Lola Part 13

"It is also curious that it should have repeated the performance, seeing that it was only once rewarded for it, and that, because it was agreed that it had done its reading well. I must add that the person who a.s.sisted me told me that generally, even when it was giving correctly the number decided on, it hardly looked to see how I was placing the b.a.l.l.s in the box....

"Once when I was arranging three b.a.l.l.s, because some one standing behind the horse had made me the sign 3, the horse tapped its three beats behind my shoulders while stretching out its neck by my side in order to try to take a salad leaf, thus showing that it was taking very little interest in the sign which I held out to it and in the taps which it was making.

"Certainly, this time at least, the animal seemed to perform an automatic action, and it seemed to me that we had guessed subconsciously what the horse intended to do. This may appear a crooked hypothesis, but it is less difficult for me than to think that the horse had read in my mind the number which I had there. It certainly did nothing on most occasions to upset the fairly clear and precise impression that it was obeying some more or less complex determinism."

It seems to me difficult to avoid the impression that what has just been stated does not reveal a simple telepathic relationship but something rather more deep. The want of interest by the animal in its behaviour is for me symptomatic, and agrees perfectly well with the sensation of the observer that he also had to obey some obscure determinism. I see here another case of a combined psychical (partial) operation of a "mediumistic" kind; and this hypothesis makes very plausible the other no less impressive hypothesis of the observer that his mind was reading (in a subconscious way) the mind of the horse. I call this hypothesis of Ferrari impressive, because in this case it was due to a person who is certainly not to be suspected of dilettantism, and still less of any pseudo-scientific mysticism.

For the rest I repeat that "telepathy" also may co-exist along with "mediumistic" action. In a general way, telepathy would seem to a.s.sume in the animal a greater amount of "human" psychic affinity, whilst in mediumistic action I look upon the animal as reacting to the intervention of the other mind in a much more "automatic" way: almost like a "speaking table," but a table provided with live feet rather than inert legs, and above all provided with a nervous system forming part of it, so that very little action on the part of the medium is required, but the subliminal action of the investigator is enough by itself to work it. (Of course, this does not exclude altogether action by others or by the horse itself).

Krall admits the possibility of telepathy (but in a very limited measure): and then, if I remember right, he was looking finally for an explanation which to-day I should perhaps call of the mediumistic type, if I had been better acquainted with it; but in fact I had of him, in his lifetime, only some vague hint on the point.

As to Miss Kindermann, she recognises the possibility of transmission of thought in certain cases (e.g. when Lola is tired or is unwilling to "work" any more). According to her it would be a question of a line of least resistance, along which the "work" of the animal becomes more easy. Hence arises the necessity, as she maintains, for the investigator to be very careful of the danger of falsified results and to _abstain with this object from any intentional thought_. But these are the very conditions which "mediums" impose on investigators, and if these conditions are not observed, mediumistic seances seem only to be successful with difficulty. Therefore, in trying to resist the danger of telepathic falsification, and without indeed being aware of the resulting consequences, Lola's mistress may have contributed to create the very conditions most favourable to the development of mediumistic action.

V. THE HYPOTHESIS OF CONCOMITANT PSYCHICAL AUTOMATISM

In various parts of her book Miss Kindermann emphasizes the fact that after having given for some days "communications" of a certain kind, a sort of tiredness or annoyance, that gets hold of Lola, completely prevents the repet.i.tion of similar communications; but that repet.i.tion can take place if some weeks of rest are allowed in the subject which has provoked the tiredness.

In another place she mentions that, with the progress of Lola's "education," the dog's att.i.tude towards herself, and other persons generally, became harder and more difficult, almost hostile (a fact which I find confirmed by certain answers of Lola's referred to elsewhere); just as if the canine consciousness as it gained illumination began to understand the many wrongs done to it by man, which formerly it knew nothing about.

Other observers have repeatedly stated that a capital fact in the story of "thinking" animals is the necessity, which they regard as proved, of a _progressive_ "education" directed at getting from the animal results proportionate to the instruction received.

All these observations and several others of a similar nature would seem to be arguments in favour of a presumed "intelligence" rather than of an automatism in the animal. But they should be accepted _c.u.m grano_. They may indeed contain a good dose of involuntary suggestion, active or pa.s.sive. And again, it seems to me, for instance, a very doubtful procedure to maintain, after a positive result has been achieved by the animal, that the result should have been on the other hand negative, if the education has not yet reached the corresponding stage of development; and vice versa. As for me, when I read what Miss Kindermann writes about the rapidity of Lola's progress, I cannot help thinking that, if the auth.o.r.ess had believed that she was able to obtain at once from the dog the results which she did obtain after a year's work, she would have obtained them fully and completely.

But this extreme supposition may be exaggerated. I have already repeatedly referred to the hypothesis that the psychic automatism in question may be only concomitant. That is, I am convinced from what I have seen myself and read that a foundation of intelligence, of logical reasoning and of self consciousness, must go to const.i.tute in the animal the substratum on which the wonders of the "new zoopsychology"

are built up.

At first I was rather inclined to believe (as so many others) that the facts discovered at Elberfeld and at Mannheim could and should be explained simply by the recognition of "intelligence" in the animal.

The chief results obtained up to then (i.e. up to the date of my last publications on the subject), were the mathematical prodigies performed by Krall's horses, and the first "philosophic" manifestations of Rolf.

I accordingly thought that I should be able to interpret the new (and, in its complexity, rather modest) canine "knowledge" by the animal's memory of words which it had heard. But since then the educators have taken pleasure in raising the whole level of these wonders. Rolf's "philosophy" was developed; and in the end they went so far as to make him compose poetry, as I have already had occasion to mention. Then came the performances of Lola. And at this point I, too, must say: "Too much, too much!" At least, as far as concerns the hypothesis of intelligence in the animal.

I understand perfectly that just on account of that "too much," people may be tempted to throw up the whole thing. But as far as I am concerned, I repeat that I do not consider myself justified in doing so. I do not forget the possible intervention of active or pa.s.sive suggestion: I referred to this a short time ago. But a great abuse is often made of this explanation. In practice "suggestion" explains but little to any one who wants to get to the bottom of things. Neither does it explain the bulk of the facts of the "new zoopsychology."

Neither do I forget that in this field also (as in every field of psychological experiments) there may be an interfering although subconscious misuse of spurious factors, such as signs (not intentional or perceptible) by the experimenter to the subject experimented with; a certain amount of falsification in interpretation of results on the part of the experimenters, etc.... But the irreducible residue of the facts is, in my opinion, still enormous as compared with the little that could perhaps be eliminated by these means from the discussion.

Therefore, in the absence of anything better for the moment, and subject to further information, I hold to the hypothesis of a psychic automatism of the mediumistic type, as a concomitant phenomenon developed from the normal "rapport" which is _necessary_ and pre-existent.

This "rapport" is that of a master to a child; but to a very special kind of child, a "child" moreover who, from the biological point of view, has not been corrupted by the thousands of years of reasoning and society that weigh on the human child. It is, therefore, nearer to the "fountains of life" if I may be allowed to express myself in that way; and nearer to the mathematical potentiality (which was at first unself-conscious, but which has subsequently been developed). But, of course, it is not enough for mathematics "to be" in something, for that something to begin at once to tap numbers. The table of the mediumistic seances contains much mathematics (in its physical a.s.semblage), but in order to make it "tap" there must be somebody to move it: in fact, a "medium." In my view, as soon as the animal subject has been able to understand "numbers"--and this postulate of the new zoopsychology, I repeat, I believe to be indispensable to the whole edifice--the animal finds itself sufficiently in harmony with the master to become capable (in principle) of all the subsequent "wonders."

This it is which const.i.tutes the first discovery, as I have called it, of the "new zoopsychology." And on that discovery, in my opinion, are based through various gradations its chief results, on the supposition that at a certain moment there takes place a new specific action, the "declanchement" of the mediumistic relationship between the animal and the experimenter. And it may be that the development of such a very special relationship between man and animals may be comparatively easy.

That is, it may be that the animal is relatively easily _permeable_ by a mind provided with a reasoning intelligence (without, however, being itself aware of the logical content of such an intelligence), exactly because it is rather poor in logical self-conscious content--or, again, it may be, that the animal in a certain sense is nearer than we to the "fountains of life." (9).

The possibility of this "declanchement" would therefore const.i.tute the second and more serious discovery made by the educators of animals; although without their knowing it, as is proved by all their accounts which make no mention of it.

It is difficult to say what the precise moment is at which the grafting of this supernormal connexion on the normal one takes place. The most that I can say at present is this: that the grafting in question appears relatively to be quicker as regards the mathematical results.

And this would lend an indirect support to the view that generally mathematics must be presupposed as underlying the phenomena. But the wonderful performances of Lola show that even so far as there is real "intelligence" in the animal, the supernormal relationship enters very quickly on the scene. In other words, the subject very quickly learns to express itself by means of a true "xenoglossy," i.e. by means of a language that may be clear to other people although it probably is not understood by the animal or medium making use of it.

Besides, we find in Lola's case a high degree of glossolalia. The auth.o.r.ess observes, e.g. on page 39: "Lola often uses words completely incomprehensible; at one time she declared that they belonged to a special canine language. My investigations on this subject remained, however, without result. It is possible that these words arise from the imagination of the animal...."[30]

Something similar was also produced by Rolf and the Elberfeld horses.

[30] N.B.--It may also be that the "quite incomprehensible words"

have not any meaning at all, or at least, not any relation with the mechanism of the glossolalia, but are simply the product of taps made by the animal just for the sake of doing something.

Of course, even after the development of this "xenoglossy," it is difficult either to admit or to refuse to admit some remainder of self-conscious co-operation by the animal in its "answers." For my part, I believe that simple replies may continue to be formed in the normal self-conscious way. It is certain, in my opinion, that this view is one of the only two alternatives possible when we get replies to questions the contents of which are entirely unknown to everybody else present. The other alternative is that of clairvoyance in those present followed by projection by them to the animal of the idea obtained clairvoyantly; or else of a "telepathic" projection of the sense-impression from the animal to the bystanders, with return of the reply from the latter to the former. I do not dare to complicate this further; the more so as in all the cases which I know of in which replies were obtained to such questions, very simple things only were dealt with: figures, or modest problems; or else problems which are abstruse "to us," such as fourth and fifth roots, but which as the animal was one of the horses at Elberfeld may be explained by the general mathematical faculty without drawing upon the mediumistic hypothesis.

But that there is on the whole much of the subliminal at work in all the cases noted is, I believe, difficult to deny.

We must remember that superior "force" by which Miss Kindermann felt herself, as it were, compelled (page 36). And in another place (page 40), the auth.o.r.ess declares: "However strange it may seem, I have repeatedly remarked that Lola always finds abstract calculation and spelling easy; whilst on the other hand it always seems difficult to make her move single parts of her body, or to carry out practical orders." (I myself was able to make similar observations at Elberfeld and at Mannheim; it seemed to me, however, that the horses were more docile to "practical orders.").

On page 42 I find: "During the explanation of the digits and of the tens, the dog did not look at me, but bit with apparently very great interest a leg of the stool." It must be noted, as I have already pointed out, that the digits and the tens were both alike learned quickly and well. The auth.o.r.ess explains this action of Lola's as a "mark of embarra.s.sment." But to me that leg of the stool is exactly on a par with the salad leaf mentioned by Professor Ferrari: i.e. the dog did not pay the slightest attention to the lesson; it replied without the help of intelligent attention on its part; it replied in the subliminal way, like the unconscious instrument of a psychic automatism, and by the use of an intelligence which was not its own.

Similar impressions are left by other points in the story of Lola.

I read on page 64: "If, for instance, I write one under the other three or four numbers of two figures each, very quickly, and without adding them myself, and then hold up the sheet in front of the dog, I see that her eyes only glance at the sheet for 1-2 seconds; after which the dog bends its head to add but looks away, and then taps the reply." This behaviour is the same as that of Krall's pony Hanschen, when Dr. a.s.sagioli and I made experiments with it.

The same can be said of various other performances of an intuitive kind, on the part of Lola, to which the auth.o.r.ess refers: e.g.

knowledge in four seconds of a given number of points (up to 35), marked without any regularity whatever on a piece of paper.

(Similar experiments were made at Elberfeld and Mannheim.) Other performances of an intuitive kind concern various measures of time, temperature, musical intervals, etc., and they reach their highest point in the _premonitions_ as to the course of the weather and the birth of the puppies. Professor Ziegler finds the explanation of this last performance in the prenatal movements of the foetus within the maternal body. This seems to me doubtful; besides, it must be remembered that this prevision of Lola's was a double one, as it concerned both the number and the s.e.x of the puppies (autoscopia?). The fact that the s.e.x of the puppies was foretold _almost_ correctly does not eliminate all doubt. And the auth.o.r.ess gives sufficient details on the experiment to make us regard it as genuine, until we have proof to the contrary.

Many other manifestations of Lola's betray very clearly a subliminal relationship between herself and her mistress (or perhaps between herself and other persons), and so I do not see that there is any reason for us to doubt that Miss Kindermann was really surprised at the replies which she obtained.

I could cite at length: I am content, however, to remind the reader of the many replies of the dog which reveal quite clearly the feeling of the auth.o.r.ess towards the dog itself, as e.g., "I know you, alas, so little"; or again, "Show constancy in your love for me," etc.; then, again, the words never p.r.o.nounced before in presence of the dog (this makes me think of the famous "Urseele" of Rolf); the things said by Lola, but not known by her mistress, and then found true....

Finally I must allude to the "discovery" made by Lola that the odours of the human body reveal the state of the human mind--displeasure, jealousy, lie (sic); on which the auth.o.r.ess observes (very justly, in a certain sense), that these experiments make one think of the well-known theories of the late Prof. Jaegar of Stockholm.... I am in agreement with her on that point, because I, too, have read the "Entdeckung der Seele" by that author; as I suppose she, too, had. I am inclined to think that in her case (as she was experimenting with a dog) it was only natural for her to think of these psycho-olfactory theories--perhaps without knowing it--even before the experiments.

Therefore, the experiments themselves would always be perfectly "genuine," but of course this genuineness is of a different sort to what she thought it.

To conclude, the supporters of the new zoopsychology must not complain if the views which I have set out above help in course of time to oust their "point of view." It seems to me that even while robbing the "thinking" animals of some of the intelligence attributed to them, and while regarding what remains as qualitatively different from human intelligence (e.g. through the much greater interference of subconscious factors), we are still free to find the animals to be perhaps even more interesting than before.

I am quite conscious of the fact that the "cases" are still few for theories to be built upon; and some may think that I might have done better by reporting them simply without attempting any explanation whatever. However, I believe, that if as the result of my work the recognition of the internal weakness of certain hypotheses--especially in the psychological field--is generally recognized, it will not be so harmful to have put forward some suggestions for dealing with facts which have already been, or will be, established.

I have accordingly tried to do so, but I shall always be ready to modify my views if new facts should persuade me that this is necessary.

_Postscript._--Professor G. C. Ferrari has published an article on Lola in _Rivista de Psicologia_, 1920, 1. His explanation corresponds in many points with my own.