Edgar Allen Poe

[Guest Starsky]

MESMERIC (Hypnotic state)REVELATION

WHATEVER doubt may still envelop the _rationale_ of mesmerism,

its startling _facts_ are now almost universally admitted. Of these

latter, those who doubt, are your mere doubters by profession - an

unprofitable and disreputable tribe. There can be no more absolute

waste of time than the attempt to _prove_, at the present day, that

man, by mere exercise of will, can so impress his fellow, as to cast

him into an abnormal condition, of which the phenomena resemble very

closely those of _death_, or at least resemble them more nearly than

they do the phenomena of any other normal condition within our

cognizance ; that, while in this state, the person so impressed

employs only with effort, and then feebly, the external organs of

sense, yet perceives, with keenly refined perception, and through

channels supposed unknown, matters beyond the scope of the physical

organs ; that, moreover, his intellectual faculties are wonderfully

exalted and invigorated ; that his sympathies with the person so

impressing him are profound ; and, finally, that his susceptibility

to the impression increases with its frequency, while, in the same

proportion, the peculiar phenomena elicited are more extended and

more _pronounced_.

I say that these - which are the laws of mesmerism in its

general features - it would be supererogation to demonstrate ; nor

shall I inflict upon my readers so needless a demonstration ;

to-day. My purpose at present is a very different one indeed. I am

impelled, even in the teeth of a world of prejudice, to detail

without comment the very remarkable substance of a colloquy,

occurring between a sleep-waker and myself.

I had been long in the habit of mesmerizing the person in

question, (Mr. Vankirk,) and the usual acute susceptibility and

exaltation of the mesmeric perception had supervened. For many months

he had been laboring under confirmed phthisis, the more distressing

effects of which had been relieved by my manipulations ; and on the

night of Wednesday, the fifteenth instant, I was summoned to his

bedside.

The invalid was suffering with acute pain in the region of the

heart, and breathed with great difficulty, having all the ordinary

symptoms of asthma. In spasms such as these he had usually found

relief from the application of mustard to the nervous centres, but

to-night this had been attempted in vain.

As I entered his room he greeted me with a cheerful smile, and

although evidently in much bodily pain, appeared to be, mentally,

quite at ease.

"I sent for you to-night," he said, "not so much to administer

to my bodily ailment, as to satisfy me concerning certain psychal

impressions which, of late, have occasioned me much anxiety and

surprise. I need not tell you how sceptical I have hitherto been on

the topic of the soul's immortality. I cannot deny that there has

always existed, as if in that very soul which I have been denying, a

vague half-sentiment of its own existence. But this half-sentiment

at no time amounted to conviction. With it my reason had nothing to

do. All attempts at logical inquiry resulted, indeed, in leaving me

more sceptical than before. I had been advised to study Cousin. I

studied him in his own works as well as in those of his European and

American echoes. The 'Charles Elwood' of Mr. Brownson, for example,

was placed in my hands. I read it with profound attention.

Throughout I found it logical, but the portions which were not

_merely_ logical were unhappily the initial arguments of the

disbelieving hero of the book. In his summing up it seemed evident

to me that the reasoner had not even succeeded in convincing himself.

His end had plainly forgotten his beginning, like the government of

Trinculo. In short, I was not long in perceiving that if man is to

be intellectually convinced of his own immortality, he will never be

so convinced by the mere abstractions which have been so long the

fashion of the moralists of England, of France, and of Germany.

Abstractions may amuse and exercise, but take no hold on the mind.

Here upon earth, at least, philosophy, I am persuaded, will always in

vain call upon us to look upon qualities as things. The will may

assent - the soul - the intellect, never.

"I repeat, then, that I only half felt, and never intellectually

believed. But latterly there has been a certain deepening of the

feeling, until it has come so nearly to resemble the acquiescence of

reason, that I find it difficult to distinguish between the two. I

am enabled, too, plainly to trace this effect to the mesmeric

influence. I cannot better explain my meaning than by the hypothesis

that the mesmeric exaltation enables me to perceive a train of

ratiocination which, in my abnormal existence, convinces, but which,

in full accordance with the mesmeric phenomena, does not extend,

except through its _effect_, into my normal condition. In

sleep-waking, the reasoning and its conclusion - the cause and its

effect - are present together. In my natural state, the cause

vanishing, the effect only, and perhaps only partially, remains.

"These considerations have led me to think that some good

results might ensue from a series of well-directed questions

propounded to me while mesmerized. You have often observed the

profound self-cognizance evinced by the sleep-waker - the extensive

knowledge he displays upon all points relating to the mesmeric

condition itself ; and from this self-cognizance may be deduced

hints for the proper conduct of a catechism."

I consented of course to make this experiment. A few passes

threw Mr. Vankirk into the mesmeric sleep. His breathing became

immediately more easy, and he seemed to suffer no physical

uneasiness. The following conversation then ensued: - V. in the

dialogue representing the patient, and P. myself.

_ P._ Are you asleep ?

_ V._ Yes - no I would rather sleep more soundly.

_P._ [_After a few more passes._] Do you sleep now ?

_V._ Yes.

_P._ How do you think your present illness will result ?

_V._ [_After a long hesitation and speaking as if with effort_.]

I must die.

_P._ Does the idea of death afflict you ?

_V._ [_Very quickly_.] No - no !

_P._ Are you pleased with the prospect ?

_V._ If I were awake I should like to die, but now it is no

matter. The mesmeric condition is so near death as to content me.

_P._ I wish you would explain yourself, Mr. Vankirk.

_V._ I am willing to do so, but it requires more effort than I

feel able to make. You do not question me properly.

_P._ What then shall I ask ?

_V._ You must begin at the beginning.

_P._ The beginning ! but where is the beginning ?

_V._ You know that the beginning is GOD. [_This was said in a

low, fluctuating tone, and with every sign of the most profound

veneration_.]

_P._ What then is God ?

_V._ [_Hesitating for many minutes._] I cannot tell.

_P._ Is not God spirit ?

_V._ While I was awake I knew what you meant by "spirit," but

now it seems only a word - such for instance as truth, beauty - a

quality, I mean.

_P._ Is not God immaterial ?

_V._ There is no immateriality - it is a mere word. That which

is not matter, is not at all - unless qualities are things.

_P._ Is God, then, material ?

_V._ No. [_This reply startled me very much._]

_P._ What then is he ?

_V._ [_After a long pause, and mutteringly._] I see - but it is

a thing difficult to tell. [_Another long pause._] He is not spirit,

for he exists. Nor is he matter, as _you understand it_. But there

are _gradations_ of matter of which man knows nothing ; the grosser

impelling the finer, the finer pervading the grosser. The

atmosphere, for example, impels the electric principle, while the

electric principle permeates the atmosphere. These gradations of

matter increase in rarity or fineness, until we arrive at a matter

_unparticled_ - without particles - indivisible - _one_ and here the

law of impulsion and permeation is modified. The ultimate, or

unparticled matter, not only permeates all things but impels all

things - and thus _is_ all things within itself. This matter is God.

What men attempt to embody in the word "thought," is this matter in

motion.

_P._ The metaphysicians maintain that all action is reducible to

motion and thinking, and that the latter is the origin of the former.

_V._ Yes ; and I now see the confusion of idea. Motion is the

action of _mind_ - not of _thinking_. The unparticled matter, or

God, in quiescence, is (as nearly as we can conceive it) what men

call mind. And the power of self-movement (equivalent in effect to

human volition) is, in the unparticled matter, the result of its

unity and omniprevalence ; _how_ I know not, and now clearly see

that I shall never know. But the unparticled matter, set in motion

by a law, or quality, existing within itself, is thinking.

_P._ Can you give me no more precise idea of what you term the

unparticled matter ?

_V._ The matters of which man is cognizant, escape the senses in

gradation. We have, for example, a metal, a piece of wood, a drop of

water, the atmosphere, a gas, caloric, electricity, the luminiferous

ether. Now we call all these things matter, and embrace all matter

in one general definition ; but in spite of this, there can be no

two ideas more essentially distinct than that which we attach to a

metal, and that which we attach to the luminiferous ether. When we

reach the latter, we feel an almost irresistible inclination to class

it with spirit, or with nihility. The only consideration which

restrains us is our conception of its atomic constitution ; and

here, even, we have to seek aid from our notion of an atom, as

something possessing in infinite minuteness, solidity, palpability,

weight. Destroy the idea of the atomic constitution and we should no

longer be able to regard the ether as an entity, or at least as

matter. For want of a better word we might term it spirit. Take,

now, a step beyond the luminiferous ether - conceive a matter as much

more rare than the ether, as this ether is more rare than the metal,

and we arrive at once (in spite of all the school dogmas) at a unique

mass - an unparticled matter. For although we may admit infinite

littleness in the atoms themselves, the infinitude of littleness in

the spaces between them is an absurdity. There will be a point -

there will be a degree of rarity, at which, if the atoms are

sufficiently numerous, the interspaces must vanish, and the mass

absolutely coalesce. But the consideration of the atomic

constitution being now taken away, the nature of the mass inevitably

glides into what we conceive of spirit. It is clear, however, that it

is as fully matter as before. The truth is, it is impossible to

conceive spirit, since it is impossible to imagine what is not. When

we flatter ourselves that we have formed its conception, we have

merely deceived our understanding by the consideration of infinitely

rarified matter.

_P._ There seems to me an insurmountable objection to the idea

of absolute coalescence ; - and that is the very slight resistance

experienced by the heavenly bodies in their revolutions through space

- a resistance now ascertained, it is true, to exist in _some_

degree, but which is, nevertheless, so slight as to have been quite

overlooked by the sagacity even of Newton. We know that the

resistance of bodies is, chiefly, in proportion to their density.

Absolute coalescence is absolute density. Where there are no

interspaces, there can be no yielding. An ether, absolutely dense,

would put an infinitely more effectual stop to the progress of a star

than would an ether of adamant or of iron.

_V._ Your objection is answered with an ease which is nearly in

the ratio of its apparent unanswerability. - As regards the progress

of the star, it can make no difference whether the star passes

through the ether _or the ether through it_. There is no

astronomical error more unaccountable than that which reconciles the

known retardation of the comets with the idea of their passage

through an ether: for, however rare this ether be supposed, it would

put a stop to all sidereal revolution in a very far briefer period

than has been admitted by those astronomers who have endeavored to

slur over a point which they found it impossible to comprehend. The

retardation actually experienced is, on the other hand, about that

which might be expected from the _friction_ of the ether in the

instantaneous passage through the orb. In the one case, the

retarding force is momentary and complete within itself - in the

other it is endlessly accumulative.

_P._ But in all this - in this identification of mere matter

with God - is there nothing of irreverence ? [_I was forced to

repeat this question before the sleep-waker fully comprehended my

meaning_.]

_V._ Can you say _why_ matter should be less reverenced than

mind ? But you forget that the matter of which I speak is, in all

respects, the very "mind" or "spirit" of the schools, so far as

regards its high capacities, and is, moreover, the "matter" of these

schools at the same time. God, with all the powers attributed to

spirit, is but the perfection of matter.

_P._ You assert, then, that the unparticled matter, in motion,

is thought ?

_V._ In general, this motion is the universal thought of the

universal mind. This thought creates. All created things are but

the thoughts of God.

_P._ You say, "in general."

_V._ Yes. The universal mind is God. For new individualities,

_matter_ is necessary.

_P._ But you now speak of "mind" and "matter" as do the

metaphysicians.

_V._ Yes - to avoid confusion. When I say "mind," I mean the

unparticled or ultimate matter ; by "matter," I intend all else.

_P._ You were saying that "for new individualities matter is

necessary."

_V._ Yes ; for mind, existing unincorporate, is merely God. To

create individual, thinking beings, it was necessary to incarnate

portions of the divine mind. Thus man is individualized. Divested of

corporate investiture, he were God. Now, the particular motion of

the incarnated portions of the unparticled matter is the thought of

man ; as the motion of the whole is that of God.

_P._ You say that divested of the body man will be God ?

_V._ [_After much hesitation._] I could not have said this ; it

is an absurdity.

_P._ [_Referring to my notes._] You _did_ say that "divested of

corporate investiture man were God."

_V._ And this is true. Man thus divested _would be_ God - would

be unindividualized. But he can never be thus divested - at least

never _will be_ - else we must imagine an action of God returning

upon itself - a purposeless and futile action. Man is a creature.

Creatures are thoughts of God. It is the nature of thought to be

irrevocable.

_P._ I do not comprehend. You say that man will never put off

the body ?

_V._ I say that he will never be bodiless.

_P._ Explain.

_V._ There are two bodies - the rudimental and the complete ;

corresponding with the two conditions of the worm and the butterfly.

What we call "death," is but the painful metamorphosis. Our present

incarnation is progressive, preparatory, temporary. Our future is

perfected, ultimate, immortal. The ultimate life is the full design.

_P._ But of the worm's metamorphosis we are palpably cognizant.

_V._ _We_, certainly - but not the worm. The matter of which

our rudimental body is composed, is within the ken of the organs of

that body ; or, more distinctly, our rudimental organs are adapted

to the matter of which is formed the rudimental body ; but not to

that of which the ultimate is composed. The ultimate body thus

escapes our rudimental senses, and we perceive only the shell which

falls, in decaying, from the inner form ; not that inner form itself

; but this inner form, as well as the shell, is appreciable by those

who have already acquired the ultimate life.

_P._ You have often said that the mesmeric state very nearly

resembles death. How is this ?

_V._ When I say that it resembles death, I mean that it

resembles the ultimate life ; for when I am entranced the senses of

my rudimental life are in abeyance, and I perceive external things

directly, without organs, through a medium which I shall employ in

the ultimate, unorganized life.

_P._ Unorganized ?

_V._ Yes ; organs are contrivances by which the individual is

brought into sensible relation with particular classes and forms of

matter, to the exclusion of other classes and forms. The organs of

man are adapted to his rudimental condition, and to that only ; his

ultimate condition, being unorganized, is of unlimited comprehension

in all points but one - the nature of the volition of God - that is

to say, the motion of the unparticled matter. You will have a

distinct idea of the ultimate body by conceiving it to be entire

brain. This it is _not_ ; but a conception of this nature will

bring you near a comprehension of what it _is_. A luminous body

imparts vibration to the luminiferous ether. The vibrations generate

similar ones within the retina ; these again communicate similar

ones to the optic nerve. The nerve conveys similar ones to the brain

; the brain, also, similar ones to the unparticled matter which

permeates it. The motion of this latter is thought, of which

perception is the first undulation. This is the mode by which the

mind of the rudimental life communicates with the external world ;

and this external world is, to the rudimental life, limited, through

the idiosyncrasy of its organs. But in the ultimate, unorganized

life, the external world reaches the whole body, (which is of a

substance having affinity to brain, as I have said,) with no other

intervention than that of an infinitely rarer ether than even the

luminiferous ; and to this ether - in unison with it - the whole

body vibrates, setting in motion the unparticled matter which

permeates it. It is to the absence of idiosyncratic organs,

therefore, that we must attribute the nearly unlimited perception of

the ultimate life. To rudimental beings, organs are the cages

necessary to confine them until fledged.

_P._ You speak of rudimental "beings." Are there other

rudimental thinking beings than man ?

_V._ The multitudinous conglomeration of rare matter into

nebulæ, planets, suns, and other bodies which are neither nebulæ,

suns, nor planets, is for the sole purpose of supplying _pabulum_ for

the idiosyncrasy of the organs of an infinity of rudimental beings.

But for the necessity of the rudimental, prior to the ultimate life,

there would have been no bodies such as these. Each of these is

tenanted by a distinct variety of organic, rudimental, thinking

creatures. In all, the organs vary with the features of the place

tenanted. At death, or metamorphosis, these creatures, enjoying the

ultimate life - immortality - and cognizant of all secrets but _the

one_, act all things and pass everywhere by mere volition: -

indwelling, not the stars, which to us seem the sole palpabilities,

and for the accommodation of which we blindly deem space created -

but that SPACE itself - that infinity of which the truly substantive

vastness swallows up the star-shadows -- blotting them out as

non-entities from the perception of the angels.

_P._ You say that "but for the _necessity_ of the rudimental

life" there would have been no stars. But why this necessity ?

_V._ In the inorganic life, as well as in the inorganic matter

generally, there is nothing to impede the action of one simple

_unique_ law - the Divine Volition. With the view of producing

impediment, the organic life and matter, (complex, substantial, and

law-encumbered,) were contrived.

_P._ But again - why need this impediment have been produced ?

_V._ The result of law inviolate is perfection - right -

negative happiness. The result of law violate is imperfection, wrong,

positive pain. Through the impediments afforded by the number,

complexity, and substantiality of the laws of organic life and

matter, the violation of law is rendered, to a certain extent,

practicable. Thus pain, which in the inorganic life is impossible,

is possible in the organic.

_P._ But to what good end is pain thus rendered possible ?

_V._ All things are either good or bad by comparison. A

sufficient analysis will show that pleasure, in all cases, is but the

contrast of pain. _Positive_ pleasure is a mere idea. To be happy

at any one point we must have suffered at the same. Never to suffer

would have been never to have been blessed. But it has been shown

that, in the inorganic life, pain cannot be thus the necessity for

the organic. The pain of the primitive life of Earth, is the sole

basis of the bliss of the ultimate life in Heaven.

_P._ Still, there is one of your expressions which I find it

impossible to comprehend - "the truly _substantive_ vastness of

infinity."

_V._ This, probably, is because you have no sufficiently generic

conception of the term "_substance_" itself. We must not regard it

as a quality, but as a sentiment: - it is the perception, in thinking

beings, of the adaptation of matter to their organization. There are

many things on the Earth, which would be nihility to the inhabitants

of Venus - many things visible and tangible in Venus, which we could

not be brought to appreciate as existing at all. But to the

inorganic beings - to the angels - the whole of the unparticled

matter is substanceethat is to say, the whole of what we term "space"

is to them the truest substantiality ; - the stars, meantime,

through what we consider their materiality, escaping the angelic

sense, just in proportion as the unparticled matter, through what we

consider its immateriality, eludes the organic.

As the sleep-waker pronounced these latter words, in a feeble tone,

I observed on his countenance a singular expression, which somewhat

alarmed me, and induced me to awake him at once. No sooner had I

done this, than, with a bright smile irradiating all his features, he

fell back upon his pillow and expired. I noticed that in less than a

minute afterward his corpse had all the stern rigidity of stone. His

brow was of the coldness of ice. Thus, ordinarily, should it have

appeared, only after long pressure from Azrael's hand. Had the

sleep-waker, indeed, during the latter portion of his discourse, been

addressing me from out the region of the shadows ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Snow]

Peace,

When you talk about unicorporate matter, are you implying that it is rudimental and indivisible or are you suggesting that self-movement in a quiescent state must needs be a adaptation of a mesmeric phenomena?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 18 2004, 07:04 PM

Peace,

When you talk about unicorporate matter, are you implying that it is rudimental and indivisible or are you suggesting that self-movement in a quiescent state must needs be a adaptation of a mesmeric phenomena?

Yeah, I had a "trip" like that once--- I imagined all the "incorporate" matter of the universe. I also imagined green elfs on Jupiter and pink pigmies living at the bottom of the ocean. I've decided to start a religion called the Church of Pinkmie and Grelfs. If you close your eyes and wish hard enough, you will be able to see them prancing around. Now, why shouldn't I believe in that as well as "incorporate" matter? The evidence for both is equally convincing.

[Snow]

Well Peace, which is it, or neither? If neither can you please explain how idiosyncratic organs affect the scope of nervous centres?

[Guest Starsky]

Peace,

When you talk about unicorporate matter, are you implying that it is rudimental and indivisible or are you suggesting that self-movement in a quiescent state must needs be a adaptation of a mesmeric phenomena?

No silly. Unicorporated matter is spirit. Rudimental is physical existence....and indivisible is the complete...as God is complete....

LOL...self movement in the rudiment form is walking, eating...etc in the physical existence...qiescent or other wise state....isn't anything to do with the mesmeric phenomena...

The mesmeric phenomena is comparable to death....as it allows one to see beyond the physical boundaries...

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal+Mar 18 2004, 09:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Mar 18 2004, 09:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 18 2004, 07:04 PM

Peace,

When you talk about unicorporate matter, are you implying that it is rudimental and indivisible or are you suggesting that self-movement in a quiescent state must needs be a adaptation of a mesmeric phenomena?

Yeah, I had a "trip" like that once--- I imagined all the "incorporate" matter of the universe. I also imagined green elfs on Jupiter and pink pigmies living at the bottom of the ocean. I've decided to start a religion called the Church of Pinkmie and Grelfs. If you close your eyes and wish hard enough, you will be able to see them prancing around. Now, why shouldn't I believe in that as well as "incorporate" matter? The evidence for both is equally convincing.

LOL....

[Guest Starsky]

Well Peace, which is it, or neither? If neither can you please explain how idiosyncratic organs affect the scope of nervous centres?

NO.

[Snow]

Peace,

You're speaking gibberish and at the bare minimum you are confusing absolute coalescence as an absolute density. That doesn't even begin to make sense if rarified matter is infinitely accumulative.

Can you rephrase it an put it in the context of self-cognizant ratiocination?

[Cal]

Remember, the bigger the words, the less a person has any idea what they are talking about. (High level abstractions lead to low level comprehension). Very few of the terms you have used have any communicative value as they lack concrete definition.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 19 2004, 04:23 PM

Remember, the bigger the words, the less a person has any idea what they are talking about. (High level abstractions lead to low level comprehension). Very few of the terms you have used have any communicative value as they lack concrete definition.

Right, you're a scientist so let me ask you. Is the particular motion of the incarnated portions of the unparticled matter a part of thought that impels permeation or am I just randomly combining words to see if anyone will notice how nonsensical this is?

[Guest Starsky]

LOL...well it all made perfect sense to me...(speaking of the stuff from Poe...not Snow)

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 19 2004, 04:33 PM

Remember, the bigger the words, the less a person has any idea what they are talking about. (High level abstractions lead to low level comprehension). Very few of the terms you have used have any communicative value as they lack concrete definition.

Right, you're a scientist so let me ask you. Is the particular motion of the incarnated portions of the unparticled matter a part of thought that impels permeation or am I just randomly combining words to see if anyone will notice how nonsensical this is?

Well, Snow, lets dissect your statement, giving the terms you use the definitions that I am most inclined to give them, with the caveat that if you give them a DIFFERENT definition, that is your concern, not mine: Agreed?

Here goes: Your said: Is the particular motion of the incarnated portions of the unparticled matter a part of thought that impels permeation or am I just randomly combining words to see if anyone will notice how nonsensical this is?

Particular motion = motion of particles, as in molecular kinetic energy.

Incarnated portions = not a term used in science other than meaning "embodied", and is a term whose meaning is vague, as used here.

Unparticled matter = by most scientific definitions this is an OXYMORON. Unless you are referencing some esoteric theory of everything, ALL matter is "particulate", that is, made of particles--even energy by one definition, at least.

" A part of thought that impels permeation" ? Thought is a vague term that refers to human consciousness and the results of human brain activity. There is nothing "particulate" about it, as it is an abstract concept, not an anatomical or biological reality. Impels permeation? Inpel means to push or promote, permeation means to fill or to saturate. Permeation of what? When you permeate there has to be two entities. One that does the permeating and one that gets permeated. Which is which? The meaning is hard to follow and seems unrelated to anything else here.

I would conclude that you have said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The words, without further definition or explanation are giberish.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 21 2004, 11:48 AM

I would conclude that you have said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The words, without further definition or explanation are giberish.

You, my friend, are absolutely correct. I was trying to trip Peace up but she didn't fall for it.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 21 2004, 01:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 21 2004, 01:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Mar 21 2004, 11:48 AM

I would conclude that you have said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  The words, without further definition or explanation are giberish.

You, my friend, are absolutely correct. I was trying to trip Peace up but she didn't fall for it.

Snow--it is surprising how many people fall for things just about that unintelligible and vague, as though just because someone said it 2 or 3 or 4 thousand years ago, I deserves belief. Terrific point you have made.