Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00503)

Blavatsky referring to "evil magnetisms", and driving out the "Devil"
as per the first of these three postings seems a case of superstition,
even Mesmer himself didn't mention this as far I know.

Jerry: "Many people are obsessive while only a few have MPD. 
Obsession is basically a strong drive to stick with something in spite of 
great odds. MPD is a psychotic disorder that disables normal functioning, 
while obsessives can often become CEOs.
Brigitte, I generally read postings by Dallas only when they are 
specifically addressed to me. I usually don't have the time or inclination 
to wade through all of his exoteric lengthy posts containing endless core-
teaching quotes. So, I haven't read the post that you are referring to. 
However, what used to be called "obsession" is now called "possession" 
and the two, today, are different things. Modern psychology no longer 
recognizes possession except as a belief of being possessed by 
someone or something, and thus is experienced as an attack on one's 
ego. We no longer do exorcisms. Obsession, today, is simply a very 
strong drive to do something even if it is irrational or illogical or self-
defeating (it is doing anything to an extreme)."


Bri.:Of course the stories of mediums materializing gosts that would go 
around the room shaking hands with the seance attendants disappearing 
and in the case of Katie King disappearing with their jewelry , stage 
magic had a larger role in producing effects than was generally
realized. 

Victorian England's fascination with pseudo-sciences such as, 
mesmerism, and spiritualism was a cultural phenomena 
which arose during a time of great social upheaval. Whether it was
head reading, hypnotic trances, or hyperactive spirits the English
Victorians were receptive to ideas which provided explanations for
their lives.


Also in the United States, there were many who looked for the cause
of the phenomena in some sort of fluid and left the spirits out of it 
altogether.Roubaud called the moving agent a "new fluid" that was 
neither electric heat nor terrestrial magnetism. He was satisfied to
refer to it simply an "agent" whose properties could and should be 
investigated.

The anonymous author of "Practical Instructions in Table
rapping " was also content to identify the phenomena merely as "the
fluid."
Prichard, relying on secondhand information, began by favoring
his explanation of table moving but did an about face when he carried 
own expenments and several times saw a table completely lift off the 
Convinced that what he had witnessed could not be accounted for by 
ious muscular action, Prichard (1853) attributed the movements to 
agency of electric currents instantaneously permeating the spaces of 
and thereby counteracting the forces of gravity ; see also Gentil
Goupy 1853, 1860). researchers attempted to tie the table movements 
directly to the svstern of the medium or sitters. For instance, spoke
of "animated electricity" present in the physical organism that
es from the body and penetrates the table, causing its motion . They 
believed the table moving force was an extension of the "netfluid 
that passes through the body, mediating sensation and producing outside
the awareness of the conscious mind, every once in a while putting forth 
thoughts or impulses that intrude into the mind's consciousness and 
which the conscious mind may or may not be able to control.

>From this point of view, Rogers's concept of the brain hints at a 
subconsciously functioning psychological stratum without quite
arriving there. Two years later, another writer took that final step.

"Lettre de Gros Jean" Anonymously published in 1855, "Seconde lettre 
de gros Jean Li son eveque am sujet des tables parlantes, des 
possessions et autres diableries" broke new psychological ground
with its speculations about the inner structure of the psyche. 

It provided a framework for understanding table moving, possession, 
automatic writing, and other automatic phenomena and presented a 
novel picture of unconscious mental activity.

According to the author, in human beings ideas and knowledge are 
given a unity by personality. There is an "I" that thinks and knows,
and from this 'r the individual makes judgments and takes action. As a 
person thinks new thoughts, they are attached to the personality and 
said to belong to the .This sense of personal oneness is provided by
the will. Thoughts, however, can separate into distinct streams, each
with a life of its own. We see this, for instance, in the distinct lives of
sleep and wakefulness. In certain conditions when the will weakens a 
person can find himself separated into distinct parts, each with its 
independent stream of thought and its separate identity.

This weakening of the will makes it possible for mediums, who
regularly experience it, to have more than one personality, and that is
precisely what happens when the table moving medium is not conscious 
of the response produced through her:

The young woman has no internal knowledge of the response which is
formed in her intelligence outside of her. She only knows the re
sponse through the movement of the table. Intellectual division is com
plete. At the same time the dissident thought expands its domain. It
no longer simply deals with questions addressed to the table; on the con
trary it now asks questions of the persons present, one after another,
about such and such a subject, placing itself in such and such an
order. 


Bri.