let us remember the well-founded statements of fact—and the old occult teachings as well—that the Mind is not confined to the limits of the body, but extends as an "Aura" for some distance beyond the physical form. Let us also remember the phenomena grouped together under the general subject of "Thought-transference," "Thought-transmission," "Telepathy," or (the best term of all) "Telesthesia" (meaning, literally "far-off sensation"). The writer imagines that he hears the yell of derision go up at this point from the materialistic personage, or "man on the street," who has been induced to read this book by some well meaning friend. "Thought-transference, Fiddlesticks," we may hear him cry, in imagination. But let this reader remember—Fiddlesticks, or no Fiddlesticks—that Thought-transmission is a proven fact—and that thousands of people know it to be so, absolutely, from their own experience. It is too late in the day for sneers at the mention of the term.
Well, then, since Force is Mental, and we are looking for a Mental explanation for the phenomenon of Transmission of Force, does it not seem natural to consider Thought-transmission in that connection? Answering a possible objection of some critical reader, to the effect that before a "sensation" may be received, the receiver must have "sense-organs"—a very good objection, but one that is answered by Science itself—let us read on.
Haeckel, the distinguished scientist, in his endeavor to prove that Man's senses are but a development of something in inorganic life, has called our attention to the fact that Molecules, and Atoms, are capable of "receiving" sensations and "responding" thereto. He makes quite a point of this in his latest works, and remarks, among many other things showing his positive views on the subject of "sensation in the inorganic world": "I cannot imagine the simplest chemical and physical process without attributing the movements of the material particles to unconscious sensation"; and again: "The idea of chemical affinity consists in the fact that the various chemical elements perceive the qualitative differences in other elements—experience 'pleasure' or 'revulsion' at contact with them, and execute specific movements on this ground." He also quotes, approvingly, the remarks of Nageli, who said: "If the molecules possess something that is related, however distantly, to sensation, it must be comfortable to be able to follow their attractions and repulsions; uncomfortable when they are forced to do otherwise." Haeckel also says that in his opinion the sensations in animal and plant life are "connected by a long series of evolutionary stages with the simpler forms of sensation that we find in the inorganic elements, and that reveal themselves in chemical affinity." Is not this strong enough? Perhaps we may now be permitted at least to "assume" that even the Atoms, Molecules and Corpuscles have "something like sensation."
Some one may now object that Haeckel speaks of "contact" between the particles, and that sensation by contact (even in an atom) is far different from sensation without contact, at a short distance. Quite right, but if the objector will take the trouble to review the teachings of Science regarding the relation of the Particles, he will see that the Particles are never "exactly" in contact, except in moments of collision, which, by the way, they carefully avoid. The Corpuscles, as we have shown, have "plenty of room" in which to move about, and they move in orbits around each other. The Atoms combine, but there is always room between them, as may be seen by reference to the teachings regarding the "Ether," which "fills up the cracks" according to the theory. And the Molecules also have "plenty of room," as may be seen by reference to that part of the subject, particularly to the comparison of the drop of water magnified to the size of the Earth, in which the Molecules would appear about the size of the original drop with more room between each than their own size.
In fact, as we have been shown in a previous chapter, the particles are attracted only to a certain distance, at which they resist the impulse or attraction and "stand off" a bit. They will not be forced too near without creating disturbances, and manifestations of force, and if they are separate beyond a certain distance the attractive power ceases to operate. But there is always some room between them, and they bridge over that room and exert and receive the attractive power in some way. This is true not only of the particles but of the great bodies, like the Earth and planets, that are attracted, and attract over great distances. Now for the question: "How do they exert sense and attractive power over the great comparative distance—great, comparatively, as well in atom, as in planet and sun?"
Some one may answer the question closing the last paragraph with the word "Electricity." Very good—Electricity, like the "Ether," comes in quite handy when one is forced to explain something not known. "Electricity," like the "Glacial Period," "Aristotle's Ether," "Natural Laws," and "Suggestion," is a most handy weapon of argument, and often acts as a preventative to further inquiry and investigation until some sufficiently irreverent of precedent arises to ask, "But Why and How?" and starts the ball rolling again.
But "Electricity" will not answer in this case, for the rate of the "travel" of Electricity is well known—184,000 miles per second, which, fast as it is, assumes the crawl of a "slow-freight" when compared with the "instantaneous" rate of travel of Gravitation. And then Electricity requires a "medium" and Gravitation does not, and in many other ways the two are seen to be totally different. And in the case of the Space between the Atom and Molecule and Corpuscle, it is no more reasonable to say "Electricity" than it would be to say "Heat" or "Light"; and "Magnetism" is not available for obvious reasons. Remember that Electricity, Light and Heat are caused by Motion resulting from Attraction, and the child cannot procreate the parent. Heat, Light and Electricity may beget each other (and they do). And Gravitation may procreate Heat, Light and Electricity. But Heat, Light and Electricity cannot procreate Gravitation—Never! And Light, Heat and Electricity require replenishing from the common source of Energy, but Gravitation is self-sufficient and asks no replenishing or storage-battery or power-house. Electricity, Heat and Light come and go, appearing, manifesting and disappearing, swallowed up by each other, or by Substance. But Gravitation is always there—unchangeable—unwavering—immutable—invariable—Something above Matter and Force—something majestic, awe-inspiring, sublime! Does it take a wild flight of the imagination to see that this Something, that is not Matter, and nor Force, must be a manifestation of Mind?
Let us first apply this idea of Thought-transference to the operation of the Law of Attraction between the Corpuscles, Atoms and Molecules of Substance—the Particles of Substance. The particles are believed to move to or away from each other in accordance with the workings of Attraction and Affinity, in its various degrees. First they must desire to move—not Desire in the developed sense that we feel it, but still elementary "feeling," or "inclination," or "tendency"—call it what you will, but it remains rudimentary Mental Emotion—an E-motion leading to Motion. (This is not a pun—look up the meaning of the word Emotion and you will see its application.)
Then, following the Desire, comes the action in the direction of gratifying it. The Particles act to gratify Desire in two ways—acting at a "distance," remember—they exert the Attractive Force, which the writer believes to be Mental Force, transmitted by Mind, projection, a mental or psychic bond or connection being thus established. By means of this bond of Mind, the Particle endeavors to (1) draw itself to the object; and (2) to draw the object toward itself. In the case of the Molecule, this Desire and Movement seems to be mutual, and evidenced by and to all Molecules alike, providing they be within Molecular Distance, as Science calls it. But in the case of the Atoms, it seems to be different—for there is found a greater degree of "choice," or "elective affinity." This "election" or "choice" is not altogether free, but depends upon the relative likes and dislikes of certain "kinds" of elements, as we have seen in previous chapters, although, to be sure, these Elements are all made out of the same "stuff" in different combinations.
The details of Corpuscular Attraction are not known, so it cannot be told whether "preferences" exist, or whether (in the words of the street) all Corpuscles "look alike" to each other. It would appear, however, that there must be some reasons for preference, among the Corpuscles, else they would always form in the same combinations—always act alike to each other, as they are alike in other actions—and thus there would be but one Element or kind of Atom, formed, instead of the seventy-five, already known. To be sure, in this case, it might be that the one kind of Atom formed would be the Atom of Hydrogen, and that all other Elements, or Atoms, were modifications of that one—just