The uses of humanity absorbed them and they becamecommonplaces of existence, thoroughly de-occultized, adopted into the body ofusual mental life. This has happened over and over and over again with unvaryingregularity. One of the most fascinating of scientific byplays is to backtrackthrough history picking up at random marvels and miracles, stripping them ofwarping legend, and explaining them in the light of what we now know. Theybecame not the less marvels and miracles, if you please, but de-occultized. Itshould be added that all cannot be so explained. The unsolved residue is notthe more--or less--improbable for that. Perhaps our grandchildren's progresswill show this unexplained residue as simple as we have found some of themiracles that dumfounded our ancestors.
There are two things thatthis history of de-occultization, as I have called it, has taught us. One is,the extraordinary initial opposition that always meets the process. A combinationof man's conservatism, dislike of being jarred loose once he has settled downto his satisfaction, a greater dislike of being proved mistaken, anintellectual pride in his achievements so far, and a rooted suspicion of theone who walks apart, have all contributed to this attitude. The principle ofthe telescope is so much a commonplace of today that the very children catchand accept the idea; yet Galileo was branded as a madman, imprisoned, and onlyjust escaped martyrdom. So certain were the scientists of his time of theirreasoning according to "immutable physical law," that they refused tolook through
De-Occultization
the telescope! They knew already whatthey would see! Joseph Thompson reported a mountain with snow under theequator, and died of a broken heart under the weight of scientific ridiculeheaped upon him. Science PROVED by the "immutable law of physics"--asthen understood--that, no matter what the altitude, snow could not exist atsuch a latitude: only it does! Darwin was fought with savage ferocity. Langley was laughed to death. Why the bitterness? If these things, and all the others werenot so, why rend and tear in attacking them? Answer that as you will, it is thehistory of progress; just as de-occultization is the invariable result.
The other thing which thishistory has taught us is the very human tendency to ascribe the unexplained to"spirits." And again we may well ask, why? Just because a tablemoves, or a strange light shows, or a pencil writes under our hand, surely thereis no need of invoking the ghostly or the supernatural. These are facts,perhaps, and some of them may be due to the activities of spirits, for all weknow. But if so, we can rest completely assured that they will eventually befound working along the lines of natural law, and not by means of thesupernatural, in the literal meaning of that word.
In the meantime, even ifsome of these things are the results of spirit activity--as they may or may notbe--we need not treat them as either spooky or sacred. After all, they are justnatural phenomena, and some day they will be de-occultized, like all the rest.Then all at once they will seem as normal and commonplace as well, as radio.
II. Personal Experience
The significance of thisbook is going to be its content. On the value of that it will stand or fall,both as a claim to interest and as a practical primer of spiritual hygiene.From that point of view it does not matter how it was produced, or what itsorigin.
But from another point ofview it must present its credentials. Most of its teachings will be found, Ithink, acceptable by ordinary common sense; but occasionally certain things arestated on authority. What is the nature of that authority, and why do we feelthat we may credit it?
In the earlynineteen-twenties a great many popular "psychic" books werepublished. A number of them had real value. A regrettable majority were more orless feeble and undigested accounts of alleged personal"communications." These evidenced an extraordinary credulity on theone side, and an equally extraordinary ineptitude on the other,--providing oneaccepted their major premise of origin. Most of them began with a ouija board.
The procedure was almoststandard. Two people--or a group--fooling with the thing as a lark or out ofcuriosity. It moves. It becomes coherent. It spells out "messages."
PersonalExperience
That was the start, the"take-off." What happened after that depended on the people involved.The subsequent proceedings ranged from the "communications" of purespiritualism to speculative philosophy. Nine in ten of them were spoiled forany serious consideration by what might be called the awed approach thatinhibited any commonsense editorial appraisal. This was a pity. After a timeeven those especially interested in such things became inclined to shy off from"another ouija board book." Nevertheless, I am inclined to believethat the ouija board may take honorable place with Sir Isaac Newton's apple,Watt's teakettle, Benjamin Franklin's kite and other historic playthings whichhave led to many great results.
This is such a book. It toostarted with a ouija board, but it does not linger on that phase. The firstexperience with it followed standard lines. It would not be worth telling hadit not an integral connection with Betty's coming into the picture.
In any research work it isalways important to know the equipment of the experimenter. Before March 17,1919, my own "occult" background might, I suppose, have been calledaverage for a man who had lived an active life. That is to say, I had paid suchmatters very little attention; and had formed no considered opinions on themone way or another. By way of unconsidered opinion I suppose I would, if calledupon to express myself, have taken my