FT383 61character.They went about thisby meeting
twice aweek or so, sitting in a circle and
meditatingfor a period – periods that
became longer as theygrew accustomed
to the technique.Then, during a break,
they would discuss theirexperiences of
meditation, andrefine details of Philip’s
life and those of the othercharacters in it.
Finally came another session of meditation
and further discussion afterwards.All this
was done in full light, or using an array
of coloured lights, never in darkness; and
someonewould always be sitting outside
the circle as an observer. Owen notes that
after a while “somewere unconsciously
claiming [Philip]for theirown, stating
that during meditationPhilip said this or
that to them, or that they had ‘seen’ him
in a particular and special circumstance.”
They were firmlyreminded that thiswas
agroupendeavour, and “if he appeared,
he must appear in the sameway and to
everyone at once...The whole object of
our experimentwas to prove that no such
person [as a medium]was necessary. Our
objective was to beable to prove that itwas
something anygroup of ordinary people
could do.” On occasion, observers wo uld
see “a certain mistiness” around the circle,
but therewas little else, and after ayear of
concentrated effort thegroup was feeling
despondent: “Nothing of anyreal value
had been obtained... it seemed pointless to
continue.”
As it turned out, onevery valuable
thing had been achieved: anexcellent
rapport among the members, a “close
bond of affection and friendship”.And
at about the time theywere pondering
what to do next, Iris Owen came across the
work of Colin Brookes-Smith,DW Hunt
and Kenneth Batcheldor published in the
1960s.This suggested that PK phenomena
could be producedby anyone in the right
frame of mind, namely a state of combined
relaxation andexpectancy. Acquiring this
they regarded as a psychological skill,a
key aspect of whichwas belief – orfaith –
with noroom for scepticism.The English
researchers considered thatreproducing the
atmosphere of theVictorianséanceroom,
in which “the participants sat around ina
relaxed and jolly atmosphere, singing songs
and hymns, making jokes, and carrying on
a con versation among themselves”,was one
route to success.And so theToronto group
decided tochange tack.
It took a few sessionsfor everyone seated
at the table to achieve a comfortable mix of
optimism, alertness andbonhomie, but on
the fourth session theywere all takenaback
at feeling a distinct vibration within the
table.And then theraps began.Althougha
collective hallucinationwas what they had
been hopingfor, they could hardly ignore
the raps, or that “the table started to slide
about the floor... quiterapidly, in random
fashion, and without any apparent purpose.”
Theysoon established that no one in the
group was behind it, but had no idea why it
was happening – until one membermused
aloud: “Iwonder ifby ch ance Philip is doing
this?”At once therewas one,very loud,rap
from the table.Taking their cue from that,
they established a code of communication:
one rap meantyes, tworaps meant no,
and thegroup would pose appropriate
questions. Itwasn’t what they had been
after orexpecting but, as Owen put, they
were not going to look this gift horse in the
mouth.
The binaryyes/no rapping codewas
simpler andfaster, obviously, than having
Philip spell out an answer (onerap for A, up
to 26for Z), but it precluded any discursive
commentary on his part and laid thegroup
open to the risk of asking leading questions
and so getting the answers they wanted or
expected. But this didn’t happen: Philip
proved recalcitrant, got a bit shirty, andrefused toreply to queries he didn’t like.
For instance, it took thegroup some time
to coax him intoreve alingmuch about his
relations with his wife, Dorothea, although
eventually it transpired that she had
refused to consummate their marriage of
convenience. One could, of course, and
perhaps correctly, ascribe this apparent
inhibition to indecision on the part of the
sitters, oreven theirpudeur, conscious
or not. If he didn’t know the answer to a
question, hewould make “extraordinary
scratching noises”, particularly if the
enquiry implied an adverse reflection on his
frigidyet jealous wife.
Philip also had strong opinionsabout
some songs in thegroup’srepertoire,
especially the parody ‘Lloyd George Knew
My Father’, whichwas sung (as usual) to
the tune of ‘Onward Christian Soldiers’.
Someone suggested Philip didn’t like it
because ‘Onward’ “was one of the songs
sung by Oliver Cromwell’s Puritan army.”
Philip affirmed with onerap. No one in
the group seems to have noticed the gaffe.
‘Onward’was writtenby the Rev. Sabine
Baring-Gould in 1865, and set tomusic
by Sir Arthur Sullivan (he ofThe Mikado,
Pirates ofPenzance, etc.) in 1871. Could the
group have confused it somehow withJohn
Bunyan’s ‘To Be A Pilgrim’? But thatwasn’t
written till 1684, when Cromwell (and his
New Model Army) had been gonefor a
quarter of a century or so.The episode isa
fine illustration of how interdependentwere
Philip and his creators.Another time, he
said Charles I disliked dogs and horses, but
loved cats.Which is historically inaccurate,
“but thequestionerwas an ardent cat
lover.”
The group took a useful precaution
against anyone physically moving the
table through which Philip communicated.
Members did not directly touch it, but laid
their hands on doilies – despite which, it
would not only soundraps (usually under
the hands of the individual questioner) but
sometimes danceabout on one or two legs,
and once actually levitated.
Severa l laterchapters discuss the Philip
experiment’s implicationsfor psychical
research in general; inevitably, much of
this is speculative.The book ends with a
statement that thegroup would carry on
working towarda visible manifestation
of their creation. Sadly, this continued
effort seems not to have happened. But at
least thegroup had satisfied themselves
that they could produce PK effects of a
high order. Rather shockingly, it seems too
that there have beenvery few sustained
attempts toreplicate theirwork. One can
but wonder, a bit sardonically, why not.(See alsoFT61:41-42,166:37,212:59,
227:16,302:69,305:73,351:18, 381:19.)Iris M Owen with Margaret Sparrow,
Conjuring Up Philip: An Adventure in
Psychokinesis, Harper & Row, 1976.“MANYAMANLIVESABURDENTOTHEEARTH;BUTAGOODBOOKEISTHEPRECIOUSLIFE-BLOODOFAMASTERSPIRIT,IMBALM’DANDTREASUR’DUPONPURPOSETOALIFEBEYONDLIFE.”JohnMiltonABOVE:Philip, as drawn by a group member.