Editorial Comment

“Permit me from here on to leave out the cautious formula, as asserted, and to go on as if I believed in the objective reality of occult phenomena. But keep in mind that this is not the case and that I have committed myself to no conviction, one way or the other.”1 These are the words by which Freud prefaces his detailed discussion of telepathic problems in his lecture on “Dream and Occultism.” He arrives at this statement of his own unprejudiced and impartial attitude after enumerating and elucidating the three main obstacles to the scientific investigation of these problems — the intellectual, psychological, and historical arguments. They are important enough to justify the lack of scientific interest in “occult” phenomena, as far as these are concerned with the existence of a spirit-world and its manifestations by way of mediumistic performances. Yet, the reality of telepathy is not invalidated by the first and the third of these arguments.

The second, the psychological argument, emphasizes the fact that the love of the miraculous, the wish that some mysterious power might once in a while break the chain of ordinary causation, is deeply rooted in our Unconscious. This tendency is in opposition to the reality principle and a constant threat to its full and pure expression which is science. Whenever we deal with a phenomenon that fosters, directly or indirectly, our narcissistic

propensity to believe in the omnipotence of thought, we have every reason to be aware of this pitfall. Such skepticism, however, is not identical with intellectual cowardice which does not dare to look a relevant fact in the face.

Freud has also pointed out how difficult it is in the matter of the so called “occult” phenomena to arrive at conditions which satisfy the demands of scientific control. These conditions are much more favorable where telepat