Pagenstecher's Contribution to Parapsychology

Reprinted from the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research Volume 61 — July 1967 — Number 3 Pagenstecher’s Contribution to Parapsychology A Study from the Psychical Research Foundation, Inc. W. G. Rott INTRODUCTION Now and then a discovery in parapsychology is made in some part of the world which never previously distinguished itself in the field. This happened a few years ago when the Czechoslovakian investigator, Milan Ryzl, announced the startling ESP results of his subject, Pavel Stepanek; it happened some forty years earlier when Gustav Pagenstecher, a German physician practicing in Mexico, reported on the ESP feats of a woman patient, Sefiora Maria Reyes de Z. (Mrs. Zierold). The scientific world probably would not have heard about either of these exploits had they not been authenticated by an experienced psychical researcher who personally undertook an investigation. In the Czechoslovakian work, the visiting scientist was J. G. Pratt. In the Mexican case, he was Walter Franklin Prince. The resem- blance appears to end there: one case consisted of statistically evaluated card-guessing trials, while the other involved “psychom- etry” tests, where the subject had visions seemingly related to the past histories of objects she held in her hands. When we look behind the different experimental settings, we find that two im- portant features of Ryzl’s experiments were anticipated by Pagen- stecher. They concern the nature of ESP stimuli and a method for training subjects to respond to them. I shall return to these topics later. First a few words about Prince and Pagenstecher. Prince was in his late fifties when he visited Mexico in 1921. He was a minister by education and it was his pastoral work that led him to parapsychology. The occasion was his discovery, in 1910, of a case of multiple personality in a young woman parishioner, Doris Fischer. His study of the “Doris Case” resulted in his acquaintance with James H. Hyslop, founder and head of the American Society for Psychical Research. When Hyslop died in 1920, Prince became Research Officer of the A.S.P.R. and then of the Boston Society for Psychic Research. He remained America’s poe outstanding figure in psychical research until his death in Prince had two traits essential for an investigator in this field: he was open-minded about the possible range of facts in nature

220 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research and hard-headed in their appraisal. Both traits are conspicuous in his accounts of the experiments in Mexico. Pagenstecher was born in Germany in 1855 and received his medical degree at the University of Leipzig. Shortly afterwards he left for Mexico, which was his home until he died in 1942, It was no rash youngster, therefore, who threw himself into the uncertain area of psychical research, but a man in his sixties and a respected member of the medical profession. P echer said he had been “a materialist for forty years” when he had his first encounter with the paranormal, but he cannot have been a con- ventional one or he surely would have ignored it. That he also was not a conventional physician is indicated by his use of hypnotic therapy, hardly an orthodox medical procedure at that time. It was his hypnotic treatment of Mrs. Zierold for insomnia that led to the discovery of her remarkable psychical gifts. The main sources of information about the experiments with Mrs. Zierold are Pagenstecher’s monograph, “Past Events Seer- ship: A Study in Psychometry,” which came out as a volume of the A.S.P.R. Proceedings (11), Prince’s Foreword to it, and two pers by him, one in the ings (12) and the other in the (13), both entitled “Psychometric Experiments with Sefiora aria Reyes de Z." In these, Prince discussed the tests in which he personally took part. An article by Pagenstecher (10) which appeared in the Journal in 1920, concerning the tests which were carried out in collaboration with a medical commission in Mexico, was incorporated into his monograph (11). The experiments were concerned with a form of ESP called “‘psychometry,” which means, literally, ‘soul measurement.” Since the word also refers to psychological measurements and tests, the oie “token object test” is now often substituted to avoid con- ion. In the usual kind of token object i the subject tries to obtain ESP impressions about events, as a rule in the past, by means of objects which were associated with the events. The tests resemble psychological word association tests, except that the stimulus is a material object rather than a word; and except that the investigator is interested in the object's parapsychological associations rather than the pecans ones it arouses in the subject’s mind. Pagenstecher applied the term “‘associated objects” to the objects used in such tests. We might refer to this kind of ESP as “object association” phenomena, a more descriptive phrase, perhaps, than cither “psychometry” or “token object” phenomena. Pagenstecher was not the first to become interested in object association. A physiologist, Joseph R. Buchanan, preceded him by nearly eighty years and, in 1842, coined the term “ metry.” Pagenstecher refers to his work and to that of his follower, the ‘Pagenstecher’s Contribution to Parapsychology 221 geologist William Denton. Their treatment of the phenomena was re poetic than scientific, as the titles of their books indicate: shanan’s : The Dawn of a New Civilization (1893) 4 Denton’s The Soul of Things (1888). Neither of them was taken usly by the scientific community, not even by its fringe of cal researchers. This is not to say that psychometry was rely . F. W. H. Myers (8) and Oliver Lodge (6) suggested that past events left “traces” on objects in their neighbor- hood and that these traces can be detected by gifted ESP subjects. Though many mediums and sensitives use such objects, para- ogists as a rule have tended to restrict themselves to edging the existence and possible importance of the objects trying to account for their function. 8. G, Soal (24), for concluded from his work with the sensitive Blanche Tue ExpertmMeNntaL CONDITIONS _ The bulk of Pagenstecher’s monograph (11) is taken up with a description of forty miscellaneous pi conducted eo October 1, 1919, and June 15, 1920. The last of these is numbered 65, so presumably another twenty-five tests were conducted during that period but not reported.! In addition, fifteen (unnumbered) experiments done in January, 1920, are discussed. Eleven of these were conducted in collaboration with other Mexican physicians. Finally, two experiments were done on August 24, 1920, and March 30, 1921. Prince (12) describes an additional twenty-six experiments in which he participated between March 29 and April 14, 1921, one of which is also covered in Pagenstecher's report. . , eighty-two experiments are discussed in these In 1 many of the procedures of testing and analysis which are applied as a matter of course had not been developed. ological studies were concerned more with the question than with experimental procedure. A good investigator well versed in the skills of the magician and detective rather in the methods of experimental science. Prince was well known exposures of mediums in ante delicto and the main in his mind when he arrived in Mexico was whether the 3 df } 2% age i Ag experiments is somewhat erratic. In one case, three ‘on, 17-19, and two experiments (Nos. numbered separately. i z 5 B!

222 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research claims were fraudulent. I think we can agree that they were not, But we should not expect cither Prince’s or Pagenstecher’s tests decisively to rule out all other possible normal explanations. In any satisfactory modern ESP experiment, the experimenter and others who are present in the room where the subject is tested are ignorant of the target. In this way the possibility is avoided that they might unconsciously transmit cues to the subject. In many tests with Mrs. Zierold, Pagenstecher, Prince, or others who were present, knew what the correct response was. While it is doubtful that they gave her any cues, these experiments cannot be bracketed with research conducted under conditions that definitely rule out this possibility. Similarly, in token object tests precautions must be taken to prevent the subject from inferring any relevant in- formation from the object’s physical characteristics. For instance, if the subject is handed a sea shell, he is certain to score some “hits” if he speaks about the ocean and marine life. It is now also customary to have a predetermined number of experiments and analysis of all the findings. It is emphasized both * Pagenstecher and Prince that Mrs. Zie- rold did not examine the experimental object either by sight or by touch. Once her fingers came in contact with it, she did not move them for the duration of the test. In fact, she entered a cata- leptic trance as soon as she received the object, which lasted until the end of the session. In several instances, the particular events described by Mrs. Zierold, and later found to have been associated with the object, could not have been rationally inferred even if she had examined it. For instance, the fact that a sealed letter had been written by a tall man, thirty-five to forty years old, bearded, with a scar over his right eyebrow, and who was about to be shipwrecked, could not have been inferred from the letter. This was the famed Ramon experiment (12, pp. 216-240) conducted on March 30, 1921, which was witnessed by Prince and Dr. L. S. Viramontes, Secretary of the Medical Society “Pedro Escobedo.” They and the other persons present were ignorant of the writer and the contents of the letter. One series of experiments closely approached present-day scien- tific standards. These were the tests done on January 11, 1920, with Viramontes as co-experimenter. Four similar pumice stones with different past histories were presented to Mrs. Zierold in random order by Viramontes without Pagenstecher knowing which stone was being used at any one time. In all instances, Mrs, Zierold’s statements were appropriate. I shall discuss these experiments later. This series was followed by a similar one conducted under the supervision of the President of the Medical Society, Dr. Luis Iruesto, the Treasurer, Dr. Rafael Lopez, and Dr. Viramontes. It s Contribution to Parapsychology 223 purpose of these tests to obtain as exact a replication as ot 098 fF the earlier findings; consequently the same pumice s were used as had been employed in the tests with Viramontes addition to three control stones). Mrs. Zierold gave essentially ‘same responses as before. Unfortunately, in the commendable for a repeatable experiment, the experimenters overlooked possibility that Mrs. Zierold could have r ized the stones yy touch and repeated her earlier statements about them. The stones were cut into similar shapes, but it is difficult to rule out 1 of slight differences. would be a mistake to judge the tests with Mrs. Zierold on basis of how conclusively they demonstrate ESP. Today, the need is not for further evidence of the existence of ESP. Alt we have advanced far in providing sound methods of testing, our in understanding ESP has been slow and the iestion how ESP operates is as pressing now as it was in the days Pagenstecher and Prince. I believe that their experiments with Mrs. Zierold may give valuable leads about the nature of ESP, though they cannot be cited as proof of it. In particular, the tests make some interesting points about two topics, namely, the role of hypnosis in ESP and the nature of the ESP stimulus. a) us Hypnosis anp ESP Mrs. Zierold’s ESP abilities were discovered by Pagenstecher in the course of treating her for insomnia. She suffered severely from this as a result of a stomach ulcer and as an aftereffect of an ese t was when Pagenstecher failed to relieve the insomnia with drugs that he resorted to hypnosis. _ During one of the early sessions, in September, 1918, Mrs. Zierold was disturbed by the impression that her fifteen-year-old was unaware of possessing any psychical abilities. Her ESP de- veloped gradually during the course of an hypnotic training pro- Sete ested ‘for several weeks-and, with respect to some of ter abilities, for several months. The first object association test was done more than a year after the initial hypnosis session. ‘There is an interesting account, written by Mrs. Zierold herself, about the development of her gifts. It appears that P. used an hypnotic training procedure designed to develop her mental images,.At first, he instracted her to voualize himself in various parts of the room, out of her sight. Mrs. Zierold writes: “I began to see, upon order, first a kind of shadow corresponding to the

224 Yournal of the American Society for Psychical Research body of the doctor; later on I was able to see him with absolute clearness, whether I was blindfolded or not, and whether he was standing in front of me or at my back, or even behind the door, as it happened several times” (11, p. 110). P echer does not make any claims for this as a general procedure for developing ESP. However, it bears a striking resemblance to Milan Ryzl’s hypnotic training technique which, he claims, has been successful with many subjects. Ryzl describes it as follows: We ask the subject to distinguish simple objects of set shapes—key, hand, scissors, hammer, etc., which we put in front of him on a tray in a position that the subject could see them if he opened his eyes. We invite the subject to “have a look” at the object without i his eyes, . . . Usually there is only dual p The subject first “sees” the object indistinctly, blurred, as if in a fog. At this stage the imenter’s ive influence may be of considerable suggestive help, an or an assurance that the picture must gradually get more distinct (18, p. 241), Ryzl used this method with 226 subjects, 13 of whom (6 per cent) achieved a high rate of ESP success while another 14 were “relatively good” (18, p. 235). In the case of both Pagenstecher’s and Ryzl’s subjects, there was a gradual development of clarity in the mental nage Mrs. Zierold first saw a “kind of shadow,” while to Ryzl’s subjects the target appeared “as if in a fog.” Gradually the images became more distinct. There has been much speculation whether Ryzl’s method has general validity or whether his success is due to personal factors. The fact that a similar procedure was used by another investigator argues in favor of this form of hypnotic training. After the initial training period, the procedures followed b Pagenstecher and Ryzl differ markedly. In "s experiments wit Stepanek (20, 21) the responses were limited to two, namely, calls of “white” or “green,” corresponding to the colors of the target cards. In Pagenstecher's experiments, on the other hand, anything Mrs. Zierold said regarding the experimental object counted as a response, The target range was limited only by the past history of the object. And there was a further difference: Mrs. Zierold continued to operate in a trance state and did not, as far as we know, show evidence of ESP unless hypnotized. Stepanek, on the other hand, is not in trance when tested either by Ryzl or by other i i visiting Prague. (It is conceivable that he automatically enters an hypnotic state when i ing but, as far as I know, there is no evidence for this.) Since this di between the psychological states of the two subjects may tell us something Pagenstecher's Contribution to Parapsychology 225 bout the relationship between hypnosis and ESP, it may be worth | r ing further. From the beginning of research in parapsychology, many inves- itors have been of the opinion that hypnosis, sleep, or other forms of dissociation are important means of improving ESP. In , i of others, however, hypnosis and dissociated states fecn ineffective. In her survey of the older experimental rial, Rhea White (29) concluded that the “first general require- is to achieve a state of complete relaxation.” In the area of experimental ESP experiences, L. E. Rhine (15) observed that istic’ cases, in which there was the closest correspondence the events, usually occurred in dreams rather than in waking s. (On the other hand, she did not find any more ESP cases cams than in waking states, perhaps because most dreams are en.) Gardner Murphy (7) suggests that dissociated states are to ESP because they remove the subject from “the conscious m of ideas.’ On the other hand, J. B. Rhine (14) has not d hypnosis to be an aid to ESP. Neither his high-scoring is nor those of S. G. Soal (25) were hypnotized. Hoping to ite Ryzl’s findings, John Beloff and Ian Mandleberg (1) and tested twenty subjects under hypnosis without effect. ver, Ryzl (18) claims high scores in only six per cent of his subjects. eberg could therefore only have f d striking results from one of their subjects.) Also in the tests by J. J. Grela (3), there was no evidence that hypnosis was effective in improving ESP. Although the total score was highest n the sessions in which positive hypnotic suggestions were given, Soap of the eleven subjects scored higher in the hypnosis tests than in the waking tests, five scored lower, and one the same. A clue to this apparent disagreement is found when we examine the responses made by the subjects in the two situations. The nvestigations in which hypnosis or some other form of dissociation Were found to be advantageous were, as a rule, free response tests, While the experiments in which hypnosis was ineffective were card trials or other tests with restricted responses. There are exceptions to this, but the rule seems to be that dissociation is likely to improve ; in free response tests but not in card tests. Since the response is a function of the ESP target, the choice of target, it appears, should determine whether the subject should be in a dissociated State such as hypnosis or sleep. One of the reasons for the successful outcome of the experiments by Montague Ullman, Stanley Kripp- ner, and Sol Feldstein (27) might well be that they used a — method with dreaming subjects. _ the reason that free ESP responses are aided by dissociated States and restricted responses are not, can be understood, in my

ane 226 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research opinion, by a study of the ESP response itself. As I have tried to show elsewhere (16), the response produced by an ESP percipient consists of jis own memory traces, activated by the ESP stimulus. An example may help to illustrate this. In an informal session with a medium, Herbert Beyer, involving Dr. O. Lee Trick and others, Mr. Beyer asked if the name “Otho!” meant anything. Dr. Trick lied that his first name is “Otho,” but that he does not use this name except for professional p and that he believed that none of his friends in Durham knew what the initial “O” in his name stood for. When the medium was asked how this name came to mind, he replied that he had an i of a childhood friend named Othol Johnson and shat dhde/denite Kimvenvete thet this name was relevant. René Warcollier, the French parapsychologist, described the ESP process in this way: . .. the images which appear to the mind of the ipient under the form of Mallucinations: dreams, or more or = well-formed or subconscious memory. There is no carrying kappa impression from the agent to the percipient, any more than is actual carrying of a letter of the alphabet from the sending apparatus of a telegraph eich ye ache oe ciniar’ tat deca ak 8 consists in making the same letter appear, but it exists at the receiving Seer wae AL) don Cred » p- 133). If the ESP response is a form of remembering, it is easy to understand why a dissociated state might help subjects such as Mrs. Zierold and those to whom Rhea White (29) refers. As a rule, it is only when the distractions and demands of day life are shut off that the wide range of memory traces which would be needed to respond to a wide range of stimuli easily come to mind. On the other hand, a person need not be in a dissociated state to recall, say, images of “green” and “white” or of the five ESP symbols. Consequently, Stepanek and other card-calling sub- jects do not have to be hypnotized. These common-sense observa- tions about the effect of hypnosis on remembering are supported by experimental observations, For example, R. W. White, G. F. Fox, and W. W. Harris (30) and B. G. Rosenthal (17) found no improvement under hypnosis of recall of lists of nonsense syllables, but a significant gain for i material. The apparent con- flict between those who advocate hypnosis and other forms of dissociation as aids to ESP and those who find them ineffective seems to be resolved if we regard ESP responses as memory Pagenstecher's Contribution to Parapsychology 227 __A few words might help to relate these observations to the otic training techniques of Pagenstecher and Ryzl. First of bs , it is evident that hypnotic training is not a means whereby everyone can become a star ESP subject. Mrs. Zierold showed evidence of ESP during an early hypnosis session before Pagen- stecher’s training began, and only a small proportion of Ryzl’s developed a stable ESP performance. The contribution of investigators appears to be the discovery of a method to teach eir subjects (a) to transform indistinct and fleeting memory uges into clear mental images, (b) to identify images brought nto awareness by ordinary internal or external stimuli, p ly : izing these stimuli, and (c) to ignore such “normal” ; ae: leaving a residue of “paranormal” ones. In addition, in limited case of free response tests hypnosis or self-induced of dissociation are likely to provide a means for gifted subjects to maintain a high level of ESP performance.* + oo Tue Stimuus a. The psychometric process begins, according to Pagenstecher, isen pedinary physical events produce “molecular movements” or “vibrations” of light, sound, etc., which usually result in sensory perception. When these vibrations reach physical objects in the ( ood of the events, the vibrations are not dispersed and do not disappear, but are “stored” in the objects. At a later time, thes bored : vibrations may affect the brain of an ESP subject and cause him to have a mental image of the events in question. Pagenstecher refers to the accumulation of stored vibrations in the rse as a “divine or cosmic memory record” (11, p. arly nor Johnson, the Australian physicist and author, si in a discussion of psychometry, that “rocks cannot remember but they may hold a memory . . . which the mind of a man in favorable circumstances can cognize” (5). The discovery that the past is retained not only by animate systems but by inanimate i) ‘past ga as well, would add to the growing list of properties in ac living which are also found in the world of inanimate matter. _ But before we can begin to take such speculations seriously, we ‘need to know if Pagenstecher’s results can be explained along more conventional lines. If they cannot, we should need to know if the 8 has other uses for ESP. For instance, hypnotic and 1 cap edad ae mgr de tial effect"’ in which the condition the produces score and the other a negative ‘ypnosis a chy a help ie exten who otherwise woud find dap de! Lo7 conditions or

228 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research findings have been repeated by others. Most important, the new concept should improve our ability to control or predict ESP. When Prince became convinced that the results were not to be explained in terms of coe or some other normal explanation, he turned to the telepathic hypothesis, ¢.g., to the theory that Mrs. Zierold responded to information about the experimental object in the minds of the experimenters rather than to any unknown properties inherent in the object itself. Prince gave up the telepathic hypothesis when he found that it made no difference to Mrs. Zierold what information, if any, the experimenters had about the object. Prince was co-experimenter on two occasions when Mrs. Ziecrold’s statements about the experimental object were in conflict with his own opinions and when he thought she had failed in the test. In both cases it turned out that it was he and not Mrs. Zierold who was mistaken. He concluded from this that she was not reading his mind. In addition, there were cases where no one present had the information that Mrs, Zierold produced, such as the Ramon case referred to above. It would be going too far to say that these experiments conclu- sively ensledee telepathy since there was always some person somewhere who would eventually verify Mrs. Zierold’s statements and whose mind she could therefore have picked at the time of the test. However, in the case of telepathy there is usually a pre- established link between the agent pen the percipient; for instance, they are personally acquainted, or the connection is through a token object. If there is evidence of ESP without such a relationship, then I think we may agree with Pagenstecher and Prince that we are probably not dealing with telepathy. Prince does not discuss the possibility that clairvoyance—ESP of objective, physical events—might explain the findings. It is evident, however, that it could not since Mrs. Zierold did not describe contem events, but events that occurred in the neighborhood of the object in the . N. M. Tyrrell (26) referred to object association as an “‘almost untouched” area of parapsychology which might have important implications for the understanding of ESP. The only person other than Pagenstecher to make a significant contribution to this area was the French investigator, Eugene Osty (9), a contemporary of his and also a physician, The phenomenon is now again attracting theJattention of parapsychologists. An experiment by Ryzl and Pratt (20) is particularly interesting because the effect was not sought, but em unexpectedly, In this series, in addition to Stepanek’'s wacins O rate of scoring, it was found that the hits Were not uniformly or randomly dispersed over the target cards, but were concentrated on certain ones, though these appeared to Pagenstecher’s Contribution to Parapsychology 229 ; i indistinguishable from the rest. Among the favored two were found which had slightly different past histories from the other cards. These two cards ed to the first two numbers on the code sheet the experimenters used for marking the envelopes in which the cards were placed and for that reason may have been more vividly impressed on their minds than the others. The authors remarked in a later study that “our results "seem to us to raise anew the question whether the so-called token 0 long associated with mediumistic practices, may play more han a purely motivational or suggestive role. . . .”” (21, p. 240). ni experiments with the same subject, it appeared to Ryzl (19) ha "s own guess about a card left a “trace” on it to which he responded in later trials by repeating his first guess, regardless of what the actual target was. ) The best indication that a scientist has made a new discovery it increases his ability to predict and control. In the following pages I shall consider Pagenstecher's findings from this point of view. I shall not discuss his theory of “stored vibrations.” His findings about the “associated object” can be stated in terms of what we might call the “object association theory of ESP” without into the possible physical grounds for this theory. D 4 Tue Onyect Association Tueory or ESP At the beginning of this paper I pointed out that object asso- Ciation experiments are similar to word association experiments. In some word association tests, the purpose is to discover the ‘connections between thoughts and i in the subject’s mind. For instance, the stimulus word “table” might elicit the response “chair,” thereby showing a relation in the subject's mind between ible and chair. Pagenstecher’s experiments suggest that material objects are associated with each other in ways analogous to the ‘association of ideas and that similar “laws” govern the two kinds of association. nee ‘ The psychological laws of association are divided into the “pri- mary” and “secondary” laws of association, the former being the _ laws of contiguity and similarity and the latter the laws of primacy, r , frequency, and vividness. Of the primary laws, | shall Binns only the law of contiguity. The Primary Laws of Association The law of contiguity: The law of contiguity states that when ae. wo have occurred together in time or lace, the occurrence of one of them in perception or thought sends bring

230 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research the other to mind. ‘“The burnt child dreads the fire,” as the proverb has it. The phenomenon of object association suggests a para- a ar equivalent to this law. According to what we might the “parapsychological law of contiguity," two objects or events that have occurred together in time or place remain parapsycho- logically associated though they may later be separated, so that if one of the objects is presented to a person, the other comes to his mind. Pagenstecher's experiments all conform to this law. For instance, in Experiment 62, conducted on May 13, 1920 (11, pp- 20-22), the experimental object was a string on which the identification plate belonging to a German ex t had been attached. It had been worn by him during World War I. When Mrs. Zierold held the string, she had a vision of a fire bomb exploding among a group of soldiers. The sergeant recognized this event as the one that had impressed him most during the war, This example is typical. As in all the other of Pagenstecher’s experiments, the response concerned events that had taken place in the immediate vicinity of the experimental object. The Secondary Laws of Association The objects used in Pagenstecher’s experiments had many events associated with them in addition to those described by Mrs. Zierold. For instance, in the experiment with the identification string, the question arises why she described the bomb explosion rather than something else. Similarly, in the case of the association of ideas, one word or image often has several others connected with it. The word “table” may be associated with “chair,” “lamp,” “ty writer,” “ashtray,” and the names of other objects which have been observed in the proximity of tables. If the investigator is interested in which of these related words are likely to come to mind first, he will refer to the secondary laws of association: the laws of primacy, recency, frequency, and vividness. Thus, if the subject in the past has more frequently experienced the combination “table-chair” than the combination “‘table-lamp,” he is more likely to say chair than lamp in response to the stimulus word table, assuming that other factors, such as recency, are about the same for the two combinations. In object association, the question which of the events associated with the experimental object are likely to be cognized by an ESP subject is answered by the parapsychological equivalents of the secondary laws of association. We may express these as follows: ing to the law of primacy, all other things being equal, the first events in the history of an o Sich asvanientiealy fokeeegnied by ESP than others. The law of recency states that, all other things Pagenstecher's Contribution to Parapsychology 231 being equal, recent events in the history of an object are more likely the cognized by ESP than others. The law of frequency says that, all other things being equal, frequent events in the history ‘of an object are more likely to be cognized by ESP than others. A y, according to the law of vividness, all other things being ‘equal, events that were emotionally vivid or intense to a person ‘connected with the history of an object are more likely to be Co by ESP than others. } Pagenstecher’s experiments, sixty-two different objects were used." These include the objects from the tests with Prince and Vv ontes, but not from the tests done with the medical com- used in earlier trials. If we examine Mrs. Zierold’s responses, in “many cases they appear to follow the secondary laws of association, i ly the laws of primacy and vividness. , In Table 1, I have entered Mrs. Zierold’s responses according to whether the events she described were primary, vivid, etc. To “some extent, the decision where to place an item was subjective. i objects were used in the teats in the experiments with Viramontes, and ici making a total of sixty-two. It is ects used i

232 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research Table | CLASSIFICATION OF ‘THE SuByect’s Resronses AcconpinG To THE Tyre or Event Descrinep eee One-Response Sestions Primary Recent Frequent Vivid® Unclassifiable Total 21 0 6 il 15 53 40% 0% 11% 21% 28% Two-Response Sessions , Primary & Recent Primary & Vivid Recent & Frequent Total 2 3 4 9 22% 33% 44% Total, all session: 62 * One of the “vivid” events was alxo “frequent.” However, if the response did not clearly belong in one of these categories, it was listed as “unclassifiable.” The table is divided into two sections, one referring to the objects which stimulated a single impression or one continuous account, referred to as “one-response sessions,” and the other referring to those which gave rise to two unrelated responses, the “two-response sessions.” Primary events: In twenty-one of the fifty-three one-response sessions, or forty per cent, Mrs. Zierold referred to the first events in the history of the experimental objects. Five of the nine two- response sessions (fifty-five per cent) also included references to primary events. It was er’s theory that if no stro emotions were associated with an object, its ‘‘original impressions” would come to the fore. As mentioned above, some of these cases are weak from the evidential point of view since it is difficult to be sure that Mrs, Zierold did not learn by normal means something about the origin or process of manufacture of the objects Pagen- stecher handed to her. Perhaps the best cases are those in which objects where the primacy factor dominated were used as controls in tests of the vividness effect. The following series, numbered 53-55 and conducted on March 14 and 21, 1920, is an example. The experimental objects were three pieces of paper from a pad to a colleague of Pagenstecher’s who had suffered a stroke. On the first piece of paper presented to Mrs. Zierold the doctor had written a call for medical help with his left hand since he had lost the use of his right hand and also could not speak. The second piece of paper presented was written shortly before, agenstecher’s Contribution to Parapsychology 233 the onset of the stroke, with the right hand, while he could use it. Finally, the third piece was taken from the bottom of pad and had presumably not been touched by the doctor. . Zierold had the following impressions when she held the first of paper: I am in an office, sitting on a desk, in front of a man whose face has a bluish tint, whose eyes are id and whose mouth is distorted. He tries to write so ing with his left hand w apparently contains an order, as an elderly lady who is at his side with two other . . . women, leaves the room hurriedly and comes back with another woman. In the meantime a ig man thirty-five years of age, has unfastened the collar of the sick man and gives him some water to drink. At his side stands a young girl of about sixteen or cighteen years who him and kisses him very affectionately. After some time a man of vigorous constitution enters the room and receives from the left hand of the sick man a small instrument which had been extracted by him from a pocket instru- ment case [a small lancet for bleeding], Aided by the newcomer [the doctor called for] the young man mentioned lifts up the invalid and carries him out of the room into an adjoining room, while I keep on seated upon the desk, being unable to move (11, pp. 29-30). _ These im ions were correct. The doctor had suddenly been ill with a stroke, and the other events were also as described by Mrs. Zierold. In response to the second sheet of paper, she said, “I do not understand what I see. It seems to me that there “are two conflicting visions, superposed one on top of the other and blending together.” Her first impression was: I sce in a large room, small boys with caps on their heads who push wheel carts filled with scraps of paper of different colors and also with old rags. I see women who separate the different colors with long forks. The scraps and pieces of rags are thrown into a large boiler (11, p. 31). _ Mrs. Zierold continued and described her second impression: I sce a very sick man, with bluish face, who tries to speak without results as I see only the movement of his lips and do not hear a word. He takes a pencil with his right hand and writes i on a blank paper. . . (11, p. 31). Finally, ephies mesa ape ner sre chr P roduced only images from the paper ° a events: ct rule, the responses which concerned vivid or emotionally intense events were the most convincing from the

234 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research point of view of supplying evidence for ESP. Several contained detailed descriptions, such as the one concerning the doctor, which it seemed impossible that Mrs. Zierold could have produced by normal means. Eleven of the -three one-response sessions, or twenty-one per cent, consisted of accounts of such happenings. In addition, three of the nine two-response sessions (thirty-three per cent) also concerned vivid events. Of this total of fourteen events, twelve had to do with death, sudden illness, or other crises. The identification string belonging to the German sergeant mentioned above is an example. At the time of the experiment Pagenstecher knew the identity of the owner of the string, but was not aware of the specific event apparently described by Mrs. Zierold: It is intensely cold and the day is foggy. . . . 1 am on a battlefield; smelis of gunpowder. In front of me I see a tall man standing, ig grey overcoat on, which reaches to his feet. Behind him Sees ney menting Mhewien, They tall’ Géetaan ot better id, they shout. In front of them and lying on the snow, behind work, I see a line of soldiers keeping up a continuous rifle Some five meters back of the firing line there are two groups of men plainly to be seen, one consisting of about five to six men, and another one of about twelve to fifteen men. Quite of a sudden I see coming through the air and moving with gras Papncisy & big red ball of fre »_<- which drope just in the midst of the fii men, tearing them to pieces, Arms, legs, heads, pieces of uniform fly through the air, I hear the dreadful yell and the re moaning of the dying. This is a terrible sight (11, pp. 20-21), a ORRES Sergeant Saenger stated that on a cold and morning on the Russian front, during World War I, he was with his superior officer (“a tall, solidly built man . . . wrapped in a large grey mantle”) and two other non-commissioned officers, making four with himself, when an incendiary shell exploded on a barn housing a section of rapid fire guns and killed twenty-five soldiers who were there. ‘‘This fire bomb was the only one to hit the mark in those days, and on account of the terrible sight I witnessed, when seeing the building aflame, and hearing the distressing yells of dear friends buried under the burning debris, I am certain that this was the first great impression I received of the war, ibly the greatest of all, as it happened to be in the first month of my life as a soldier” (11, pp. 126-127). This experiment was followed by another, No. 63, on May 15, 1920, also with an identity — as the experimental object, but one which was not associated with such violent events. This string evoked only impressions apparently from its manufacture; in other techer’s Contribution to Parapsychology 235 » primary events. However, there were exceptions to the vividness rule, At a third experiment in this series, No. 64, on May 16, 1920, when Pagenstecher used the identification plate which had been attached to the first string belonging to Sergeant , and which was associated with the same events, Mrs. Zier- old described events connected with the manufacture of the plate, rather than the bomb explosion. Similarly, in an experiment which Prince attended where the object was a knife that had been involved in an “emotional scene” (12, pp. 280 ff.), Mrs. Zicrold made only ‘some vague statements about a knife factory. Pagenstecher was of the opinion that metal objects are not as efficient in “stori vibrations” as soft and porous ones. However, this was a bone metal knife, and bone ought to be as good as ivory, which was used successfully in an experiment with an ivory paper knife, also attended by Prince (12, pp. 213-214). __ The Swedish psychiatrist and parapsychologist, John Bjérkhem (2), who also conducted object association tests with hypnotized subjects, similarly concluded that vivid, or emotionally intense events were more likely to be cognized than others. Frequent events: In the case of six of the objects in the one- ‘fesponse sessions, or eleven per cent, the events described by Mrs. Zierold were of frequent or long duration in the history of the object. In four of the nine two-response sessions (forty-four per cent), one of her impressions also concerned ent events. Pagenstecher's theory that his subject res) to “stored vibrations” in the experimental object gave him the idea that the more vibrations of a particular sort were stored in an object, the stronger would the resulting effect be. Whatever else may be said about Pagenstecher’s vibration theory, it has the distinction of leading to a testable prediction which, apparently, was fulfilled in the following experiment: In preparation for this experiment, conducted on January 1, 1920, Pagenstecher placed a piece of broken pottery in case of a wall clock and left it there for fifteen days. The clock struck the hours and half hours. He then gave the pottery to Mrs. Zierold, who said: “I hear a rhythmic noise, very far off, like drops of rain falling upon glass at equal intervals; besides, I hear, now and then, a melodious noise as if the wind were sighing through the woods.” A similar piece of pottery which had not in the clock did ‘hot clicit any impressions of sounds. Pagenstecher then replaced days. This seemed to result in increased clarity of the i ions: ive now and then the sound of a musical Pp. away." Finally, the fragment was put in the clock an sities!

236 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research twenty-one days: “I hear distinctly the tick-tock of a clock and the harmonious striking of the clock bell—one, one, two, three, four . . .” (11, pp. 55-56). The apparent effect of frequency has been noted by other investigators. Osty (9) said that an experiment is most likely to succeed if the experimental object has often been touched by the person about whom information is desired and little touched by anyone else. In an experiment with Richard Hodgson (23), Mrs. — made a similar observation and in an experiment with . R. Newbold (23), she said that “it often causes confusion” if the objects have been “handled often and by a great many persons.” Hodgson (4) concluded from his experiments with Mrs. Piper that any object can be used, provided “it has been handled or worn almost exclusively by specific persons.” Similarly, H. F. Salt- marsh (22) noted that the English sensitive Mrs. Warren Elliott objected to “any article which has often been washed or handled by a great many people.” Recent events: Pagenstecher does not refer to the recency effect and there were no definite instances of it in the one-response sessions. However, in six of the nine two-response sessions (sixty- six per cent), one of the responses referred to recent events. Four of these occurred in the experiments done on January 11, 1920, with Viramontes as co-experimenter (11, pp. 56-58). In preparation for the tests, four similar pumice stones were each subjected to a different treatment for fifteen days. One was placed in a solution of asafetida and gentian, another in the case of a wall clock, a third in a refrigerated sugar solution, and the fourth in burning sulphur. During the tests, the stones were selected by Viramontes in random order and handed to Mrs. Zierold without Pagenstecher seeing which one she received at a particular time. Her statements were eres in all instances. he stone which had been in the refrigerated sugar solution was selected first. It gave rise to “a sweet taste in my mouth. Besides I feel a sensation of . . . intense cold, in the tips of my fingers.” Next came the stone from the clock, which evoked “the tick-tock of a watch. There seems to be a church in the vicinity as I hear the sound of bells.” Then came the stone which had been in burning sulphur: “I strongly smell sulphur and I feel an intense heat at the tips of my fingers.” Finally, came the asafetida and gentian stone, which produced a “most disagreeable odor unknown to me, and I have an intensely bitter taste in my mouth.” Sup- Leaf all traces of odor had been removed from the stones with asafetida and sulphur; in any case, the stones that had been refrigerated or placed in the clock case could not have retained any known physical traces of these events. Pagenstecher's Contribution to Parapsychology 237 _ The impressions regarding the recent events these stones had "been subjected to were in each instance preceded by descriptions of water and fish, apparently referring to Lake Texoco, from which the pumice had been extracted. In many of Osty’s (9) object association experiments with Mrs. Morel, where the purpose was to obtain information about the owner of the object, the et instead talked about Osty himself or the person who brought the object—in other words, about its recent associations. In some of the experiments by H. F. Saltmarsh (22) with Mrs. Warren Elliott, the experimental objects were sent to the S.P.R. secretary, Miss Isabel Newton, who wrapped them up and sealed them for the tests. Saltmarsh found that in about twenty per cent of the riments, the subject referred to Miss Newton and to the S.P.R. ces rather than to the owners of the objects. As Saltmarsh noted, Miss Newton was the person who had most recently handled the Unclassifiable responses: In fifteen of the fifty-three one-response sessions, impressions did not clearly belong to any of the four categories. In five of these, the events were possibly primary; in three, vivid; in six, frequent; and in one, recent. However, Zierold's responses and the available information about the objects were not detailed enough to indicate definitely to which of these or other categories her responses belong. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SurvVIVAL HypoTuesis Many mediums (e.g., see 4, 6, 22, 23, 24) use objects in order to obtain information about the deceased owners of these objects. In fact, it is extremely rare to have purported communications from the dead without an object or some other physical link such as the presence of a living relative or friend of the deceased. If object ‘association is a fact, what are the implications for survival ? e would have evidence that, in a sense, past events ‘“‘survive.” But this kind of survival of the past would undermine the evidence for nal survival since the events associated with the object can be “recalled” by a subject without postulating any assistance from the dead, If deceased personalities are nevertheless involved in some of the mediumistic object association cases, the objects with their associated “memories” appear to function as substitute brains. However, the simpler explamision of this type of me- diumistic material is that the personality involved is the subject's. The survival hypothesis could be justified only if there were some characteristics in the response which could not be accounted for in terms of the subject’s capacity to cognize the past associations of the experimental object.

238 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research In the case of Mrs. Zierold, there was no indication that she relied on anything but her own ESP powers, although she was convinced that the spirits of the dead sometimes helped her. During the final session that Prince attended, on April 16, 1921, when Mrs. Zierold was questioned during hypnosis about her beliefs regarding intervention from spirits and oahes topics, she said, “On some occasions they assist me, when the [matters] are transcen- dental. When not, they do not; I get the vision from the object itself which you give me’’ (12, p. 307). CONCLUSION Pagenstecher contributed to two important areas in parapsy- chology. He was, as far as I know, the first investigator to use hypnosis as a means to cultivate ESP in a gifted subject. Though other parapsychologists had conducted ESP tests with hypnotized subjects, no one had systematically utilized the trance state as a means to develop the subject's mental images. The fact that the method has been rediscovered by Ryzl and used to good advantage adds to the prospect that it may have general application in ESP research Pagenstecher’s studies were also, I believe, the first to indicate that the (parapsychological) association of objects may be governed the same laws that govern the (psychological) association of ideas. He did not explicitly point to the similarity between the association of ideas and the association of objects, but it cannot have been far from his mind since he compared the “stored vibrations” in the world to a “‘cosmic memory record” and empha- sized that vivid and primary vibrations had a greater stimulatin power than others. His iments, of course, do not establish the validity of the laws of vividness, primacy, etc. for parapsy- chology. The investigations should be regarded as exploratory and the “‘laws”’ of object association as working hypotheses which need to be tested under strict conditions. Several of Pagenstecher’s techniques involving control objects, different kinds of preparatory treatments of objects, etc., could be used in the laboratories of today with only minor modifications. There is a phrase that ‘‘ideas are things.” If we are to judge from present developments in biochemistry and biophysics, this may turn out to be literally true. At the same time it may also be true that sow are like ideas in that they obey some of the laws that govern the relationship between ideas. If this is the case, it could have significant implications not only for parapsychology but for any science that deals with man and his world. I have mentioned its importance for the survival hypothesis. It will also Pagenstecher’s Contribution to Parapsychology 239 affect ESP research. The clairvoyance tests of Ryzl and Pratt suggest that the phenomenon played a part in their experiments; it may be operating in other card tests as well. If physical objects in some sense retain traces of past events associated with them so that these may later be revealed to an ESP subject, an understanding of this process might also aid our knowl- edge of other reproductive processes in nature, such as those of memory and heredity. REFERENCES 1. Betorr, J., anp Manpieserc, I. “An Attempted Validation of the ‘Ryzl Technique’ for Training ESP Subjects.” Journal S.P.R., Vol. 43, March, 1966, 229-249. 2. BySrxnem, J. Det Ockulta Problemet, Uppsala: Lindblads For- 1951. 3. Grera, J. J. “Effect on ESP Scoring of Hypnotically Induced Attitudes.” Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 9, September, 1945, 194-202. 4. Hopcson, R. “A Record of Observations of Certain Phe- nomena of Trance.’ Proc. S.P.R., Vol. 8, 1892, 1-167. 5. Jounson, R. The Imprisoned Splendour. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1953. A a 6. Lopce, O. “Report on Some Trance Communications Re- ceived Chiefly Through Mrs. Piper.” Proc, S.P.R., Vol. 23, 1909, 127-285. 7. Murpuy, G. “Psychical Research and Personality.” Proc. S.P.R., Vol. 49, 1949, 1-15. ' 8. Myers, F. W. H. Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1903. 9. Osty, E. Supernormal Faculties in Man. (Transl. by S. de Brath.) London: Methuen, 1923. : 10. Pacenstecuer, G. “A Notable Psychometric Test.”” Journal A.SP.R., Vol. 14, August, 1920, 386-417. _ 5 il. . “Past Events Seership: A Study in Psychometry. Proc. A.S.P.R., Vol. 16, 1922, 1-136. ; 12. Prince, W. F. “Psychometric Experiments with Sefiora Maria Reyes de Z."" Proc. S.P.R., Vol. 15, 1921, 189-314. _ 13. . “Psychometric Experiments with Sefiora Maria Reyes de Z." Journal A.S.P.R., Vol. 16, January, 1922, 5-40. i) 14. Rune, J. B. “Extrasensory Perception and Hypnosis.” In L. M. Lecron, Experimental Hypnosis. New York: Macmillan, IS. Reon LE“, £ Types of Experiences in Spon- f Ay Sy uency 0 0 taneous Precoguition.” ‘ournal of Parapsychology, Vol. 18, June, 1954, 93-123.

240 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 16. Rott, W. G. “ESP and Memory.” International Journal of Neuropsychiatry, Vol. 2, October, 1966, 505-521. 17. RosentHaL, B. G. “Hypnotic Recall of Material Learned Under Anxiety and Non-Anxiety Producing Conditions.” Jour- nal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 34, 1944, 369-389. 18. Ryzt, M. “Training the Psi Faculty by Hypnosis.” Journal S.P.R., Vol. 41, March, 1962, 234-252. . “A Review of Hypnotic ESP Experiments in Prague.” Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 28, December, 1964, 285-286. (Parapsychological Association Abstract.) 20. Ryzi, M., AnD Pratt, J. G. “A Repeated-Calling ESP Test with Sealed Cards.” Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 27, Sep- tember, 1963, 161-174. . “The Focusing of ESP upon Particular Targets.” Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 27, December, 1963, 227-241. 22. SattmarsH, H. F. “Report on the Investigation of some Sit- tings with Mrs. Warren Elliott.” Proc. S.P.R., Vol. 39, 1930-31, 47-184. 23. Sipewicx, Mrs. H. “A Contribution to the Study of the Psychology of Mrs. Piper’s Trance Phenomena.” Proc. S.P.R. Vol. 28, 1915, 1-657. 24. Soat, S. G. “A Report on some Communications Received through Mrs. Blanche Cooper.” Proc. S.P.R., Vol. 35, 1926, 471-594. 25. Soa, S. G., AnD BaTeMan, F. Modern Experiments in Te- lepathy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954. 26. Tyrrett, G. N. M. “The ‘Modus Operandi’ of Paranormal Cognition.” Proc. S.P.R., Vol. 48, 1946-49, 105-120. 27. UttmaNn, M., Krippner, S., AND Fetpstein, S. “Experimen- tally-Induced Telepathic Dreams: Two Studies Using EEG- REM Monitoring Technique.” International Journal of Neuro- psychiatry, Vol. 2, October, 1966, 420-437. 28. WARCOLLIER, R. Experimental Telepathy. (Transl. by J. B. Gridley from La Télépathie, 1921.) Boston: Boston Society for Psychic Research, 1938. 29. Wuite, R. A. “A Comparison of Old and New Methods of Response to Targets in ESP Experiments.” Journal A.S.P.R., Vol. 58, January, 1964, 21-56. 30. Wuite, R. W., Fox, G. F., anp Harris, W. W. “Hypnotic Hypermnesia for Recently Learned Material.” Journal of Ab- normal and Social Psychology, Vol. 35, 1940, 88-103. Psychical Research Foundation, Inc. Box 6116, College Station Durham, North Carolina 27708 21.