The daily morning journal and courier., 1906-02-15
PROFESSOR HYSLOP
On the Trlviality of Spirit Message.

ndVe been reported 1n the newspapers as coming from different mediums throughout the country are received by the members of the Society for Psychical Research with 8 good deal of amusement. Surely Doctor Hodgson should he have the power to communi- cate, would remember the primary methods in the scientific study of tf nee utterance, that of restricting the alltged communication to the endeavor to prove identity. Such proof must rest largely on trivialities. Prof. James H. Hyslop, vice-president of the Society, emphasizes this fact in his book Science and a Future Life,' from which the following is quoted:
 'The one objection to the spiritistic hypothesis that possesses the sceptic most tenaciously and that perplexes the layman is the triyiality of the com munications- Most people feel this characteristic very keenly, especially because they assume that 1t indicates the grade of mental development on the part of the so-called discarnate. What seems unintelligible is the almost entire Animation of the communications to the most trivial affairs of life, such as jackknives, skull-caps, penholders, and references to small incidents of their lives. This appearances of a degenerat- ed mental condition is interpreted as representing an undesirable mode of existence, if the spiritistic theory is to be adopted, and as in conflict with the personality of the persons as re- membered by the living. We perhaps naturally expect some clear and elevat- ing communications represtative of the characters so well known to us when living, but instead of this we have inane and drivelling confusion and triviality, that we might expect of per- sons of a low intellectual order, of per- sons out of their minds. Such a con ception leaves nothing desirable in a post-mortem existence, and the ma jority of intelligent men and women wonder why we attach so much impor- tance to the facts and why we treat the problem with such solemn seriousness and enthusiasm.
 This difficulty felt and urged mean to face without equivocation. I do not consider 1t an objection hypothesis, but a perplexity in the conception of 1t which we would perhaps most naturally form. It is not an objection, because we have the facts to explain by some theory, and it is manifestly most ab- surd to suppose that telepathy with it's enormous powers should so uniformly limit itself to trivial matters, especially as it has to be conceived as satisfying the conceptions of the general public in stimulating spirits in respect of their identity. It ought to give not only what is wanted, if it is a Zeitgeist Crime spirit), but also the important and elevated facts, as easily gotten by the process, presumably, as the trivial incidents, There is no excuse whatever for the limitation to trivial incidents on tine telepathic hypothesis.
 But there is another reason why trivlality cannot be treated as an ob- lection to 'spiritistic theories. If the facts make the spiritistic theory the only rational supposition possible to ex- plain them 1t has to be accepted whether desirable or not. Our business as scientists Is not with the desirabllity of the next life, but with the fact of it. We have to accept the lift to come, If it be fact, without any ability to es- cape it. and it's degenerated nature would not affect the evidence for the fact of it. Its being madhouse or an asylum for idiots would not weaken the evidence for It's existence. In any case, however, the desirabiltty or un- desirabiity of a future existence has nothing to do with the scientific ques- ton whether 1t is a fact. This view of the matter cannot be evaded and it is irrefutable.
 But there is another reply to the alleged objection. Nothing but trivial incidents will prove personal identity. If any one will stop long enough to think and to ask what incidents he would choose to prove his own identity over telephone or telegraph wire he will readily discover that his spon- lIllSOuS CIlOlC6 WOulQ D0 lHe UlOSL trivial incidents possible. With this in view, and knowing that human nature would select such incidents I arranged a series of experiments over a telegraph line between two of the buildings at Columbia University. I had my opera tors there and brought two acquaint- ance, one to one endof the wire and the other to the opposite end. A., of course was to know that B, was present at the other end, but B. did not know that A. was present. A. was to send messages to B. without giving his name until B. discovered his presence and identity, or gave it up. I said nothing to any one about the primary object of my experi- ments, which was to ascertain experi- mental evidence on the question wheth- CT men would choose trivial incidents to prove their identity. The sequel was that these persons, students and pro- .fessors in the university, uniformly chose even more trivial incidents than we generally get through Mrs. Piper for the same apparent purpose. In fact, if we judged from the intellectual char aoter of the communications over the wire, we could not distinguish Columbia University professors and students from ,bootblacks or street gamins. The re- cord of my experiments was published Ia kl,n tg,O