Chapter Six. Reflections Part IV.

Chapter Six. 

Reflections Part IV.

Here, it may be worth taking a look at the Ideomotor Effect, as mentioned in the last of the reviews listed in Chapter Six, Part III.

The Ideomotor theory, an idea originally created by William Benjamin Carpenter in 1852, though these days largely associated with professional sceptic James Randi–probably its best known exponent–suggests that any divining object, be it a planchette, dowsing rod, or in my case a wine glass, is influenced by the subtle and unconscious muscle movements of the participants. 

Randi, and others, have taken certain measures to prove this, such as blindfolding those taking part and then moving the Ouija board, changing, even reversing the position of its letters. 

Consequently, the answers become erroneous, maybe even nonsensical. Initially, this experiment appears to be of sound logic, though with further consideration I would have to cast doubt on it. 

I believe we would be foolish to think that if, and I mean “if” a spirit entity was communicating with the physical world, that the mediumistic means at its deposal would be anything other than the senses of those mortals taking part. 

Believe me, once again I need to say that I am absolutely not arguing to convince anyone of the authenticity of seances, but after carrying out these same tests ourselves–before learning anything about James Randi or about the Ideomotor theory–at times feeling as though I’d successfully blown the board’s cover, I began to realise it most likely just wasn’t that straightforward.     

The fact that the persons with their fingers on the planchette (or glass) would need to see the letters on the board, could illustrate as much proof that ‘spirit’ uses the sense of mortal vision, as it is proof of fraud. The problem is though, because the mortal senses are a part of the process there can be no way to measure conclusively whether or not those senses are being used with either some kind of dubious–or unconscious–intent.    

  

The absolute truth seems to be that Randi, and many others on both sides of the fence have their minds made up from the outset, consequently the techniques and arguments used to justify their position will always, and without fail end up doing just that.

This is not just the case in matters of religion and spirituality, but in many areas of life where we see reason moulded and shaped to prove a pre-established, often intransigent position. 

Of course, there may well be substance to some of the arguments made, but I believe it wise to be cautious of those with set agendas - regardless of whether the agendas are in the cause of proof or disproof.

When I consider our own Ouija experience along side the ‘Randi’ Ideomotor theory, and I focus solely on a snapshot of the glass’ motion, then yes, I can see how it could be viewed as a plausible theory. 

Then as I recall the sudden, random bursts of energy, the abrupt nature of how the glass would often stop or pause, yet at other times there would be a gradual deceleration; as I’ve stated earlier, not only would a particular contact often have a distinctly different speed, energy and dynamic from another, but on their return these characteristics would be consistent. 

Other features, such as the sessions when we’d sit with fingers poised on the glass for half an hour or more before anything happened–or when nothing happened–further adds fuel to the anti-ideomotor argument. 

If indeed it was an involuntary series of muscle movements driven by one or the both of us, what additional factor(s) determined, not only the unpredictability of these events, but also the highly organised and coherent form in which the events took shape? 

There would have to be ‘some’ place it was coming from, and even if it wasn’t coming from the spirit world, my view would be that it does not negate its wonder, purposefulness and meaningfulness.                  

The action of placing the fingers on a glass or planchette, its movement, and the questions asked, represent the physical side of a highly subjective process. 

These are the parts we can see, understand, measure; what might lie beneath those movements and sounds, is not so tangible, especially so to someone on the outside observing the process.  

TBC ...