rmal life we know that thoughts frequently flow faster than we
can put them on to paper, and this would almost certainly be the
case with spiritual intelligences who have no material brain to
hinder their flow of thought. It is probable that the brain is as
much an inhibitory organ as anything else; and when this inhibition
is removed, it is natural to suppose that the flow of thought would
be far less controllable and far more automatic than it is with us.
It would be impossible for spirits to check and go on with their
stream of thought at will, as we do on this hypothesis; they would
be far more automatic and less under the control of the will. If
this were true, it would account for much of the confusion present
in the communications. Suppose a spirit is trying to communicate
some fact or incident in its past life. It is endeavouring to force
this thought through, in the face of great difficulties, and while
trying to retain its grasp of the organism. Now, let us suppose
that this stream of thought is suddenly interrupted by the sitter
asking an abrupt question--referring to another incident
altogether, and perhaps related to another time in the
communicator's life. Is it not natural to suppose that, labouring
under these difficulties, and lacking the inhibitory action of the
brain, the communicator's mind should wander, and that he should
either think aloud to himself as it were (all this coming through
as confused writing, be it understood), or that the spirit should
lose its grasp of the organism altogether and drift away? The mind
cannot retain two vivid pictures at the same time; either one or
the other must grow fogged and dim; and this would certainly be so
in the case of any communicator, where we may suppose a certain
amount of mental energy--corresponding to a mental picture
perhaps--is necessitated in the very process of holding the control
of the organism. If communications take place at all in reality, we
may well suppose that the difficulties of communicating would be so
great that all clear, systematic thinking would be impossible.
People seem to imagine that the process of communication is as
simple as possible, instead of the most delicate and complicated
imaginable--the very difficulty being evinced by the rarity of the
intellig