradicts none. But the epithet \"true\" can\nonly properly be applied when it has been shown that all necessary\ndeductions are invariably borne out in practice. As a matter of fact we\ncan never say this with absolute certainty for it is always conceivable\nthat some exception may some day be found which would necessitate the\nremoulding of the hypothesis.\n\nThe most we can say is that certain hypotheses have stood the test in\nsuch a very large number of cases without a single failure that there\nis a very high degree of probability that they are really true.\n\nThe hypothesis that the Chemical \"Atom\" was the ultimate and\nindivisible unit of matter was a perfectly valid one in the light of\nthe facts that had been observed at the time of its formation and of\nits apparent proof by Lavoisier and others.\n\nIt is only the facts which have been elicited by the study of\nIonisation, of Radio-active substances and similar phenomena that have\nproved it to be untenable and necessitated the substitution of the\nelectronic theory.\n\nAgain the Corpuscular theory of light affords a very pertinent\nillustration of the point I wish to make.\n\nA number of facts regarding the phenomena of light were observed and\nclassified and it was found that these could be explained by the\nhypothesis that light consisted of a stream of very minute particles\nmoving at very high speed which impinged upon the eye and thus gave\nrise to the sensations observed. Up to a point this explanation was\nperfectly satisfactory and for a long time it held the field, partly\nbecause of the great prestige of Newton to whom much of its development\nwas due and partly because it continued to explain subsequently\nobserved facts without much straining.\n\nBut among other things it was demonstrated that in order to account for\nthe observed phenomena of refraction it was necessary to suppose that\nthe \"Corpuscles\" travelled faster in water than in air.\n\nAt first there was no means of determining directly whether this was so\nor not. But later the researches of Foucault made it possible to settle\nthe point by direct measurement. When the velocity of light in air\nand water respectively was measured directly by Foucault's method it\nwas found that the velocity in water was _less_ than that in air. The\nCorpuscular theory was therefore untenable.\n\nIt is only by this process of forming, testing and, if necessary,\nrejecting hypotheses that we gradually attain to exact knowledge. As\nProf. Richet says:\n\n \"La science n'a jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 qu'une serie d'erreurs, approximations\n constamment evoluant constamment boulvers\u00e9, et cela d'autant plus vite\n qu'elle \u00e9tait plus avanc\u00e9e.\"\n\n  (Annales des sciences psychiques, 1905, p. 15.)\n\nFrom this brief resum\u00e9 of the steps involved in scientific progress\nit is clear that the formation of a working hypothesis, by inductive\nreasoning from the observed facts, is a normal, necessary, and\ninvariable step in the progress of any science whatsoever.\n\nFor this reason I do not think it likely that Psychical research\nwill attain any widespread recognition as a science until it is in\npossession of a valid working hypothesis capable of explaining at least\nthe more important of the observed facts. I believe that the higher\nspace hypothesis fulfills this condition and if so it is clearly worth\nwhile adopting, purely provisionally and tentatively of course, by\nthose who concern themselves with the subject.\n\nI have said that I think that the conception of higher space has a\nbearing on the relations between Religious and Scientific thought.\n\nI shall reserve for a later chapter the treatment of the question\nfrom the purely religious stand-point, and shall only examine here\nthe reasons which seem to me to have led so many sincere and able\nscientific men to a position at variance with the religious and\nspiritual point of view.\n\nThis is, of course, closely bound up with the whole topic of the\nvarious attempts which have been made to satisfy the perennial demand\nfor light on the mysteries of life and death and on the spiritual and\nnon-material aspects of the universe.\n\nIt is out of the question for me to attempt to classify here the\ncountless religions, sects, and philosophies which have arisen from\ntime to time. But they do seem to fall into three main groups and\nalthough it is impossible to label these in any really satisfactory\nmanner I think one may say that the Materialistic Scientists are the\nrepresentatives of one school, the Orthodox Theologians of another, and\nthe Occultists of a third.\n\nBy the Materialistic Scientists I mean those who see in matter or ether\nthe ultimate and only permanent reality and who attempt to explain\nevery experienced phenomenon in terms of matter and ether and of these\nonly.\n\nAccording to their view, Thought, Emotion, Consciousness, are no more\nthan electro-chemical changes in the protoplasmic constituents of the\nbrain cells. \"The brain secretes consciousness as the liver secretes\nbile.\"\n\nThe idea of \"spirit\" is inconceivable to them; for the whole essence of\nSpirit is that it is not matter nor, so far as we can imagine, ether.\n\nNow although this attitude is utterly repugnant to me, I can yet easily\nunderstand and sympathise with the state of mind which occasions it.\nI, too, feel that if there is one thing above all others to which\none's intellect must cling at all costs it is the general proposition\nof the coherence and continuity of the universe--in other words the\ngreat Law of Causation. If ever we let go of that we find ourselves in\nchaos--which is insanity.\n\nWithin the \"ring-fence,\" so to speak, of matter and energy the\nlaw holds good, but anything outside appears to the scientist as\n\"discontinuous\" and therefore, quite rightly, revolting. As against\nthis point of view my contention is that it is quite possible to form\nan intelligible concept of Reality, different from and yet perfectly\ncontinuous with, the physical reality of the scientist.\n\nThis first purely materialistic school admits of fairly easy\ndelimitation whereas the other two schools mingle together and\ndiverge within themselves in so complex a manner that it is much\nmore difficult to distinguish them from each other than to separate\neither of them from the first. But I think the difference is something\nof this kind. The school of which the Occultists are typical seem\nto me to tend to replace logically coherent explanation by mere\ndescriptive nomenclature. On the other hand the Orthodox Theologians,\nwhile dogmatically asserting the existence of spirit and constantly\nemphasising the supreme importance of the spiritual life, are apt to\nignore the intellectual demand for intelligible explanation altogether.\n\nIt is merely foolish to ignore or to ridicule on 'a priori' grounds\nthe statements of those who claim to have investigated the problems\nwith which we are concerned by the cultivation of abnormal or commonly\nlatent faculties.\n\nIf such faculties exist, as is very possible, it is clearly no more\nthan common sense that they should be exercised to the full in the\nsolution of problems which present especial difficulties to the more\nnormal methods of investigation. The results might be of the very\nhighest possible value. Indeed, it may well be that the cultivation\nof such faculties is by far the best way of attacking the whole\nquestion. I am by no means prepared dogmatically to deny it. None the\nless I think we are entitled to expect that those who claim to have\nattained knowledge by these means should take some pains to make their\nresults continuous with existing knowledge and to eliminate needless\nobscurities.\n\nAt present the application of the word \"Science\" to the utterances of\nthe Occult schools--as commonly presented--is a complete misnomer.\n\nIn Theosophical literature, for instance, we are confronted with a\nscheme of things built up of such terms as \"Astral Plane,\" \"Etheric\nDouble,\" \"Causal Body,\" \"Karma\" and so forth.\n\nWith all due deference to my Theosophical friends I submit that this is\nnot scientific explanation and cannot be so unless its exponents are\nprepared to tell us what is the relation between the astral plane and\nthe physical world, between the etheric double and the body as known to\nphysiologists.\n\nThus it is intellectually unsatisfying and little calculated to arouse\nthe sympathetic interest of the strictly logical thinker.\n\nI do not mean to say that none of the words of the type quoted have\nany real significance. On the contrary I think it very probable that\nmany of them have and that they do represent real parts of the actual\nscheme of things. The trouble is that they are only names; and to name\na thing is not the same as to explain it. In common fairness I ought,\nhowever, to admit that in several passages Mr. Leadbeater--one of the\nbest known Theosophical writers--makes a distinct effort to escape\nfrom this tendency and it has further been opined by a very eminent\nOccultist that the bulk of contemporary literature on the subject will\nbe out of date in a few years.\n\nI am inclined to suspect that this failing was the cause he had in mind.\n\nI repeat that my primary quarrel is not with the accuracy or otherwise\nof the statements made. Every word of them may be perfectly correct,\nbut so long as they are expressed in terms wholly unrelated to\npre-existing concepts I must, _qua_ scientist, remain unconvinced.\n\nThe third school which includes the Orthodox Theologians sometimes\nresembles the Occultists in the use of unintelligible terms but their\nchief weakness is their failure to recognise and to cater for the\nintellectual demand for coherent explanation.\n\nThey never weary of insisting, quite rightly, on the paramount\nimportance of Spiritual things, but no effort is made to show the\ncontinuity which must, in a sane Cosmos, exist between Matter and\nSpirit, or to state the \"common factor,\" so to speak, which unites\nthem as parts of a coherent whole.\n\nFor myself I refuse to believe that no such common factor is\ndiscoverable. As Sir Oliver Lodge says, \"I have learned to believe in\nintelligibility.\"\n\nThis omission on the part of theologians did not so much matter in the\ndays before Physical Science had attained to its present degree of\ndevelopment. Men knew so little about the material Universe that they\nexperienced little difficulty in finding a place in it for Spirit and\nthe Spiritual life. \"Heaven\" was conveniently represented as being\nsomewhere \"above\" and \"Hell\" as somewhere \"below.\" But now things have\naltered and we know quite a fair amount about the material world.\nConsequently the scientist demands--not unreasonably, I think--an\nexplanation of \"Spirit\" which shall not conflict with the fundamental\nlaws of continuity and causation.\n\nSo far the theologians have failed to meet this demand and to provide\nthe necessary habitat for consciousness which shall be independent\nof, and yet causally continuous with, the material world which the\nscientist knows.\n\nIt is this illogical discontinuity which has alienated the sympathies\nof so many men of scientific mind and forced them to attempt to reduce\nall mental and spiritual phenomena to terms of matter.\n\nThe foregoing should be sufficient to show how important it is that\nPsychical Research--the connecting link between the study of the\nmaterial and that of the purely spiritual--should adopt as soon as\npossible some form of working hypothesis which is not repugnant either\nto religious or scientific thought. It is only by doing this that we\ncan hope to retain the sympathies of both classes of thinkers and this\nis surely worth an effort quite apart from all other considerations.\nHere again I believe that the higher space hypothesis meets the\nrequirements of the case and this is my second chief reason for urging\nits adoption.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nAPPLICATION TO CERTAIN OF THE FACTS ELICITED BY PSYCHIC RESEARCH\n\n\nIn this chapter I propose to give some instances of the way in which\nthe higher space hypothesis throws light on certain Psychic Phenomena\nwhich, without its aid, appear extremely obscure and difficult of\nexplanation, but I shall make no attempt to cover the whole range of\nphenomena known to students.\n\nSome are not yet, in my opinion, sufficiently well authenticated\nto necessitate consideration, and those which are, some--such as\nTelekinesis, Prevision, and certain aspects of unconsciousness--are\nmore conveniently treated in later chapters; others are so mysterious\nas to render any attempt at explanation premature until we have a wider\nand firmer foundation of fact on which to build; others again, such\nas thought transference or Telepathy, will probably prove explicable\nwithout introducing the Higher Space hypothesis in any direct\nconnection.\n\nThere are some, however, which may well be considered here.\n\nThe first, and by far the most important problem which confronts us\nin attempting to form an idea of post-mortem conditions, or of the\nexistence of personality apart from the physical body, lies in the fact\nthat we cannot conceive of personality as absolutely disembodied--as\npure essence. Yet we know that if personality does in fact survive\nphysical death, it must do so in some form, completely non-material\nin the ordinary sense of the word, which is invisible, impalpable, in\nshort entirely imperceptible, to our normal senses.\n\nProbably it is the difficulty of conceiving such a mode of existence\nwhich has chiefly prevented physical scientists, as a whole, from\naccepting the obvious interpretation of the evidence for Survival\noffered by various Psychic phenomena.\n\nFew people, I think, who have studied the literature of the subject,\nwould be prepared to deny that Survival is, at least, strongly\nindicated by the evidence in question.\n\nBut this difficulty of conceiving a state of existence, at once\nreal and non-physical, has induced scientists to prefer to seek an\nexplanation of the observed facts in terms of Thought transference,\nSecondary personality and so forth.[1]\n\nBut as soon as we introduce the concept of the Fourth Dimension this\ndifficulty disappears.\n\nWe have but to suppose that after physical death the Individual\nconsciousness is embodied in a vehicle organised, not from physical\nmatter, but from Four-dimensional matter, _i.e._, that which, in four\nspace, corresponds to what we call \"Matter\" in three space.\n\nSuch a vehicle fulfills the required conditions in every way. It is\nscientifically real--that is to say, it has its habitat in a region as\nsubject to law and as susceptible to mathematical analysis as the three\ndimensional world in which we at present live.\n\nAnd yet it must be supposed to be, of its very nature, inapprehensible\nby our normal physical senses.\n\nWe are thus enabled to understand how those who have left this physical\nworld may, although discarnate, be none the less as truly _alive_ as\never, close to us and yet invisible, constantly in touch with us and\nyet beyond our normal ken.\n\nThis is the first and supremely important application of the\nhypothesis and it is impossible to over-emphasise it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOf the more specific phenomena suitable for discussion here, I will\nfirst deal with Clairvoyance.\n\nThis is probably far from being a simple phenomenon of unvarying\nnature. There would appear to be at least four varieties and it is\npossible that as our knowledge of the subject increases we shall come\nto recognise still more.\n\nThe four at present distinguishable may be denoted as follows:--\n\n (1) So-called \"Etheric Clairvoyance.\" This is apparently no more than\n a heightening of the ordinary powers of vision.\n\n (2) Perception of objects and contemporary events more or less removed\n in space from the percipient and invisible by ordinary means.\n\n (3) Perception of non-material objects or events; as when a\n clairvoyant describes the appearance of a deceased person alleged to\n be present in \"spirit form.\"\n\n (4) Clairvoyance in time. That is to say the perception of future\n events--Prevision--or of past events--Postvision.\n\nInstances of each of these four forms are abundant and amply verified\nexcept, perhaps, in the case of class 3 where verification is scarcely\npossible.\n\nIt is easy to understand how clairvoyance of the first type arises. We\nknow that light consists of very rapid vibrations in the ether which\nimpinge upon the retina and cause the sensation of sight. We also know\nthat if a beam of white light is passed through a triangular glass\nprism it is bent aside and split up into the seven colours of the\nrainbow, viz., Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, and Violet.\nThe resulting band of colour is called a Spectrum. If the Spectrum so\nobtained is thrown upon a screen and a number of people are asked to\nmark thereon the limits of what they can see it will be found that\nthese limits vary considerably.\n\nWe know, too, that there is a wide range of light-vibrations beyond\nthe furthest of these visible limits, for although our eyes do not\nrespond to them the photographic plate does. We also know that some\nof these vibrations will penetrate substances which are opaque to\nordinary light although the opposite is the case for some substances.\nThis is particularly the case with \"ultra-violet\" light which consists\nof vibrations more rapid even than those of violet light which are\nthemselves the most rapid in all the visible spectrum. It seems\nreasonable therefore to suppose that certain people with abnormal\nretin\u00e6 or in an abnormal condition might be especially sensitive\nto these ultra-violet rays and that they might not only see things\ninvisible to us but even see them _through_ obstacles which are opaque\nto the sort of light to which normal eyes respond.\n\nThis explanation may serve for certain simple cases of clairvoyant\nvision but it soon breaks down because the visual image of any object\nseen in this way must be liable to confusion by the superimposed images\nof intervening objects.\n\nSuppose for instance that a clairvoyant wishes to see, by this method,\nwhat is written on page 100 of a closed book. We will suppose that\nthe covers and paper of the book are transparent to some kind of\nultra-violet light to which the eye of the clairvoyant responds,\nwhereas the ink is opaque to the same light.\n\nOn looking at the book the writing on page 100 would be visible\nall right, but so would that on the preceding 99 pages; it would,\ntherefore, be practically impossible to read the 100th page.\n\nIt will be seen, therefore, that clairvoyance of this type must be\nof very limited scope and cannot be held to account for cases of the\nsecond type where the clairvoyant perceives events happening at a\nconsiderable distance, amounting in some instances to a matter of\nhundreds of miles.\n\nI freely admit that at present I am not prepared to give an explanation\nof all cases where the distances involved are very large.\n\nBut to cases where the incidents or objects perceived are reasonably\nnear the percipient, the higher space hypothesis offers a simple and\nelegant solution.\n\nConsider the two dimensional analogue.\n\n[Illustration: _Fig. 7_]\n\nSuppose that \"A\" Fig. 7, represents a two-dimensional observer and that\nX, Y, and Z are two-dimensional closed spaces, rooms, houses, or what\nnot. The interiors of these closed spaces will be invisible to \"A.\"\nAll he will be able to see will be a straight line as at \"B,\" for the\nboundaries of X, Y, and Z will be opaque and impassable to him.\n\nBut now suppose that he were to be lifted up vertically, out of the\nplane of the paper altogether. He would from this new position be\nable to see the interiors of X, Y, and Z, together with any two space\nincidents occurring therein. They would present approximately the\nappearance shown in Fig. 7 and the degree of foreshortening would\ndiminish with the height to which he ascended above the plane of the\npaper.\n\nIn a precisely analogous manner we must suppose that three-dimensional\nobstructions do not exist for, and that the interiors of closed\nthree-dimensional spaces are entirely open to, anyone who could regard\nthem from a point situated in four space, _i.e._, removed from three\nspace to a suitable distance in the direction of the fourth dimension.\nThe greater this distance the less will be the foreshortening and the\ngreater will be the range of vision.\n\nThere would be no question of intervening objects obscuring the\nview, simply because, in four space, three space objects do not\nintervene--the view of X in Fig. 7 is in no way obscured by the\npresence of Y or Z.\n\nCompare with this the statements of many clairvoyants to the effect\nthat when in the clairvoyant state they can, and do, see the front,\nsides, back, and every internal point of three space objects\nsimultaneously.\n\nThe parallel is almost irresistible in its significance. Compare also\nthe following case given by Professor de Morgan, and which is typical\nof the very numerous cases of this nature on record.\n\nIn this case the percipient was a little girl who was undergoing\nmesmeric treatment for fits by Mrs. de Morgan. While in the mesmeric\nstate she was desired to follow Professor de Morgan mentally to the\nhouse at which he was dining and which was totally unknown to the\nchild. The girl got there at once and gave an accurate description of\nthe room in which the Professor was, the furniture which it contained,\nthe people to whom he was talking and various small incidents which\ntook place. On his return Professor de Morgan confirmed every detail of\nthe description.\n\nThis is, of course, a very condensed resum\u00e9 of the occurrence.\nInterested readers should consult contemporary Psychic literature\nwhich abounds with such cases. The point is that no amount of retinal\nhypersensibility will so much as begin to explain this sort of case,\nwhereas it is not so utterly incomprehensible when we introduce the\nidea that the percipient may have been seeing four-dimensionally.\n\nIt is hardly necessary to observe that the sense organs involved cannot\nbe the physical eyes. They must be supposed to belong to the four\ndimensional vehicle.\n\nIn attempting to explain this second type of clairvoyance along these\nlines, there seem to be two main difficulties involved and these are\nadmittedly very great.\n\nFirst, how is it that the four space vehicle possesses organs capable\nof perceiving three space objects and incidents? One would expect it to\nrespond to four space impressions only.\n\nSecondly, as soon as the distances involved become more than quite\nsmall it is very difficult to conceive how the percipient can\nsimultaneously describe the events by the use of physical speech\nmechanism and also perceive them from a point of view which must be\nsupposed to be very considerably removed in the direction of the fourth\ndimension.\n\nA correspondent of my own who appears to possess this power of\nclairvoyance at a distance in a remarkable degree and to be able to\nexercise it at will, tells me that when she is seeing a distant scene,\nshe is yet so closely in touch with her physical body that she is\nconscious of moving her hand, for example.\n\nIt is difficult to account for this on the four dimensional or any\nother theory.\n\nI have no wish to minimise these difficulties or to claim that the\nintroduction of the Higher space hypothesis clears up the whole matter.\nIt does nothing of the sort.\n\nBut it does give us a dim inkling of what the general nature of the\ncauses at work may be, especially as regards the power of \"internal\nvision\" mentioned above and which I particularly wish to emphasise.\n\nThis is more than can be said of any alternative theory with which I am\nacquainted.\n\nFuture study will probably show that this class of phenomena is far\nfrom simple and is really capable of being resolved into a number of\nsub-classes, each requiring its own appropriate explanation.\n\nIt is interesting to note that Mr. C.W. Leadbeater, the well-known\nTheosophical writer and clairvoyant, definitely introduces the\nfour-dimensional concept in his book on Clairvoyance and ascribes the\npower of long-range perception to the intervention of what he calls an\n\"astral telescope\"; but there would appear to be no evidence in support\nof this idea beyond the _ipse dixit_ of the writer and even he is very\nvague on the point.\n\nThe third form of clairvoyance, namely, the perception of non-physical\nthings, is readily explicable on the hypothesis which we are\nconsidering.\n\nJust as the physical body has sense organs adapted for the perception\nof physical things, so the four-dimensional body or \"vehicle\" will\npresumably possess analogous organs adapted for the perception of\nfour-dimensional things.\n\nIn ordinary persons, we must suppose either that these organs are\nalmost completely undeveloped, or else that the mechanism, whereby the\nimpressions received are conveyed to the consciousness and recorded as\nmemories, is defective or inhibited.\n\nIn the clairvoyant on the contrary we may suppose that they are well\ndeveloped and active and that he is able consciously to perceive by\ntheir aid.\n\nIn advancing this explanation of the third form of clairvoyance, I do\nnot wish it to be thought that I attribute an objective origin to all\nvisions of objects which have no obviously physical reality.\n\nHallucination is often a _vera causa_ and indeed it is comparatively\nseldom that we can eliminate it with certainty.\n\nBut I do not think it can legitimately be applied to all visions of\nthis class.\n\nThe point is of some interest and worthy of a moment's thought even\nthough it involves a digression from the main topic.\n\nThe essence of hallucination is that it should have a purely subjective\norigin and be unfounded on objective reality.\n\nIf I were to look round and find my sofa occupied by three green\ncassowaries playing nap I should, I think, be justified in assuming\nthat I was the victim of an hallucination having no foundation in\nobjective fact. It would, presumably, have arisen from a simultaneous\nexcitation of the memory centres associated with the game of nap,\ncassowaries, the number three, and the sensation of greenness,\noccasioned, more or less fortuitously, by over-work or alcoholic excess.\n\nOn the other hand if I were to see the figure of an old man with a\nlong white beard, one front tooth missing, shaggy eyebrows, black\nvelvet smoking jacket, gold watch and chain, and so forth and were\nsubsequently to find that such a person, answering the description in\nevery detail, and previously entirely unknown to me, had really once\nlived, or was still living, then the view that this vision was the\nresult of pure hallucination, would be untenable.\n\nThe probabilities against any chance stimulation of memory centres\ngiving rise to precisely that combination of characteristics, are\nimmeasureably large.\n\nIn such cases--and they are by no means unknown--we must attribute some\ndegree of objectivity to the origin of the vision.\n\nThis is of importance in view of the tendency in some quarters to\ndismiss all such visions as purely hallucinatory.\n\nWe shall see later that the problems connected with Prevision and\nPostvision are also, if not completely explained, at least rendered\nless utterly incomprehensible by the introduction of the higher space\nhypothesis.\n\nWith the third class of clairvoyant phenomena is closely associated\nthat group of facts known as \"Phantasms of the Living, of the Dying,\nand of the Dead.\"\n\nCertain aspects of the dream state, again, seem to be related to\nclairvoyance at a distance and are conveniently dealt with here.\n\nLet us follow up the idea of a four-dimensional vehicle and see what\nlight, if any, it throws on these questions.\n\nLet us suppose that the four-dimensional vehicle becomes detached\nfrom, and loses touch with, the three-dimensional physical body\nduring unconsciousness; or rather that unconsciousness is due to this\ndetachment.\n\nIt follows that the \"Ego\" embodied in this four-dimensional vehicle\ncan no longer receive impressions through the three-dimensional sense\norgans and that it is wholly dependent for communication with the\noutside world on those which belong to the four-dimensional vehicle.\nThe nature of the impressions received will depend on the degree of\ndevelopment of these organs.\n\nIf they are completely undeveloped the Ego will be utterly oblivious\nof its surroundings, whereas if they are well developed the reverse\nwill be the case and we may suppose the Ego to be as fully cognizant\nof the surrounding world as we are in ordinary waking life. It is\ninteresting to compare with this the statements of those who claim\nto have consciously explored the \"Astral plane\" or four space world.\nThey often describe sleepers as being present, but \"in a brown study.\"\nCompare also the statement often found in communications purporting to\nemanate from discarnate personalities to the effect that, \"We have seen\nso-and-so, but do not know whether he is dead or not.\"\n\nOf course, it by no means follows that it will be possible, even under\nthese latter conditions, to remember in waking life the impressions\nreceived during unconsciousness. On the contrary we should expect this\nto be the exception rather than the rule.\n\nIn their passage from sense organ to consciousness the impressions\nreceived will, _ex hypothesi_, not pass through the physical brain and\nthe memory centres with which they become associated may be located in\na position which is inaccessible to consciousness when embodied in the\nphysical vehicle.\n\nIt would be possible, though not perhaps absolutely necessary, to\naccount on these lines for the impression which most people have\nsometimes had, of apparently \"remembering\" a place which they have\ncertainly never visited previously in waking life. They might, however,\non this theory, have done so in sleep.\n\nIt would also account for those dreams in which the dreamer perceives\nan incident at a distance which is subsequently verified.\n\nAs for the ordinary chaotic dream, this, it seems to me may be\naccounted for in either of two main ways. If we suppose that the\nstimulation of certain cells (memory centres) in the brain causes\nan uprush into consciousness of the associated item of memory or\n\"souvenir,\" it is not unreasonable to suppose that such stimulation is\ngoing on _in the body_ all the time. But it will only be in the state,\nintermediate between profound sleep and waking, that these aroused\nsouvenirs will, on the one hand get through to the consciousness--which\nin deep sleep is separated from the body altogether--and, on the other\nwill escape over-ruling by the Will or obliteration by the influx of\nnormal sensory impressions.\n\nThis would account for the fact that the majority of dreams appear to\nbe of very short duration and to take place in the very act of waking.\n\nThe other cause of ordinary dreams is probably in its general nature\nsuggestive. That is to say the Ego cut off from the outside world by\nthe imperfections of its four-dimensional senses is quiescent, and in\na state peculiarly favourable for the telepathic picking up of stray\nthoughts which suggest dreams.\n\nThis of course is especially the case when the dream is deliberately\nsuggested by a hypnotic specialist, as is sometimes done.[2]\n\nThe subject of Phantasmal apparitions is also both complex in its\nvarieties and obscure as to its causes.\n\nThe commonest explanation, namely, the telepathic influence of the\npercipient by the agent, does not seem to me to be applicable to every\ncase. For instance, it is difficult to conceive how a man shot through\nthe head can visualise himself sufficiently clearly at that moment to\nproject a telepathic image of himself, including the wound, to the\npercipient. And, more generally, it is probable that few of us could\nvisualise our own appearance with sufficient accuracy to do more than\nconvey, telepathically, a vague general impression. On the other hand,\nif we are to suppose that the details are filled up, so to speak, by\nthe percipient, how are we to explain accurate perception of clothing\nand so forth of which the percipient could have no knowledge?\n\nFinally, the whole telepathic theory seems weak in this respect. If\nI in the act of death, vehemently long for, or think of, a certain\nperson, it is clear that the thought in my mind which is most likely\nto be transmitted to the brain of a percipient will not be the thought\nof myself--still less of my own appearance--but rather of the other\nperson. Why should this suggest _me_ to his mind?\n\nIn experimental telepathy it is the idea on which the agent\nconcentrated his mind that is transmitted to the percipient, not some\nother idea, and I see no reason for supposing that this is not always\nthe case.\n\nIn cases where the apparition has been deliberately produced as the\nresult of an act of will on the part of the agent, the apparition has\ninvariably been preceded by the agent concentrating his mind on the\nperson to whom he wishes to appear, _not_ on himself.\n\nIn view of these considerations I frankly do not see how the telepathic\ntheory can be unreservedly maintained.\n\nWhen we add that in some of these experimentally produced cases the\nagent has himself seen the percipient and given details, subsequently\nverified, of the circumstances prevailing at the percipient's end; and\nthen compare this with certain of the varieties of clairvoyance at a\ndistance, we must surely admit that the supposition that the agent was\nreally present, though not in the physical body, is by far the simplest\nexplanation.\n\nFor cases of this sort the reader should consult \"Phantasms of the\nLiving.\" Some good selected instances are also given in \"Death, it's\nCauses and Phenomena,\" by Messrs. Carrington and Meader.\n\nThe idea that conscious existence in a vehicle other than the physical\nbody is possible even during life is borne out to some extent by the\nevidence of those who testify to having seen their own body, from\noutside, while in a state of unconsciousness. An interesting one is\ngiven in the above mentioned work. The narrator describes how as he lay\nin bed he felt a cold sensation creeping up his legs from the feet and\ngradually extending throughout his body. After this had gone on for\nsome time he became momentarily unconscious and on coming to himself\nagain \"seemed to be walking on air\" and to be entirely free from his\nbody. He thought of a friend who was some hundreds of miles distant\nand in a few seconds he found himself in the presence of his friend in\ncircumstances which he describes. His friend spoke to him but he could\nnot stay. After much difficulty and perplexity he decided that he ought\nto return to his body and as soon as he had made up his mind on the\npoint he found himself looking at his apparently dead body propped up\nin bed as he had been when this experience began. He tried to control\nit and in due course was able to do so and after a time successfully\n\"re-embodied\" himself apparently none the worse for his experiences.\n\nThe credentials of this case are good, and it is important to note that\nthe friend referred to wrote spontaneously to say that he had seen\nthe narrator at the time and in the circumstances which the latter\ndescribes.\n\nFor this reason it can hardly be dismissed as a mere hallucination or\ndream and it is relevant to the present discussion because the narrator\nsaw his own body from outside and was apparently embodied all the time\nin a vehicle of some sort.\n\nAnother somewhat similar and equally remarkable case is given in the\nsame work. This I shall deal with in a later chapter. In view of the\nforegoing considerations, I think it fair to say that the idea of\na non-physical vehicle of consciousness capable, under the proper\nconditions, of temporary detachment from the physical body, has strong\nclaims to be adopted as a working hypothesis for future investigations\neven though it is too early, as yet, to accept it as a proven fact.\n\nIt certainly seems to clear up certain cases of apparition and abnormal\nacquisition of information as to distant events, in a way which other\ntheories do not do without being strained to an extent which I regard\nas unwarrantable.\n\nIt seems probable that the chief reason why such an hypothesis has\nnot been adopted before is simply the difficulty of conceiving the\nnature of such a vehicle. But this is overcome if we suppose that it is\nfour-dimensional.\n\nThe theory has, of course, its own attendant difficulties and I have no\ndesire disingenuously to ignore them.\n\nFirst it may be asked: How does the percipient see the apparition?\nFor four-dimensional objects are, _ex hypothesi_ invisible to\nthree-dimensional sight.\n\nSecond: Why does the four-dimensional vehicle present the exact\nappearance of the three-dimensional body--clothes and all?\n\nThird: How can it speak, _i.e._, set up vibrations in three-dimensional\nmatter, as it is sometimes recorded as doing?\n\nIt is admittedly far from easy to answer these questions, in the light\nof our present knowledge.\n\nAs regards the first, I should feel disposed to say that such\napparitions would be the rule rather than the exception, were it not\nfor the fact that only those whose four-dimensional organs are fairly\nwell developed can see them. Even so it may be that they are only\ncalled into activity as a result of some special \"rapport\" existing\nbetween the agent and the percipient.\n\nProfessor Joire, in his book \"Psychical and Supernormal Phenomena\"\npoints out that in nearly every case the percipient is in a state\nwhich he describes as \"superficial somnambulism or passive mediumship\"\n_i.e._, in some condition which from the facts of Hypnosis we may\nconsider to be especially favourable to the receiving of supernormal\nimpressions of any kind.\n\nThis observation appears highly relevant and important.\n\nThe second difficulty may be met, though not, I must admit, in a\nparticularly convincing manner, by supposing that the four-dimensional\nvehicle is so mobile and plastic, in respect to appropriate forces,\nthat it is capable of being moulded by the mere power of will.\n\nIt would thus take the form which the agent commonly associated with\nhimself, or which he observed his physical body to have after he had\nleft it.\n\nIt would be possible to adduce a number of considerations in support of\nthis view, but none of them are in any way conclusive and I therefore\nleave the reader to form his own opinion on the matter.\n\nAs regards the third point, there are two possible answers which might\nbe offered.\n\nOn the one hand it might be suggested that the words heard are really\nobjective; the result, that is to say of actual vibrations in the\natmosphere, and that this result is produced because, in all such\ncases, the percipient is sufficiently mediumistic to provide the\nnecessary material for the agent to \"work up\" some form of speaking\napparatus. This is very difficult to conceive as possible, and yet we\nmust suppose some such process to be involved in the production of\nthe \"Direct Voice,\" a phenomenon which, though baffling, seems well\nauthenticated.\n\nBut this is rendered improbable by the cases where the speaking agent\nhas been a living person, who records no such process as having taken\nplace.\n\nBesides, it is grossly improbable that a living person, or for that\nmatter a newly 'dead' person, would know how to perform this operation.\n\nThe most probable explanation seems to be a combination of telepathic\ncommunication between the agent and the percipient accompanied by an\nauditory hallucination on the part of the latter. This would be, I\nthink, quite natural.\n\nThese difficulties are much reduced, though not entirely removed, if\nwe suppose that the agent is embodied, not in the four-dimensional\nvehicle, but in what, for lack of a better word, is called the \"Etheric\nDouble.\" This appears to be of a semi-material nature and is discussed\nat length in the chapter dealing with \"The Connecting Link.\"\n\nBut this supposition would involve special difficulties of its own.\n\nThere is reason to suppose that the \"Etheric Double,\" if it exists at\nall, is incapable of moving far from the physical body during life and\nit does not appear well adapted for use as a vehicle after death.\n\nBut on this point I shall have more to say later.\n\nGenerally speaking, it seems probable that no one of these explanations\nwill be found to cover all the cases in question. But each is likely to\nprove applicable to some of them, although much careful investigation\nand analysis will be necessary before we can hope to be able to allot\neach case to its true cause with any degree of assurance.\n\nNone the less I am convinced that the hypothesis of a four-dimensional\nvehicle, detachable on occasion from the physical body, puts us, at\nleast, on the right track.\n\nI will now turn to the consideration of a series of phenomena which,\nfrom the point of view of the higher space hypothesis, are of far\ngreater interest and significance than any we have yet considered.\n\nI refer to the phenomena of \"apport\" and of \"apparent penetration of\nmatter by matter.\"\n\nIf we have a closed room, of which all the windows, doors, and other\napertures have been carefully shut and sealed, it is clearly impossible\nto introduce any solid object into that room, by normal means, without\nbreaking the seals and opening one of the apertures. The same would\napply to a closed, locked and sealed box.\n\nBut the literature of Psychical research abounds with instances where\nobjects are alleged to have been introduced into such closed and\nsealed rooms and boxes--or removed from them, which comes to the same\nthing--_without_ breaking the seals. This is the phenomenon of \"apport\"\nproperly so called and it forms a special case of the more general\nclass of \"apparent penetration of matter by matter.\"\n\nOther cases of the latter are the tying of knots in an endless cord\nof such a nature that they can only be untied by breaking the cord or\nseparating its previously sealed ends; or the passing, on to the wrist\nor ankle of some person or other, of a ring so small that it could not\npossibly be pushed on over the hand or foot.\n\nA very good test would be the interlinking of two rings turned from\ndifferent sorts of wood--as was attempted without success in the\nSlade-Z\u00f6llner investigation; or the passing of a piece of weldless\ndrawn steel tube on to the middle portion of an ordinary wooden\ndumb-bell.\n\nWith regard to these phenomena I propose, first, to show in what their\nvery great importance lies and then to discuss the nature of the\nevidence we have for their actual occurrence.\n\nIf the reader will refer back to the first chapter, he will at once\nperceive why I laid what must have appeared to be unnecessary\nstress on the fact that \"rooms\" and \"boxes\" which would appear to be\nabsolutely closed to a two space being would be perfectly open to us\nwho live in a three space world. Just as every point in the interior\nof a two space figure is absolutely open in the direction of the third\ndimension, so we must suppose from analogy that the interior of a\nclosed three space figure--a box or room--is perfectly accessible from\nthe direction of the fourth dimension.\n\nConsequently on the hypothesis that four space actually exists as\na reality, and is peopled by intelligent beings, possessed of the\nnecessary \"apparatus\"--whatever that may be--the explanation of the\nphenomenon of apport is quite simple.\n\nWe have only to suppose that the object in question is moved out of the\ncontaining space, in the direction of the fourth dimension, and then\nput down again into three space outside the box or room in which it\noriginally was. Or conversely, when it is a question of introducing an\nobject _into_ a closed space.\n\nDuring transit, the object would, of course, be located entirely\noutside of three space.\n\nI will not go at length into the question of how the tying of knots\nin an endless cord could be performed in four space. Any reader who\ncares to tie together the two ends of a piece of string for himself,\nwill soon realise that it is not possible then to tie a simple knot\nin the string without untying the ends. If such an operation were to\nbe performed, under test conditions, it would clearly be a case of\napparent penetration of matter by matter.\n\nConsider this case which is analogous to that of the steel tube and the\ndumb-bell suggested above:\n\nLet A and B be two space objects. Fig 8. A two space being could not\nconceive of their being brought into the second position shown in the\nfigure.\n\n[Illustration: _Fig. 8_]\n\nBut we, having the advantage of a third dimension of space could very\neasily pick up the object A and put it down in the second position with\nregard to B. Similarly a four space being of sufficient knowledge and\nmanipulative ability could, theoretically, slip on to the middle part\nof the dumb-bell a piece of steel tube of a diameter too small to be\npassed over the two large ends. There are, of course, a large number of\nvariations which could be introduced into this class of experiment but\nthe foregoing will be sufficient to indicate their salient features.\n\nFor the purpose of detailed consideration I shall deal only with the\ncase of the removal of a solid object from the interior of a closed and\nsealed box, which is typical of the whole of this class of phenomena.\n\nLet it be clearly understood that at the moment I am not expressing\nany opinion as to whether this or any allied phenomenon has actually\noccurred. I am concerned merely with the inferences we should\nbe compelled to draw if such an occurrence were substantiated\nscientifically beyond all possibility of doubt.\n\nWe have seen that given four-dimensional space as a reality and\nan intelligent four-dimensional being equipped with the necessary\nknowledge, powers, facilities and so forth, which I have included\nunder the general term of \"apparatus\" the thing could be done in a\ncomparatively comprehensible manner, although the actual manipulative\ndetails would still require clearing up.\n\nThe question now arises: Is this the only conceivable _modus operandi_\nthat could bring about the same result? It is not. There is one other,\nand so far as I know only one other, theory which has been advanced to\naccount for this type of phenomenon.\n\nIt has been supposed that the solid object in question is dissociated,\nby some obscure means, into ultra-atomic particles, is passed in this\ncondition through the walls of the box and finally \"integrated\" again\ninto its original form outside the box.\n\nNow, apart from the obvious difficulty of imagining how these\nultra-atomic particles are integrated into the precise form originally\npossessed by the object, this theory has at first sight a certain\nplausibility.\n\nWe know that all matter is probably susceptible of dissociation in a\nfashion that was originally supposed to be the exclusive property of\nRadium and other Radio-active substances.[3]\n\nIf, then, we postulate the existence of intelligent beings in a\nnon-physical state of existence, there is nothing to prevent us from\nsupposing that certain of them have acquired a sufficient knowledge\nof physical laws to enable them to effect a process of this nature\nartificially.\n\nI do not say that this idea commends itself to me; but it is the\nexplanation most commonly offered for the phenomena in question, and\nthis fact taken in conjunction with its _prima facie_ plausibility,\nentitles it to careful consideration before we dismiss it as untenable.\n\nThe real objection to it is a mere matter of Physics. The work of\nthe scientists mentioned above goes to show that what we call matter\nis no more than a condensation of energy in the ether; and that the\ndissociation of matter is invariably accompanied by an enormous\nliberation of energy.\n\nFor calculations on this point the reader may refer to M. Le Bon's book\n\"The Evolution of Matter.\"\n\nWithout going into such calculations it may be said that the amount\nof energy that would be liberated in the dissociation of a gramme of\nmatter, would be amply sufficient, if it were produced in the form of\nheat, to fuse, and for that matter vaporise, the experimenters, the\nroom, the whole house, and probably about half the town as well!\n\nWhat becomes of this enormous quantity of energy which must be\nliberated during the process if the dissociation theory of the\nphenomena is correct? Why is its liberation not apparent, and painfully\napparent, to the experimenters? How is it prevented from being\ndissipated and how is it collected again and recondensed into matter?\n\nThis point seems to me to be insuperable.\n\nIf the object within the box is dissociated, then energy must\ninevitably be liberated. If energy is liberated, then it cannot\nconceivably escape detection in such quantities.\n\nI hope I have made my point clear. I am quite sure that any scientist\naccustomed to think in terms of energy will at once see the difficulty\nto which I allude.\n\nI can see only one way out and that is to suppose that in some\nmysterious manner the liberated energy is stored in a \"reservoir,\" so\nto speak, _which is not situated in our space at all_, and this at once\nlets us in for the original idea of a fourth dimension and higher space\nand all the rest of it.\n\nHence I maintain, and I think I have reason to maintain, that if\nthese phenomena do actually occur at all, then we are compelled to\nadmit that four-dimensional space does actually exist; and this no\nmatter whether we accept as the proximate cause of the phenomena a\nsimple four-dimensional movement or the far more elaborate and less\nsatisfactory notion of dissociation and re-integration.\n\nThe reader will now understand why it is that I attach such great\nimportance to these phenomena of apport and of the \"apparent\npenetration of matter by matter.\"\n\nIf one of these phenomena could be established by absolutely\nincontrovertible experimental evidence, with the same degree of\ncertainty, for instance, as the phenomenon of levitation without\ncontact has been established by the recent researches of Crawford, I\nshould regard the four-dimensional hypothesis as virtually proven.\n\nI should be much interested to hear whether any interested reader can\nget out of the difficulty, assuming the authenticity of the phenomenon\nfor the sake of argument, but I do not think that it will prove\npossible.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI will now pass to the consideration of the nature of the evidence that\nexists for the actual occurrence of this sort of phenomenon.\n\nI will preface my remarks by two quotations from writers who appear to\nhold somewhat different views on the subject.\n\nIn \"The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism\" Mr. Hereward Carrington\nsays:\n\n \"Without now stopping to consider any _a priori_ speculations as to\n the scientific possibility or impossibility of such a thing; the\n mere historic evidence in the case would certainly seem to point to\n the conclusion that fraud and nothing but fraud has been operative\n throughout and is quite sufficient to account for all the phenomena\n observed (save in the case of W.S. Moses, perhaps, that stumbling\n block to the rationalistic psychical researcher), in the presence of\n professional mediums.... In fact _all_ these cases sift themselves\n down to the one primary consideration: could the medium, in spite of\n the searching, have introduced into the s\u00e9ance room, unseen by his\n sitters, the objects materialised.\"\n\nIt should be noted that the above refers to cases where the s\u00e9ance room\nis found, after the sitting, to contain objects which were certainly\nnot there before. In this connection the last sentence of the passage\nquoted above is eminently justifiable and it is for this reason that I\nprefer to deal with varieties of the phenomenon which are more amenable\nto experimental control on the part of the experimenter; as for\ninstance the removal of a solid object from the sealed box which we are\nconsidering.\n\nCompare with this first quotation the following taken from Mr. Gambier\nBolton's book \"Psychic Force.\"\n\n \"During my sixteen years of experimental investigation into the\n question of the existence of this Psychic Force, the apparent\n penetration of matter by matter has been such a common occurrence at\n our experimental meetings, that unless this happens to take place\n in connection with some unusually large and ponderous object that\n is suddenly brought into our midst, or removed from the place where\n we are holding our meetings, I take but very little note of it. I\n could fill a large volume with instances where this has taken place\n in my own presence.... I am not engaged in an attempt to explain\n such things, but am merely recording phenomena which I myself have\n witnessed and which have been witnessed hundreds, nay thousands, of\n times by well-known investigators like Sir William Crookes and Dr.\n Alfred Russel Wallace under the strictest test conditions.\"\n\nThese two views are, to say the least of it, somewhat divergent. We\nmust, therefore, see what is to be gathered from such original records\nas are available.\n\nThe _locus classicus_ of this sort of phenomenon is the Slade-Z\u00f6llner\ninvestigation of 1877-9.\n\nThis investigation has received so much attention that it is impossible\nto avoid giving it somewhat careful consideration here.\n\nJohann Carl Friedrich Z\u00f6llner was born in 1834. He was Professor\nof Physics and Astronomy at the University of Leipsic, a member of\nmany learned and scientific societies and the author of a number of\nscientific treatises.\n\nHe was assisted, from time to time, in his investigations by Professors\nWeber, Fechner, and Scheibner all of whom were men of considerable\neminence in one branch or another of mathematical or physical science.\n\nThe medium in whose presence the phenomena were produced was the\nwell-known \"Dr.\" Slade. This medium has been demonstrated to have\nresorted to fraud with a certainty that admits of no dispute.\n\nBut, as Mr. Hereward Carrington points out, we ought not to allow this\nfact to influence us in the consideration of any particular case. In\nthe first place it is fairly certain that mediums who are capable of\nproducing genuine phenomena under suitable conditions are also liable\nto resort to trickery when the genuine thing does not come off. (Cp.\nthe case of Eusapia Palladino.) In the second, too great a reliance\non antecedents is apt to produce an unreliable _a priori_ prejudice.\nEvery case should be considered on its merits alone and the medium's\npast history should only be allowed to influence our judgment if it can\nbe shown that fraud has not been rigorously excluded and that the only\nargument against it is the argument from moral integrity.\n\nIn this case the argument from integrity is obviously inadmissible and\nas a matter of fact the precautions taken to guard against fraud were\nso very inadequate that we cannot accept the experiments in question\nas worth anything at all from the scientific point of view.\n\nZ\u00f6llner's account of his experiments is to be found in his book\n\"Transcendental Physics,\" translated into English by Mr. C.C. Massey\nin whom the author found an able and enthusiastic champion against his\nmany critics.\n\nAmong the more important of his experiments were:\n\nProduction of knots in an endless string.\n\nSlate writing under \"test\" conditions.\n\nDisappearance and reappearance of solid objects.\n\nCoins transferred from closed and fastened boxes.\n\nOther instances of the apparent penetration of matter by matter.\n\nThe careful study of this book is of the greatest value as an exercise\nin the criticism of evidence and as a guide for anyone who proposes to\nstudy such matters at first hand.\n\nI do not think that I can illustrate my meaning better than by a\ndescription of my own impressions in connection with the book.\n\nWhen I first read it I was much impressed by the scientific eminence of\nthose who bore witness to the authenticity of the events described.\n\nI reflected that here we had a Physicist of no mean order, assisted\nby other scientists of European reputation, men trained, presumably,\nin the art of exact observation and not likely to be deceived by the\nmanipulations of a conjuror. Surely we must believe their testimony if\nwe are to assign any value to human evidence at all!\n\nThen, as I thought over the matter more and became more convinced of\nthe importance of the conclusions to be drawn from these experiments,\nif genuine, I felt that these considerations, although possessed of\ntheir own importance, were yet not sufficient to warrant acceptance of\nthe evidence without careful examination of the intrinsic qualities of\nthe latter.\n\nOn further study of the book I was struck by the fact that not\none of the special experiments, carefully designed by Z\u00f6llner to\nestablish the genuineness of the phenomena and the validity of the\nfour-dimensional explanation beyond all doubt, had succeeded. This was\nsuspicious, although not, of course, conclusive. Specially devised test\nexperiments may very likely fail simply because they may involve the\nupsetting of some essential condition which is not fully understood\nby the experimenter. But when such experiments fail, while others of,\napparently, identical general nature succeed, it gives one cause for\nthought.\n\nFinally, when I came to examine the records of individual experiments\nin the light of the criticisms of Mr. Carrington, of Dr. Hyslop and\nothers, I realised that the nature of the evidence was emphatically\n_not_ good enough to justify our accepting as demonstrated the facts\nwhich Z\u00f6llner claimed to have established.\n\nI shall not waste my own time and that of the reader by giving numerous\ninstances of the sort of thing I mean.\n\nI will confine myself to the case that we are more especially\nconsidering as being typical of the whole of this class of phenomena,\n_i.e._, the case of the removal of a coin from a closed and fastened\nbox.\n\nZ\u00f6llner describes how in December 1877 he put some coins in a small\ncardboard box and had closed it by glueing a strip of paper round the\nsides. He had done this in the expressed hope that Slade might be able\nto remove them and thus give a proof of the reality of the fourth\ndimension which was Z\u00f6llner's pet hobby. In May 1878 Slade came again\nto Leipsic and performed the feat, at any rate to the satisfaction of\nZ\u00f6llner.\n\nThe box was put on a table together with some slates and other objects\nand Slade and Z\u00f6llner and his colleagues sat round. Z\u00f6llner satisfied\nhimself by shaking the box that the coin was still inside and in\nanswer to Slade's enquiries explained the purpose of the experiment\nand its importance if successful. There was a little preliminary slate\nwriting and then Slade began staring into a corner of the room and\nsaying \"I see funf and eighteen hundred seventy six.\" Then a hard\nobject was heard to fall on the slate which Slade had held under the\ntable all the time and on withdrawing the slate it was found to be a\nfive mark piece of date 1876. Z\u00f6llner then snatched up the cardboard\nbox and shook it only to find that it was empty.\n\nThis is a very highly condensed description of the proceedings but I\ndo not think I have been guilty either of \"_suggestio falsi_\" or of\n\"_suppressio veri_\".\n\nInterested readers can refer to the original.\n\nNow, if Z\u00f6llner had been writing no more than a casual account of a\nwell-known experiment, inserted for the sake of completeness or for\nsimilar reasons, it would be well enough.\n\nBut to offer his account, in the face of a very natural scientific\nincredulity, as a conclusive demonstration of a highly controversial\npoint, was an insult to one's intelligence.\n\nThere are numerous criticisms that might be made, but I shall confine\nmyself to pointing out only the more conspicuous of them.\n\nIn this experiment there are two main methods by which the result might\nhave been obtained by fraudulent means.\n\nThere seems no doubt that the coin was really in the box at the\nbeginning of the sitting. We may equally accept the statement that the\nbox shaken at the end of the experiment did not contain a coin.\n\nOn the hypothesis of fraud, therefore, one of two things must have\nhappened.\n\nEither Slade must have contrived, during the sitting, to possess\nhimself of the box, open it, abstract the coin, close the box again,\nand return it to the table; or else he must have substituted for the\nbox, which at the beginning of the sitting contained the coin, another\n(empty) box, previously prepared to resemble the original.\n\nI do not think the former method to be at all likely.\n\nOne cannot unstick a length of glued paper and stick it up again in a\nfew seconds unobserved.\n\nOn the other hand everything lends itself to the supposition that the\nsecond method was actually adopted.\n\nIn the first place we know that the box was prepared some six months\nprevious to the experiment.\n\nIt is true that Z\u00f6llner is a trifle hazy as to dates, saying at the\noutset that Slade's first visit to Leipsic was in December 1877, and,\nlater, that the first and second visits were in November and December\n1877.\n\nBut this is comparatively immaterial, the point being that Slade had\npresumably had ample time and opportunity for finding out all about\nthese boxes and for preparing substitutes. I say \"presumably\" because\nin the absence of definite evidence to the contrary, we have no reason\nto suppose that these boxes were kept in an inaccessible place or that\nZ\u00f6llner had never mentioned his intentions with regard to them to\nSlade himself or to anyone else. I consider then that so far as the\nrecords go, we are perfectly entitled to suppose that Slade was able to\nprepare, and, in fact, actually did prepare, an empty counterfeit box,\nexternally similar to that prepared by Z\u00f6llner. The second, and almost\nincredible, point to be noticed is that apparently no steps of any sort\nwere taken by Z\u00f6llner to identify either the box or the coin after the\nsitting with those originally prepared by him.\n\nIn fact, he definitely says that he had completely forgotten, indeed\nhad never so much as observed, the value or dates of the coins used!\n\nWith such gross carelessness in the control, the trick becomes\nexceptionally easy to perform.\n\nSlade goes to the s\u00e9ance armed, among other things, with an empty,\ncounterfeit box resembling Z\u00f6llner's, also with a five-mark piece of\nthe right date--I think that even Z\u00f6llner would have been suspicious\nif the coin that fell on the slate had been dated 1878! Z\u00f6llner shakes\n_his_ box--the genuine one--and satisfies himself that the coin is\nreally there. Then follows a little preliminary play with the slate and\nso on, the simplest matter in the world to an artist like Slade. At the\ncritical moment Slade diverts the attention of the experimenters from\nthe table by the world-old conjuror's dodge of gazing fixedly in some\nother direction and murmuring \"I see--see--funf,\" etc. While Z\u00f6llner\nand his colleagues are glancing in the same direction to see what he\nis looking at, Slade swiftly substitutes his counterfeit box for the\noriginal, and the trick is to all intents and purposes done. All he has\nnow to do is to drop the coin which he brought with him on to the slate\nat any convenient moment and draw out the latter in triumph!\n\nGiven the astounding guilelessness of Z\u00f6llner and the complete lack of\ncontrol revealed by the records, the thing was absurdly simple.\n\nAnd yet Z\u00f6llner refers to it as having been performed under \"such\nstringent conditions!\"\n\nThe foregoing example will, I hope, make quite clear how much\nimportance I attach to the Slade-Z\u00f6llner investigations.\n\nI am not prepared to say that Slade never produced genuine phenomena,\neither with Z\u00f6llner or with anyone else.\n\nOn the contrary, I think it probable that he possessed a certain amount\nof genuine mediumistic power which, however, he did not hesitate to\nsupplement by cheating when occasion offered.\n\nSome, or for that matter all, of the Slade-Z\u00f6llner experiments may\nhappen to have been genuine. But in view of the known untrustworthiness\nof Slade and the complete lack of proper scientific control revealed\nby a study of the published records we must write them off as quite\nvalueless from a scientific point of view.\n\nI have dealt with this particular case at some length partly on account\nof the vehemence of the controversies which have raged round it and\npartly because the discrediting of Z\u00f6llner's observations has done much\nto bring the whole idea of the fourth dimension into disfavour and even\ninto ridicule. This, I feel, is unfair and I wish to make it clear that\nmy present advocacy of the claims of the higher space hypothesis is in\nno way based on the Z\u00f6llner experiments.\n\nThere are, of course, in the literature of the subject a large number\nof other cases which are not so obviously unreliable--some, in fact,\nwhich are distinctly good.\n\nDr. S.A. Peters gives an account of an early experiment by Dr.\nHare--one of the pioneer investigators--in which two small balls of\nplatinum were transferred to the inside of two hermetically sealed\nglass tubes. It is not a bad case but is a very old one and the record\ngives no particulars of any special precautions taken to exclude fraud.\n\nThe Milan Committee appointed to investigate the mediumship of Eusapia\nPalladino failed to obtain any confirmation of Z\u00f6llner's experiments,\nbut they seem to have been puzzled by an unaccountable incident where\nthe medium managed to get into, or partially into, a coat while her\nhands were being held by the Committee. I do not myself regard this\ncase as convincing.\n\nThe American Society for Psychical Research recorded some observations\nwith a Mrs. Roberts of New York, who managed to liberate herself from a\ncarefully made and sealed cage which was closed and sealed by members\nof the investigating committee. I do not know anything at first-hand\nabout the credentials of this case. Dr. Paul Joire quotes it and I\nsuppose, therefore, that he considers it reliable.\n\nThe same author also quotes at length a case observed by Dr. Pogorelsky\nand other Russian investigators with the medium Sambor. In this case a\ncane chair was passed on to the arms of two of the experimenters whose\nhands were clasped and bound together. That is to say, whereas to start\nwith the chair was by itself and independent of them it was, at the\nend of the proceedings, found suspended from their arms by the opening\nat the back. As the opening was too small for either of them to have\nwriggled through even if they had wished to do so this was a clear case\nof apparent penetration of matter by matter.\n\nThe evidence in this case seems to be well above the average although\nit cannot be said to amount to mathematical certainty.\n\nMr. Gambier Bolton gives a distinctly good case in his book \"Psychic\nForce,\" p. 65. Under exceptionally favourable conditions he observed\nthe removal of a light table from a sort of tent which he had\nconstructed and very carefully closed and secured. This is one of the\nbest cases I know; it took place in the observer's own room, it was\ndone impromptu, it was well observed in light, and all the objects\nconcerned were the observer's property and not of a kind to admit of\nprestidigitation. It is difficult to see any way out of it and yet I\nmust confess that I am not wholly satisfied. I feel that in every case\nthere is just something more needed to carry complete conviction and I\nshould very much like to see a good case myself.\n\nOther instances are common. The records of the mediumship of Stainton\nMoses, for instance, abound with them. But as there were never any\ntest conditions imposed, so far as I am aware, it follows that the\nquestion of the genuineness of the phenomena is simply a matter of\nthe integrity of the medium. On this point every reader must be left\nto form his own opinion. Many authorities have professed the greatest\nconfidence in Moses. Mr. Podmore, on the other hand, presents the\nsuspicious features of the case in a very able criticism in his \"Modern\nSpiritualism.\" Anyway on a point of such importance as this I do not\nthink it would be right to allow the matter to be settled by any purely\nmoral considerations of the type adduced in the case of Moses.\n\nIn general, then, I should say that the phenomena of the apparent\npenetration of matter by matter are not established with the same\ndegree of certainty which characterises certain other phenomena, and\nwhich we ought to demand before accepting them as scientifically proven\nor utilising them without reserve as a basis for the construction of\ntheories.\n\nIn the interests of the science it is in the highest degree important\nthat experiments of this nature should be carried out under real test\nconditions.\n\nShould any of my readers be so fortunate as to be acquainted with any\nmedium capable of producing these very rare phenomena with regularity,\nI should esteem it a great favour if they would kindly inform me. I\nwould very much like to arrange some definite experiments to settle the\nmatter--if possible once and for all.\n\nThere is one other direction from which, in my opinion, we receive a\nstrong hint that four-dimensional space is intimately connected with\nPsychic phenomena.\n\nI refer to Crawford's work on table levitation. This investigation\nis undoubtedly destined to take rank as a \"classical\" research of\nthe first magnitude and no one who professes to take an intelligent\ninterest in the scientific and experimental aspects of Psychic\ninvestigations can afford to be without his book.[4]\n\nIn a later chapter I shall have occasion to refer to certain aspects\nof his results and to show how they fit in with those of other\ninvestigators working on very different lines.\n\nIn the present context I propose only to call attention to the rigidity\nof his \"cantilever,\" a phrase which perhaps needs some explanation.\n\nAs a result of the most careful and painstaking researches extending\nover a period of nearly three years and performed under conditions\nwhich were singularly favourable for observation, he has been enabled\nto arrive at certain definite conclusions as to the mechanical causes\nof telekinesis in general and table levitation without contact in\nparticular.\n\nHe finds that when the table is lifted clear of the floor it is\nsupported by a definite structure or cantilever. This structure is\ninvisible and impalpable, or nearly so, and appears to be organised out\nof some form of matter actually taken from the body of the medium.\n\nDr. Crawford has been able to work out the form and size of this\nstructure with considerable accuracy. For the details of method and\nresults the reader should consult his book. It is possible to pass a\nthin rod through this structure in any direction without causing a\nbreakdown, and without encountering any perceptible resistance.\n\nNevertheless the structure can resist compressional, tensional and\ntorsional stresses of very considerable magnitude as I am able to\ntestify from personal experience.\n\nI may mention here that I have witnessed these phenomena myself under\ngood observing conditions and that I am prepared to certify in the most\nunequivocal manner that they are absolutely authentic; that is to say\nthe result neither of fraud--conscious or unconscious--nor of illusion.\n\nIndeed, I do not suppose that an intelligent person could suppose\nthem to be due to anything of the sort after a careful study of Dr.\nCrawford's book, quite apart from any personal observation and I only\nadd my own testimony as a small make-weight for what it may be worth.\n\nWe are here confronted with a sort of mechanical paradox. How can we\nconceive that the structure manages to combine the contrary attributes\nof rigidity and impalpability? Rigidity means simply the power of\nresisting deformation under stress. That is to say that in order for a\nbody to be rigid it must be capable of developing within itself forces\nwhich shall counteract those which tend to deform it. If we apply a\nstress--a deforming force--to a rigid body, then this force must be met\nby some opposing force; otherwise the body will be deformed. Normally\nthis is a matter of molecular cohesion, etc.\n\nNow, this structure resists deformation under stress, and it therefore\nfollows that the deforming forces must be counteracted by opposing\nforces.\n\nBut the structure is impalpable, and we can pass a rod through it in\nany direction without encountering any resistance.\n\nThis being so it is difficult to conceive how the forces resisting\ndeformation can be applied from any direction in which we can move the\nrod, _i.e._, from any direction known and accessible to us.\n\nThe more one tries to think out what is involved in the idea of an\nimpalpable and yet rigid structure, the more hopeless it seems.\n\nBut I think that the concept of four-dimensional space will help us\neven here.\n\nWe know two things. First that the structure is rigid and therefore\nthat the deforming stresses are counteracted by opposing forces and,\nsecond, that these opposing forces are apparently not applied from\nany direction with which we are acquainted. But is it not possible\nthat they may be applied from some direction with which we are _not_\nacquainted?\n\nFrom some direction, in fact, of which the hypothetical fourth\nrectangular axis of space is a component.\n\nIs it possible that the matter which is drawn from the body of the\nmedium, and which forms the structure, is composed of molecules whose\natoms are arranged not in space of three dimensions but in space of\nfour dimensions?\n\nI do not say that this is necessarily so; but I must confess that to\nme it looks rather like it. Still less am I prepared to say that the\natoms are arranged four dimensionally. We do not know enough for that\nyet. But it is, I think, a possibility, although for all I know to the\ncontrary there may be many other ways in which forces operating in four\nspace might act on three-dimensional atoms and molecules.\n\nConsider a two-dimensional analogy again.\n\nImagine a number of flat-headed drawing pins lying points upward on\na flat surface. Taken collectively as a system they will have no\nrigidity. Now imagine a board pressed down on those points so that\nthey penetrate into the board. The points and the board alike will\nbe invisible to the two space beings inhabiting the surface and yet\nthe drawing-pins, taken collectively as a system would have acquired\nrigidity. Deforming stresses would be resisted by cohesive forces\noperating outside the two space surface altogether.\n\nThis analogy is, naturally, imperfect; but I think that it enables us\nto form some idea of the way in which the rigidity of the levitating\nstructure might result from its being held together by binding forces\noperating outside our space.\n\nThe only alternative is to suppose that the particles of which the\nstructure is composed are rendered rigid by virtue of some peculiar\nmotion of the ether of a nature entirely unknown to us and different\nfrom any type of ethereal motion with which we are at present\nacquainted. This is palpably unsatisfactory and has the grave defect,\nin an explanation, of failing even to begin to explain.\n\nIn an article published in \"Light,\" for July 14, 1917, I discussed this\npoint in somewhat greater detail.\n\nThis is all that I have to say with respect to the phenomena which are\nessentially \"Psychical.\" In the next chapter I shall deal with two\nother applications of the theory to more general questions.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: Far be it from me to suggest that these last-mentioned\nfactors play no part in the phenomena. On the contrary, their effect is\nat least very considerable, and does much to obscure and complicate the\nwork of interpretation.]\n\n[Footnote 2: NOTE.--The foregoing remarks on the subject of Dreams\nmight be taken to imply an ignorance of the views inaugurated by\nFreud, and extended by Jung, Pfister, and others of the Psychoanalytic\nschool. But I do not think that there is any fundamental contradiction\ninvolved. Even if, as this school tends to maintain, there is no\ndream without it's hidden and esoteric meaning, it is still perfectly\nlegitimate to suppose that the _form_ which a dream takes may be\ndetermined by causes of the type which I have been discussing here.\nThese would provide the raw material so to speak which would be worked\nup into the finished dream in accordance with Freudian principles.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Compare the recent work of Rutherford, Soddy, Le Bon and\nothers.]\n\n[Footnote 4: \"The Reality of Psychical Phenomena\" (Watkins).]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nSOME OTHER POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS OF THE HYPOTHESIS\n\n\nIn this chapter I propose to deal first with the questions of Time and\nprevision and in the next to show how the higher space ideas help us to\nclear up certain difficulties in connection with Vitality and Will.\n\nThe question of the nature of time is one which brings us into close\ncontact with Philosophic and Metaphysical thought and one is apt to\nfind oneself in very deep waters indeed. Still I think it is possible\nto show how the higher space ideas come in without involving myself in\ncontroversial statements. I shall leave it to others to decide whether,\nas I am inclined to suspect, the acceptance of higher space concepts as\nactualities would provide Metaphysicians with a somewhat new field of\nspeculation or modified methods of expression.\n\nIt has been suggested by some writers that \"the fourth dimension is\ntime.\"\n\nAt first sight this definition would seem to conflict with our original\nstatement that it is an unknown direction in space at right angles\nto every direction which we can find. But, as a matter of fact there\nis a certain amount to be said for the idea. It might be pointed\nout, for instance that for an object to exist at all it must possess\nsome \"extension\" in time. It must, that is to say, not only possess\na certain length and breadth and thickness but must also exist for a\ncertain time. Otherwise it simply does not exist. Then, again, if we\nwere able to \"travel\" in time we might fairly claim to be travelling in\na previously unknown direction, different that is from any direction at\npresent known to us.\n\nMoreover, as I showed at the end of the first chapter, changes in\nour space could be accounted for by supposing them to represent\nour perception of a series of parallel sections made by our\nthree-dimensional space cutting an assemblage of suitably shaped and\narranged four-dimensional solids. It is here that I think we find a\nclue which may perhaps be relevant to the present discussion.\n\nI am far from being prepared to say that the fourth dimension _is_ time\nbecause I doubt whether time as commonly understood is an \"absolute\"\nthing. It seems to me to be rather a limitation of our finite\nconsciousness.\n\nIn the Divine Consciousness which I take to be alone Absolute there can\nbe, surely, no Past or Future; all must be comprehended in the Eternal\nNow.\n\nBut I do think it possible that if we were not limited to three\ndimensions in thought and experience we might be able greatly to modify\nour present conceptions of time and to understand many things with\nregard to it which at present appear obscure.\n\nLet us start by considering for a moment our ordinary idea of \"Time.\"\nTo start with we associate it with clocks and next, if we go a step\nfurther back, with the movement of the earth relative to the sun and\nstars. A clock is merely a mechanical device for subdividing into equal\nparts of suitable size the intervals between successive recurrences of\ncertain astronomical events. In fact our ordinary ideas of time are\ndetermined by a wholly fortuitous arrangement of the component parts of\nthe Solar System. If the masses etc. were other than they are, our day\nand year would be altered accordingly. It is quite conceivable that in\nsome highly complex system of several \"suns\" moving under the influence\nof their mutual attractions and attended each by its own sub-system\nof satellites, there might be a world from which all the observable\nastronomical phenomena would be so complicated that its inhabitants\ncould detect no regularity in them at all.\n\nIf, for instance, any given astronomical grouping of the observable\nbodies only recurred once in a hundred generations of the inhabitants,\nthe measurement of time from astronomical data would be scarcely\npracticable.\n\nA similar state of things would result if the average life of a man on\nearth lasted about ten minutes.\n\nAgain we know that the regularity of the changes in our system is\nreally only apparent, for all the motions by which we habitually\nmeasure time are gradually altering under the influence of tidal\nfriction.\n\nSo we see that all our ordinary ideas of time are based on the\nfissiparous assumption that certain distributions of matter will occur\nregularly; that is to say in such a manner that if we could observe any\ntwo successive cycles simultaneously they would appear coincident.\n\nThe same can be shown to apply to any other system of time measurement\nwhich we can substitute for the observation of astronomical phenomena.\n\nThis is so because, apart from all other reasons, every conceivable\nmethod must be based on the assumption that the properties of matter\nare invariable. But these seem to be functions of the properties of\nether and since the solar system is certainly, and the whole universe\nprobably, moving through ether-filled space, this means that our\nmethods of time measurement must ultimately be based on the assumption\nthat the ether is homogeneous.\n\nVery probably it is; but there is no reason why it should be--on _a\npriori_ grounds.\n\nNow M. Bergson has been at pains to discriminate between this time \"of\nsuccession\" which we know and true time--the time \"of duration.\" His\nview, as I understand it, is that the succession of events or \"spatial\nsimultaneities\" by which we _measure_ time no more _is_ time than the\nsuccession of marks on a foot-rule _is_ the material which we measure\nwith it.\n\nWhat we actually experience as time does not necessarily correspond\nwith the spatial recurrences which measure it.\n\nWe all of us say, when we are bored, that \"the time passed slowly\" or,\nwhen we are happy and amused, that \"the time flew\" and although this\nmay appear at first sight to be no more than a loose way of speaking I\nthink that there is more in it than that. It is here, in fact, that we\nfind what I can only call a \"check\" on the measurement of time.\n\nIt is the apprehension of something capable of undergoing change, of\nPsychic states to wit, whose changes are yet totally independent of\nthe spatial changes by which we ordinarily measure time. A man who is\nhanging by a frayed rope over a precipice waiting for someone to come\nand rescue him might very likely say that \"It seemed hours\" although it\nmight really have been no more than a very few minutes.\n\nYet in one sense he might be speaking the literal truth. The changes\nwhich took place in his mental states during those few minutes might\nwell be as complex and extensive as those he would normally experience\nin the course of hours.\n\nThis should suffice to make clear the difference between the \"real time\nprocess\" which we measure and the recurrence of spatial simultaneities\nby which we measure it.\n\nIf we consider the latter alone we soon find that they are difficult\nof comprehension. As Mr. Lindsay says in his book \"The Philosophy of\nBergson,\" p. 128.\n\n \"If we eliminate real time altogether we get a number of\n simultaneities whose relation to each other we cannot understand....\n For the relation between the simultaneities is taken to be that of\n the parts to the whole, but ... that is itself a simultaneity ...\n the relation of the simultaneities which are now taken as in their\n aggregate constituting change must be conceived of as necessary, as\n somehow all existing at once.\"\n\nAnd again:\n\n\"We can only understand change by realising that it is incapable of\nspatial expression....\"\n\nThis quotation seems to me to be important because it brings out\nclearly the points with regard to which I think that the higher space\nhypothesis may be important.\n\nFor although I am entirely in accord with the idea that there are, so\nto speak, two sorts of time I feel that in the light of the hypothesis\nwe cannot allow the statement that \"change is something which is\nincapable of spatial expression\" to pass unchallenged.\n\nIf it were put in the form, \"material change is incapable of expression\nin terms of space of three dimensions,\" I should have nothing to say.\n\nBut in the course of my remarks on the phenomena of change in\na two-dimensional world, I pointed out that it is possible to\nintegrate an infinite number of three-spatial simultaneities into a\nfour-dimensional whole.\n\nThe introduction of this concept seems to me calculated to modify the\nwhole aspect of the question.\n\nFor, by its light, we see that all the three-spatial simultaneities by\nwhich we mark time _can_ exist at once.\n\nThey can do so because the arrangement of material particles which\nconstitutes a given simultaneity may be regarded, if we so wish, as a\nthin section of a four dimensional solid.\n\nWe can say, then, that there are two sorts of time.\n\nFirst there is ordinary Physical \"time\" which is measured by the\nrecurrence of three-spatial simultaneities and this, if we choose, may\nbe regarded as produced by the passage across our space of something\nwhich has extension in four dimensions.\n\nSecondly, there is what I am inclined to call Subjective time,\nconsisting of changes in Psychic states; and which may be regarded,\nprovisionally, as being perceived by virtue of changes in \"objects,\"\nincluding the vehicles of our own consciousnesses, in space of four\ndimensions, or, at any rate, in space of a dimensionality higher than\nthree.\n\nI do not mean the foregoing remarks to be taken too literally for I do\nnot regard three-dimensional change as produced by the passage across\nour space of actual four-dimensional solids. This seems to me to be\naltogether too crude an idea and was only introduced to bring out my\npoint that three-dimensional change is _capable of expression_ in terms\nof four space.\n\nWhether it is solely a phenomenon of consciousness or whether there may\nbe something in the nature of four-dimensional \"lines of force\" which\ncut three-dimensional space and determine material distributions I am\nnot at all prepared even to surmise.\n\nA side light on this matter of the two sorts of time is given by the\nphenomena of time in dreams. It is well known that we may be awakened\nby a noise and that in the very few seconds between the occurrence\nof the noise and our becoming completely conscious we may experience\na long and complicated dream in which we may do and say things which\nwould take quite a long time in actual life and this without any sense\nof hurry.\n\nThis seems to show that the \"time scale\" for the dream state is not\nthe same as that to which we are accustomed in our waking hours.\nThe difference should be sought, as Mr. Bragdon points out, in the\ndiffering vehicle of consciousness.\n\nThis idea can be pushed much further.\n\nI have suggested that there is a sort of time which is, so to speak,\npeculiar to our space and which is expressible in terms of four space;\nand that there is another sort of time which appertains to four space\nitself, associated, that is, with four space change in the same way\nthat three space time is associated with three space change.\n\nBut if we accept the idea that there are more dimensions of space than\nthree we cannot refuse to consider the possibility that there are\nmore than four. If so we must say that four space change is in turn\nexpressible in terms of five space in just the same way that three\nspace change is expressible in terms of four space.\n\nNow, it is evident that a being embodied in four space and possessing,\neither temporarily or permanently, no three-space vehicle, will be\nunaffected by three space change and will, therefore, be independent\nof three space time. Four space change would take the place of the\nthree spatial simultaneities by which we, embodied in three space,\nreckon time, and five space change would take the place of the changes\nin Psychic states which for us give rise to the second aspect of time\nwhich we have been discussing.\n\nThe whole dual nature of time would be repeated but with the difference\nof being one dimension higher.\n\nThe same may be applied to five space and six space and so on,\nindefinitely.\n\nIn each case the changes giving rise to the experience of subjective\ntime would presumably be the resultant of the changes of all spaces\nhigher than that of the lowest vehicle, but that of the next higher\nspace would predominate.\n\nHence Consciousness could never be altogether free of the experience of\ntime until it was embodied only in the highest space of all, which we\nmust suppose to possess the attributes of infinitely dimensional space.\n\nAnd this will only apply to the Divine Consciousness.\n\nAll this is admittedly highly speculative but seems to me the natural\ndeduction if we assume the existence of spaces of dimensionality higher\nthan four.\n\nThe nature of maximally dimensional space is a question which I do not\npropose to discuss here as it is somewhat conspicuously outside the\nsphere of practical politics. For other observations on this subject,\nincluding some remarks on the concept of \"curved time,\" the interested\nreader may profitably refer to Mr. Bragdon's book \"Four Dimensional\nVistas.\"\n\nMr. Klein treats the question in a rather different, but highly\ninteresting, manner in his book \"Science and the Infinite.\"\n\n\nPREVISION.\n\nThe subject of prevision is obviously closely allied to that of time,\nsince the only considerable difficulty lies in the fact that the\nincidents forseen are removed in time. They are wrapped in the darkness\nof the future and we say that they \"have not happened yet.\"\n\nThere are two forms which an attempt to explain the fairly numerous\ngood cases of prevision may take.\n\nOne way is to say that the future is latent in the present in that\nit is determined by factors at present in existence. The other is\nto say that there is no such thing as Past or Future, but that both\nare comprehended in the Now and that it is merely on account of the\nlimitations of our Consciousness that we cannot apprehend them.\n\nAccording to the former view the power of prevision is the result of a\nmere heightening of the faculties by which we can always foresee the\nfuture to some slight extent. If we see a blind man walking towards the\nedge of a cliff it is not difficult to foresee that he will, probably,\nfall off it and be smashed at the bottom. Such a sight could easily be\nsupposed to give rise to a visualisation of the corpse at the bottom of\nthe cliff, which might pass for a prophetic vision.\n\nIn such simple matters it is not difficult to imagine that a suitable\nclairvoyant state, combined with unconscious but accurate reasoning and\nsubsequent visualisation, would enable the percipient to forecast the\nfuture.\n\nBut clearly the accuracy of such a forecast would depend on the\nperception of _all_ the factors involved, as well as on the precision\nof the unconscious reasoning.\n\nHence, although we might readily accept this explanation in the case of\nprevision of events in the immediate future, or in the case of vague\npresentiments, it becomes increasingly difficult to do so, as the\nevent prevised becomes more remote and the number of factors which may\npossibly influence the issue are proportionately increased.\n\nI need hardly say that these factors of which I speak must include\nPsychic states and so forth.\n\nTo use the terminology to which we have by this time become accustomed,\nwe could, theoretically, forecast the distribution of every particle\nof matter in three space, provided we knew present distribution and\nvelocities; and provided also that no interference could arise from\nexternal, _i.e._, four space, sources. But in order to be certain of\nthe latter, we must know all about four space dispositions and so on to\nthe \"N\"th degree.\n\nAbsolute prevision could therefore only result from a complete\nknowledge of all the factors in _every_ space combined with absolutely\nperfect reasoning powers.\n\nAlthough, as will be seen, certain of the ideas in the above have\na place in what I believe to be the true theory of prevision, the\nexplanation as above described does not appear to me to be satisfying.\n\nThe heightening of faculty required in all but the very simplest cases\nis too great to be accepted except in the last resort.\n\nNow, as regards the other theory, that the future does actually exist\n_now_ and that only our own limitations prevent us from apprehending it.\n\nConsider again the crude and metaphorical representation of change as\nresulting from the passage across our three space of a congeries of\nfour space solids which supposes that the distribution of matter at any\nmoment is simply a very thin cross section of this congeries.\n\nIf this were the case it is evident that to anyone who had the power of\nmoving freely in four dimensions it would be possible to move up the\nmass and see what some cross section was like which had not yet arrived\nat our space.\n\nThis is desperately crude but it gives the general idea.\n\nIn order to grasp it better we will transpose it into terms of two-and\nthree space at the same time altering it slightly. Suppose that a two\nspace world consists of a colossal soap film. Imagine a thin thread\npassing through the film and stretched between two points, one above\nthe film and one below. If these two points move perpendicularly to\nthe film the thread will move accordingly. The point where the thread\ncuts the film will remain stationary if the thread was perpendicular to\nthe latter to start with, but will move if the thread was originally\nslanting.\n\nTo a two space being inhabiting the film, all that will be visible of\nthe thread will be a minute circle, an atom of two-space matter let us\nsay.\n\nNow let us imagine an enormous number of such threads, sufficient\nto produce all the atoms necessary to make up a complete two space\nuniverse. Suppose also that these are twisted and intertwined in the\nmost complicated possible manner. Then as they pass across the soap\nfilm they will give rise to the most complex changes in the two space\nworld.\n\nA three space being, however, could see the filamentary structure as a\nwhole and would not be limited to the particular section which happened\nto be crossing the film at any given moment.\n\nI must again insist that I do not for a moment regard this as being\nanything like a true picture of what actually occurs. The point I wish\nto make is merely that if, as seems to be the case, three space change\ncan be represented spatially by the use of four space ideas, then it\nis not utterly inconceivable that a consciousness free to move in four\nspace and independent of three space limitations, should be able in\nsome obscure way to foresee coming changes.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere is a prevalent notion to the effect that if we admit the\npossibility of prevision we are bound to become involved in the slough\nof Fatalism.\n\n\"If we can foresee what is going to happen,\" it is urged, \"then the\nfuture must be already settled, and we have no power of altering it.\"\n\nThis view appears to me to be fallacious.\n\nConsider again for a moment the filamentary world.\n\nOur forecast of events therein is based on the assumption that the\nfilamentary structures remain unaltered, that the cross-sections which\nwill be traversed by the film will not be changed before it gets there.\n\nThis is pure assumption and quite unwarranted.\n\nIn the first place the two space beings themselves might be able to\nalter the arrangement of the threads during their passage across the\nfilm, implying of course the exercise of three space forces, and the\npossession of a certain degree of three-dimensionality, on their part.\nIn the second place all sorts of extraneous three space forces might be\napplied.\n\nThe argument does not perhaps apply especially felicitously to this\nparticular analogy, but translated into more general terms it means\nthat three space change, although expressible in terms of four space,\nand perhaps for the very reason that it is thus expressible, is\nsusceptible to modification under the influence of factors which have\nno three-dimensionality.\n\nAs stated at the outset, absolute prevision necessitates _every_ factor\nbeing accounted for, and these factors may appear, not merely in three\nspace or four space, but in N-space too.\n\nIn fact, the more accurate prevision is to be, the wider survey must\nthe percipient take.\n\nIn order to attain absolute prevision the precipient must be able to\nfunction consciously in maximally-dimensional space. But this ability\nI take to be the exclusive prerogative of the Divine Consciousness.\n\nThe purely speculatory character of the foregoing will be evident and I\ndo not wish it to be taken as more than an attempt to convey a general\nimpression of ideas which seem somewhat suggestive.\n\nIt seems appropriate to end a chapter frankly given over to inchoate\nand somewhat formless speculations, with some remarks on the\nobjectivity or otherwise of space in general.\n\nThese remarks have been more especially prompted by Mr. E.L. Gardner's\narticle on \"The Fourth Dimension\" which appeared in the _Theosophist_\nfor October 1916, by a pamphlet for private circulation written by Mr.\nT. Olman Todd, 1915, and by Mr. Klein's remarks on Space in his book\n\"Science and the Infinite.\"\n\nThroughout this work I have treated four-dimensional space as an\nobjective reality and, as will appear, I consider that this is\nperfectly justifiable.\n\nThe general tendency of the above-mentioned writers seems to be to\nsuggest that this attitude is fallacious and that all space, of\nwhatever dimensionality, is rather to be regarded as a phenomenon of\nconsciousness. In saying this I do not pretend to be reflecting with\nprecision the views expressed by the writers in question. I am merely\ngiving the general effect produced on my mind by their ideas.\n\nI may say at once that I think that they are probably perfectly right\nand that no space of any kind is really objective.\n\nI am, for instance, disposed to agree with Mr. Gardner when he says\nthat \"However willingly we may grant that behind the description\n'Fourth Dimension' there stands something that is real, it is of\nimportance that that reality should be described in terms of Life and\nConsciousness and not be regarded as a further extension of Matter or\nForm.\"\n\nMr. Klein concludes that \"our very conception of space is one of the\nmodes only under which motion or physical phenomena are presented to\nour consciousness.\"\n\nI have neither the knowledge nor the temerity to embark upon a\ndiscussion of the point from the metaphysical point of view and all\nI wish to do is to show that I am aware that all our ideas regarding\nspace are liable to be modified at the hands of the philosophers\nand that I have no desire to minimise the importance of their\ncontributions. On the contrary I think it probable that these may prove\nto be of the utmost value. They may, for instance, by interpreting\nspatial experience in terms of consciousness, throw light on the very\nconsiderable difficulty to which I drew attention on page 48.\n\nBut I submit that for the present purpose we can legitimately disregard\nthe whole thing. It may well be that the change in passing from\nour present state of consciousness to that which I have described\nas consciousness in four dimensions is subjective rather than\nobjective, that the change would be in our consciousness rather than\nin spatial conditions. But whatever may be the real nature of our\nthree-dimensional space from the strictly academic point of view we can\nand habitually do treat it as an objective reality and I think it fair\nto claim an equal licence in dealing with four-dimensional space.\n\nPure consciousness is an elusive thing to handle and if we find\nevidence to the effect, for example, that the state of consciousness\nin which we exist when separated from the body can be accurately\nrepresented by the higher space hypothesis, then surely we had better\nsay that it is existence in four-dimensional space and have done with\nit, just as we say that our normal existence is existence in three\ndimensional space.\n\nAfter all the whole matter is one of \"relativity\" so to speak. The\nfinal effect with which we are concerned is the reaction of reality\non our minds and, just as we can in dynamics reduce any one member of\na system to rest and treat all motions as relative to that so here it\nmakes no practical difference whether it is our mind or reality which\nchanges provided that the changed relation between them is correctly\nexpressed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nVITALITY AND WILL\n\n\nAnother and particularly happy illustration of the way in which the\nhigher space concepts enable one to solve awkward dilemmas is to be\nfound in the problems of Vitality and Will. Readers who are interested\nin these topics would do well to refer to Mr. Hereward Carrington's\n\"Problems of Psychical Research\" or to his \"Vitality, Fasting, and\nNutrition.\"\n\nThere are in general two main views which may be taken about Vitality.\nWe may either suppose that Life is purely a product of the body, that\nit is a mere physiological function and nothing more, or one may\nsuppose that so far from the body being the primary cause of Life the\nexact converse is the case--that Life is the _raison d'etre_ of the\nbody. It may be that everything that we recognize as \"vital,\" every\nattribute which enables us to distinguish animate from inanimate\nobjects, is no more than a purely physical phenomenon the product\nof unusually complicated chemical actions: or it may be that the\nchemico-physical complex which we call the body is only the means\nwhereby the pressing tide of Life manages to manifest itself in the\nworld. This latter is the view held by M. Bergson, by Mr. Carrington\nand by myself.\n\n \"M. Bergson regards matter as the dam which keeps back the rush of\n life. Organise it a little (as in the protozoa), _i.e._, slightly\n raise the sluice,--and a little life will squeeze through. Organise\n it elaborately (as in man), _i.e._, raise the sluice a good deal, and\n much life will squeeze through.\"\n\n  (The Right Hon. A.J. Balfour.)\n\nThis is the \"transmissive\" as opposed to the \"productive\" theory and\nthe whole position is very like that which obtained in Psychology some\nyears ago. William James then showed that although it was possible to\ninterpret the observed facts of Psychology on the hypothesis that the\nbrain \"produced\" consciousness it was equally legitimate to do so on\nthe hypothesis that it \"transmitted\" it.\n\nAs he said \" ... Mere coincidence in two sets of phenomena does\nnot prove that they are causally connected, that one produces the\nother. They may be quite separate from one another (psycho-physical\nparallelism) or both may be aspects of something else.\"\n\nPersonally I should be prepared to admit only the latter possibility.\nCauseless parallelism is incredible; as James himself admits elsewhere.\n\nThe analogy is very close. Just as consciousness is usually conceived\nto be due to the functioning of the brain but may, on the contrary\nexist apart from it and merely use the brain as a channel of\nmanifestation, so also may Life exist apart from and use the body.\n\nI will not go into the various arguments which support this view.\nPerhaps the most striking is that from the necessity for sleep--a\nphenomenon which appears to be exclusively associated with Life.\nA mechanism needs replenishing with fuel, it must have worn parts\nreplaced and both these processes are accurately paralleled in the\nbody of any living organism. But an engine does not need sleep,\nwhereas a living organism not only needs it but cannot be satisfied\nwith any substitute for it. It looks therefore as if Life could not be\nmaintained from purely physical sources and this lends support to the\nview that it is an essentially extra-physical thing transmitted by, but\nnot arising from, physical actions.\n\nBut this view leaves us with the difficulty that if we suppose that\nLife is transcendent to the Physical and uses it only as a means of\nmanifestation we cannot see how it can do so without partaking of the\nnature of the physical and so losing its \"selective,\" \"guiding\" or\n\"intelligent\" qualities. For in order that things should be causally\nconnected they must have qualities in common. Are then we to say that\nlife is a form of energy or that it is not?\n\nAs Mr. Carrington says: \"We are ... driven into this dilemma: life must\nbe an energy--but, as such, it cannot be purposive! Life is purposive,\nyet it must be an energy--for otherwise it could not affect the bodily\nenergies and the material world.\"\n\nM. Bergson adopts the \"hair trigger\" theory and supposes the Life only\naffects the physical energies of the body _very slightly_, just enough\nto deflect them this way or that. But this is not getting out of the\ndifficulty at all, for the problem is one not of degree but of kind;\nit is just as difficult to imagine \"non-energy\" affecting energy \"very\nslightly\" as to imagine it affecting it a good deal.\n\nNor does it help matters to suppose, with Mr. Carrington and other\nauthorities, that Life is a wholly distinct and unique kind of energy;\nan \"absolutely separate force _per se_ different from any other mode\nof energy of which we have any knowledge.\" If this is so we must ask\n\"How is it that this force combines sufficient of the qualities\ncommon to all the physical forces to enable it to affect them, with\ncharacteristics of so different a nature that we can call it an\nabsolutely different force _per se_ and emancipate it from the ordinary\nlaws and limitations of physical forces?\"\n\nA very similar, if not identical, dilemma arises in the case of Will\nwhich must either be supposed to be a purely physical force--which\nhypothesis commits us at once to a creed of thoroughgoing materialistic\ndeterminism or else we must suppose it to be distinct from physical\nenergy by virtue of some added non-physical quality which must be\nwholly outside the physical realm. Yet this extra quality of \"conscious\nintent\" which is the essential characteristic of the act of willing\ndoes, as a matter of common experience, enable us to control physical\nmatter and forces.\n\nIn fact, the whole trouble is simply this.\n\nThe universe presents a closed circle of matter and energy. Anything\nwithin it must be bound by law, blind and unintelligent. Nothing\nwithout it can affect anything within it--if for no other reason\nthan that if it could it would violate the fundamental law of the\nconservation of energy. But Will _does_ affect matter, therefore it\nmust be within the circle: it is _not_ blind, for its very essence is\ninitiative, independence, and intelligence and it must, therefore, be\noutside the circle.\n\nNow let us introduce the idea of higher space and see where it leads us.\n\nSuppose that the energy which we term \"Life\" is located to start with\nin higher space--in four-dimensional space for example. Suppose that\nit is really pressing against the \"dam\" of three-dimensional matter\ntrying to use it for a vehicle of manifestation. The extent to which\nit will be able to do so will depend on the presence or absence in the\nmatter concerned of those qualities which enable it to be acted on by\nfour-dimensional forces. What these qualities are it is at present\nimpossible to say although one might hazard a guess to the effect\nthat the essential factor might be one of greater or less molecular\nextension in the direction of the fourth dimension.\n\nBut wherever matter exists which possesses the suitable properties,\nthere will Life \"squeeze through the dam\" to a greater or less extent\nand we shall have a \"living\" organism which will continue to live until\nthe matter through which Life is--in each particular case--manifesting,\nloses the properties which enable it to be made use of.\n\nWhether there is any sort of matter which can truly be called\ncompletely inanimate or whether, as some people hold, all matter is to\nsome extent \"alive\" I am not prepared to say. Personally I should be\nsorry to have to draw a distinct dividing line anywhere and it seems\nmore in accordance with the general continuity of things to suppose\nthat no such line can really be drawn.\n\nFor myself I tend more and more to the view that Life, Vitality,\nConsciousness--call it what you will--is something which dips down, as\nit were, for the purpose of gaining experience and of self-evolution,\nfrom its original location--wherever and whatever that may be--through\nsuccessive limitations of consciousness until it reaches this, the\nlowest, the most restricted and the most individual state of all.\n\nThese successive limitations may conveniently be represented by saying\nthat consciousness functions in spaces of successively decreasing\ndimensionality although it must be borne in mind, as was pointed out at\nthe end of the last chapter, that this may be only a convenient way of\nexpressing the effect of a change which belongs to the consciousness\nitself more properly than to its environment.\n\nAt each successive descent consciousness must find a suitably\norganised vehicle in which to function and through which it can\nreceive impressions. But each such vehicle will involve corresponding\ncircumscriptions and, conversely, each upward stage will involve an\nextension of consciousness, until finally, when our evolution is\nentirely accomplished, we shall be completely and fully Conscious and\nindependent of all limitations of any sort or kind. On the downward\nhalf of the journey the characteristic process would, on this theory,\nbe the gaining of individual at the cost of \"communal\" consciousness,\nwhereas during the second half the latter would continually increase\nand at last lead to complete \"communion\" in the widest possible sense\nwithout any loss of individuality. This view, which has a good deal\nto support it especially in point of continuity and general coherence\nwith other well established ideas, has much in common with that held by\nthe Theosophists, which is, to my mind, the strongest plank in their\nplatform.\n\nBut to revert to the original idea of Life as primarily a\nfour-dimensional force.\n\nThis does not involve any contravention of the Law of the Conservation\nof energy for we have only to suppose that the Law is exact only for\nthe Cosmos and for the physical universe, as commonly understood, no\nmore than a very close approximation.\n\nThe amounts of energy which we must suppose to enter the physical or\nthree-dimensional universe from four-dimensional space may be very\nsmall, so small as to defy detection by the methods we are able to\napply to the study of living organisms in which alone they could be\nobserved; and yet, by virtue of the \"hair-trigger\" theory to which I\nhave already referred they might produce effects as large as we please.\n\nThe foregoing is clearly incomplete, but I think I may fairly claim to\nhave removed the fundamental dilemma which first confronted us.\n\nWe have seen that life may be supposed to exist entirely apart from\nordinary physical matter and yet to affect it so long as we suppose it\nto do so from some region of higher space. It is a form of energy if we\nwish to call it so and yet it is distinct from the ordinary forms of\nphysical energy and free from the limitations which would be imposed\nupon it if we reckoned it as subject to the Law of Conservation as\ncommonly understood.\n\nAnd yet the latter is not broken but rather strengthened; for we now\nsuppose it to be not merely of Universal but of Cosmic application.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nHIGHER SPACE AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE.\n\n\nIn an earlier chapter I defined a valid hypothesis as one which\nexplained at least _some_ of the observed facts and did not contradict\nany of them.\n\nSince then I have been trying to show that the Higher Space ideas do\nthrow a certain amount of light on quite a number of difficulties and\nenable us to clear up certain anomalies and dilemmas which seem to be\ninsoluble without its aid.\n\nWe must now consider rather more definitely than we have hitherto done\nwhether there is any thing in the hypothesis to conflict with those\nestablished conclusions of scientists which are the nearest approach\nwe have to absolute certainties. I think we shall find not only that\nthere is no such conflict but that there are here and there distinct\nindications that the higher space ideas may some day find applications\nin the exegesis of even the most strictly physical sciences.\n\nThese indications are admittedly very nebulous at present, it may be\nthat they are all illusory and as will appear later they cannot _all_\nlead to anything, for some are mutually exclusive.\n\nI do not propose to express any very definite opinions on their\ncomparative values but shall simply state them and leave it to my\nreaders to decide what they are worth.\n\nIt must be remembered throughout that we cannot expect to find any very\ndefinite indications of the existence of higher space as a reality for\nthe simple reason that physical science is concerned solely with those\nphenomena of matter and force which are \"_ex hypothesi_\" essentially\nthree-dimensional.\n\nIt is worth noting at the outset that physical scientists have evinced\nno especial hostility to the concept of the fourth dimension, as such,\nhowever much they may have opposed to the more definitely Psychic\nresearches which I, personally, believe to be closely associated with\nit.\n\nLord Kelvin, for instance, saw in it nothing repugnant to scientific\nthought and professed himself quite willing to adopt it should such\na course seem to be indicated by the evidence. Another distinguished\nphysicist has gone so far as to evolve a theory of \"ether squirts\"\nfrom the direction of the fourth dimension in connection with the\nultimate constitution of matter.\n\nAgain M. Poincar\u00e9 the distinguished French Physicist has said \"The\ncharacteristic property of space, that of having three dimensions is\nonly ... a property residing, so to speak, in human intelligence.\"\n\nMathematical physicists also find that certain experimental anomalies\nare resolved if they refer phenomena to four interchangeable axes\ninvolving homogeneous co-ordinates instead of to three space axes and\none time axis. If this is not dealing in four-dimensional space it is\nfirst cousin to it.\n\nM. Poincar\u00e9 also pointed out that the postulates of Euclid are not\nexperimentally verifiable facts and as a matter of fact much work\nhas been done in the elaboration of non-Euclidean geometries. This\nis too mathematical a subject to be dealt with in detail here, but\nI can indicate the general drift of it, so far as it is relevant to\nthe present discussion by means of the time honoured analogy of the\ntwo-dimensional world.\n\nMost of my readers will know what are meant by the terms \"latitude\" and\n\"longitude\" and that the lines of longitude are \"great circles\" which\npass through the poles and cut the earth's equator at right angles.\nIt is also a matter of common knowledge that if on a plane surface two\nlines are drawn each of which cuts another line at right angles these\ntwo lines will be parallel--that is to say they will never meet however\nfar they may be produced. This holds good provided that the surface\nin which they are drawn is truly plane--_i.e._, flat. But it breaks\ndown, as we see in the case of the \"great circles\" of longitude, if\nthe lines are drawn on a sphere. Now imagine two-dimensional beings,\nhaving no conception of the existence of a third dimension, living on\nthe surface of a very large sphere. They might discover this principle\nabout parallel lines and all would go well until they began making\nmeasurements over very large distances. Then their Geometry would begin\nto go wrong. They would find that lines drawn in their surface which\nought not to meet however far produced would begin to show a tendency\nto do so. This would be an indication to them that there was such a\nthing as a third dimension of space and that their two-dimensional\nworld was curved in this third dimension.\n\nNow if a two-dimensional space can be curved in three dimensions there\nis no sort of reason why three-dimensional space should not be curved\nin four and in a precisely similar way three-dimensional geometry\nwould, if such were the case, begin to \"go wrong\" where very large\nmeasurements were involved. Now, the largest measurements we ever make\nare astronomical measurements and as a matter of fact, according to\nMr. Bragdon, there does seem to be a tendency for Geometry to go wrong\nin certain cases. He says that the number of negative parallaxes of\nstars is larger than would be expected having regard to the probable\nexperimental errors. The parallax of an object is the angle which it\nsubtends at two different points of observation, and so long as it is\nat a finite distance from these two points--which in the case of a star\nare the two opposite ends of the earth's orbit--this angle must be\npositive. That is to say the lines drawn in the observed direction of\nthe star from the two points must converge.\n\nIf, as in certain cases seems to happen, they _diverge_, then one of\nthree things must be the case; either the observations are wrong or\nelse light does not, as is commonly believed, travel in straight lines\n(for after all what we call a straight line in astronomy is only the\npath of a ray of light) or else our geometry is breaking down and we\nmust suppose that our space is curved, which would necessitate the\nacceptance of the existence of a fourth dimension.\n\nIt must be admitted that the explanation of negative parallaxes is more\nlikely to be found in one or both of the two first alternatives than in\nthe third.\n\nMr. Hinton has a good deal to say in his books about various\nfour-dimensional theories of electricity involving four-dimensional\nvortices. These are highly ingenious but there does not seem to be\nany considerable reason for supposing them to be anything more and I\nshall therefore not describe them here. Two of his ideas however are so\nstriking, although for different reasons, that I think a brief outline\nwill not be out of place.\n\nIn his book \"A new Era of Thought\" he points out the remarkable\nanalogy which exists between the properties of ether as postulated by\nphysicists and those which a perfectly smooth solid sheet would present\nto the intelligence of two-dimensional beings living on it.\n\nThe hypothesis of the ether was introduced to account for the\ntransmission of light, heat, electricity, and so forth, and has proved\nof the utmost service to physicists. Most of my readers are probably\nacquainted with the general idea and I need not therefore discuss it in\ndetail.\n\nIt will be sufficient here to say that it is supposed to be a\nweightless, homogeneous medium extending throughout all space and\npermeating all bodies. Indeed Matter itself is supposed to be no more\nthan the result of more or less complex disturbances in it.\n\nBut although it accounts for the phenomena in connection with which\nit was called into being it is necessary to ascribe to it very\ncontradictory properties. On the one hand it has been calculated that\nin order for it to transmit the forces which we know that it does\ntransmit, for instance the force of gravitation, it must possess a\nrigidity some 3,000 times greater than that of the strongest known\nsteel. On the other hand we must suppose it to be of a tenuity far in\nexcess of the most perfect vacuum which we can obtain, for otherwise\nthe earth and other planets which are moving at immense speed through\nthis medium would be slowed down; which is not in practice the case.\n\nNow Hinton points out that to a two-dimensional being, a perfectly\nsmooth solid sheet on the surface of which he lived would possess many\nof these properties. Being perfectly smooth it would be imperceptible\nto him and would offer no opposition to the passage of bodies over it.\nYet it could, being solid, transmit vibration just as we know the ether\ndoes for us. Also it could be as rigid as you please without losing any\nof its imperceptibility. It could not be weighed and it could not be\neliminated from any vessel no matter what care was taken to do so.\n\nThe analogy is striking but it does not appeal to me and I do not\nthink that even Mr. Hinton means it to be taken strictly, for in other\npassages he gives quite different suggestions as to the ether.\n\nOne of the latter is derived from a consideration of the phenomena of\nrotation in four-dimensional space and is of some intrinsic interest.\n\nIn two space rotation takes place about a point, in three space about\na line and we should therefore expect that in four space it would do\nso about a plane. This is easily shown to be the case although I do\nnot propose to go into the proof here. The only important point is\nthat whereas it is impossible to conceive a mass of three-dimensional\nspheres in a state of continuous rotation,--because they would be\ntrying to drive each other in different directions and so would prevent\nthe rotation,--in four dimensions this is not the case and a mass of\n\"hyper-spheres\" could be \"self-driving,\" that is to say the rotation\nof each could be such as to assist and not to retard that of its\nneighbours. This fact is of interest because Lord Kelvin showed that\nthe contradictory properties of the ether referred to above could only\nbe reconciled by supposing it to be animated throughout by a motion of\na vortical character.\n\nThis \"self-driving\" effect of rotating hyper-spheres is worth glancing\nat a little more closely. It arises from the fact that there are\ntwo distinct sorts of rotation which such a sphere may possess. In\nthree-dimensional rotation the motion may take place about any axis\nwe please and the other two axes which can be drawn will change one\ninto the other, so to speak, as the rotation takes place. But in\nfour-dimensional space we have four axes and while the X and Y axes\nchange place, say, there is nothing to prevent the W and Z axes doing\nso too. Thus we might have the X axis changing into the Y and the\nW into the Z. To reverse both of these motions so as to have the Y\naxis changing into the X and the Z into the W does not give us a new\nkind of motion any more than reversing the direction of an ordinary\nthree-dimensional rotation does--it is only equivalent to looking\nat it from a different point of view. But if in the case of the\nfour-dimensional rotation we reverse one only of the two rotational\ncomponents we do get a new kind of motion, and this is of interest in\nview of the fact that electricity like other forces is regarded as a\nmode of etheric motion, and if this be so there would seem to be a\ncertain need for two distinct kinds of it in order to correspond to\npositive and negative electricity respectively.\n\nIt is just possible that there is some connection, as Mr. Hinton\nsuggests, between this need and the two kinds of four-dimensional\nrotation referred to above.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMost writers on the subject of higher space make great play with the\nphenomena of symmetry and adduce its occurrence in nature as evidence\nof the existence of a fourth dimension. This view is not warranted by\nthe facts and I shall therefore touch on it only very briefly.\n\n[Illustration: _Fig. 9_]\n\nThe point arises in the following way. Consider the two triangles ABC\nand DEF in Fig. 9. If these were cut out and laid on a smooth surface\nexactly as shown, no amount of sliding about would enable us to fit\none exactly over the other. In order to do this it would be necessary\nto pick one up out of the plane of the paper and turn it over. In a\nprecisely similar manner two asymmetrical three-dimensional objects\nsuch as a right and left hand, each of which is the mirror image of\nthe other, could not be made to coincide unless one of them were to be\nturned over in four-dimensional space. The point made by Mr. Hinton and\nother writers who attach importance to the phenomena of symmetry, is\nthat there seems to be a general tendency in nature towards a right and\nleft handed symmetry in which the whole organism is symmetrical about a\ncentral plane, each half being the mirror image of the other and that\nthis symmetry is unlikely to have arisen through equal increments on\neither side of the central plane. They suppose as an alternative that\n\"the ultimate elements of living matter\" are not right and left handed\n_ab initio_, but become so by virtue of some of them being \"folded\nover\" in four-dimensional space.\n\nThis view seems to me to lack foundation especially in view of the fact\nthat the work of Le Bel and Van't Hoff fully cleared up the analogous\nphenomena in the case of crystals without introducing the concept of\nhigher space at all. In general therefore I agree with Schubert who\nsays:--\n\n \" ... the only inference we can here make is that the idea of a\n four-dimensioned space is competent, from a mathematical point of\n view, to throw some light on the phenomena of symmetry.\"\n\n  (Mathematical Essays, p. 91.)\n\nNone the less Bragdon is right in his contention that \"Could it be\nshown that the two-dimensional symmetry in nature is the result of\na three dimensional movement, the right and left-handed symmetry of\nsolids would by analogy be the result of a four-dimensional movement.\"\n\nI need hardly say that if we could experimentally obtain the changing\nof an asymmetrical right-handed object into the corresponding\nleft-handed one it would be of the very first importance as a proof of\nthe reality of higher space.\n\nFar more important than any of the foregoing, however, are the\nconsiderations arising from what is known as the Principle of\nRelativity. This subject, which has received much attention at the\nhands of mathematical physicists in recent years, is far too abstruse\nto be dealt with in detail here and a partial and popularised account\nwould almost certainly fail to satisfy those who are not wholly\nignorant of mathematical physics and would weary those who are. I\npropose, therefore, to dismiss it in very few words in spite of its\ngreat importance and relevance.\n\n\"The Principle of Relativity is the hypothesis that it is impossible by\nmeans of physical experiments to determine the absolute velocity of a\nbody through space.\" (Cunningham \"Relativity and the Electron Theory,\"\np. 2).\n\nWe cannot, for example, determine the velocity of the earth relative to\nthe ether.\n\nThis is of importance when we are dealing with the idea of\n\"simultaneity\"--an idea which, as we saw in Chapter IV. is closely\nassociated with our notion of Time. For our criterion of simultaneity\nhas in practice been based on optical communication. (Cp. Ibid, pp. 5\nand 28). But it is easy to show that \"the setting up of a standard of\nsimultaneity by means of light signals is not possible until a definite\nvelocity is assigned to the observer. Thus the hypothesis of relativity\nrequires a reconsideration of the way in which we measure time.\" (Ibid,\npp. 5, 28, 29).\n\n\"This again reacts on the measurement of the length of a material\nbody, the 'distance between two points' being the distance between\nsimultaneous positions of those points. Thus it becomes necessary also\nto examine the way in which we measure space. It becomes impossible to\nconsider space and time separately; the two measures are interrelated\nto such an extent that Minkowski felt himself constrained to say that\n'from henceforth time by itself and space by itself are mere shadows,\nthat they are only two aspects of a single and indivisible manner of\nco-ordinating the facts of the physical world.'\" (Ibid, pp. 5 and 6.)\n\nWhen it is remembered that the Principle of Relativity is firmly\nestablished in scientific thought it will be realised that this\nconclusion arrived at as a result of purely physical considerations is\nof the very utmost importance as an independent confirmation of the\ngeneral line of thought developed in the preceding pages.\n\nI therefore feel it legitimate to claim that in so far as physical\nscience throws any light on the subject at all its testimony is\ndistinctly favourable.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nTHE CONNECTING LINK\n\n\nIn the foregoing chapters I have tried to show that there are,\nscattered here and there over the field of Psychic Research,\nsufficient indications to warrant our adopting, as a tentative\nworking hypothesis, the idea that four-dimensional space is a reality\nand that the Individual consciousness is capable of functioning in\na four-dimensional vehicle quite apart from the three-dimensional\nphysical body.\n\nI hope that I have made it quite clear that in my opinion the two\nvehicles are entirely separate and independent, and that I do not\nregard the three-dimensional body as being a mere section of a\nfour-dimensional whole.\n\nI propose in this chapter to consider in some detail the question of\nthe nature of the connection which must perforce exist between the two\nvehicles.\n\nWe know that there must be some form of connection because impressions\nwhich are received by the three-dimensional sense organs are\ntransmitted to the conscious Ego, which is, _ex hypothesi_, embodied in\nthe four-dimensional vehicle.\n\nFurthermore it is clear that the connection can be interrupted with\ncomparative ease, since in sleep, an\u00e6sthesia, and analogous conditions,\nthe conscious Ego does not receive these impressions although the sense\norgans may still be subject to stimuli to a greater or less degree.\n\nWe are not, of course, able to draw detailed conclusions as to the\nprecise nature of this connection by the exercise of pure deductive\nreason.\n\nBut I think that my readers will agree with me that the first and most\nobvious place to look for it will be in the realm of the nervous system.\n\nFurther we may safely say that, assuming the hypothesis we are\nconsidering to be correct, the sense impression must, at some stage in\nits transmission, be deflected, so to speak, out of three space into\nfour space.\n\nIn order for this to happen it is necessary that some part of the\ntransmitting mechanism should be capable of producing this deflection\nand it is reasonable to suppose that a substance or mechanism specially\ndifferentiated for the purpose of deflecting impressions in this manner\nout of three space into four space, will be distinguished by an\nabnormal four-dimensional complexity as compared with ordinary matter,\nwhich, as we have already seen, probably possesses a very slight\nfour-dimensional extension.\n\nAs a result of this abnormal four-dimensional complexity it is to be\nanticipated that the part of the transmitting mechanism concerned will\npossess characteristics sufficient to differentiate it from ordinary\nmatter.\n\nI submit, then, that we may reasonably deduce that if the\nfour-dimensional hypothesis which I have outlined be correct, there\nshould exist, either as an integral part of the nervous system or\nin close association with it, some constituent or substance which,\nin spite of having many of the properties of ordinary matter, will\nalso possess characteristics peculiar to itself--as, for instance,\nsusceptibility to four-dimensional forces imperceptible to us.\n\nAt this point I would recall to the reader's attention the remarks\nwhich I made in Chapter II regarding the processes of scientific\nthought and the sequence of operations whereby we attain to exact\nknowledge.\n\nSo far we have considered a number of observed facts and framed\na working hypothesis which, I believe, explains some, and is not\ncontradicted by any, of them.\n\nIn the immediately preceding paragraphs we have, by deductive\nreasoning, concluded that if this hypothesis be correct then something\nelse must follow. There must, in fact, be some sort of connecting link\nwhereby sense impressions are deflected out of three space into four\nspace and are thus enabled to get through to the consciousness.\n\nWe have also concluded that this connecting link is likely to consist\nof matter in some curious condition such as to invest it with\nproperties unlike those of ordinary matter. If on turning again to the\nrealm of observation, we find that this deduction is substantiated in\npractice, we shall receive distinct confirmation of the correctness of\nour working hypothesis.\n\nIn the pages which follow I propose to show that there are a number of\nfacts which strongly indicate, even if they cannot at present be held\nconclusively to demonstrate, the existence of some such connecting link.\n\nI am well aware that there are numerous gaps in the body of evidence\nwhich I shall bring forward on this subject. To some of these I shall\ndraw specific attention in the hope that by doing so I may induce some\nof my readers to experiment on the points in question. There is an\nenormous amount of research work to be done before we shall be able to\nhave any considerable confidence in our speculations or to feel that we\nare working on anything like a firm foundation. Much of the evidence to\nwhich I shall refer in this chapter is in urgent need of confirmation\nand there is very little indeed which I should care to guarantee\npersonally. Still the indications, slight though they are, do seem to\npoint rather in the same direction and as my object is to stimulate\ninvestigation and, perhaps to indicate some of the lines on which it\nmay profitably proceed rather than to lay down the law on obscure\npoints, I have thought it worth while to deal with them fairly fully.\n\nHistorically the first relevant experiments were probably those of\nReichenbach in the middle of last century. But so little was known\nin those days about a variety of factors which might have vitiated\nhis results, and his work has been so strongly criticised by later\nauthorities that I will not do more than mention him for the benefit of\nany reader who may have a fancy for probing into the historical origins\nof the subject. None the less great credit is due to Reichenbach for\nthe thorough and painstaking character of his researches to which he\nbrought immense industry and a truly scientific spirit which led him\nto fantastic and erroneous conclusions only because he had not our\npresent knowledge to guard him from the many pitfalls which abound in\nthese investigations.\n\nThe first phenomena to which I wish to call attention is that known as\nExteriorisation of Sensibility.\n\nThis has been investigated by de Rochas and later by Joire and by\nBoirac, and I believe it is well established.\n\nThe gist of the phenomenon is that in certain hypnotic states the skin\nof the subject becomes insensitive to pain but the \"sensibility\" is\ntransferred to a sensitive layer a few centimetres distant from the\nskin. Pinching or pricking the skin itself produces no effect but\ndoing so in the region of the sensitive layer arouses the appropriate\nsensation in the subject. Furthermore, according to Joire, this\nsensibility can be localised and transferred to various objects--a fact\nwhich gives the investigator a most desirable power of experimental\ncontrol.\n\nDr. Joire performed a number of experiments to determine whether\nthe results could be attributed to auto-suggestion, to unconscious\nsuggestion by the investigator or to unconscious connivance on the part\nof the subject, but concluded that they could not. Any reader who has\ndoubts on the subject should read his book \"Psychical and Supernormal\nPhenomena.\" Dr. Joire was unable to give any explanation of these\nphenomena, nor shall I attempt to do so at the moment beyond pointing\nout that on the face of it, it looks as if some definite substance of\nsensitive properties were exteriorised which, however, must be supposed\nto be to some extent under the control of the will, since it was found\nthat the seat of sensibility could be shifted at the word of command.\n\nLeaving this for a moment I would draw attention to the subject of the\n\"aura.\" Certain persons claim to be able to see this normally as a\nregular thing and describe it as being a bluish-grey haze surrounding\nthe body and at a little distance from it. Dr. Kilner in his book \"The\nHuman Atmosphere\" describes how he found it possible to induce this\npower of vision in normal persons by causing them to gaze at the light\nthrough suitably coloured screens which seemed to affect the retina in\nsuch a way as to make it more sensitive to the particular wave length\nof light which emanates from, or is reflected by, the aura.\n\nIn the course of his investigations he found among other things that\nthe aura was apparently under the control of the will since it could\nin certain cases be made to change colour or to extrude rays by mere\nvolition.\n\nThrough the courtesy of Dr. Kilner I have myself been able to try the\neffect of the screens and I certainly saw, or thought I saw, an aura of\nthe type which he describes.\n\nAt the same time I am not altogether prepared to swear that the\nappearance could not be some sort of optical illusion or \"artifact\"\nand I should accept the aura with less reserve if it could be recorded\nphotographically.\n\nOn the other hand some of Dr. Kilner's experiments, notably as regards\ncolour of the aura and its uses in diagnosis, are very remarkable and\nseem unlikely to be due to either of the above mentioned causes.\n\nIf we accept these experiments at their face value they certainly\nsupport the idea to which the phenomena of Exteriorisation of\nSensibility faintly pointed, namely that there may be some\nexteriorisable _substance_ under the control of the Will.\n\nThere are other experiments which also point the same way. Consider\nfor example those of MacDougal who weighed a number of patients at\nthe moment of death and found in each case that this coincided with a\n_sudden_ loss of weight of about threequarters of an ounce, more than\ncould be accounted for by loss from perspiration or from the emptying\nof the lungs. He claims that \"We have experimental proof that a\nsubstance capable of being weighed does leave the body at death.\" It is\nof course most important that these experiments should be confirmed by\nindependent investigators but there seems no reason to doubt the facts\nas stated, although I cannot agree with MacDougal's view that what\nleaves the body _is_ the \"soul.\"\n\nDr. Baraduc, again, took photographs of his son and wife shortly after\ndeath and found that in each case a luminous, cloudlike mass or masses\nwere visible over the bodies.\n\nThis case is of exceptional interest in that the observations were not\npersonal but were photographic records. Unless the case is inaccurately\nreported it follows that there must have been some objective foundation\nfor the results, and it would also seem that, since the object\nphotographed affected the plate but was invisible to the eye, it must\nnot only have been material or quasi-material in nature but also have\nemitted light of a frequency above the range of normal vision, _i.e._,\n\"ultra-violet\" light. Here again there is great need for confirmation\nbut so far as it goes the evidence continues to point the same way.\n\nSurely this concatenation of evidences from such different sources\ncannot be purely fortuitous?\n\nThe foregoing are the most important and representative experiments on\nthese lines but the whole of the literature of Psychic Research abounds\nwith minor pointers which all indicate the same sort of thing.\n\nLet us turn again to the work of Crawford, to which I have already\nreferred.\n\nHe started out to investigate the causes of telekinetic phenomena and\nhad at the outset no sort of notion of what the explanation was likely\nto be and he found that his table is supported, during levitation\nwithout contact, by a rigid structure.\n\nThis structure is invisible to the eye and is practically impalpable.\nIt appears to be composed of matter taken from the medium. The main\nconclusion is, I think, inevitable, but for the experiments and\nreasoning which have led to it the reader must consult Dr. Crawford's\nbook.\n\nAgain we have this same curious substance exteriorised from the body.\n\nBut there are two points in particular which bring it closely into line\nwith the phenomena which we have been considering.\n\nThe first is that although Dr. Crawford has not yet succeeded in\nphotographing the structure _in situ_, he has obtained a photograph of\nwhat appears to be the same substance issuing out of the medium.\n\nFurthermore, the existence of the structure has been confirmed by\nclairvoyants, and this fact, taken in conjunction with the photographic\nresults and with what I said about \"etheric\" or \"ultra-violet\"\nclairvoyance in Chapter III, forces us once more to the conclusion that\nthis elusive substance possesses the property of emitting or reflecting\nultra-violet light.\n\nThe second point is that the extrusion of this substance from the\nmedium results in superficial insensibility, although she is in full\npossession of all her normal faculties.\n\nDr. Crawford discusses this point at some length in an article which\nappeared in the _Psychic Gazette_ for September 1916. Into the minuti\u00e6\nof the discussion I need not enter here. It is sufficient to say that\nthe medium is to some extent insensitive and that in Dr. Crawford's\nopinion \"It seems likely that the want of sensibility to heavy and\nvaried reactions which undoubtedly occur upon the medium is due to some\npeculiar condition of her organism during the period of phenomena.\"\n\nNow, these various experiments although they may be individually weak\ndo seem rather to hang together. There is an appearance of possible\nconnection between the experiments of Joire and recent views on the\n\"aura\"; and it is possible that what MacDougal weighed and Baraduc\nphotographed are the same thing.\n\nIt is obvious that all these experiments ought to be checked and\nre-checked by independent investigators and further experiments\nundertaken to discover whether there is any real connection between\nthem.\n\nBut for the present purpose I think it legitimate to extrapolate and to\nassume that they are reliable and connected in the way that I suspect.\n\nThe experiments of de Rochas, of Joire and of Kilner suggest that a\ntemporary loss of sensibility is accompanied by the extrusion from the\nbody of a sensitive substance of peculiar properties.\n\nIn the Baraduc and MacDougal experiments a total and permanent loss of\nsensibility seems to be accompanied by the extrusion of a substance of\nsomewhat similar properties.\n\nFinally in the case of Dr. Crawford's researches we find that the\nextrusion of an apparently very similar substance is again accompanied\nby a certain insensitivity.\n\nSomewhat similar conditions are to be found in cases of\n\"materialisation\"--compare, for example, the work of Dr.\nSchrenk-Notzing and Mme. Bisson or Dr. Geley's paper in\nPart I. of the \"Annales des Sciences Psychiques\" for 1919.\n\nIt is far too early yet to say that the extrusion of this sensitive\nsubstance is an invariable concomitant of insensibility; but at\npresent the evidence--assuming it to be reliable--does seem to point\nthat way. When we have made an exhaustive study of what happens to\nthe \"aura\" during sleep, in various states of hypnosis, in local and\ngeneral an\u00e6sthesia and in death we shall be able to draw more definite\nconclusions on the subject.\n\nI shall now turn to evidence of a more general type which deals with\nthe existence of this mysterious substance viewed as a whole rather\nthan with this or that indication of its presence or properties as did\nthe previous experiments.\n\nThere are many references in Psychic literature which bear on the point\nand the general trend of them seems to be that the substance we have\nbeen considering is not, normally, entirely formless and distributed\nfortuitously through the body but that it forms an exact counterpart of\nthe latter or, to be more strictly accurate, of the nervous system.\n\nLombroso states that Durville has succeeded in separating this\n\"replica\" experimentally from the physical body.\n\n  (\"After Death--What?\").\n\nHe says that it seemed to be connected with the body by a sort of cord\nand that the patient under observation was able to see through opaque\nobjects and to discern events at a distance. The apparent sense organs\nof the replica worked, while those of the physical body were put out\nof action. When approached, it excited a sensation \"like that produced\nby cold, by blowing air, by shivering,\" and if the hand were placed\nin it a cold, clammy sensation was experienced. Compare with this\nlast statement the remarks of Crawford on the sensations produced by\ninserting the hand into the midst of the levitating structure.\n\nM. Leon Denis in \"Christianity and Spiritualism\" quotes experiments\nfrom the \"Revue Spirite\" for November 1894, and alleges that de Rochas\nand Barlemont obtained simultaneous photographs of the body of a medium\nand of the exteriorised \"double.\"\n\nA long account of experiments on these lines by Durville appears in the\n\"Journal de Magnetisme\" for 1907 and 1908 but although they tend to\nconfirm the ideas at which we have already arrived, there is nothing to\nbe gained by going into their details here.\n\nA very interesting case which has a considerable bearing on the subject\nis given in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol.\nVIII, pp. 180-193.\n\nThe following is an abbreviated account:\n\nThe narrator is a physician and the case seems to have been singularly\nwell attested and was carefully scrutinised by no less a critic than\nDr. R.H. Hodgson.\n\n \"I passed some four hours in all without pulse or perceptible heart\n beat, as I am informed by Dr. S.H. Raynes, who was the only physician\n present. During a portion of this time several of the bystanders\n thought I was dead, and, such a report being carried outside, the\n village church bell was tolled. Dr. Raynes informs me, however, that\n by bringing his eyes close to my face, he could perceive an occasional\n short gasp, so very light as to be hardly perceptible, and that he was\n several times on the point of saying, 'He is dead,' when a gasp would\n occur in time to check him. He thrust a needle deep into the flesh at\n different points from the feet to the hips, but got no response.[5]\n Although I was pulseless for four hours, the state of apparent death\n lasted only about half an hour. I lost, I believe, all power of\n thought or knowledge of existence in absolute unconsciousness. I came\n again into a state of conscious existence, and discovered that I was\n still in the body, but the body and I had no longer any interests in\n common. I looked with astonishment and joy for the first time upon\n myself--the _me_, the real Ego, while the not-me closed upon all\n sides like a sepulchre of clay. With all the interest of a physician\n I beheld the wonders of my bodily anatomy, intimately interwoven with\n which, even tissue for tissue, was I, the living soul of that dead\n body. I realised my condition and calmly reasoned thus: I have died,\n as man terms death, and yet I am as much a man as ever. I am about\n to get out of the body. I watched the interesting process of the\n separation of soul and body. By some power, apparently not my own, the\n Ego was rocked to and fro, laterally as the cradle is rocked, by which\n process its connection with the tissues of the body was broken up.\n After a little while the lateral motions ceased, and along the soles\n of the feet, beginning at the toes, passing rapidly to the heels, I\n felt and heard, as it seemed the snapping of innumerable small cords.\n When this was accomplished, I began slowly to retreat from the feet,\n toward the head, as a rubber cord shortens. I remember reaching the\n hips and saying to myself, 'Now there is no life below the hips.' I\n can recall no memory of passing through the abdomen and chest, but\n recollect distinctly when my whole self was collected in the head,\n when I reflected thus: 'I am all the head now, and I shall soon be\n free.' I passed around the brain as if it were hollow, compressing it\n and its membranes slightly on all sides towards the centre, and peeped\n out between the sutures of the skull, emerging like the flattened\n edges of a bag of membranes! I recollect distinctly how I appeared to\n myself something like a jelly fish as regards colour and form! As I\n emerged, I saw two ladies sitting at my head. I measured the distance\n between the head of my cot and the knees of the lady opposite the head\n and concluded there was room for me to stand, but felt considerable\n embarrassment as I reflected that I was about to emerge naked before\n her, but comforted myself with the thought that in all probability she\n would not see me with her bodily eyes, as I was a spirit. As I emerged\n from the head I floated up laterally like a soap bubble attached to\n the bowl of a pipe, until I at last broke loose from the body and\n fell lightly to the floor, where I slowly rose and expanded to the\n full stature of a man. I seemed to be translucent, of a bluish cast\n and perfectly naked. With a painful sense of embarrassment, I fled\n toward the partially open door to escape the eyes of the two ladies\n whom I was facing, as well as others who I knew were about me, but\n upon reaching the door I found myself clothed, and satisfied upon that\n point, I turned and faced the company. As I turned, my left elbow came\n in contact with the arm of one of two gentlemen, who were standing\n in the door. To my surprise, his arm passed _through_ mine without\n apparent resistance, the several parts closing again without pain, as\n air reunites. I looked quickly up at his face to see if he had noticed\n the contact, but he gave me no sign--only stood and gazed toward the\n couch I had just left. I directed my gaze in the direction of his,\n and saw my dead body. Suddenly I discovered that I was looking at\n the straight seam down the back of my coat. 'How is this, I thought,\n how do I see my back?' and I looked again, to reassure myself, down\n the back of my coat, or down the back of my legs to the very heels.\n I put my hand to my face and felt for my eyes. They were where they\n should be: I thought 'Am I like an owl that I can turn my head half\n way round' I tried the experiment and failed. No! Then it must be\n that, having been out of the body but a few moments, I have yet the\n power to use the eyes of the body, and I turned about and looked back\n in at the open door where I could see the head of my body in a line\n with me. I discovered then a small cord, like a spider's web, running\n from my shoulders back to my body and attaching to it at the base of\n the neck, in front. I was satisfied with the conclusion that by means\n of that cord, I was using the eyes of the body and, turning, walked\n down the street. A small densely black cloud appeared in front of me\n and advanced towards my face. I knew that I was to be stopped. I felt\n the power to move or to think leaving me. My hands fell powerless\n at my side, my shoulders and my head dropped forward and I knew no\n more. Without previous thought and without effort on my part, my\n eyes opened. I looked at my hands and then at the little white cot\n upon which I was lying, and, realising that I was in the body, in\n astonishment and disappointment, I exclaimed; 'What in the world has\n happened to me? Must I die again?...\"\n\nNow, if this case stood alone we should, perhaps, be right to explain\nit all as a dream. But it does not stand alone for there are numerous\nother cases to be found in the Proceedings of the S.P.R. and in Meyer's\n\"Human Personality.\" In my opinion, therefore, it merits the most\ncareful consideration and contains many points of the greatest interest\nand significance.\n\nI think it will be found to work in remarkably well with the whole idea\nof the detachable quasi-physical replica, towards which hypothesis the\nwhole of the observations in this chapter have been tending.\n\nThe narrator of the experience seems to think that the vehicle which\nhe observed to become detached from the body and in which he was\napparently functioning throughout the period in question, was actually\nthe \"Soul\" itself, the permanent and immortal post-mortem embodiment of\nconsciousness.\n\nOn the whole this seems to be the view taken by Mr. Carrington,\nwho quotes the case, and to be that commonly held in France on the\nauthority of MM. Leon Denis, Delanne and other writers. These latter\nrefer to the organism in question as the \"perisprit\" and it is\nrepresented as being the vehicle by virtue of which the Consciousness\npersists after Death.\n\nWith this view I cannot agree.\n\nI suggest rather, provisionally of course, that the Consciousness\npersists embodied in a four-dimensional vehicle to which the word\n\"physical\" as commonly understood cannot be applied at all. The\nreplica, perisprit or \"Etheric Double\" as the Theosophists call it,\nis only the connecting link between the three and four-dimensional\nvehicles which, as we saw at the beginning of this chapter, must be\nsupposed to exist if the four-dimensional hypothesis is to hold good\nat all. It seems likely that it is no more permanent than the physical\nbody, and that it disintegrates after death in the same way that the\nbodily tissues do.\n\nIt is interesting to compare and contrast this case with the somewhat\nsimilar one of which a brief resum\u00e9 was given on page 58. In each case\nthe consciousness of the narrator was separated from the physical body\nbut the conditions after separation seem to have been notably different.\n\nIn the first case the patient seems to have been independent of space\nin that he was able to pay a visit to a friend at a distance of about\na thousand miles and to return in the space of a few minutes; while in\nthe second he seems to have been tethered to his physical body by the\n\"cord\" to which he refers.\n\nThis is perhaps the most important point, but others are easy to\nfind--notably in the apparent constitution of the temporary vehicle of\nconsciousness.\n\nIt seems probable that in the first case the vehicle was\nfour-dimensional while in the second it was the \"quasi-physical\nreplica\" which we have been discussing.\n\nIt is with this supposition in mind that I shall examine the second\ncase.\n\nFirst then we notice that the narrator seems to have been in error\nin referring to what he saw interwoven, tissue for tissue, with the\nphysical body, as the Ego. But this error was clearly a very natural\none.\n\nAlthough the point is not brought out with precision, the record seems\nto suggest that the narrator was viewing things with that internal or\nfour-dimensional vision which I discussed in my remarks on Clairvoyance\nin Chapter III.\n\nThe process which is described as the separation of soul and body,\nI should prefer to describe as the exteriorisation of the \"Etheric\nDouble.\"[6]\n\nAs it happens, this exteriorisation does result in the separation of\nthe Consciousness from the body, but to say that it _is_ the separation\nwould be liable to confuse the Consciousness and the four-dimensional\nvehicle with the Etheric double.\n\nThat exteriorisation should begin at the feet is only what one would\nexpect from the known fact that the extremities are the first parts of\nthe body to grow cold at the approach of death.\n\nThroughout the account we notice the extreme plasticity of the vehicle\nin which the narrator functioned. It seems to have squeezed out of the\nbody in a formless condition and then to have recovered its normal\nshape as soon as the deforming stresses were removed.\n\nThis is entirely in accord with the properties we must postulate for a\nsubstance which can, apparently, be moved and shaped by mere volition\nor at least by \"mental forces,\" whatever that may mean, set in motion\nby the will. At first, that is to say during the process of extrusion,\nthe Etheric Double seems to have been under the influence of some\nrepulsive force acting between it and the body. This is admirably\nsuggested by the analogy of the soap bubble.\n\nWhen extrusion was complete, however, the E.D. \"fell lightly to the\nfloor.\" It was therefore composed of more or less ponderable matter,\nwhich is what we would expect from MacDougal's experiments.\n\nThe translucency and bluish colour are entirely consonant with the\nobservations of Kilner on the aura, which, as already mentioned, I\nbelieve to be closely associated with the E.D.\n\nThe part about the clothes is curious and I am not prepared to\nhazard any explanation about it, beyond a very tentative proposal of\nauto-suggested hallucination.\n\nScarcely less odd is the apparent ability to use both the physical eyes\nand those belonging to the E.D.\n\nBut the fact that the latter were in operation is concordant with the\nobservation of Durville that the sense organs of the exteriorised E.D.\nwere operative in his experiments.\n\nThe small cord connecting the E.D. with the physical body is also in\naccordance with his observations.\n\nOn the whole then I think it fair to claim that this case fits in\nadmirably with the experimental work I have quoted.\n\nThere is one other source of information which may profitably be\nconsidered here, namely the statements of the clairvoyants and of the\nOccultists.\n\nI hope that the criticisms which I have been moved to make about the\nOccultists in preceding passages have been sufficiently stringent to\nclear me of any suspicion of being unduly credulous or over-ready to\naccept their statements as authoritative.\n\nThere are many things in their methods and their teachings which\nexcite my distrust and antipathy.\n\nNone the less I think it foolish to ignore every statement which\nhappens to be supported by, or to form part of, Occult doctrine.\n\nI think it highly probable for instance that clairvoyant descriptions\nof facts concerning the Etheric Double are often reliable.\n\nWe have seen that the whole question of its study is probably a matter\nof observing, directly or indirectly, by ultra-violet light. We also\nhave reason to suppose that the retina of the eye can be rendered\nabnormally sensitive to light of this frequency by artificial means.\n\nBut if such abnormal retinal sensibility can be induced artificially,\nit is very probable that it may sometimes occur naturally.\n\nHence, if the E.D. actually exists, as the evidence undeniably\nsuggests, it is not only possible but probable that certain people will\nbe able to see it without invoking artificial aid.\n\nIt must be remembered that observations of this kind contain, in\nthemselves, no sort of \"supernatural\" element, although they may, of\ncourse, receive the most strange and erroneous interpretations at the\nhands of the uninformed.\n\nWhen we turn to Occult literature we find that the theory of the E.D.\nis worked out in considerable detail. It is said to be violet-grey\nor blue-grey in colour and to interpenetrate the physical body. The\n\"health aura,\" _i.e._, the physical aura dealt with by Dr. Kilner, is\nsaid to be that part of the E.D. which projects beyond the physical\nbody.\n\nIt is stated that the physical body and the E.D. are not normally\nseparated during life, although in certain nervous conditions the E.D.\nmay be more or less extruded from the physical body. (Compare this with\nthe diagnostic researches of Kilner.)\n\n \"An\u00e6sthetics drive out the greater part of the E.D., so that\n consciousness cannot either affect or be affected by the dense\n (physical) body. In the abnormally organised persons called mediums,\n dislocation of the etheric and dense bodies easily occurs, and\n the E.D., when extruded, largely supplies the physical basis for\n 'materialisations' (and for Crawford's structure. W.W.S.).\"\n\n \"In sleep, when the consciousness leaves the physical vehicle which\n it uses during waking life, the dense and etheric bodies remain\n together.... At what is called death the etheric double is drawn away\n from its dense counterpart by the escaping consciousness; the magnetic\n tie existing between them during earth life is snapped asunder....\"\n\n (Taken from \"The Ancient Wisdom.\")\n\nIn other passages it is stated that the E.D. is connected with the\nphysical body by a filamentary structure, \"The silver cord,\" and that\nso long as this is unbroken it is possible for connection between\nConsciousness and the physical body to be re-established, but that when\nit is broken as occurs in death, the separation is final.\n\nFinally it is definitely stated that this E.D. is a quasi-physical\nstructure, disintegrates in the same way as the physical body and is\nperceived by a mere heightening of the ordinary visual faculty.\n\nLet it be clearly understood that I do not wish one whit more\nimportance to be attached to this last-quoted evidence than each\nindividual reader may choose to assign to it and I fully sympathise\nwith those who prefer to allow it no weight at all.\n\nI have myself a strong penchant in favour of good hard scientific\nexperiments with apparatus and, if the clairvoyant testimony stood by\nitself without any experimental evidence to support it, I should make\nno mention of it here. But I think that in common justice we ought\nto admit that the statements of the clairvoyants are, in the main,\nin close agreement with what we should expect from the indications\nafforded us by the experimental work which has at present been done.\nIn continuing the latter we shall be well advised to keep the former in\nour minds as furnishing, at least, useful hints for our guidance.\n\nOn the strength of the various considerations discussed above, I am\ndisposed to extend the four dimensional hypothesis as follows:\n\n \"Connection between the three- and four-dimensional vehicles is\n maintained by means of a substance of peculiar properties, which\n is intimately connected with the nervous system in the conscious\n functioning of which it is an essential factor. States of partial or\n total an\u00e6sthesia or insensibility are accompanied and probably caused\n by the extrusion of this substance from the body.\"\n\nWe are now faced by the problem of the constitution of this substance.\n\nTo this there would appear to be two possible solutions.\n\nThe first of these is that favoured, apparently, by the occultists and\nthe exponents of the \"perisprit\" doctrine. The second is that to which\nI am personally inclined at present.\n\nAccording to the former of these two hypotheses, the E.D. is composed\nof a sort of \"rarified matter\" by which, I take it, is meant matter\npossessing a smaller complexity of organisation than that with which\nwe are normally acquainted. This would appear to be more especially\nthe Occult view; although on technical details of this kind there is\na somewhat unfortunate lack of precision and even of unanimity among\nOccult authorities.\n\nA variation on this is the idea that whereas ordinary matter is the\nresult of vibratory, or other periodic, disturbances in the ether of\na certain frequency, the \"matter\" of which the E.D. is composed is\nthe result of similar disturbances of a greater frequency; that it is\nmatter transposed into a higher key so to speak.\n\nThe experiments of Le Bon, who claims to have obtained a temporary\ncondition of equilibrium in the dissociation products of matter, are\nsometimes adduced as supporting this hypothesis.\n\nFor my part I have grave doubts as to the correctness of this view.\n\nIn the first place, there is nothing in Le Bon's work to indicate\nthat these dissociation products are capable of being brought into\na state of such very stable equilibrium as must be possessed by the\nconstituents of the E.D.\n\nIn the second, the hypothesis involves us in all the difficulties\nwhich render so unsatisfactory all attempts to account for post-mortem\nexistence on normal physical lines.\n\nFor, on either hypothesis, the E.D. is either the post-mortem vehicle\nitself, as held by the French savants, or it is the connecting link\nbetween the two vehicles, as I consider.\n\nIf the latter is the case, then in all probability the post-mortem\nvehicle is to the E.D. as the E.D. is to the physical body. If the E.D.\nis merely rarified matter then the post-mortem vehicle is probably\nmerely doubly-rarified matter.\n\nFor this and other reasons I prefer the idea that the E.D. is composed\nof matter having an abnormal four-dimensional complexity.\n\nIndeed, as I pointed out at the beginning of this chapter, this view\nseems to be a necessary corollary of the whole four-dimensional\nhypothesis I have been advocating.\n\nIt is very possible that we shall be compelled to reject the hypothesis\n_in toto_ in the light of future research, but until this becomes\nnecessary I think that my present view of the nature of the E.D. is the\nonly tenable one.\n\nWhether this abnormal four-dimensional complexity is molecular or\natomic in its nature, or whether it is neither, I am not prepared to\nsay.\n\nThe points in this chapter which I would wish to emphasise are, first,\nthat if the four-dimensional hypothesis be true, there should exist a\nconnection between the three- and four-dimensional vehicles.\n\nSecondly, that this link should possess properties of a peculiar nature\ndistinguishing it from ordinary physical substances.\n\nThirdly, that there are distinct evidences to be found in very\nindependent quarters which strongly indicate that such a connecting\nlink or substance does in fact exist.\n\nFourthly, that this substance does present unusual features, as for\ninstance, susceptibility to volitional control and to forces which\nappear to be applied from some direction unknown to us (vide my remarks\non the theory of Crawford's structure in Chapter III).\n\nFinally, that, as it appears to be intermediate between the physical\nbody and the post-mortem vehicle, it is well worthy of the closest\nstudy.\n\nIt will be very evident to my readers that this chapter is\n\"extrapolatory\" and speculative in the highest degree. The ideas\ndiscussed are based on experiments which are very far from being\nconclusive. I should be sorry indeed to guarantee them all as being of\ncast-iron reliability and I have no doubt that comparatively few will\never receive the amount of confirmation which is necessary before we\ncan accept such things as proven facts.\n\nStill, tenuous as the evidence is, it all seems to point in the same\nsort of direction and I have therefore thought it worth while to give\nit the benefit of the doubt and see what could be made of it on the\ntemporary assumption that it is really reliable.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 5: Note the insensibility.--W.W.S.]\n\n[Footnote 6: NOTE.--In future I shall borrow the term \"Etheric Double\"\nfrom the Theosophists and use it instead of the rather cumbrous phrase\n\"Quasi-physical replica.\" I do not think that the term Etheric Double\nis a good one, but it is in common use, and I will adopt it until some\nbetter word is suggested.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTHE RELIGIOUS ASPECTS OF THE HYPOTHESIS\n\n\nAlthough I have no wish to become involved in controversial theology,\nI feel it incumbent on me to examine briefly the question of whether a\ngeneral acceptance of the four-dimensional hypothesis would be fraught\nwith any considerable consequences in the sphere of religious thought.\n\nNo one venturing to advocate conceptions so far-reaching as those I\nhave been discussing, would be justified in ignoring their relation to\nany important stream of thought with which they might be held liable\nto come in contact. And it is evident that any hypothesis formulated,\nhowever tentatively, as a solution to the problems of Survival of Death\nand the nature of post-mortem conditions, must inevitably come into\nvery close contact with Religion.\n\nI shall try to show that it is a matter of contact only and not of\nconflict.\n\nEven so, I might have omitted the present discussion had I not found a\ntendency, on the part of certain representatives of orthodox theology,\nto deprecate any attempt to find an intelligible solution to the\nproblems involved.\n\nIt must be clearly understood that I am not concerned here with the\ndefence of Psychical Research as a means of investigation, but only\nwith the legitimacy of the end.\n\nGenerally speaking, those with whom I am so unfortunate as to disagree\non this matter accuse me on two counts.\n\nFirst it is suggested that I am attempting to advance by Reason or\nSight rather than by Faith and, secondly, I am told that to \"explain\"\nsuch a matter as the Survival of Death or the nature of the connection\nbetween matter and spirit, would tend to reduce everything to terms of\nmere mechanism and to leave no place at all in the Cosmos for Divine\nWill and Purpose or for the transcendental and mystical aspects of\nreligion.\n\nI need hardly say that I violently resent both these accusations.\n\nThe first charge seems to me to be easy of refutation.\n\nIn the first place the idea of \"Blind Faith\" or \"Unreasoning Belief\" is\none which involves a contradiction in terms.\n\nAs Whately well says in his \"Logic\":\n\n \"If a man resolves that he will implicitly receive _e.g._, in\n religious points, all the decisions of a certain Pastor, Church or\n Party, he has in doing so performed one act of private judgment\n (_i.e._, the result of reasoning), which includes all the rest.\"\n\nHence it is impossible to dissociate Faith and Reason.\n\nSecondly, just as Courage, in its proper sense, does not mean feeling\nno fear but the overcoming of it; so Faith consists, not of having no\ndoubts but of dispelling them, and this involves a deliberate exercise\nof the will in choosing between two possible alternatives; that is to\nsay, an act of reasoning.\n\nThirdly, I submit that Life is not a sort of crazy competition in which\nspecial awards are to be received for completing the course blindfold,\nbut a phase in the general upward progress of man--whether considered\ncollectively or individually--and that consequently any knowledge\nis desirable which will enable us consciously and intelligently to\nco-operate in the process.\n\nFinally, and I think that this puts the whole matter in one sentence,\nhowever clearly a man can see, he must still be able to believe his\neyes.\n\nHowever plainly we can see the path, we must still believe that it\nleads in the right direction, however conclusively we may demonstrate\na proposition, we are still dependent on our Faith in the validity of\nReason and the veridicity of the observations on which it is based--and\nthis is equally the case whether the latter be scientific measurements\nor spiritual experiences.\n\nThe supreme effort of Faith, made by the most material of scientists no\nless than by the Saint, is the belief that the Cosmos, of which Reason\nis a part, is a coherent whole and not a Chaos.\n\nThe second argument appears to me to be equally fissiparous.\n\nIn the first place I should never dream of attempting to reduce the\nwhole Cosmos to terms of mechanism.\n\nAny such idea would be infinitely repugnant to me. Moreover, the\nattempt would inevitably be foredoomed to failure since there are\nproblems which are essentially insoluble. The first and most obvious of\nall--the problem of the nature and origin of Consciousness--is one to\nwhich we can never hope to find an answer.\n\nBut quite apart from all this I entirely fail to see why the\nexplanation of mechanism, using the word in its widest sense, should\nhave any bearing on religion at all.\n\nReligion, by which I mean something more than a mere code of morals, is\nconcerned rather with motives than with methods.\n\nIf a child were to ask one why the sun and moon did not fall on to the\nearth, one might reply to the effect that they were prevented from\ndoing so by the exercise of the Divine Will. Alternatively one might\nembark on a disquisition about the law of gravitation and planetary\nmechanics.\n\nThe two forms of explanation would be by no means mutually exclusive\nsince the second does no more than expand the first by an exposition of\nthe means employed.\n\nIf, as required by the Christian religion, we believe in the survival\nof the individual personality after death, it is evident that this\nsurvival must take place by virtue of certain properties inherent in\nthe Cosmos and the necessity of Faith in our ultimate destiny will not\nbe affected by any determination of the nature of those properties.\n\nIf our Consciousness does in fact persist after death it must do\nso in some state of embodiment, since the idea of pure essence is\ninconceivable.\n\nFor my part I utterly fail to understand why the study of the nature of\nthe vehicle in which the consciousness functions after death, or of the\nconditions in which it lives, has any more to do with religion, in the\nproper sense of the term, than the study of the physical body and the\nphysical world.\n\nI need hardly say that I do not anticipate that Psychic Research will\nconfirm the idea of the old-fashioned conventional Heaven and Hell\nof harps and crowns on the one hand and fire and brimstone on the\nother. But it would be a bold person who would be prepared to maintain\nnow-a-days that these ideas form an integral part of Christianity.\n\nModern research on Evolution and the process of natural selection have\nsomewhat notably discounted the story of Adam and Eve in the garden\nof Eden, considered as historical fact. But it would be difficult to\nmaintain that the Christian religion has suffered as a consequence.\n\nThe account of the creation given in Genesis has had to be\nre-interpreted in the light of geological and astronomical knowledge,\nbut Christianity is as vital a force in the world to-day as it was when\nthat account was taken literally word for word.\n\nEven so, if any specific revelation existed on the subject of the\nmanner of survival, if, for instance, any of the words of Christ could\nbe held to contain any precise information on the subject, it might be\ncontended that no further knowledge was necessary. But this is not the\ncase.\n\nImmortality is insisted on, but nothing specific is said of the\nconditions by virtue of which it obtains. Nor, so far as I am aware, is\nany veto laid on endeavours to ascertain those conditions.\n\nI repeat that in my opinion, cosmic mechanism and religion are\ndistinct, and no knowledge, however full, as to the former can possibly\neither impair or replace the latter.\n\nIn short I do not see that the necessity for religion as an integral\npart of life would be one whit diminished even supposing we knew as\nmuch about the \"next world\" and conditions of life therein, as we know\nof this.\n\nAnd this contention holds good no matter what results research\nmay bring to light, no matter how much they may differ from our\npreconceived ideas.\n\nFor the truth is there all the time although at the moment we may not\nhave grasped it and the Christian religion, if it be the true religion,\nas we believe, was framed, so to speak, to meet the needs of a cosmos\norganised in this particular way and in no other.\n\nUnless, therefore, the Christian religion be false, it is impossible\nthat the results of research, supposing them to be accurate and\nreliable,--a matter which can only be ensured by the exercise of\nscientific reason,--should in any way conflict with religious truth.\n\nIn case any one should feel that I ought to specify more precisely than\nI have done, what I mean by the Christian religion, I would refer them\nto the Nicene creed. Or if it is a matter of the interpretation of this\nin terms of conduct, I should cite \"My duty towards God\" and \"My duty\ntowards my neighbour\" in the Church Catechism. Or in secular writings I\nwould mention that view of Christianity which is defended by Mr. G.K.\nChesterton in his book \"Orthodoxy.\"\n\nWith these I am prepared to stand four-square, although it is\nconceivable that I might find myself at variance with some authorities\non the precise interpretation to be given to certain clauses, as for\ninstance \"the resurrection of the dead\" in the first mentioned.\n\nBut controversies about interpretation have been rife among Christian\ntheorists from the earliest times and differences of opinion on minor\npoints do not constitute lack of adherence in fundamentals.\n\nHitherto in this discussion I have been concerned only with negatives.\nThat is to say I have been trying to show that there is nothing in the\nattempt which has led me to adopt the four-dimensional hypothesis which\nis in any way contrary to the essential teachings of Christianity.\n\nThere is however a positive side to the question.\n\nI believe that so far from being antagonistic to Christian teaching,\nthe general acceptance of the hypothesis would be of real value, in\nthat it would put into the hands of the Church a very powerful weapon\nfor the repelling of a certain form of attack, that of the scientific\nmaterialist to wit.\n\nI do not mean to claim this as a merit of the four-dimensional\nhypothesis as such, for it would equally accrue to any other hypothesis\nwhich might prove to be true.\n\nIn the second chapter I gave my reasons for believing that the\nestablishing of some such hypothesis would be calculated to remove the\nprinciple cause of dissension between religious and materialistically\nscientific thinkers. I there pointed out that the chief strength of the\nmaterialist lay in the reluctance or inability of the Church to give\nan intelligible explanation of the terms used in speaking of certain\nreligious and spiritual matters.\n\nI have explained that I see nothing in anyway repugnant to religion in\nthe attempt to formulate an hypothesis to explain the mechanism of\nsurvival, etc.\n\nEqually it should be observed that religion, considered as something\nmore than a mere ethical and moral code, would be in no way freed from\nthe necessity of justifying itself, _qua_ religion, by the acceptance,\nhowever unanimous, of this or any other hypothesis. Such justification\nis a matter for an apologetic of quite another order, of which order,\nby the way, I regard Mr. Chesterton's \"Orthodoxy\" mentioned above as a\nvery admirable example.\n\nWhat the general acceptance of such an hypothesis would do, would be\nfinally and for ever to deprive the materialist of the possibility\nof maintaining that matter, as he knows it, is the final and only\npermanent reality and that Spirit therefore cannot exist.\n\nIt is true that this would only involve driving him back one stage. If\nwe suppose for the sake of argument that we could finally attain to as\ncomplete a knowledge of the \"next world\" as we at present possess of\nthis, he could always return to the attack, using with regard to that\nstate the same arguments as he originally used with regard to this. But\nhaving once broken through the ring fence of matter and demonstrated\nthat there exist other realities of which he was at one time entirely\nignorant, he could never deny that there might still be realms as yet\nunknown to him. He could never catch us again, so to speak.\n\nI admit that the above is a somewhat fantastical supposition and\nscarcely within the sphere of practical politics, but the point is,\nthat until we are prepared to give an intelligible explanation of\nthings we are pent up in a sort of intellectual _cul-de-sac_ bounded by\nmatter. We may know, as the result of personal experience, that there\nis a way out, that matter is not the only reality; but our knowledge is\na purely personal affair and the scientist is perfectly entitled, if he\nwishes, to decline to take the steps that led to the experiences which\nhave convinced us, to dismiss them as mere hallucinations and to write\noff our alleged \"revelations\" as superstitious myths.\n\nBut let us once demonstrate to him, in a manner calculated to appeal\nto his intellect, that there may be a non-material reality and the\n_cul-de-sac_ is at once broken through and becomes a vista.\n\nIt may be one of which we cannot see the end, and we shall certainly\nrequire faith to believe that it leads to the right destination, but\nthe point is that it _is_ a vista and not a _cul-de-sac_.\n\nThis is where I am convinced that the adoption of some hypothesis of\nthe same general order as that which I have been advocating would\nprove of definite value to the Church and that is why I am so strongly\nof opinion that the Church, by which term I mean more especially those\nwhose business it is to concern themselves with the general trend\nof Christian policy with regard to contemporary thought, ought to\nencourage and not to deprecate or oppose attempts on these lines.\n\nIn thus venturing to criticise the Church, I should like to make it\nclear that I only do so because I am convinced that the Church is a\nvital and indispensable part of human life, and because I wish to see\nher influence increased and extended rather than diminished. If I\nthought otherwise I should not take the trouble even to criticise.\n\nSo far I have said nothing about the religious significance of the\nfour-dimensional hypothesis as such; considered that is to say as to\nits four-dimensionality and not merely in its capacity as a hypothesis.\n\nThe reason for this omission is simply that I do not consider that\nthere is any such significance.\n\nIn the main concept of existence in four-dimensional space after death\nthere is, so far as I can see, nothing either to contradict or to\nconfirm anything taught by the Church except the bare fact of survival\nwhich both affirm.\n\nI have carefully omitted all reference to the descriptions of\npost-mortem existence which have been obtained from time to time\nthrough mediumistic sources. Any such discussion would be both lengthy\nand out of place as it would involve a detailed critical examination of\nboth the authenticity and interpretation of the pronouncements.\n\nThe only point about the four-dimensional hypothesis as such which I\nthink at all likely to be called in question from the religious point\nof view, is that involved in the suggestion that Consciousness persists\nafter death, not in the form of \"pure essence\" but embodied in some\nform of vehicle.\n\nBut this is a matter which is fully included under the general\narguments I adduced in favour of the legitimacy of investigating the\n\"Cosmic mechanism\" to the utmost and there seems to be no need for a\nseparate re-discussion here.\n\nIt is interesting to note however that a large number of the early\nChristian thinkers adhered to the view that \"the soul\" had some\nsort of material or quasi-material vehicle. A number of quotations\non the subject are given in M. Leon Denis' book \"Christianity and\nSpiritualism.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nSUMMARY AND CONCLUSION\n\n\nI will bring this work to a close by a brief recapitulation of its more\nsalient points.\n\nA dimension is defined as \"an independent direction in space.\" A flat\nsurface is two-dimensional and the space we know is three-dimensional.\nThe direction of the fourth dimension must be at right angles to every\ndirection which can be drawn in our space and four-dimensional space is\nsuch that through any point in it, four, and only four, lines can be\ndrawn mutually at right angles.\n\nFrom every point in our space a line can be drawn running off in the\ndirection of four space.\n\nConsequently every point in our space is absolutely accessible from the\ndirection of the fourth dimension.\n\nThe best way of drawing conclusions as to the properties of four space\nis by means of the analogy of the two-dimensional world; since four\nspace is to three space as the latter is to two space.\n\nThe fact that we cannot perceive four space, or picture its nature to\nourselves, is no proof that it is non-existent.\n\nI suggest as a working hypothesis that four space is a reality and\nthat Man possesses at least one other vehicle of Consciousness--a\nfour-dimensional one--besides his physical body. In this vehicle he is\nembodied after discarding the physical vehicle at death and also during\ntemporary absences from the body during life.\n\nThis hypothesis is likely to prove of importance in two respects.\nFirst, it provides Psychic Research with a working hypothesis which may\nbe essential to its development as a science. Secondly the adoption of\nsome such hypothesis should go far to remove the principle cause of\nrecent cleavage between Religious and Scientific thought.\n\nThe hypothesis is capable of throwing light on a number of \"Psychic\"\nphenomena which are otherwise very obscure. It affords us a means of\nconceiving a mode of existence which is real and yet imperceptible to\nour senses, thus surmounting one of the chief difficulties in the way\nof conceiving of post-mortem existence.\n\nIn the realm of Clairvoyance it enables us to form some idea of the\nnature of the faculty of internal vision. With regard to Clairvoyance\nin space, it also helps us to some slight extent, although this\nphenomenon presents special difficulties of its own.\n\nOther varieties of \"out of the body\" experiences are much elucidated by\nits aid.\n\nThe phenomena with which it is most closely connected, however, are\nthose known under the general title of \"apparent penetration of matter\nby matter.\"\n\nTo these it affords by far the simplest and probably the only\nexplanation and, if they are regarded as irrefutably established, it\nwill be difficult to avoid the conclusion that four space is a reality.\n\nThe _locus classicus_ of such phenomena is the Slade-Z\u00f6llner\ninvestigation, but this is worthless as evidence. The literature of the\nsubject abounds with records of similar occurrences.\n\nThe hypothesis also seems to offer a possible means of explaining the\nparadoxical rigidity of the impalpable structure discovered by Crawford.\n\nThe hypothesis may also have a certain significance, even in the realm\nof pure Philosophy. It enables us to conceive of the simultaneous\nexistence of a series of three space simultaneities and, consequently,\nis of interest in the consideration of Time and of the possibility of\nPrevision.\n\nIt also works in well with a certain view of the nature of Vitality.\n\nAs regards its relation to ordinary physical science, we find nothing\nto conflict with it, but, on the contrary that there are a certain\nnumber of indications that four space is, as I suggest, more than a\nmere mathematical concept. It is possible that it may some day come to\nbe recognised as having some significance in the theory of the nature\nof electrons and of ether, while recent views on \"Relativity\" strongly\nindicate that Physicists will soon regard the four-dimensionality of\nthe Universe as a common place.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf the four-dimensional hypothesis is correct there should exist\nsome sort of connecting link between the physical body and the\nfour-dimensional vehicle.\n\nThe function of this link would be to deflect sensory impressions\nout of three space into four space thus enabling them to reach the\nConsciousness resident in the latter. Such a link must therefore be,\nin some way, intermediate between ordinary matter and four-dimensional\nmatter.\n\nThat is to say, it must possess some degree of four-dimensional\ncomplexity. This may reasonably be supposed to endow it with peculiar\nproperties.\n\nIf such a connecting link be found to exist in practice, it would tend\nto confirm the hypothesis.\n\nThe experiments of de Rochas, of Joire, of MacDougal, of Baraduc, of\nKilner, and of Crawford seem to indicate that such a connecting link\ndoes, in fact, exist.\n\nThis is confirmed by the testimony of clairvoyants, which, though not\nof a nature to be rated too highly or accepted lightly, should be\nallowed some weight.\n\nThe attempt to formulate an hypothesis of this nature is not repugnant\nto Religion. Nor is there anything in this particular hypothesis which\ncan be held to conflict with Religious doctrines.\n\nOn the other hand, the acceptance of such an hypothesis would cut the\nground from under the feet of those who seek to maintain that matter is\nthe only reality and that therefore Spirit and the Spiritual life are\nmere illusions.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNo writer can expect to bring all his readers to his way of thinking.\nIndeed it would be unfortunate if he were to do so, as the effect\nwould be to eliminate that element of critical discussion which is so\nfruitful a source of progress.\n\nConsequently, I do not anticipate that every reader will agree with\nme. All I venture to hope is that I may have made good my contention\nthat the four-dimensional concepts, in spite of the scorn poured on\nthem as a result of the Z\u00f6llner fiasco, are worthy of very careful\nconsideration as a tentative working hypothesis by those who are\nseeking to clear up the many obscure problems presented by Psychical\nResearch.\n\nIf this little book is thought worthy of criticism, I shall welcome\nit. Its purpose will have been amply served if it succeeds in arousing\ninterest in what will prove, I believe, a very fruitful field of\nspeculation and research.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\nTo illustrate how the analogy of the relation between two and\nthree-dimensional space enables us to determine some of the properties\nof four-dimensional figures:\n\n\n(1)\n\n \"Any figure in a space of a given dimensionality generates a\n corresponding figure in the next higher space, by moving in a\n direction at right angles to any direction that can be drawn within\n itself.[7] Or, in general, space of any dimensionality generates, by\n such a movement, the next higher space.\"\n\nThus, the lowest sort of space is space of zero dimensions, _i.e._,\na mathematical point. If it moves a distance of one inch, it traces\nout a Line one inch long--that is to say a one space \"figure.\" If\nthis moves at right angles to itself for a distance of one inch, it\ntraces out a two space figure, viz., a square of side one inch. If this\nagain moves a distance of one inch in a direction at right angles to\nevery direction that can be drawn within it, that is, in a direction\nperpendicular to itself, it traces out a cube of side one inch, _i.e._,\na three space figure or \"solid.\"\n\nWe must, therefore, conclude, from analogy, that if the cube were\nitself to move, a distance of one inch, in a direction at right angles\nto every direction that can be drawn in our space--in the unknown\ndirection, that is, of the fourth dimension--it would generate a\n\"higher solid\" of side one inch. The higher solid thus generated is\ncalled a \"Tesseract\" and its properties are quite well known.\n\n\n(2)\n\n \"Every figure, in a space of a given dimensionality, contains an\n infinite number of the 'corresponding' figures--see (1)--in the next\n lower space.\"\n\nSince a point is defined as having \"position but no magnitude,\" it\nfollows that it would require an infinite number of points to make up a\nline.\n\nSimilarly a line has length, but no breadth or thickness, and it would\ntherefore require an infinite number of lines laid side by side to make\nup a surface.\n\nAgain a surface has, theoretically, no thickness, and it would\ntherefore require an infinite number of surfaces superimposed on one\nanother to make up a solid.\n\nWe must therefore conclude, by analogy, that it would require an\ninfinite number of solids to make up a \"higher solid.\"\n\nIn particular, a Tesseract must be supposed to contain an infinite\nnumber of cubes, and, in general, four space must be conceived of as\ncontaining an infinite number of three spaces.\n\n\n(3)\n\n \"The Boundaries of a figure in a space of any dimensionality are\n themselves figures in the next lower space.\"\n\nThus a Line (one space) is bounded by Points (zero space).\n\nA surface (two space) is bounded by Lines (one space).\n\nA solid (three space) is bounded by Surfaces (two space).\n\nWe must conclude therefore that \"higher solids\" (four space) are\nbounded by Solids (three space).\n\n[Illustration: _Fig. 10_]\n\nTo take the special case with which we are already familiar. The line\nAB, is bounded by the points A and B. (Fig. 10). The square, A B C D,\nis bounded by four lines AB, BC, CD, DA. The cube, A B C D E F G H, is\nbounded by six surfaces, namely, ABCD, CDEF, EFGH, GHAB, ADEH, BCFG.\n\nSimilarly we must conclude that a tesseract is bounded by cubes.\n\nWe shall see later that there are eight of them.\n\n\n(4)\n\nWe may put (3) in a slightly different way, by saying that:\n\n \"Two adjacent portions of space, of any dimensionality, are separated\n by a space of the next lower dimensionality.\"\n\nThe portions AB and BC of the line AC are separated by the point B.\n(Fig. 11.) The portions ABEF and BCDE of the fig. ACDF are separated by\nthe line EB. The portions ABEFGHIM and BCDEMIKL of the solid ACDFGHKL\nare separated by the surface BIME.\n\n[Illustration: _Fig. 11_]\n\nSimilarly we must suppose that any two adjacent portions of four space\nare separated by a three space figure.\n\nOr, again, to alter it slightly, \"any space is no more than a boundary\nbetween two adjacent portions of the next higher space.\" Whence it\nfollows that the whole of our three space is but the boundary between\ntwo adjacent portions of four space.\n\n\n(5)\n\n \"A tesseract, which is the four-dimensional analogue of the cube,\n is bounded by Eight cubes. It has Twenty-four plane square faces,\n Thirty-two linear edges, and Sixteen corner points.\"\n\nThis may at first sight seem difficult to grasp.\n\nIn reality however, it is quite simple.\n\nWe have only to remember that the tesseract is generated by the\nmovement of a cube, in a direction at right angles to every direction\nthat can be drawn in the cube, and that whenever a figure of a given\ndimensionality moves thus it generates a figure of the next higher\ndimensionality.\n\nThus every point in the cube will trace out a line, every line a\nsurface, and every surface a solid, and, since the distance moved is\nequal to the length of the side of the cube, these surfaces will be\nsquares and the solids will be cubes.\n\nBut let us first consider the analogous case of the generation of the\ncube by the movement of a square.\n\nLet A B C D represent the original position of the square. It moves,\na distance equal to one of its sides, in a direction at right angles\nto every direction that can be drawn within itself--at right angles,\n_i.e._, to every one of its sides--and finally comes to rest in the\nposition E F G H.\n\n[Illustration: _Fig. 12_]\n\nEvery side has traced out another square and we have, in addition, the\nold square ABCD, with which we started and the new square EFGH, with\nwhich we end.\n\nThus even if we had no idea how many sides, edges, and corners a cube\nhad we could deduce them.\n\nWe should say:--\n\nEvery side of the original square has traced out a new square--that\nmakes 4--and we also have the original square and the \"final\" square\nmaking a total of 6. A cube, therefore, must be bounded by 6 square\nsurfaces.\n\nSimilarly we should reflect that the original square and the final\nsquare have each 4 linear edges, making 8, and that each of the 4\ncorner points of the original square would trace out a line, making new\nlines, and we would therefore conclude that a cube must have 8 + 4 = 12\nedges.\n\nFinally, since in a uniform motion no new points will be generated, we\nshould expect the cube to have a total of 8 corner points, _i.e._, the\nfour corners of the original square and the four corners of the final\nsquare.\n\nNow let us apply the same methods to the generation of the tesseract by\nthe movement of a cube.\n\nObserve that just as in the case of the square generating the cube we\nhad the original square to start with and what I called the \"final\"\nsquare to end up with, so, in this case, we shall start and end up with\na cube.\n\nIn the process of the movement every face of the cube will generate\na new cube--that means 6 new cubes, since the cube must have had 6\nfaces--and there will also be the original cube and the final cube,\nmaking a total of 8 cubes all told. A tesseract must therefore be\nbounded by 8 cubes.\n\nSimilarly each line of the original cube will trace out a square.\nThis, since a cube has 12 edges, gives us 12 new squares plus 6 from\nthe original and 6 from the final cube, or a total of 24. A tesseract\ntherefore has 24 plane square faces. Again each point of the original\ncube will trace out a line, making 8 new lines, and there will also be\n12 lines in the original and 12 in the final cube, making a total of 32.\n\nFinally, there will be 8 points in the original cube and 8 in the final\ncube, but none will have been produced on the way. So a tesseract will\ntherefore have 16 corner points.\n\nThere is no reason why this process should not be continued\nindefinitely. For a tesseract may be supposed to move, in distance\nequal to the length of one of its edges, in a direction not contained\nin itself and will generate a _five_ dimensional figure, bounded by\nten tesseracts, and having in it 40 cubes, 80 squares, 80 lines, and\n32 corner points. Thus a whole series of Higher Space figures may be\nproduced. But these are of little practical interest, and I shall not\ndeal with them here.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 7: NOTE.--The figures thus produced are not necessarily the\nstrict analogues of the figures which generate them. For instance a\ncircle, moving in a direction perpendicular to itself, would generate\na cylinder; whereas the three-dimensional analogue of a circle is a\nsphere.]\n\n\n  E. AUSTIN AND SON, LTD.,\n\n  PRINTERS,\n\n  --  CLIFTON, BRISTOL.  --\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n  An\u00e6sthesia, 146, 147\n\n  Apologetics, Christian, 177\n\n  Apport.\n    Two-dimensional analogue of, 15, 16\n    Discussion of evidence for, 62, 73 sqq.\n\n  Astral plane, 35, 53\n\n  Aura, 142, 143, 161\n\n\n  Cantilever, Crawford's, 86-91, 145\n\n  Carrington, Hereward, 71, 74, 77, 113-141\n\n  Change--in a two dimensional world, 17, 20\n\n  Clairvoyance, 42, 48\n\n  Crawford, 86, 145, 147\n\n\n  Death. Loss of weight at, 143\n\n  Dimension. Definition of, 3\n\n  Direct Voice, 62\n\n  Disembodiment, cases of, 58, 150-154\n\n  Dreams, 54, 55\n\n  Electricity. Hinton's theories of, 127\n\n  Etheric double, 35, 62, 147-148\n\n  Energy, conservation of, 117, 120\n\n  Ether. Hinton's analogy, 127\n\n  Exteriorisation of Sensibility, 141\n\n\n  Faith and Reason, 169\n\n  Fatalism, 107-109\n\n  Flatland, 7\n\n\n  Geometry. Possible break down of, 124, 126\n\n\n  Hair-trigger theory, 116, 141\n\n  Hallucination, 50, 51\n\n  Hypothesis. Need of, 24-38\n    Valid, 29\n    True, 29\n\n  Hyslop, Dr., 77\n\n\n  Internal Vision, 46-49\n\n\n  Kilner, Dr., 142-143\n\n\n  Levitation, 86, 91, 145\n\n  Light. Theories, of 29, 30\n\n\n  Materialists, 32, 176, 177\n\n  Milan Committee, 83\n\n\n  Occultists 32, 34\n\n  One-dimensional space, 7\n\n\n  Palladino, Eusapia, 74, 83\n\n  Parallaxes, Negative, 126\n\n  Peters, Dr., 83\n\n  Phantasms, 52, 55, 57\n\n  Pogorelsky, 84\n\n  Poincar\u00e9, 124\n\n  Postvision, 42, 52\n\n  Prevision, 39, 42, 52, 103-107\n\n  Psycho-analysis, 55\n\n\n  Reason and Faith, 169\n\n  Reichenbach, 140\n\n  Relativity, 133-135\n\n  Religion, 32, 168-180\n\n  Richet, 31\n\n  Rotation in four space, 129\n\n\n  Sambor, 84\n\n  Secondary personality, 41\n\n  Sensibility. Exteriorisation of, 141\n\n  Slade, 64, 73 sqq.\n\n  Space. Objectivity of, 109-112\n\n  Spectrum, 43\n\n  Symmetry, 131-133\n\n\n  Telekinesis, 39, 86\n\n  Telepathy, 39, 41\n\n  Television, 46, 48, 111\n\n  Tesseract, 188, 189, 191\n\n  Theologians, 32\n\n  Theosophists, 35, 159, 160\n\n  Time, 92-103\n    Measurement of, 94\n    Bergson's views on, 96, 98\n    Subjective, 99\n\n  Two-dimensional world, analogy of, 7 sqq.\n\n\n  Ultra-violet light, 43, 144, 160\n\n\n  Vitality, 113-141\n\n  Vortices. Four-dimensional, 127\n\n\n  Will, 113-141\n\n\n  Zero-dimensional space, 7\n\n  Z\u00f6llner, 1, 62, 73 sqq.","title":"A Theory of the Mechanism of Survival: The Fourth Dimension and Its Applications","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":39626}