The Relationship Between the Emitter and
the Receiver as an Exploratory Factor in Experimental Telepathy
It would be quite convincing if someone from the academic world could
demonstrate the phenomena of experimental telepathy with the same ease
and precision as the so-called professional telepathists claim to be able
to do.
We know about different experiments published by members of the British
Psychological Society and also by Dr. Wasilevsky, Dr. Kotik, Dr. Papenstecker,
Dr. Fischner, and many others. We have also read with special interest
about tests performed by Upton Sinclair and his wife. He rightly pointed
out that someone else might might want to write about such a sensational
subject in order to make a name for himself, but that in his case it could
only ruin his reputation as a writer.
The experiments mentioned so far as well as other tests give results
which we can by no means explain as mere coincidence. This is the case
even if we take special care not to overlook the fact that coincidence
can outweigh all calculations of probability (see our work on coincidence).
The endeavors of various experimenters as well as the observation of
spontaneous telepathic phenomena by others prove that telepathy is a natural
occurrence. Still, up to now we have been denied the same precision characteristic
of experiments and scientific research where demonstrations can be carried
out in front of the public.
Not only is today’s scholar who studies this subject and its problems
convinced of the existence of telepathy, but also an exact and rapid transfer
of ideas can no longer be dismissed, as a hoax without further qualification.
On the face of it, the magicians have an advantage over scientists. This
has not yet been clarified. We make an attempt here to solve a r)art of
this problem.
In Mesmer’s time — around the time of the French Revolution — demonstrations
of “mental magnetism” were retarded as frauds by scientists.
Thus Lavoisier and Franklin gave up their views on “mental magnetism”
in front of the French Academy. It stayed like this until 1840 when Brand
could perform hypnotic phenomena on stage no worse than a stage artist
who stood next to him and accused him of being a cheat.
Up until today no scientist could simulate those telepathic phenomena
as perfectly as was needed for the stage.
I personally have had three different opportunities to witness open demonstrations
carried out by different individuals. These presentations hardly differed
from one another. A subject was on stage and the hypnotist was in the
audience. No attempt was ever made to replace the subject (medium) on
stage by someone from the public. The subject was always the same one
that appeared with the hypnotist and was usually exulted as a clairvoyant.
Some one very quietly asks the hypnotists a question. The medium on stage
immediately repeats the question and also answers it. The question is
such that it is beyond the mental capacity of the medium, either because
of its context or on account of the intelligence of the medium (in two
cases the media were children 10-12 years old). Thus a child can say on
stage without hesitation: “You are asking for the serial numbers
of your preferred shares of the Asbestos Co. Ltd.” and immediately
specify the numbers.
Of course, just before that you have given the serial numbers to the
hypnotist who is at your side. However, in case you have given him false
information, the medium will repeat this. This only proves that it is
not a matter of clairvoyance, as it is claimed to be, but rather telepathy
between the hypnotist and the hypnotized. Therefore all answers to questions
nut forward by the public about their future destinies or things that
the inquirer himself is uncertain about are only deceptive. They can also
be especially damaging when, as it happened in the first case, questions
were asked about relatives who were involved in the war that raged at
that time and the answers that were given were not always encouraging.
It is therefore understandable that such cheating throws a shadow on
the whole subject of “clairvoyance” . On the other hand, we
do not have the right to pass judgement on the whole and dismiss it as
a hoax merely because of these “presumptions” .
It can be easily seen that there is no secret speech between the medium
and the hypnotist—either in the manner in which the questions themselves
are asked, or by means of gestures. The replies are very fast and accurate
and at the same time often quite complex. Since the medium’s eyes
were covered up, any secret communication with such precision would in
the circumstances be more puzzling yet.
It can be shown that the medium does not come to know the subject of
the question by hearing, it (assuming hypersensivity) since it is possible
to present the hypnotist with a written or printed piece of paper (as
in the case of the above-mentioned shares) and obtain the same result.
It is also possible to prove that ventriloquy is not involved and that
the hypnotist does not simulate the speech of the medium who is about
ten meters away from him (his eyes are open, but his back is turned to
the audience). Instead of speaking, he can write the answer on a piece
of paper.
The three cases which I have witnessed were as follows: A Greek with
an eleven-year old girl (in Moscow, during the war). An Oriental (China
or Indochina) but according to himself an Egyptian, with a boy (in Haifa),
and a young Levantine (in Tel-Aviv).
Since all the demonstrations resembled each other, I had the impression
that they all stemmed from the same school, or that the last couple (the
Levantines) had been taught by the others).
I visited the Oriental in his hotel room after his performance. That
man, whom the audience retarded as one gifted with such great powers was
clearly in despair. When he found out that I was a doctor he begged me
for help—the medium lay in bed with a high fever. It was his son.
This had not been disclosed in any way in the advertisements.
I also visited the Levantines in their hotel, and urged them in vain
to come and perform experiments in our Institute for Psychological Research
(they accepted the invitation, but never took it up). In any case, I was
able to find out an important, but again for some reason well-guarded
secret—the hypnotist and. his medium were brothers.
It is also interesting to note that Dr. Kotik related especially good
results about a medium who could only function in the presence of her
father.
We must remember the fact that by far most of the cases in spontaneous
telepathy involve members of the same family (people who have an emotional
relationship with one another). Most frequently cases are related by the
thousand where the death—often unexpected—of a relative who is far away
is revealed by a telepathic feeling either in a dream or while the person
is awake. We also know about a considerable number of such spontaneous
telepathic feelings from the material we have gathered (we still exclude
here the cases of similar dreams, since similar interests and impressions
can provoke the same-dreams).
It is interesting to note in these telepathic feelings that from the
millions of people around, only the relative hears the secret voice and
he alone believes it.
Therefore we are inclined to believe that these energy processes are
evident in more or less homogenic brains of blood relations much more
generally than in people who are not related (the same happens
with other characteristics such as physical structure or psychological
similarities). This harmony is perhaps the Psycho-physical basis of telepathic
events.
We cannot claim with certainty whether spontaneous telepathy occurs with
the same frequency between man and wife, i.e. people not related by blood,
although such spontaneous telepathic cases do occur without a doubt, and
are also documented in our material. It is possible that relationship
by choice itself is caused by similarity in physical structure (homogeneity).
By the same token, the same emotional life can in time result in homogeneity.
We have heard a certain claim at one of the meetings of the Psychoanalytic
Society in Vienna from a member, while Freud’s work on parapsychological
phenomena was discussed. It was that when the hypnotist thought very hard
while under hypnosis, there was no result, and every effort failed to
produce a telepathic thought transfer during hypnosis. We must decipher
the conditions under which these professional magicians work.
The practical result of our observations is the suggestion that we must
take notice of the relationship (homogeneity) between the sender and the
recipient when observing experiments in telepathy in the future.
Translated from the German by Helena Flack
