Mrs. Piper Mediumship Discussion

[Clancie]

Sorry, Darat. I was actually thinking of TLN, not you, when I wrote the questions to Mike. Contemplating the effort to post this...and the (imo) very predictable responses (sorry if that sounds bad)....isn't very motivating (especially since it really is a -total diversion- he made up to my question). Sorry if it seemed in response to what you'd said.

Anyway, this is from Alan Gauld's Mediumship and Survival:

Gauld introduces the reading (p.40): "I shall now give an extract from the first of two sittings with Mrs. Piper had by the Rev and Mrs. SW Sutton of Athol Center Massachusetts on Dec. 8, 1893. It was booked by (skeptic/investigator) Richard Hodgson, and the sitters were introduced under the pseudonym of "Smith". A practiced note-taker acted as recorder. It must be understood that throughout Phinuit speaks (and gestures) on behalf of the child communicator; she does not "control" herself. The bracketed annotations are by Mrs. Sutton.

(My note: Mrs. Piper ("Phinuit" is the control; "Kakie" is the deceased) )

Medium/Phinuit says:...."A little child is coming to you".

Medium reaches out his hands as to a child and says coaxingly, "Come here, dear. Don't be afraid. Come, darling. Here is your mother."

Medium describes the child and her "lovely curls". Medium says "Where is Papa? Want Papa." (Piper/Phinuit takes from the table a silver medal) "I want this, want to bite it." [Mrs. Sutton--she used to bite it]..

Phinuit/Piper reaches fro a string of buttons) "Quick! I want to put them in my mouth! [Mrs Sutton--she liked to bite buttons also, but it was forbidden. The medium/control exactly imitated her arch manner).

"Who is Dodo?" [This was the deceased's name for her brother George] ..."I want you to call Dodo. Tell Doddo I am happy. Cry for me no more." [Medium/control puts hand on throat]

"No sore throat any more." (She had pain and distress of the throat and tongue.)

"Papa, speak to me. Can you not see me? I am not dead. I am living. I am happy with Grandma. [Mrs Sutton--my mother had been dead many years]

"Here are two more. One, two, three, here, --one older and one younger than Kakie." [Correct]

Medium/Control: "Was this little one's tongue very dry? She keeps showing me her tongue." [Her tongue was paralysed and she suffered much with it to the end.]

"Her name is Katherine." [Correct] She calls herself Kakie. She passed out last.[Correct]. "Where is horsey? [I gave him a little horsey]. "Big horsey, not this little one. [Probably refers to a toy car-horse she used to like] "Papa, want to go wide [ride] horsey. [She pleaded this all through her illness]

[I ask if she remembers anything after she was brought downstairs]. "I was so hot, my head was so hot. [Correct]....Do not cry for me - that makes me sad. Eleanor. I want Eleanor. [Eleanor was her little sister. She called for her much during her last illness.] "I want my buttons. Row, row, - my son,..sing it now. I sing with you. [We sing and the medium's soft child voice sings with us]

They sing the first verse then Piper/Phinuit hushes them and then sings a different song/verse alone song alone.

(singing) "Bye, bye, ba bye, bye, bye, O baby bye. Sing that with me Papa. (They sing) [These were the two songs she used to sing.] "Where is Dinah? I want Dinah." [Dinah was an old black rag doll, not with us.] "I want Bagie. [Her nickname for her sister Margaret.] "I want Bagie to bring me my Dinah....Tell Dodo when you see him that I love him. Dear Dodo. He used to march with me. He put me way up." [Correct].....

 

[CFLarsen]

...and the (imo) very predictable responses (sorry if that sounds bad)....

Heavens, no. It does not sound "bad", because you have rejected partial transcripts yourself.

I cannot imagine why you suddenly want to criticize skeptics for doing something you have done yourself.

So, I'd like to ask you: Why?

 

[T'ai Chi]

I cannot imagine why you suddenly want to criticize skeptics for doing something you have done yourself.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Anyway, this is from Alan Gauld's Mediumship and Survival:

Gauld introduces the reading (p.40): "I shall now give an extract from the first of two sittings with Mrs. Piper had by the Rev and Mrs. SW Sutton of Athol Center Massachusetts on Dec. 8, 1893. It was booked by (skeptic/investigator) Richard Hodgson, and the sitters were introduced under the pseudonym of "Smith". A practiced note-taker acted as recorder. It must be understood that throughout Phinuit speaks (and gestures) on behalf of the child communicator; she does not "control" herself. The bracketed annotations are by Mrs. Sutton.

...snip...

Thank you very much.

This seemed familiar I think I may have had read parts of it before, couple of quick questions :

Is this the entire transcript?
Was this held at Mrs Piper's residence?

 

[Mike D.]

Is this the entire transcript?
Was this held at Mrs Piper's residence?

Darat,

This excerpt (from Gauld's book) is actually a small portion of the transcript. Braude quotes a much longer portion in his book, and the entire transcript is much longer even than what Braude quotes.

I don't know where this seance was held, but I imagine Hodgson discusses details like that in his paper in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research.

Mike

 

[Darat]

Darat,

This excerpt (from Gauld's book) is actually a small portion of the transcript. Braude quotes a much longer portion in his book, and the entire transcript is much longer even than what Braude quotes.

I don't know where this seance was held, but I imagine Hodgson discusses details like that in his paper in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research.

Mike

Thanks - you are making it harder to resist that membership fee - are you on commission?

 

[Mike D.]

Thanks - you are making it harder to resist that membership fee - are you on commission?

Darat,

No, I'm not on commission, but here's what Mark Tidwell posted on the subject in the "Mediumship: What would it take?" thread:

I'd like to encourage everyone to register to view the contents of the JSPR on-line archives. This is the resource for papers on paranormal research. Love it or hate it, there is no better on-line database for those wishing to make informed commentary on this field.

Mike

 

[dharlow]

Just to chime in here...

While I also think the online database for the SPR is a great resource, if you're strickly interested in the transcripts, you may want to save the money and try to find the Proceedings of the SPR in your nearest university library. Most (though not all) have SPR archives, especially the older ones. Unfortunately, the text format does not transfer well online, and it can be confusing to follow the transcripts (ie who is speaking) in that way. If a nearby library has the old SPR work, that would be a much more efficient format. Just a suggestion.

 

[Mike D.]

Darat,

I submit that even this brief excerpt from the transcript is superior to a typical John Edward transcript in the area of the medium accurately getting proper names. I count six proper names that Piper/Phinuit says without saying things like "I'm getting a B sound," and then throwing out several names until one hopefully sticks.

Mike

 

[Darat]

Darat,

I submit that even this brief excerpt from the transcript is superior to a typical John Edward transcript in the area of the medium accurately getting proper names. I count six proper names that Piper/Phinuit says without saying things like "I'm getting a B sound," and then throwing out several names until one hopefully sticks.

Mike

Let me respond more tomorrow - (2.10am for me) - want to give it some proper thought and consideration.

 

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Thanks for the transcript. I have a few problems with it, the biggest being that this is Phinuit "coming through". Since we have established that Phinuit is not a spirit, but an "artificial personality", we are talking about telepathy instead of mediumship.

Provided, of course, that Piper could read minds. The problem is that Piper (or Phinuit) is clearly communicating with a dead person - telepathically, that is.

What do we actually have here?

Piper is not talking to a dead person, her artificial personality Phinuit is telepathically getting information from a dead person.

Sorry, but there are simply too many weak links in this chain.

And this is the best example of mediumship so far? Not impressive at all.

 

[Darat]

Darat,

I submit that even this brief excerpt from the transcript is superior to a typical John Edward transcript in the area of the medium accurately getting proper names. I count six proper names that Piper/Phinuit says without saying things like "I'm getting a B sound," and then throwing out several names until one hopefully sticks.

Mike

(Clancie - please read this as a reply about this being one of the examples that convinces you to have a more “pro” then “nay” attitude towards mediumship.)

First of all I think most people would agree that there is a difference of style between a trance medium and a non-trance medium (correct term?) and we certainly see that if we use Piper as an example of one and Edward as the other.

The way the names are brought forward is very different from what we see and hear a non-trance medium (NTM) doing and I agree we see six names (3 proper names, 3 nicknames) which certainly is more then we’ve seen here in any comparable sized NTM transcript.

However the names seem to be the only information that I would consider specific and unique to this family. All the rest is very much what we see from a typical NTM e.g. the common non-unique but specific sounding information that a sitter then fits to their circumstances.

(An interesting point to note is that one of the names “Dinah”, although to a modern reader sounds quite specific and probably a compelling piece of communication, could just be another example of the “non-unique specific sounding” technique I believe mediums employ. A quick internet research revealed that this was a common rag doll commercially available; I surmise it is rather like a little girl today asking about her “Barbie”.)

I do have a major issue with the accuracy of the transcript. (I recognise that this could just be because I’m passing opinions purely on the info in Clancie’s post and more information could overturn this.)

The transcript (as presented) is obviously not an unedited and complete transcript of the sitting. We can see that by the phrase “Medium describes the child and her…” editing happened at some point. I would have thought that a description of the child would have been an important piece of data to keep in a record of the sitting. With the evidence of at least one major piece of editing it makes me very reluctant to accept that the rest of the transcript represents a complete record of this part of the sitting.

With that in mind does this transcript represent, according to the researchers, the complete surviving record of this part of the sitting?

(Minor edits for clarity.)

 

[Mike D.]

(Clancie - please read this as a reply about this being one of the examples that convinces you to have a more “pro” then “nay” attitude towards mediumship.)

First of all I think most people would agree that there is a difference of style between a trance medium and a non-trance medium (correct term?) and we certainly see that if we use Piper as an example of one and Edward as the other.

The way the names are brought forward is very different from what we see and hear a non-trance medium (NTM) doing and I agree we see six names (3 proper names, 3 nicknames) which certainly is more then we’ve seen here in any comparable sized NTM transcript.

However the names seem to be the only information that I would consider specific and unique to this family. All the rest is very much what we see from a typical NTM e.g. the common non-unique but specific sounding information that a sitter then fits to their circumstances.

(An interesting point to note is that one of the names “Dinah”, although to a modern reader sounds quite specific and probably a compelling piece of communication, could just be another example of the “non-unique specific sounding” technique I believe mediums employ. A quick internet research revealed that this was a common rag doll commercially available; I surmise it is rather like a little girl today asking about her “Barbie”.)

I do have a major issue with the accuracy of the transcript. (I recognise that this could just be because I’m passing opinions purely on the info in Clancie’s post and more information could overturn this.)

The transcript (as presented) is obviously not an unedited and complete transcript of the sitting. We can see that by the phrase “Medium describes the child and her…” editing happened at some point. I would have thought that a description of the child would have been an important piece of data to keep in a record of the sitting. With the evidence of at least one major piece of editing it makes me very reluctant to accept that the rest of the transcript represents a complete record of this part of the sitting.

With that in mind does this transcript represent, according to the researchers, the complete surviving record of this part of the sitting?

(Minor edits for clarity.)

Darat,

If one compares what Gauld has quoted in his book to the excerpts Braude has quoted in his, it is obvious that Gauld has pieced together small chunks of the original apparently just to give a flavor of what it is like. Braude even comments that he feels it is important to quote more so that the reader can get a feel for how the communications at a trance medium's seance "flow." I don't know the answer to some of the questions you raise without looking at Hodgson's original paper.

If we discount the doll's name, Dinah, we are still left with five specific names, all of which, according to the Suttons, are accurate. I have no claim to make about this fragment other than to point that out (and of course, to say that it is obviously very different from how JE comes up with names, whether or not it is due to a difference in style).

Mike

 

[Darat]

Darat,

If one compares what Gauld has quoted in his book to the excerpts Braude has quoted in his, it is obvious that Gauld has pieced together small chunks of the original apparently just to give a flavor of what it is like. Braude even comments that he feels it is important to quote more so that the reader can get a feel for how the communications at a trance medium's seance "flow." I don't know the answer to some of the questions you raise without looking at Hodgson's original paper.

Would it be possible for you or Clancie to check? (Not asking for the transcription but just to check if it just the books that show this editing not the original source.

If we discount the doll's name, Dinah, we are still left with five specific names, all of which, according to the Suttons, are accurate. I have no claim to make about this fragment other than to point that out (and of course, to say that it is obviously very different from how JE comes up with names, whether or not it is due to a difference in style).

Mike

This is why I wanted to know more about the set-up. The 5 specific names would seem to be "special hits", but something strikes me as being strange about this since the names are so specific and reportedly accurate yet the rest of the reading doesn’t reflect this.

It also appears that the Suttons brought specific items to the reading? Is this the case?

(By the way I’ve ordered the Braude book and still considering the subscription fee could end up being an expensive thread!)

 

[Mike D.]

Darat,

I can't check right now, but perhaps later in the day.

To answer your other question, yes, the Suttons did bring items to the sitting, such as the silver medal and the buttons.

Mike

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

Would it be possible for you or Clancie to check? (Not asking for the transcription but just to check if it just the books that show this editing not the original source.

Hi Darat,
Sorry I'm a little rushed this a.m. so I'll address your other observations a little later. But, yes, I can clear up the issue of editing that you noticed.

My mistake, I guess, to type it up the way I did. Gauld has it paragraphed differently (I suppose like the original transcription and uses "He" meaning Piper/Phinuit both of which I found made it more difficult to read in book form, but thought would be totally incomprehensible if I typed it "as is" here. I tried to make it easier to follow, with quotes and parentheses and trying to clarify who was speaking. Sorry. I thought you just wanted the flavor for what her readings were like (since there's really not enough to judge her from one small snippet--she was extensively studied for 27 years) and, as Mike says, Braude's version has more detail

Here's how it actually is in the book:

Phinuit said....A little child is coming to you....He reaches out his hands as to a child and says coaxingly: Come here, dear. Don't be afraid. Come, darling. Here is your mother. He describes the child and her 'lovely curls'. Where is Papa? Want Papa. [He (i.e.Phinuit) takes from the table a silver medal]. I want this, want to bite it. [She used to bite it]. Reaches for a string of buttons. Quick! I want to put them in my mouth! [The buttons also. To bite the buttons was forbidden. He exactly imitated her arch manner]....Who is Dodo? [Her name for her brother George] ...I want you to call Dodo. Tell Dodo I am happy. Cry for me no more. [Puts hand to throat] No sore throat any more. [She had pain and distress of the throat and tongue.] Papa, speak to me. Can you not see me? I am not dead. I am living. I am happy with Grandma. [My mother had been dead many years]
Phinuit says: Here are two more. One, two, three, here, --one older and one younger than Kakie. [Correct]

Was this little one's tongue very dry? She keeps showing me her tongue. [Her tongue was paralysed and she suffered much with it to the end.] Her name is Katherine. [Correct] She calls herself Kakie. She passed out last.[Correct]. Where is horsey? [I gave him a little horsey]. Big horsey, not this little one. [Probably refers to a toy car-horse she used to like] Papa, want to go wide [ride] horsey. [She pleaded this all through her illness]

[I ask if she remembers anything after she was brought downstairs]. I was so hot, my head was so hot. [Correct]....Do not cry for me - that makes me sad. Eleanor. I want Eleanor. [Eleanor was her little sister. She called for her much during her last illness.] I want my buttons. Row, row, - my song,..sing it now. I sing with you. [We sing and a soft child voice sings with us]

Lightly row, lightly row,
O'er the merry waves we go,
Smoothly glide smoothly glide,
With the ebbing tide.

[Phinuit hushes us, and Kakie finishes alone.]

Let the wind and waters be
Mingled with our melody,
Sing and float, sing and float,
In our little boat.

....Kakie sings: Bye, bye, ba bye, bye, bye, O baby bye. Sing that with me Papa. [Papa and Kakie sing. These were the two songs she used to sing.] Where is Dinah? I want Dinah. [Dinah was an old black rag doll, not with us.] I want Bagie. [Her nickname for her sister Margaret.] I want Bagie to bring me my Dinah....Tell Dodo when you see him that I love him. Dear Dodo. He used to march with me. He put me way up." [Correct].....

And, yes, I also wondered if they'd brought various items with them (sounded like it). I think it wasn't so much the special hits (which as you mention is mainly hits on names in this excerpt at least, or perhaps the feeling of personality that she was able to bring through (an important feature to the sitter, but one not easily quantified and measured).

But -if- you accept that hot reading and fraud were ruled out (and there was no evidence of cheating in the 27 years she was studied), Mrs. Piper's readings seemed to give very good indication of anomalous cognition.

Whether better explained as mediumship or super-psi might be a harder judgment call, imo, but I think what I know of her work appears quite compelling (as trance mediums generally seem. Her style of reading and Mrs. Walsh, whom Steve saw, both offered specific information to anonymous sitters that is not as easy to dismiss as "cold reading", imo).

 

[Mike D.]

Darat,

I just found out that the Boston Public Library says they have a run of SPR publications back to the earliest issues. If I have a chance today I'll go there and do some reading. I find it easier to read lengthy things in hard copy rather than online.

Mike

 

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

You really are a piece of work. You are asked for a transcript, and then you deliver something which you have edited - heavily, it turns out - without giving any indication that you did.

Incredible.

Good thing you came clean when Darat told us that he will be able to check your transcript, and perhaps help give a more complete picture.

I agree that the transcript is "totally incomprehensible". But is this really the best? If the best example is, in your opinion, "totally incomprehensible", what does that say for the rest?

I am a little puzzled, though, at your conclusion: That Piper's readings "seemed to give very good indication of anomalous cognition."

The reason I am puzzled is because TLN was asking you for "some good demos of so-called mediumship", to which you answered "Mrs. Piper. Your turn."

So far, according to you, we have not seen a "good demo" of "mediumship", but something that "seemed to give very good indication of anomalous cognition." And, it is even "totally incomprehensible".

So, where are those good demos of so-called mediumship?

 

[Mike D.]

Clancie,

Thanks for the transcript. I have a few problems with it, the biggest being that this is Phinuit "coming through". Since we have established that Phinuit is not a spirit, but an "artificial personality", we are talking about telepathy instead of mediumship.

Provided, of course, that Piper could read minds. The problem is that Piper (or Phinuit) is clearly communicating with a dead person - telepathically, that is.

What do we actually have here?

Piper is not talking to a dead person, her artificial personality Phinuit is telepathically getting information from a dead person.

Sorry, but there are simply too many weak links in this chain.

And this is the best example of mediumship so far? Not impressive at all.

Claus,

If we assume for a moment that a given trance medium is not a conscious fraud and also that his or her controls are highly likely to be artificial personalities created by the medium's subconscious mind, then we are left with the very problem you seem to be talking about here: the controls claim to be real spirits who are relaying messages from other real spirits, but how would that work if we can see that the controls themselves appear to be only artificial "props" if you will, to help carry on the drama of purported spirit communication.

There seem to be two ways that have been proposed to deal with this situation (once again, assuming for the moment that fraud has been ruled out, and assuming that sufficient specific and accurate information about a deceased person has appeared during a seance). One involves the notion of "super psi," which obviously postulates that some sort of psi faculty can exist, but does not necessarily postulate survival of death or the existence of real spirits. In this case, the whole drama of the medium's control relaying information from a spirit is seen as an ultimately artificial dramatization of information about the deceased that the medium has picked up telepathically from perhaps the minds of the sitters, and then dramatized in such a way during the seance to more or less convincingly seem as though the actual spirit of the deceased is communicating, when in fact, no such thing is happening at all, and the deceased may no longer even exist.

The other way of dealing with the problem has been called the theory of "overshadowing." This theory is definitely a survivalist theory and says that, while the whole trance drama involving a "control," (and put on by the mediums's subconscious mind) is artificial, somewhere behind it all is the real spirit of the deceased, and that the medium is picking up some information and thoughts of the deceased from the actual spirit. In this case, the medium's subconscious mind would be somewhat like a the mind of a talented author who is writing a play about a famous person. The author might interview the person and pick up many facts about that person as well as subtle aspects of that individual's personality. The resulting play would be to a great extent the creative work of the author but perhaps still manage to incorporate actual lines spoken during the interview with the famous person as well as conveying a sense of the famous person's personality. But the play as well could also include lines and action that would not quite ring true to those who knew the famous person.

I believe that taking many of the communications of trance mediums at face value is very problematic for reasons we have already discussed.

If one comes to feel that conscious fraud is unlikely with a given medium, and also that anomalous cognition could possibly exist -- and the medium is producing impressive information -- then I think that one is inevitably forced to consider some of the ideas I discussed above.

Mike

 

[CFLarsen]

Mike D.,

That is a loooot of assumptions....

People are on very thin ice, when they begin inventing more and more complex explanations, instead of accepting that these purported mediums do not give anything else than what we expect from a cold reader and/or a psychic at a fair. I do therefore not agree that it is even worth the time considering these very convoluted explanations.

Add to that, I find the research to be sloppy, unprofessional and full of fraud and incompetence. This does not give me the greatest confidence in the researchers' abilities to prevent fraud.

I am actually somewhat disappointed with Mrs. Piper. This is nothing like what was promised.

Is this really the best?? Come on, after more than a hundred years?