Gustave Geley According to Geley ectoplasm was formed from matter projected from the body of a medium, an idea that preceded him. He wrote in the article that while the medium was in trance “part of her organism is exteriorized,” being an extension of the medium’s body, an exteriorization of its vital force that eventually was reintegrated into the body. Such ideas of vital, psychic or nervous forces have a long history, and precede psychical research. Geley stated that ectoplasm may change to forms having “all the anatomical and physiological capabilities of living biological organisms.” But in its raw form it could be seen as a “solid substance.. Formed by a protoplasmic amorphous mass” and as a misty-looking substance.

Other forms have been reported but Geley focused on these. He also discussed similarities between ectoplasm and more familiar biological phenomena. These included the hystolisis of insects (the formation and “dematerialization” of tissue), as well as similarities between ectoplasmic luminosities and bioluminiscence, ectoplasmic and protozooic pseudopods, and common ideoplastic processes, or the concept of a guiding principle behind both ectoplasmic and biological processes. For information about Geley’s ideas and work in English see his books From the Unconscious to the Conscious (Glasgow: William Collins, 1920) and Clairvoyance and Materialisation (London: T.

Fisher Unwin, 1927).

Consciousness can leave the body both during life and at death. In addition, after. Easeus data recovery crack. [French physician and psychical researcher Gustave Geley (1865.

Shortly after the death of Albert von Schrenck-Notzing (1862–1929), the doyen of early twentieth century German para psychology, his former colleague in hypnotism and sexology Albert Moll (1862–1939) published a treatise on the psychology and pathology of parapsychologists, with Schrenck-Notzing serving as a prototype of a scientist suffering from an ‘occult complex’. Moll’s analysis concluded that parapsychologists vouching for the reality of supernormal phenomena, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, telekinesis and materialisations, suffered from a morbid will to believe, which paralysed their critical faculties and made them cover obvious mediumistic fraud. Using Moll’s treatment of Schrenck-Notzing as an historical case study of boundary disputes in science and medicine, this essay traces the career of Schrenck-Notzing as a researcher in hypnotism, sexology and parapsychology; discusses the relationship between Moll and Schrenck-Notzing; and problematises the pathologisation and defamation strategies of deviant epistemologies by authors such as Moll.

Advertisement for the book series Wege zur Erkenntnis [ Ways to Knowledge]. Although the overall public response to Schrenck-Notzing’s work was largely congruent with the readily absorbed writings of authors such as Moll, Hellwig and Kemnitz, not all reactions were strictly hostile. Sigmund Freud, for example, in reply to a survey on the first book of his former fellow student of hypnotism at Nancy, merely stated his indifference to the problem of alleged materialisations: ‘I have paid no particular attention to the work of v. Schrenck-Notzing.’ Other noted intellectuals, such as Charles Richet, Hans Driesch and Eugen Bleuler, continued to vouch for Schrenck-Notzing’s scientific competence and integrity after his death. Richet, in his obituary of Schrenck-Notzing, graciously stated that the only criticism he had to raise against the deceased friend and colleague was that, by employing ethically questionable measures, such as hiring detectives, conducting rectal and gynaecological examinations, or administering emetics prior to the sittings to rule out fraud, Schrenck-Notzing had been too eager to satisfy even the dogmatic pseudo-sceptic.