Fluidum (4) - "Ancient magic power"
Heinz Schott examines awakening, will and magic, as well as light in the Enlightenment. Clare Mingins then looks at Will and Animal Magnetism.
Here we continue the sequence of translated extracts from Heinz Schott’s Fluidum section in his book Magie der Natur.
Please see this page for the introduction to this project.
Related introductory article: Franz Anton Mesmer - Discoverer of Animal Magnetism
[Note: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases]
Translation from Heinz Schott - Magie der Natur [Magic of Nature], 2014, p.470-1
In the Enlightenment, visible and invisible light, external illumination and inner enlightenment became important motifs in theology, natural science and literature. Unlike those who advocated the objectification of light in the spirit of John Locke, there were many around 1750 who kept hold of the idea of the “ancient magic power” of light, like the English theologian William Law, an important exponent of Jakob Boehme’s “mystical philosophy [i].”
Visible nature appeared to Law as no other than a manifestation of the divine spirit in it [ii]. He also used the metaphor of the book: “Nature . . . becomes a Volume of holy Instruction to us [iii].” After the Fall, the visible world is created out of the invisible, and humankind must decide whether they want to stay in this world or return to the invisible world, the lost origin – not by reasoning, but by the “magic Power [. . .] the Working of the Will [iv].” Here the light of redemption is critical: “the necessity of opening the heart of God’s light and love.” It is about allowing the eternal light, “to re-enter and transport man back to his original pure and harmonious state [v].” Making light simply into a thing would deny its divine nature. Thus, the sun appeared to Law not only as a particle-emitting star, as a physical celestial body, unlike the evolutionist cultural historian, Norbert Elias [vi]. Rather, Law took it also as a central symbol, namely as a counterpart to God the Father in the physical sphere [vii].
It was particularly in the religious experiences of enlightenment and awakening that the metaphor of light played a special role. Thus the Halle Pietist August Hermann Francke described his conversion from unbelief to belief in 1687 as a sudden awakening: “For it was to me as if I had lain in a deep sleep and as if I had done everything only in a dream and it was now that I first woke up [viii].” He saw “streams of living water” and quoted from the 36th Psalm: “For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light [ix].” More precise information about this conversion is missing, it probably happened overnight. In his sermon, “The Great Mystery of Godliness” (“Das kündlich große Geheimnis der Gottseligkeit”) [x], on the third day of Christmas, 1698, at the beginning of the Gospel of John, he drew a picture of the appearance of the divine light. He took up the key sentence, “And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not [xi].” The unseeing people who walked “in the blindness of the mind” would perish in “eternal darkness,” if they did not find the light of God, namely, Jesus Christ [xii]. There is no light “except in Christ [xiii].” “He is the light that comes into the world to enlighten all men, and appears in such a lowly form that the world does not know him [xiv].” The divine light, the eternal Word of God, had “from the human nature of the Virgin Mary” made its home [xv]. This is reminiscent of Paracelsus, who spoke of “the light of Nature” and “the light of God,” and meant, however, a hierarchy whose intentions were not fundamentally in contradiction with each other. Francke, on the other hand, contrasted the “glorious light” of Jesus Christ with the light of “corrupt Nature”, which does not lead “to the right path [xvi].” He was a theologian and not a natural scientist. The idea of the magia naturalis was not in his field of vision.
References
[i] Cantor, Geoffrey: Light and Enlightenment: An Exploration of Mid-Eighteenth-Century Modes of Discourse. In: David D. Lindberg / Geoffrey Cantor: The Discourse of Light from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, University of California (Los Angeles), 1985, p.76.
[ii] ibid. p.78.
[iii] ibid. p.79. [From: William Law - An Appeal to All That Doubt, W, Innys (London), 1740].
[iv] From The Second Dialogue in The Way to Divine Knowledge, 1752.
[v] Cantor, 1985, p.81.
[vi] Elias, Norbert – Über die Natur, Merkur 50, Heft 572, 1996, p.1036.
[vii] Cantor, 1985, p.90 et seq.
[viii] Selbstzeugnisse August Hermann Franckes. Geboren 1663, ausgewählt und eingeleitet von Erich Beyreuther, Francke-Buchhandlung (Marburg an der Lahn), 1963, p.23.
[ix] ibid. p.24.
[x] From words of 1 Timothy 3:16.
[xi] Gospel of John 1:5.
[xii] Selbstzeugnisse, 1963, p.46.
[xiii] ibid. p.47.
[xiv] ibid. p.48.
[xv] ibid. p.49.
[xvi] ibid. p.51 et seq.
Commentary by Clare Mingins – Will and Animal Magnetism
Reading the spiritual writings of William Law (1686-1761), one frequently finds the words Love, Magnetism, Attraction, Resistance, Desire, Will, Magic. All these words have a close relation with the idea of animal magnetism. It is worth noting that the word Magic, for Law, is always contained within the power of Nature, and he does not view it as something supernatural [1]. In regard to the “magic Power,” as quoted by Heinz Schott above, and its relation to Will in Law’s writings, this is also present in other forms in the particular ideas that Mesmer and his fellow mesmerists had about the connection between will and animal magnetism. Law also liked the metaphor of magnetism, though he may, like Mesmer, have thought of it as more than a metaphor. He said, “There is nothing in the Universe but Magnetism, and the Impediments of it [2].”
In the fuller quotation on the “magic Power” from Law’s writing The Way to Divine Knowledge [3], he writes:
Now magic Power meaneth nothing but the Working of the Will, whether it be the Divine, or the creaturely Will; and every thing that is the Work of the Will, and is produced by it, is called its magic Work, which only means, that it is generated by and from the Will, as a Birth brought forth by it. The Will is the Workman, and the Work is that, which it bringeth forth out of itself. So that by these Words you are always to understand these two Things, the Working, and the Work of the Will. . .
. . . the Power of bringing Things into Existence by the Working of his Will.
A later figure who had a great interest in both animal magnetism and will was Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). In his book, On The Will In Nature, he spoke of the will “viewed as representation in the brain,” yet also will as the “thing in itself [4].” In addition, he said, “this agent [animal magnetism] is nothing but the will of the magnetiser [5].” He continues,
Time has thus not only verified Puységur's watchword and that of the older French magnetisers: "Veuillez et croyez!" i.e. "Will with belief!" but this very watchword has even developed into a correct insight of the process itself. From Kieser's “Tellurismus,” still probably the most thorough and detailed text book of Animal Magnetism we have, it clearly results, that no act of Magnetism can take effect without the will; on the other hand the bare will, without any outward action, is able to produce every magnetic effect. Manipulation seems to be only a means of fixing, and so to say incorporating, the will and its direction. In this sense Kieser says [6]: "Inasmuch as the human hand—being the organ by which Man's outward activity is most visibly expressed—is the efficient organ in magnetising, [magnetic] manipulation arises [7]."
A.M.J. Chastenet de Puységur (1751–1825) was an important exponent of mesmerism, and studied with Mesmer for a time. A key passage containing his famous “believe and will,” in his book Du Magnétisme Animal, shows him emphasising the link between belief and subsequent will – the will being a result of this belief [8]:
My will . . . the motor of all my actions and all my determinations, is also my magnetic action.
I believe in the existence of a power within myself.
From this belief derives my will to exercise it.
. . .
The whole doctrine of animal magnetism is contained in the two words believe and will . . . I believe that I have the power to activate the vital principle of my fellows; I want to make use of it; that is all my science and my means. Believe and will . . . [and] you will do as much as I do.
In French, the word Puységur used here was veuillez, which can be translated in English as want or wish or will. Will in English often has the idea of something much more powerful than just to want. I have chosen to translate it largely as “will” in the above passage, but some translate it as “want,” and thus Puységur’s motto as, “believe and want [9].” Puységur did also frequently use the French word “volonté” in this same work, however; for example, in describing animal magnetism as “an agent put into action by the workings of our will alone [10].”
J.P.F. Deleuze (1753-1835), a student of Puységur, wrote in his very popular Practical Instruction In Animal Magnetism [11] about what he saw as the link between will (la volonté), attention and confidence in the practice of animal magnetism or mesmerism:
A constant will supposes continued attention; but attention is sustained without effort, when one has entire confidence in his powers. A man who makes towards a designated goal is always attentive to avoid obstacles, to move his feet in a proper direction; but this sort of attention is so natural to him as to be easy, because he has first determined his movement, and feels in himself the force necessary to continue it.
It is a striking insight that confidence sustains attention. And according to Deleuze, belief that one is “endowed with a power” leads to confidence in this power. “Confidence in the power we possess makes us act without effort and without distraction.” And “the will is necessary to direct the [magnetic] fluid” [12].
This will and attention without effort is interesting. Such a seemingly effortless will seems quite different and more powerful than what is usually called will. In addition, Deleuze points to the prior determination of the direction, which seems a key part of the whole secret of this special will. The “designated goal,” with the visualisation of what is aimed for, and the focussing and concentration of the attention on this inner representation, allows will seemingly to act through the magnetiser. Less usual parts of the brain are activated. The visualisation, or focussed representation, of the goal allows something to arise within the magnetiser that feels different from the usual sense of agency. The aim, as described by Deleuze, was conveniently vague, mainly being a focus on benevolence and good intention [13]. He says:
“One only sentiment ought to animate him – the desire of doing good to him whose cure he undertakes, and with whom he ought to occupy himself wholly, all the time he is magnetizing . . . [14].”
This process of focussing on a goal, naturally also includes an active ignoring of all potential distractions. Even in everyday life, focussing on the completion of specified small tasks is a training in this sphere. Every completed project gives something, because of what it has taken to get there: focus, persistence, saying no to distractions. But it is when you have the combined force of more than one person working together towards the same goal, that things get really interesting.
Mesmer asks, in his Mémoire of 1799, “How can someone receive an impression from another will than his own? [15]” He said that in the ordinary state this communication of will could only be achieved through “natural or conventionally established signs [16],” meaning by this, speech, writing, pictures, gestures [17]. He had an interesting idea about the mechanism of the communication of will (German: der Wille) during what he called the magnetic crisis. Namely, the will could be communicated because thoughts modify movement “within the brain and nerves.” Mesmer says these movements (or nerve impulses, as we might say today) are:
communicated to the series of a fine fluid, with which the substance of the nerves is connected . . . and so relate directly to the inner sense of another individual. Thus it is easy to understand how the will of one person communicates to the will of another purely through the inner sense, and consequently, how an agreement between two wills, a kind of covenant, can exist. This agreement of two wills is called being in relationship, in rapport [18].
Mesmer doesn’t seem to say explicitly that the mesmeriser or magnetiser must also be in a kind of “magnetic state,” where the “inner sense” or sensorium commune predominates over the usual “external senses.” However, the comment he makes about being “in rapport” is notable, and is an early use of this term in the context of hypnotism. It suggests an “agreement” or harmony of the inner state of the magnetiser and the magnetised, although these two categories can themselves be seen as dynamic states. In addition, in his earlier French work of 1799, in a similar passage to the above, he mentions a reciprocity between the two wills (volontés), and gives the plural, “their internal senses” [19], which could conceivably imply that he thought the communication was occurring between the internal sense of both the magnetiser and the patient. This reciprocity is key for Mesmer, especially as he called his system one of reciprocal influences [20].
Coming back to “rapport” and the agreement between wills, there is also sometimes the feared possibility of a kind of forced rapport, or resonance, as it were. Namely, through the ages, and including the present day, there has been the problematic and frequent idea of one will overriding another in the sphere of hypnotism. For example, there is the enduring caricature of the powerful and evil hypnotist influencing a weaker and thus submissive person for their own egoistic ends. Modern hypnotherapists justifiably usually do their best to banish such unhelpful notions in themselves and their clients. Someone can only have “power” over you if you suggest to yourself that they can.
In 1922, Émile Coué (1857-1926) published his famous book on conscious autosuggestion, which was translated into English under the title Self-Mastery Through Conscious Autosuggestion. He swept away the idea that hypnotic sleep was needed for suggestion. Coué advised that suggestions were to be made to oneself in a waking state, and that even if suggestion comes from someone else, it is only by our converting it into an autosuggestion, a suggestion to oneself, that it is possible for it to work [21]. And in matters of hypnotherapy, the person helps themselves, as “every illness . . . can yield to autosuggestion [22].”
A key point that Coué makes is that there is much more power in our imagination than in our will (la volonté). And imagination for Coué is equivalent to “the subconscious mind [23].” He says, “This will that we claim so proudly, always yields to the imagination [24].” Even more strikingly he says:
…the will must not be brought into play in practising autosuggestion; for, if it is not in agreement with the imagination, if one thinks: “I will make such and such a thing happen”, and the imagination says: “You are willing it, but it is not going to be”, not only does one not obtain what one wants, but even exactly the reverse is brought about [25].
And:
“Our actions spring not from our Will, but from our Imagination [26].”
It seems to me that what we usually take as will, and what Coué takes as will, is a poor shadow of what real will could be. And this real will, existing initially perhaps only in the imagination, is intimately related to that imagination in its possibility of becoming and manifesting. Coué’s writing and his disdain of “will” are of great interest. Yet the will he talks about is certainly not the same will as that, for example, which Mesmer, Deleuze or William Law talk about. For Coué, there is the dichotomy of ease for imagination, difficulty for will. For Deleuze, as quoted above, the attention of the mesmeriser that allows will to take place is natural and easy, because of having the designated goal clearly in mind.
Thus, the way to arrive at that “ease” is not by trying to force one’s way by means of an illusory will, but rather in the development of the power of vision, or, one could say, of imagination, and it is that which gradually gives birth to will. In having and keeping one’s goal clearly in view, however one might represent it to oneself, shining the light of attention upon it, shows the powerful connection that can be made between light and will. It is true that these two words might be taken merely as abstract ideas, or metaphor, or even illusion, when applied to the workings of the mind and subsequent manifestation in one’s life. Nevertheless, in reflecting upon these things, perhaps especially motivated, and even enabled, by awareness of one’s lack of will and concentrated vision, something seems to change in the way one can do things. It can seem to activate a part of ourselves that has quite different capabilities to our usual everyday states. And the abundance of resources of this lesser known part of oneself compared to the usual everyday consciousness can indeed be astonishing. But one intriguing question regarding this peculiar will is: Does one make it, or is it received?
To Fluidum (5) - Love, attraction and repulsion
References
[1] e.g., Law, William – The Way to Divine Knowledge, The Second Dialogue, 1752. Amazon paperback
[2] Law, William – Demonstration of the Gross and Fundamental Errors of a late Book, 1737. Amazon paperback
[3] The Way to Divine Knowledge, The Second Dialogue, 1752. [Bold text is mine.]
[4] Schopenhauer, Arthur – On the Will in Nature, Hillebrand translation 1903, p.328-9 (p.92 in Ueber den Willen in der Natur, 2nd ed., 1854).
[5] Schopenhauer, Arthur – On the Will in Nature, Hillebrand translation 1903, p.327 (p.92 in Ueber den Willen in der Natur, 2nd ed., 1854).
[6] Schopenhauer is quoting from Kieser’s Tellurismus, Vol. 1, 1822, p.379.
[7] Hillebrand misses the important word “magnetic” – present in both Schopenhauer’s quotation; and Kieser’s original, namely, “die magnetische Manipulation.”
[8] Puységur, A.M.J. Chastenet de – Du magnétisme animal, 1820, p.140-1.
[9] E.g. Ellenberger, Henri – Discovery of the Unconscious: The History and Evolution of Dynamic Psychiatry, Basic Books (New York), 1970, p.72.
[10] Puységur, A.M.J. Chastenet de – Du magnétisme animal, 1820, p.3.
[11] Deleuze, J.-P.-F. – Practical Instruction in Animal Magnetism, 1879, p.31.
[12] ibid. p.30.
[13] e.g. p.31 and p.33.
[14] ibid. p.36
[15] Mesmer, F. A. – Mémoire, 1799, p.69-70.
[16] Mesmer, F. A. – Allgemeine Erläuterungen, 1812, p.64.
[17] e.g., Mesmer, F. A. – Mesmerismus, 1814, p.6-7.
[18] Mesmer, F. A. – Allgemeine Erläuterungen, 1812, p.65.
[19] Mesmer, F. A. – Mémoire, 1799, p.87.
[20] Mentioned many times in Mesmer's writings, and included in the title of his last book: Mesmerismus. Or System of Reciprocal Influences, 1814].
[21] Coué, Émile - Self-Mastery Through Conscious Autosuggestion, 1922, p.11.
[22] ibid. p.14.
[23] ibid. p.7.
[24] ibid. p.7.
[25] ibid. p.13. [Bold text is in original.]
[26] On the front cover of, e.g., the 1922 American edition, reflecting the 1922 French edition.
Bibliography of Works Cited
Coué, Émile – La Maîtrise de soi-même par l'autosuggestion consciente: Autrefois de la suggestion et de ses applications, Société Lorraine de psychologie appliquée (Nancy), 1922.
Coué, Émile – The Coué Method: Self-Mastery Through Conscious Autosuggestion, Complete & Unabridged Edition, (Translator: Archibald Stark Van Orden), Malkan publishing co., inc. (New York), 1922. Amazon paperback, Kindle
Deleuze, Joseph-Philippe-François – Instruction pratique sur le magnétisme animal, suivie d’un lettre écrite à l’auteur par un médecin étranger. Paris: Dentu, 1825.
Deleuze, Joseph-Philippe-François – Practical Instruction in Animal Magnetism, (translated by Thomas C. Hartshorn), Samuel R. Wells & Co. (New York), revised edition, 1879. Amazon paperback
Kieser, Dietrich Georg - System des Tellurismus oder Thierischen Magnetismus; ein Handbuch für Naturforscher und Aerzte [System of Tellurism or Animal Magnetism; a Handbook for Natural Scientists and Doctors], F.L. Herbig (Leipzig), 1822.
Law, William – The Works of William Law, 9 volumes, S. Richardson (London), 1762 (Privately reprinted for G. Moreton (New Forest), 1892-3). Amazon Kindle
Mesmer, Franz Anton – Mémoire De F. A. Mesmer, docteur en médecine, sur ses découvertes [Memoir of F.A. Mesmer, doctor of medicine, on his discoveries], Fuchs (Paris), 1799.
Mesmer, Franz Anton – Allgemeine Erläuterungen über den Magnetismus und den Somnambulismus [General Explanations of Magnetism and Somnambulism], (ed. Wolfart, K.C.), Hallischen Waisenhaus (Halle and Berlin), 1812.
Mesmer, Franz Anton – Mesmerismus. Oder System der Wechselwirkungen, Theorie und Anwendung des thierischen Magnetismus als die allgemeine Heilkunde zur Erhaltung des Menschen [Mesmerismus. Or System of Reciprocal Influences, Theory and Application of Animal Magnetism as the Universal Science of Healing for the Preservation of Humanity], Nikolai (Berlin), 1814.
Puységur, Armand-Marie-Jacques de Chastenet, Marquis de – Du magnétisme animal, considéré dans ses rapports avec diverses branches de la physique générale [On animal magnetism, considered in its relations with various branches of general physics], 2nd edition, Dentu (Paris), 1820 [1st ed., 1807].
Schopenhauer, Arthur – Ueber den Willen in der Natur, Johann Christian Hermannsche Buchhandlung (Frankfurt am Main), 2nd edition, 1854 (1st ed., 1836).
Schopenhauer, Arthur – On the Will in Nature: A Discussion of the Verifications through the Empirical Sciences which the Author's Philosophy Has Obtained since its Appearance, by Arthur Schopenhauer. Contained in: On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason, and On the will in nature; two essays by Arthur Schopenhauer, (translated by Madame Karl Hillebrand), G. Bell (London), Revised Edition, 1903 [Translation of the 4th ed. of Ueber den Willen in der Natur].