TELEPATHIC CASES SPORADIC AND UNCERTAIN.
Now as already said, there are only two theories which at the present time claim the serious attention of serious people. These are what have come to be widely known as the telepathic and the spiritistic theories. So zealously is the telepathic theory held to and advocated by the determined opponents of the spirit istic, that the impression is made on the public mind that we know a good deal more about telepathy than we really do. Let us see just what it is that we know.
There are sporadic cases of impres sions or definite communications made between living minds at a distance. There are enough of these, and they are definite enough, to preclude the theory of coincidence, so that they are recognised by all serious students as real. They are, however, as I have said, generally spo radic. The law in accordance with which they take place is not known, and they are not producible at will. Attempts have been made to communicate definitely from mind to mind, but with somewhat indifferent success. There have been hits enough to show that something real was taking place, but the hits have not been so numerous as the misses. This, then, is the real state of our knowledge in regard to telepathy. The theory is stretched and made almost all-inclusive, and the supposed'agent at work is credited with almost unlimited powers and universal knowledge. This is done, not because there are any facts in existence to support such a claim, but merely because it seems to be the only alternative if the serious student wishes to escape the acceptance of the spiritistic theory. In telepathy it
is generally assumed that it is the sub conscious or subliminal self which is at work. This is because nobody is con-. scious of obtaining the information that comes from somewhere, and nobody is conscious of receiving it. That is, the psychic on this assumption gathers this information without knowing it, and im parts it without knowing it, which, to say the least, is a curious state of affairs. So, in order to escape another theory which is not acceptable to the particular student, he divides the individual somewhat arbi trarily into two parts, the conscious and the subconscious, and endows this sub conscious self with the most tremendous powers. There is absolutely no proof whatever that the subconscious self pos sesses or exercises any such powers, ex cept that which lies in the necessity of assuming it in order to explain indispu table facts. The division that is sometimes made between the objective and the sub jective selves is largely an arbitrary one. That the mind does work below the level of consciousness, and that the results of processes which go on there do afterwards in the most inexplicable ways emerge into consciousness, of course, is conceded by all careful investigators. But that the sub conscious self is a sort of separate entity, endowed with unlimited powers and able to carry on work in all sorts of directions on its own account, - to assume this is, I submit, going beyond the limits of our knowledge