For two years during the early part of his long exile from France, Victor Hugo engaged in regular séances using a planchette – a forerunner of the Ouija board, which worked by tapping out words one letter at a time. Two small tables were employed, a three-legged table perched atop a four-legged one. The tilting of the tables produced the taps. Hugo and his family and friends, exiled to the Isle of Jersey (and later the Isle of Guernsey) would gather in the evenings and coax messages from the Beyond. Hundreds of messages were received, and the material appears to have had a profound effect on Hugo's thinking and on the writing of Les Miserables, in which he was presently engaged.
This intriguing corner of the great novelist's life is exceptionally well documented in Victor Hugo's Conversations with the Spirit World, by John Chambers. Chambers, the first person to translate the séance transcripts into English (in an earlier edition of this book), does a fine job of evoking the atmosphere of the exiles' home away from home, their bitter homesickness and burgeoning fascination with the occult. His book is unusually well written for a study of this kind, laced with keen character sketches and absorbing sidelights on William Blake, James Merrill, and Kabbalah. He presents the facts without undue speculation and lets his readers draw their own conclusions.
The first question to ask is, naturally: Were these phenomena really paranormal? Nearly always, Victor's elder son Charles – who seemed to have the most natural mediumistic ability – would be one of the two persons operating the planchette. Charles' constant participation has led some critics to suggest that he unconsciously fabricated the messages to please his domineering father. But some of the messages were tapped out in languages of which Charles was ignorant – Hungarian and English, for instance. And in some cases (e.g. the January 22, 1854 séance, described on p. 113 of Chambers' book), Charles did not operate the planchette.
Other apparently paranormal events that took place in conjunction with the séances cast additional doubt on the skeptical view. When dogs throughout the area began barking in the night, the planchette told them sternly to shut their mouths – and they did. Strange singing was heard in different parts of the house when Hugo's son was ill. A communicator calling itself the Lady in White arranged for a rendezvous at three AM; no one was bold enough to keep the date, but at three AM the Hugos' doorbell inexplicably rang.
Some of the spirits' statements are intriguing and possibly prescient. Distance, we are told, is illusory, and the entire universe can be found in – and reconstructed from – its smallest part. These ideas remind John Chambers of Michael Talbot's book The Holographic Universe, which explores the cosmology of David Bohm.
But for the most part, the communications are rather banal. Nothing of evidential value was produced, and the sitters don’t appear to have pressed the spirits for proof of identity. When the spirits did make factual claims about their earthly lives, these claims were often wrong. The great Carthaginian general Hannibal, purportedly speaking through the planchette, described the city of Carthage as a vast expanse of six thousand temples on streets three hundred feet wide. This grandiose portrayal does not tally with any historical or archaeological findings. (On the other hand, when "Shakespeare" insisted that he had not died on April 23, 1616, we might wonder if it was the shade of Edward De Vere that the sitters were hearing from ... But the channeled Shakespearean drama produced by the sitters, though highly interesting and creative, does not bear any resemblance to the earthly Bard's work.)
Then there is the case of the Lion of Androcles. At times the sitters heard from the spirit of this beast, famous in folklore for having spared Androcles in the arena. It is, of course, quite unlikely that this folktale was based on fact, and even more unlikely that the noted lion was communicating with the Jersey exiles from beyond the grave. But what makes the Lion especially relevant is an incident that occurred on April 25, 1854. The Lion-persona, tapping out a lengthy poem, suddenly stopped after writing the lines
They raise against the saints their sacrilegious paw
And bury their blood-stained claws in the liv–.
A pause followed after which the Lion rewrote the last two lines, which apparently dissatisfied him. But in the interim, Victor Hugo wrote his own ending to the stanza, and showed his work only to one person (who, like Hugo, was not operating the planchette). Hugo's lines read:
They ripped open the saints dying in the mire
And their hideous claws enlarged the wound
In the side of Jesus Christ.
We are told that "almost immediately" after Hugo had written these words, the tapping recommenced, and the planchette spelled out
Their paws ripped open the martyrs here and there in the mire
And Jesus Christ slipped their claws into his wounds,
For a gift of nails to the gibbet.
The close similarity of the two verses suggests that the planchette operators – or the planchette itself – picked up the imagery from Hugo's own mind. But since the planchette operators had not seen Hugo's lines, the message must have been communicated via telepathy or via some even more mysteriously influence.
In the final analysis, if we view the sessions as spirit communications, they are unconvincing and unsatisfying. But if we view them as Consciousness interacting with itself – Consciousness creating a kind of feedback loop between the sitters on the one hand and the planchette on the other – then things get more interesting. To read excerpts from the transcripts is like reading an inner dialogue carried out at the unconscious level between Hugo and himself (with occasional contributions from other members of the party). The sessions perhaps can be best understood as the externalization of the unconscious, a breakdown of the seemingly solid barrier between objective and subjective experience. The stream of consciousness running through the deeper channels of Hugo's mind seems to have been objectified, brought out into the open. In a deep sense, Hugo was talking to himself.
No wonder, then, that the tables mostly told him what he wanted to hear. The tables reported that Hugo's archenemy Napoleon III would die in two years – when actually the dictator lived another two decades. The discarnate Shakespeare opined that French was superior to English. Other spirits verified Hugo's theory of a cycle of reincarnation that proceeds through the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms, and his idea of the universe as a vast darkness, with only the shining stars retaining God's pure light.
The strengths and weaknesses of the communicators matched Hugo's own talents. The spirits were good at improvising poetry and long, eloquent monologues; so was Hugo. The spirits were useless at composing music, even when Mozart himself ostensibly spoke through the planchette. Hugo had no musical training.
The appearance of so many famous names among the spirits – Aeschylus, Plato, Galileo, Shakespeare, even Jesus – also makes sense in terms of Hugo's psychology. No one ever accused Victor Hugo of being humble. His self-regard bordered on megalomania. Who would seek him out, if not the spirits of world-historical heroes like himself? Nothing less would do.
And what of the more abstract or surreal entities, such as Civilization, Death, and Idea, or Balaam's Ass and the Lion of Androcles? In the highly intellectual atmosphere of Hugo's salon, large abstract concepts and mythological or folkloric imagery must have been part of everyday conversation. It was how these people talked, part of their mental furniture. And Hugo had a particular fascination – part sentimental, part mystical – with the idea that animals are ensouled, and was especially fond of the Lion of Androcles tale.
How about the most consistent, overarching motif to appear in the communications – that the earth is a prison, a penal colony for wayward souls? It matches up quite closely with the gloomy outlook of the dispirited, homesick exiles, persecuted by a dictator, stranded among fellow outcasts on a tiny outcrop of rock. All the more reason to believe that the tilting tables were reflecting the sitters' own ideas and feelings back at them. Perhaps the isolation of their exile, and the intense emotions it stirred up, actually made it easier for the sitters to access the unconscious mind, or universal consciousness itself.
Whatever the explanation, Victor Hugo's Conversations with the Spirit World is a superb contribution to literary history and to the study of the paranormal. I recommend it highly.
What are you going to call your book on the history of real and fake mediumship? When is it coming out? Will you leave your blog entries on the internet for people to read for free instead of buying them as the book?
Posted by: | April 29, 2008 at 02:00 AM
There's no book. Just this blog.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 29, 2008 at 03:20 AM
Some of the spirits' statements are intriguing and possibly prescient. Distance, we are told, is illusory, and the entire universe can be found in – and reconstructed from – its smallest part. These ideas remind John Chambers of Michael Talbot's book The Holographic Universe, which explores the cosmology of David Bohm."
These ideas are also in 'Consciousness is All'. Before I read this, I'd just posted in the previous thread that I've only just realised that the Universe is actually without size -how prescient is that?
Posted by: Ross W | April 29, 2008 at 03:31 AM
“But if we view them as Consciousness interacting with itself”
The reading I have done on this type of communication suggests that lower level spirits can come through and pretend to be someone else. As consciousness is not encased in concrete this could have been lower level spirits and sometimes the sub consciousness of the sitters.
These type of spirits would indeed consider earth a type of prison and have a gloomy outlook on life but then as you stated it also could reflect the mental outlook of the sitters.
Allan Kardec wrote in his book the spirits book that lower level spirits that claim to be famous give themselves away in time with inaccurate information.
I studied the course in miracles for three years and never could figure out if the information coming through Helen was her subconscious or a spirit pretending to be Jesus or who knows maybe it was Jesus that was coming through and he went shopping with her for a new pair of shoes and gave her advice on her shoe selection.
My best guess is that Helen was a very advanced spirit and her subconscious was revealing to her intelligence that she was unable to access in this life. If anyone wants to study how much control one’s ego has over their life then the course in miracles is for you.
But beware the interesting phenomenon I found was that many of the people in the course in miracles were very egotistical. The main message did not seem to affect the behaviors of many of the followers.
Also I have read that the level of consciousness of the sitters using the planchette may determine the level of consciousness of the spirits coming through.
Posted by: william | April 29, 2008 at 05:16 AM
Your a legend Ross. ;-)
Posted by: Hope Rivers | April 29, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Some of the spirits' statements are intriguing and possibly prescient. Distance, we are told, is illusory, and the entire universe can be found in – and reconstructed from – its smallest part. These ideas remind John Chambers of Michael Talbot's book The Holographic Universe, which explores the cosmology of David Bohm.
--------------------------------------------
If everything is infinitely interconnected to everything else and time and space do not exist than it is of no importance what name the spirit or soul chose to call itself. Names (which are just another kind of duality) are a "here" thing and not a "there" thing. No separation. This is why people who have NDE's routinely say that they saw Elvis or Einstein on the other side. Whatever one focuses one attention on is what one experiences. If one thinks about Einstein he will appear. No time and space. Like information in a black hole. A singularity.
Posted by: Art | April 29, 2008 at 10:41 AM
In the final analysis, if we view the sessions as spirit communications, they are unconvincing and unsatisfying. But if we view them as Consciousness interacting with itself – Consciousness creating a kind of feedback loop between the sitters on the one hand and the planchette on the other – then things get more interesting.
I think this is the key to everything, Michael. If one considers consciousness as the ground of being, everything changes. Michael Tymn had a http://metgat.gaia.com/blog/2008/1>post a couple months ago in which he discussed the spirit communications of one Private Dowding, who stated, "Hell is a thought region," and went on to discuss an aborted 'rescue mission' that Dowding participated in.
Dowding also stated, "This hell is the hell of the illusions and is itself an illusion. I find this hard to credit. Those who enter it are led to believe that the only realities are the sense passions and the beliefs of the human ‘I’. This hell consists in believing the unreal to be real . . . Hell, apparently, or that part of it we are speaking about, depends for its existence on human thoughts and feelings.”
This parallels certain descriptions in The Tibetan Book of the Dead, but descriptions of the heavenly realms are also described in terms of perception, especially in the Eastern traditions. It also occurred to me that the Anita M NDE (that we've discussed before here) describes our world as dependent upon the collective thoughts and feelings of humanity.
The point is, existence is always about perception, and until we learn that simple lesson, we are always captive to our personal thoughts and feelings. This is true here and in what we call the afterlife, but the very term 'afterlife' is also part of the illusion, and neither the mediums nor the spirits that they encounter fully realize that. Everything is consciousness, always folding back in upon itself. Anything and everything we can ever encounter is an aspect of the divine - there is nothing else. This is the simple truth that is at the foundation of the Hermetic tradition, as well as all of the world's religions.
Consciousness as the ground of being, though, is almost impossible for anyone to believe. In order to truly understand it, we need to see it, to recognize it, to experience it. And strangely enough, in order to get there, we need to move beyond all beliefs, including the belief that consciousness is the ground of being!
It turns back in upon itself once again, and on and on it goes.
Posted by: Michael H | April 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Art: "No separation... Like information in a black hole. A singularity."
Yes Art - A singularity is the right analogy - nondimensional and without size. So presumably although we dream we have been projected by a Big Bang on to a cinema screen called the Universe, we are in fact still inside the singularity- which explains nonlocality, synchronicity, etc. In your view can there be other singularities? Presumably not – the Black Hole in space is merely a physical analogy, since our terms ‘Infinity’, ‘Omniscience’ and ‘Omnipresence’ imply nothing else outside, not even other universes. Or maybe we are just part of a Demi-Consciousness below the Absolute?!
Michael H: “And strangely enough, in order to get there, we need to move beyond all beliefs, including the belief that consciousness is the ground of being!”
I suppose you mean that any belief implies a judgement that something is true or false, and arises from the Aristotelian dichotomy that Michael P referred to, ie is simply an intellectual construct for analysing the illusory Universe of forms? So beliefs are really neither true nor false, but completely irrelevant, because beliefs are held by an ego, which is finite and therefore ignorant?
Posted by: Ross W | April 30, 2008 at 08:42 AM
I suppose you mean that any belief implies a judgement that something is true or false, and arises from the Aristotelian dichotomy that Michael P referred to, ie is simply an intellectual construct for analysing the illusory Universe of forms? So beliefs are really neither true nor false, but completely irrelevant, because beliefs are held by an ego, which is finite and therefore ignorant?
Essentially, yes. But it involves looking deeper, past the intellect itself. The difficulty in communication has to do with language itself being an intellectual construct. It’s because of the limitation of language that direct realization of the universal consciousness can never be fully transmitted from one person to another.
The other difficulty has to do with how successful the intellect has proven to be. Western society represents the culmination of centuries of intellectual development – we are able to carry on these thread discussions because we’ve been able to harness electricity, build computers and connect them through the vast network of the internet. This is just one example of thousands. We’re surrounded by the products of Aristotelian thought, and it has occurred to me many times that it is the very success of this method of thinking that convinces billions that we are living in an objective reality. When someone like a Peter Kingsley suggests that there’s a deeper reality that we’re oblivious to, it sounds ridiculous until someone has glimpsed it themselves. And on top of that, there’s an implicit assumption that realization of the deeper reality is an either/or proposition, that ‘mystical’ realization leaves one impotent to live a productive life in the ‘real’ world.
In the previous thread, MP suggested that what may be needed is a ‘new way of thinking’. He’s right. The intellect has been so successful, that we assume it is the only way to think. So we apply it to everything. And that’s where we go wrong.
George Pransky, the psychologist who along with Roger Mills developed the school of psychology now known as Health Realization, suggests that there is another way to use our minds. He describes the data-driven use of the intellect as ‘process thinking’, but points out that we also have access to another way of thinking, which he calls ‘flow thinking’. We all experience flow thinking at various times, but we don’t recognize it as thinking, because it isn’t active. Flow thinking is when our minds are just free and clear, sort of ‘grazing’. Most of us access it regularly when our minds are quiet, those times when our thoughts just flow in an orderly fashion, coming to mind like bubbles floating to the surface. And even though we all experience flow thinking to various degrees, we don’t respect it, and we don’t recognize the deep intelligence behind it. We’re so convinced that processing data is the key to everything, that instead of just living in flow thinking, we seize onto a ‘thought bubble’ and plunge down into the depths of our intellect with it, thus drawing us back into process thinking. And we don’t even recognize that we’ve done so, because we don’t see flow thinking as thinking, we don’t see it as the proper use of our minds.
When I write that we need to look past the intellect, or to see beyond our beliefs, or to see thought as thought, what I’m suggesting is that we need to spend more time in flow thinking. But before we can spend more time in flow thinking, we have to learn to recognize it, which is difficult because of its subtlety. Once we’ve recognized it, we have to learn to respect it and trust it. And once we’ve done that, we discover that we just naturally know when it’s appropriate to apply the intellect, and when it’s not. We also discover, (at least in my case), that we still get lost in the intellect more often that we’d like. The one characteristic of flow thinking that is consistent in my experience is that there is a positive emotional component to it. It feels good, and there’s an unconditional quality to those feelings.
I don’t know if this lengthy post properly addressed Ross’s question or not – it may just sound like nonsense! It’s so tricky. Accepting that beliefs imply a judgment that something is true or false is itself a belief, and accepting that belief keeps us in process thinking. And to see that beliefs prevent us from realizing our inner connection to universal consciousness requires that we shift into flow thinking, yet if we try to discover universal consciousness through flow thinking we are accepting the belief that flow thinking will lead us to universal consciousness, and that belief will send us back into process thinking. It’s no wonder no one can properly explain it. I think the idea is to just be, and look for positive feelings.
Posted by: Michael H | April 30, 2008 at 02:18 PM
Nice reply Michael H -thank you.
“The difficulty in communication has to do with language itself being an intellectual construct.”
This reminds me of your super post in the Daily Grail about Idealism.
You were talking about Subjective Idealism, but at least two people assumed you meant political idealism and linked it to Fascism and Communism! Phew! In spite of your very careful use of language (and you are always very careful, Michael!), people got the wrong end of the stick. And if I recall correctly, it led you to another post on the insufficiency of written language compared to the spoken word and lack of attentiveness to what others are saying. Quite understandable! Still, I have to say: I like your style (as I like Michael P's style, and everyone’s style who contributes to this blog). There’s no doubt I’ve learned a lot from your written words these last 4 months. So Keep up the good words!
Posted by: Ross W | April 30, 2008 at 02:52 PM
Thanks, Ross.
Somewhat coincidentally, I just received an email from WIE with a link to the TED Conference lecture given by Jill Bolte Taylor earlier this year. She's a neuroscientist who experienced a massive stroke in 1996, yet managed to maintain a detailed awareness of her consciousness as she was experiencing the stroke. Though she describes things in terms of the left and right hemispheres of the brain, while reading this I couldn't help but think of Pransky's description of process and flow thinking.
The full transcript and video are available http://blog.ted.com/2008/03/jill_bolte_tayl.php#more>here.
Posted by: Michael H | April 30, 2008 at 05:39 PM
“This is why people who have NDE's routinely say that they saw Elvis or Einstein on the other side. Whatever one focuses one attention on is what one experiences. If one thinks about Einstein he will appear”
Art would a soul on the other side be able to communicate with this Elvis or Einstein? Would Elvis be able to tell this person personal events that happened in his life? Or does the soul just see Elvis and does not or can not communicate with him?
Posted by: william | May 01, 2008 at 03:33 AM
And we have the power to choose, moment by moment, who and how we want to be in the world. Right here right now, I can step into the consciousness of my right hemisphere where we are -- I am -- the life force power of the universe, and the life force power of the 50 trillion beautiful molecular geniuses that make up my form.
YEah, right. It takes an embolism to do this, right?
Posted by: | May 01, 2008 at 08:24 AM
YEah, right. It takes an embolism to do this, right?
While it's true that Jill Bolte Taylor's insights came about as a consequence of a massive brain hemorrhage, what interested me were the parallels between what she has to say and the understanding of human psychology as advocated by the school of Health Realization. I think Taylor is suggesting that she learned (through her stroke) that she can access what she calls her 'right brain' at any time, - it seems to me that this is essentially the same idea that HR practitioners suggest when they say we can access 'flow thinking' whenever we choose to as well. We don't need to suffer an embolism to do it.
As I wrote in the earlier post, most of us don't even recognize a quiet, passive mind as using our minds - so we don't respect it, or see it as desirable. We are convinced that using our minds analytically is the only method that has validity, and until we have accessed flow thinking ourselves, our analytical mind imagines that accessing a 'passive' mind is suggesting an aimless, drifting approach to life. Yet, as Taylor says, the 'right brain' is the key to discovering the moment, allowing us to be present, while the 'left brain' keeps our focus on the past and the future - neither of which are happening now.
Anyway, the idea isn't to believe Taylor, or Pransky - and certainly not me. Just look within and decide for yourself.
As Taylor closes her lecture, "Which would you choose? Which do you choose? And when? I believe that the more time we spend choosing to run the deep inner peace circuitry of our right hemispheres, the more peace we will project into the world and the more peaceful our planet will be. And I thought that was an idea worth spreading."
I agree with her.
Posted by: Michael H | May 01, 2008 at 11:25 AM
I agree with her.
You believe her.
Posted by: | May 01, 2008 at 03:50 PM
I have never been much of a believer in right brain left brain controlling our mode of being in the world. Of course I have done little research into it and for some reason this has not been an interest of mine so that qualifies me for stating an opinion.
Although many years ago I took a course in college on the brain and its functions. Very interesting course. But I have noticed that many people that have lost some area of their brains it appears “often” (not sure about often comment) the other side of the brain is able to replace most if not all of those functions.
I think recent research is showing that the brain is a lot more holistic than previously thought. But the peace in the world part of her presentation sounds good. But then where are the profits in that?
Posted by: william | May 01, 2008 at 05:38 PM
But then where are the profits in that?
Perhaps we need a new definition of what constitutes profit, William.
I agree that using the left brain/right brain analogy can be clumsy, but as a neuroanatomist, this is the terminology that would be comfortable and familiar to her. What struck me was the parallel to the process/flow dichotomy described by HR professionals.
I think that anyone who has read my contributions here would know that I consider consciousness to be a spiritual phenomenon, and not something that emerges from the brain. I see the brain as involved in, but not the source of, conscious experience. As I read it, what Taylor suggests is that it is the 'right brain' that is the pathway to our connection to universal consciousness. HR calls that 'flow thinking'. While HR suggests shifting to and from 'process' and 'flow' thinking at will, Taylor suggests shifting from 'left brain' (analytical) thinking to 'right brain' (passive) thinking at will. They both suggest that for those who grasp it, the latter will be seen as preferable to the former.
I think they're both trying to say the same thing, and are just using different terms to do so.
Posted by: Michael H | May 01, 2008 at 06:38 PM
"Perhaps we need a new definition of what constitutes profit, William."
that was my idea of humor.
Posted by: william | May 02, 2008 at 12:08 AM
The unconscious mind seems to be a huge region, responsible for such things as automatic writing, the planchette behavior discussed, somnambulism, "channeled" entities, maybe multiple personalities with different allergies and needed eyglass correction, it goes on and on. Our conscious personalities are presumably just the tip of this iceberg.
I have always wondered about this relative to the state of consciousness after physical death or temporarily out of body during an NDE. Is the vast unconscious realm able to manifest itself even in this state? In other words, it would seem even a detached spirit could theoretically still experience manifestations from an unconscious level. But I can't recall an NDE account mentioning anything like that. Perhaps during an NDE state a person's consciousness expands to encompass all these levels that were formerly hidden, but the accounts generally don't imply this.
Posted by: david M | May 03, 2008 at 10:26 PM