224 DEMONSTRATION OF THE FUTURE life. is in active communion with loved ones at a distance, and the death message is often, when psychic conditions are favorable, consciously received. The records of telepathy demonstrate this proposition. Nay, more; they may be cited to show that in the hour of death the soul is capable of projecting a phantasm of such strength and objectivity that it may be an object of sensorial experience to those for whom it is intended. Moreover, it has happened that telepathic messages have been sent by the dying, at the moment of dissolution, giving all the particulars of the tragedy, when the death was caused by an unexpected blow which crushed the skull of the victim. It is obvious that in such a case it is impossible that the objective mind could have participated in the transaction. The evidence is, indeed, overwhelming, that, no matter what form death may assume, whether caused by lingering disease, old age, or violence, the subjective mind is never weakened by its approach or its presence. On the other hand, that the objective mind weakens with the body and perishes with the brain, is a fact confirmed by every-day observation and universal experience. CHAPTER XIV. HAS MAN A SOUL? (continued). Recapitulation. — A Prima Facie Case. — Concurrent and Antagonistic Hypotheses. The Law of Suggestion. - A Case of "Mediumistic" Development. - The Alleged Spirit Control assumes a Dictatorship. It develops a Passion for Music. - Music the Language of the Emotions. - A purely Subjective Faculty. — Subjective Music and Objective Music Differentiated. — The Dual-Mind Theory. - Absurdities Involved in the Single-Mind Theory. IT T must now be provisionally assumed that it has been proven that the subjective mind is endowed with powers, and circumscribed by limitations, which clearly differentiate it from the objective mind. For convenience of reference and facility of recollection, the following recapitulation is presented : 1. The subjective mind is constantly amenable to control by the power of suggestion. 2. It is incapable of independent reasoning by the processes of induction. 3. Its power to reason deductively from given premises to correct conclusions is practically perfect. 4. It is endowed with a perfect memory. 5. It is the seat of the emotions. 6. It possesses the power to move ponderable objects without physical contact. 7. It has the power to communicate and receive intelligence otherwise than through the recognized channels of the senses. 8. Its activity and power are inversely proportionate to the vigor and healthfulness of the physical organism. 9. It is endowed with the faculties of instinct and intuition, and, under certain conditions, with the power of intuitive cognition or perception of the laws of Nature. It needs no argument or illustration to show that the objective mind has little in common with the subjective in any of the foregoing attributes, powers, and limitations. The objective mind (1) is manifestly not controllable by the power of suggestion in the sense in which the subjective mind is so controlled, that is, against reason, experience, and the evidence of the senses; 2. It is capable of inductive reasoning; 3. Its power of deductive reasoning is by no means perfect, nor does it approach perfection; 4. Its memory, in its best estate, is very defective, and, comparatively speaking, amounts to nothing more than an uncertain, evanescent ability to recall a few of the more prominent ideas and impressions which it has once experienced; 5. It is absolutely destitute of 'emotion; 6. It cannot exercise the slightest kinetic force beyond the range of physical contact; 7. It is destitute of any power remotely akin to telepathy; 8. The essential prerequisite to the successful exercise of its highest powers and functions is a perfectly sound, healthy, normal physical organism; 9. It is endowed with no power which is remotely akin to instinct or intuition. I submit that the mental characteristics of no two individuals ever presented a more violent contrast than exists between the objective and subjective minds of the human entity, in all their essential powers, functions, and limitations. I might claim the logical right to rest my case at this point; for it must be remembered that I have thus far sought not to prove the immortality of the soul, but to demonstrate the fact that man has a soul. In other words, I have merely sought to prove that which I have for convenience desig nated the "subjective mind" is in reality the mind of a distinct entity, and not merely one set or series of faculties which perform their functions under one condition of the body, whilst another set of faculties perform their functions under other bodily conditions. I say I might claim the logical right to rest my case here; for I submit that the bare statement of the facts which differentiate the two minds constitutes prima facie evidence that they belong to two distinct entities. The onus probandi, therefore, rests with those who hold the materialistic hypothesis, that man is a soulless being, possessing no attributes or powers that cannot be accounted for by reference to cerebral anatomy and physiology. I do not, however, intend to stop here, but will now proceed to show that there is no way of rationally accounting for the facts other than to predicate the actual existence in mankind of an entity which, in the vocabulary of spiritual philosophy, is denominated the soul. The nature of the question, broadly speaking, admits of but two hypotheses. One is that the facts presuppose the existence of two separate and distinct minds, belonging to two separate, or separable, entities; and the other is that there is but one mind having two distinct planes of consciousness, or two sets of faculties. One or the other of these hypotheses is the true one. They cannot both be true, and yet, for the purpose of demonstrating the immortality of the soul, it is a matter of indifference which of the two is adopted: whether we consider man as having two distinct minds, or as having one mind which manifests certain attributes and powers under certain conditions, and other attributes and powers under certain other conditions, provided only that the crucial fact remains that certain of ce those powers and functions do not pertain to this life. In other words, it is a matter of indifference whether we employ the words “dual mind," or "two minds," or "two sets of faculties;" for the same logical result follows, whatever terminology may be employed in the discussion of the broad and pregnant fact that two sets of faculties exist in man, each possessing independent powers, functions, and limitations. Facts are independent of hypotheses. Facts are primordial. Hypothesis is an instrument of logic for the scientific investigation of facts. Hypotheses, considered in their relations to each other, are divisible into two classes; namely, concurrent and antagonistic. Concurrent hypotheses are those of which the ultimate conclusions coincide. Antagonistic hypotheses are those of which the ultimate conclusions are variant. It is often a matter of indifference which of two concurrent hypotheses is the correct one; and it is often impossible to ascertain with certainty which is scientifically correct. It is, however, generally ascertained, sooner or later, by the failure of one to explain facts collateral to the main question, but resident within its purview. When that occurs, the true scientist will immediately resort to the other, providing that one explains all the facts. The hypotheses of duality of mind on the one hand, and of unitary mind with two sets of faculties on the other, are illustrations of concurrent hypotheses, inasmuch as their ultimate conclusions regarding a future life are identical; that is to say, they are each founded upon the one fact that man possesses subjective faculties that perform no normal function in physical life, and objective faculties which can perform no function in spiritual life. The conclusions are necessarily identical; namely, that faculties which perform 1 no normal functions in this life must necessarily belong to a future life. Hence I have remarked, here and elsewhere,1y. that the dual theory is not a necessary premise to enable us to arrive at correct ultimate conclusions. That theory, however, will be constantly advanced, partly for the sake of clearness of statement, but principally because it is firmly believed to be scientifically correct. It must be borne in 1 See "The Law of Psychic Phenomena," ch. i. |