investigations into the super-physical …

INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE SUPER-PHYSICAL ANIMISM / CROOKESDEMATERIALISATION / ECSTACY (RELIGIOUS)GANZFELD (EXPERIMENT) / HINTON / INTEGRATRONJUDD / KISMET / LOZANO / MURPHY / OUSPENSKYPSCYCHOMETRY / REICH / SCIOMANCY / TESLAUNDULATORY / VISIONARY (EXPERIENCE) / VISION(FINER) / WATKINS / XENAGOGUE / YTRIUM / ZINC

INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE SUPER-PHYSICALPádraic E Moore

Super-physical_16ppA5_FA.qxd 17/11/2010 15:32

2

‘The truth of what is told us as to the life beyond can in itsvery nature never be absolutely established. It is far nearer tocomplete proof, however, than any religious revelation whichhas ever preceded it. We have the fact that these accounts aremixed up with others concerning our present life which areoften absolutely true. If the super-physical can tell the truthabout our sphere, it is difficult to suppose that it is entirelyfalse. Then, again, there is a very great similarity about suchaccounts, though their origin may be from people very farapart. Thus though “non-veridical,” to use the modern jargon,they do conform to all our canons of evidence.’The Vital Message by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1919

‘Both knowing and artistic activity are based upon the factthat the human being lifts him/herself from reality as productto reality as producer; that he/she ascends from the createdto the creating, from chance happening to necessity. Becauseouter reality always shows us only a creation of creativenature, we lift ourselves in spirit to the unity of nature thatmanifests to us as the creator. Each object of reality presentsus with one of the endless possibilities lying hidden in thewomb of creative nature. Our spirit lifts itself to thecontemplation of that source in which all these possibilitiesare contained. Now science and art are the objects intowhich the human being impresses what this contemplationoffers him. In science this occurs only in the form of the idea,which means in a directly spiritual medium; in art it occurs inan object that is sense-perceptibly or spiritually perceivable.In science nature manifests in a purely ideal way as “thatwhich encompasses everything individual” – in art an objectof the outer world appears as depicting that whichencompasses everything individual. That infinite element,which science seeks within the finite and seeks to present inthe idea, is what art impresses into some medium taken fromthe real world. That which appears in science as idea is animage in art. The same infinite element is the object of bothscience and art, only it appears differently in one than in theother. The manner of presentation is different.’The Theory of Knowledge (Implicit in Goethe’s World Conception)by Rudolf Steiner, 1886

‘It is as difficult for spirits to come back to earth as it is for youto penetrate into the realms of the spirits. We have no longerthe faculty of living in the physical substance. It evades us, justas the substances of the superior planes evade you. We haveimpressions and sensations analogous to yours – but sodifferent. We have lights, colours, and sounds; but these onlydistantly resemble those which you know as such. We haveneeds which remind us of thirst, of hunger, and of sleep, butwhich are more needs of the intelligence than of the body. Inspite of all our desires to respond to your appeals, we are oftenprevented from doing as we are expected, because of thedifferences of the planes. I will even say that it is often more easyfor you to come to US than for us to come to you. Sleep permitsyou to enter into touch with us a thousand times better than canall the mediums in the world, and the help we are able to giveyou in this way is often more precise and efficacious.’Communication with the Next World – A Text Book:The Right and the Wrong Methods by William T Stead, 1921

Selected excerpts from writings byantecedents to whom we are indebted:


3

PREFACE by Pádraic E Moore

Though the selection of material thatcomprises this modest pamphlet iseclectic, every facet is related andintegral to the investigaton at hand.While presented within the context ofvisual art, it will become evidentthat the issues and objectives ofthis publication and its associatedlecture transcend any particulardiscipline – and are, moreover,principally concerned with that whichis not available to us through ourvisual faculties. It seems appositeto acknowledge now – at the beginning– that the investigation from whichthis publication and lecture haveemerged is significantly shaped bysubjective sensibilities, compulsionsand instincts. Furthermore, bothpublication and lecture are notexhaustive and cannot be assessed bycriteria that might be applied to atreatise conceived to definitivelyprove the verity of assertions madein relation to more familiar orestablished matters. It must also bestated that, while this ongoinginvestigation is first and foremostintended as an artistic gesture, thefundamental objective is to incite areappraisal of that which lies beyondthe realm of the material plane. Sincethe necessary perceptions remainundeveloped, the super-physical canonly be studied and researched througha combination of rigorous study andintuitive analysis.

This pamphlet is aimed not only atthose who already believe in theexistence of super-physical phenomenabut at anyone sufficiently interestedin the subject to be glad ofinformation as to its possibilities.Much of the material featured in thispublication originates fromexceptional artists and thinkers whogenerated works of artistic andintellectual significance thecontents of which were drawn in nosmall way from knowledge of super-physical worlds. Some of theseartists and thinkers were unaware ofthe significance of theirachievements. Their work emergedinstinctively as the manifestation ofextraordinary abilities that are in

Above: Pádraic E Moore presenting lecture entitledAion Evocation at Rapture Heap, an exhibition by Eilis McDonald,Dublin (2010). Photograph courtesy of Eilis McDonald.


4

fact latent in almost every humanbeing. Others have consciouslycultivated their awareness and laiddown doctrines built directly fromtheir knowledge of the super-physical. The followers of theseartists and thinkers – unable toacquire for themselves the facts onwhich the statements were based –accept them on faith. These doctrines– conveyed, always, through theartist’s own idiom – can be graspedby anyone of intelligence, althoughtheir claim to acceptance rests moreon authority, and indeed quality,than on proof.

While a tendency to deny any ultimateprinciples lingers, along with adisillusioned intolerance withphilosophical and religious ‘truth’,there is much that distinguishes thepresent epoch from that termed bysome as ‘postmodern’. Perhaps one ofthe most notable changes has been theacceleration in the dissolution ofboundaries between technology and thehuman body. While one remains everaware of the advantages afforded bytechnologies we have embraced – inparticular in the field ofcommunications – it is worth notingPaul Virilio’s suggestion thatfaculties of physical perception havebeen surrendered by technologicalsubstitutes. According to Virilio, anintense blindness spreads insidiouslythrough society as we grow dependent

upon what he termed ‘vision machinesof sightless vision’1. While this maybe a rather paranoid view of the‘virtual multimedia democracy’, itunderscores the fact that the gradualabandonment of the bodily senses is areality impacting upon how we inhabitand mediate the world. Upon closerconsideration, a great deal of thetechnological phenomena encounteredon a daily basis is revealed to be asstrange and beyond the bounds oflogic as phenomena considered to beparanormal – or in the case of thisinvestigation, super-physical. It isevident that the realm of art is themost suitable for exploring theseideas in depth. Indeed, this pamphletmight have included a much greaterquantity of material, had thedecision not been made to confine itscontents to those before you. Thisexcursion will be brief, and it isintended only as an introduction towhat will ultimately be able to comebefore our mind’s eyes in a much moreconcrete form. While it is of coursevital to maintain ones scepticaljudgement, it is equally important toreserve judgement so that together wecan begin to reignite a sense ofpossibility regarding the world inwhich we all dwell. The time has cometo touch upon secrets pertaining toour human way of looking at the world— secrets that our present-dayperception has, one might almost say,quite lost. PEM, 11/10

Animism[a1] Installation of Sunday Night, anexhibition by Aleana Egan, Temple Bar Gallery,Dublin, November 2009 – January 2010.[a2] Still from The Undead, directed by RogerCorman, 1957.

Crookes, Sir William[c1] Found image of William Crookes c.1900(photograper unknown).[c2] Illustration of Crookes tube.

Dematerialisation[d1] Immaterial pictorial sensitivity, YvesKlein, 10th February, 1962.[d2] A line made by walking, Richard Long,1967.

1. Paul Virilio, The Vision Machine (Indiana University Press, 1994) p. 59.


5

a1

a2

c1

c2

d1

d2


6

Ecstasy (religious)[e1] The Ecstasy of St Theresa (TheTransverberation of St Theresa), GiovanniLorenzo Bernini, Cornaru Chapel, Santa Mariadella Vittoria, Rome, 1647 – 1652.

Ganzfeld (experiment)[g1/g2/g3] Three images of experimentsorchestrated and documented by Abaigeal Meek,Dublin, 2010.

e1

g1

g2

g3


7

Hinton, Charles Howard[h1] Study for Homage to the square, JosefAlbers, 1960.[h2] Untitled graph paper drawing, EmmaKunz, undated (post 1938).

Judd, Donald[j1] Untitled, aquatint, 1977 – 78.

Integratron[i1] Found Image of The Integratron,designed and built by George Van Tassel,Landers, California, 1954 – 1956.[i2] Crawford Observatory, designed byHoward Grubb, Cork University, Cork, 1878.

h2

i2

h1 i1

j1


FAITH IN FAILURE by Rebecca O’Dywer

For whatever reason, the similaritiesbetween investment in the super-physical and in the aesthetic aremany. This curious homogeneity may beapproached through a discussion ofbelief – and more specifically, faith.More recent intellectual developmentsof the 20th century permit scant spacefor the self-determining viability ofeither, despite the fact that themeans of approaching life itself inthis century simultaneously seems toinvolve an investment in the random,or ineffable. With regard to art,modernism predicated consideration ofthe artwork as something self-contained and transcendental inessence – a moment of graceaccompanied its apprehension.Postmodernism, on the other hand, seesthis grace subside in a wave ofrelativism, adopting a stanceostensibly more democratic oregalitarian in nature. An incongruousdichotomy is, therefore, at work, inwhich art is perceived contemporarilyas culturally mediated, infinitelyexplainable – and yet resting onsystems noticeable by their ambiguity.

At the outset of the 20th century itmight have seemed unlikely that such adevelopment would have ensued in one’slifetime. Empiricism seemed set todefine the conditions of life itself,its limit point not yet encountered.Yet science – quantum physics inparticular – gave rise to a means ofapproaching life itself in the mostunquantifiable and abstract terms.Science is now but a means of definingthat, which is inexplicable, comingcloser in defining its demarcationsand yet never apprehending resolution.Though rigorous in their methods,scientific approaches inevitablyattest to a ground zero that isunanswerable: that is, what or whogave rise to something at all? And,more specifically, why? And so in thisrespect we have come to accept aninterpretation of life itself thatfinds its point of origin in a whollyunanswerable question. The life-worldof the 21st century has, for the mostpart, forsaken the manner by whichthis most unanswerable question has

been traditionally appeased – namely,religion. Religion is, or was,possibly the most capable of answeringthis question (or never-ending seriesof questions) – not because its termsinvolve some kind of empiricaljustification, but rather because itshrugs off the demands of empiricismitself. Religion necessitates anambiguous movement favouring faithover proof, mystery and devotion overunderstanding and reciprocity. Adogmatic interpretation of religionnecessitates its abandonment within asociety that demands the illusion offreedom, and at the same time absolutedevotion to this necessary illusion.Hence, religion has been left by thewayside, as materialist means ofapproaching the unexplainable rush into take its place.

At the same time, the unasked questionas to why one would hold more faith inthe stock market, liberal-capitalisteconomics, and the prospect ofuniversal equality – over and abovethe prospect of religion – remains.After all, none of these systems holdany more rational validity thanreligion – instead, they simplyapproach the ground zero ofunanswerability by divergent means.Late-capitalism, for example, requiresthe production of fetish as means ofdiversion; the fetish, in all itsforms, merely acts as a disavowal ofthe absolute uncertainty thatunderlies its production andnecessity. This act of disavowalpermits intimacy with the demarcationsof the question, but no desire for itsappeasement. Thus all such routeshesitantly lead to the same point,dropping hints at its presence and inso doing comforting those who travelalong them. If they do not functionproperly, then we cannot function atthis point, and are bound towards itin a tumultuous progression of painand terror.

The supernatural, or super-physical,appears almost as the underside, aflipped religion. It does not comfortor appease the gravitation towards theunavoidable, unanswerable question,but rather beckons us towards it – thequestion becoming unavoidable in its

8


continued presence. The questionaccompanies those who attest to thesupernatural, the super-physical, orwhatever one wants to call it. Whetherthis is a voluntary movement I canonly speculate – perhaps it is anoutward expression of some kind ofdeath instinct, a movement ofsubjective attempts to gain masteryover the unknowable.

At some stage my interest made a leap.Not back, in some penitential gesture,to religion (this is yet to happen),but instead toward an investment inart, or – more specifically perhaps –faith. Art, just like religion andeven the super-physical dimension,cannot be empirically proven orjustified: its results cannot bemeasured, its effects evadeenumeration. And yet, one engages inthe process of art – be that makingart, writing about it or simplyinteracting with it experientially –in the manner akin to that of thereligious devotee. This act of faithis inevitably disavowed through amaterialist conception of the artobject that deems its significance asborn purely, and wholly, of context.Simultaneously, however, the materialfactors that can account for the workof art become unfixed, and disavowed,through a fully transcendentalistapproach. These concurrent approaches,therefore, negate each other – whatremains is faith in the work of art toactually withstand this philosophicaltug-of-war.

Neither means of approaching the workof art (or indeed art as such) canactually be disproved. On the onehand, a transcendentalist approachgets to the heart of the ‘why’ of art– and, in the absence of this mannerof consideration, I fully concede thecultural equality of art alongside anyother form of cultural production. Onthe other hand, looking at art in thismanner attests to a felt belief inart’s superiority – a superiorityresting on its inherent resistance torationality. Such a stance is easy todismiss as exclusionist or elitist,though such a dismissal does not robthe argument of its validity. Amaterialist approach is equally

cogent, and yet it fails toacknowledge the unexplainablereticence at the heart of art as such.More than likely, if one entirelyaccepted this approach, one would loseinterest in the field of art, in itsstead moving on to another pursuit –one that invariably offered morequestions than answers. Supposescientific study yielded a definitiverationale as to the ineffable power ofart over the human psyche, and it camedown to the triggering of a particularnerve, or synapse, accompanying therelease of some specifically mundanehormone. Art could hardly withstandthis utter banality, with itspotentially abhorrent ramifications –and yet this is an approach that findsa willing audience contemporarily. Weare more than willing to sign away theineffable, explain the unexplainable,leaving scant room for doubt,ignorance, or faith.

Whichever approach is deemedsubjectively favourable, the questionnever itself reaches self-realisation.Art can be explained by both and yetat the same time, neither. As MauriceBlanchot says: ‘It is no mystery, butit cannot be demystified’1. AlainBadiou, in a recent essay titledPhilosophy as Creative Repetitionacknowledges this paradox. Art, likephilosophy, is interminably bound torepeat the formulation of the questionthat underlies its own ontology. Howdoes art hold such potentiality? Whywould anyone engage in such aseemingly useless exercise? What canart, in fact, do? For its part,philosophy acts in much the samemanner, but reflects its meanderingsback on itself in order to glean somemeaning to be applied to theformation, or appeasement, of humansubjectivity. For both art andphilosophy, action consists of newapproaches in formulating a questionthat remains unanswerable bynecessity. In fact, it is thisimpossibility that actually founds andgives structure to both disciplines.As in religion, if the horizon were toappear as anything but opaque, theconcept itself would become unfixed,redundant. The continued relevance ofboth philosophy and art rests on the

9


‘singularity of an act’2 – an act thatfinds its meaning as it approaches itsown essential impossibility. Thismeans of approaching art can reconcilepostmodernism’s repetitious movementwith an underlying ineffability, orresistance to intellectualisation.Hence, in the knowledge that art, likephilosophy, forms itself on therepeated attempt to answer animpossible question, one comes torealize the faith-like demand that isbefore us. If faith were not required,then surely either art or philosophywould have approached an answer atthis stage. And if faith were notinvolved, then surely both would havebeen abandoned long ago, in favour ofsomething that aimed to answersomething more straightforward – orsomething that was, at least, morehonest with regard to its claims.

According to the Chinese philosopherChuang Tzu, the best understanding‘rests in what it cannot understand.If you do not understand this, thenHeaven the Equaliser will destroyyou’3. Perhaps, the most important

understanding to be gained from art isthe understanding that it exceedsrationality – indeed, it always has,and it will continue to do so. Thefact that it has, by this stage,neither defined the impossiblequestion nor found its answer – andthat it most likely never will –necessitates faith in its interminableability to fail. As Samuel Beckettfamously said, ‘Ever tried. Everfailed. No matter. Try again. Failagain. Fail better’4. The aim isnothing but creative and interminablefailure. I’ll set a scene: your roofdestroyed, you promptly hire a man tofix it. Day after day, he returns,scales the ladder and potters about ina cacophony of thuds and swearing. Henever fixes it, but each day the holecreates such an amazing wash ofcolours on the marble floors that youpermit his continued failure. Unlikelya scenario as that is, it has a lot incommon with an appreciation of art:infuriating and beautiful, one-sided,often cruel, and requiring a faith thatexceeds the inevitable poverty andmisery of its devoted followers. RO’D, 11/10

10

k1

m1

1. Maurice Blanchot, The Space of Literature (University of Nebraska Press,1982. Original French version, 1955) p. 163.2. Alain Badiou, Philosophy as Creative Repetition as atwww.lacan.com/badrepeat.html (3rd March 2009, 3:57:40am).3. Chuang Tzu, as in Ursula Le Guin, A Non-Euclidean View of California asa Cold Place to Be (1982) in Ursula Le Guin, Dancing at the Edge of the World:Thoughts on Words, Women, Places (Grove Press, 1989) p. 93.4. Samuel Beckett, Worstward Ho (1983) in Samuel Beckett, Nohow On:Company, Ill Seen Ill Said, and Worstward Ho (Grove Press, 1996) p. 89.


11

Kismet[k1] Promotional artwork for Poltergeist,directed by Tobe Hooper, 1982.

Lozano, Lee[l1] Statement for Open Public Hearing, LeeLozano, 1969.

Murphy, Bridey[m1] Still from The Search for Bridey Murphy,directed by Noel Langley, 1956.

l1


12

Ouspensky, Pyotr Demianovich[o1] Found image of Ninel SergeyevnaKulagina, c.1960s (photographer unknown).

Pscychometry[p1] Still from The Mountain whereeverything is upside down, 2008.[p2] Still from Whispering Pines 6, ShanaMoulton, 2006.

Reich, Wilhelm[r1] Chamber, Ciaran Walsh, 2007.[r2] Found image of Wilhelm Reich underarrest, 1941 (photographer unknown).

p1

p2

o1

r1 r2


13

Sciomancy[s1] Installation of Radio Tombs andInterruption, an exhibition by Garrett Phelan,Dublin City Gallery – The Hugh Lane, 2008.

Tesla, Nikola[t1] Drawing from patent; Coil forElectromagnets, registered 1893.

Undulatory[u1] Kristian Birkeland photographed in hislaboratory with Terrella, c.1895[u2] Image documenting a sound screening byRobin Watkins entitled The LuminiferousAether, which took place at the Project ArtsCentre, Dublin, February 2010.

u1 u2

s1

t1


14

v.f3

v.e1

w1

w2 w3

v.f1


15

Vision (finer)[v.f1] She lost her head, Cian McConn,collage, 2010.[v.f3] Enlightened heads, Cian McConn,collage, 2010.

Visionary (experience)[v.e1] Photograph by Abaigeal Meek, 2010.

Watkins, Alfred[w1] Portal Dolmen, Brennanstown, Co.Dublin.Photographed by Pádraic E Moore, Summer, 2010.[w2/w3] Two installation images of ParallelAreal, a solo exhibition by Gunilla Klingberg,Nordenhake Gallery, Stockholm, 2010.

Xenagogue[x1] Found image of Emma Kunz, c.1940(photograper unknown).[x2] Found image of Rudolf Steiner, c.1924(photograper unknown).

Ytrium[y1] Installation image of Maradona Two forFour, an exhibition by Cullinan Richards, TheLAB, Dublin, 2010.[y2] Analysis of the ‘structure of elements’ byCharles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, 1908.

Zinc[z1] Installation image of Maradona Two forFour, an exhibition by Cullinan Richards, TheLAB, Dublin, 2010.[z2] Analysis of the ‘structure of elements’ byCharles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, 1908.

y1 z1

y2

z2

x2x1


Conceived and collated by Pádraic E Moore

This publication contains copyrighted materialthe use of which has not been specificallyauthorised by every copyright owner. Thismaterial has been reproduced in our efforts toadvance the understanding of various issuesrelating to our investigation. In severalinstances details pertaining to the documentedsubjects (such as the materials andmeasurements of art objects) have beenommitted. These ommissions are intentional andall details regarding the individual artworksmay be obtained upon request. If you wish toobtain these details or if you are a copyrightowner and wish to have your material removedor credited differently, please contact theeditor for assistance.

Thanks to those who contributed to thisongoing investigation and to the members ofthe Cork Unitarian Church who kindly allowedtheir venue to be utilised for the publiclecture and performance at which this pamphletwas first disseminated.

Published on the occasion ofInvestigations into the super-physical,a one-night event at Cork Unitarian Church,Princes Street, Cork, 20th November 2010Edition: 350 copiesPublication design: Atelier, DublinPrepress and printing: PlusPrint Ltd, Dublin


investigations into the super-physical …

Documents