In various fields of occultism, there
has always been a certain debate on what exactly it means to “see
spirits” and how they are supposed to appear. Although this
debate can be approached from many angles, this essay will focus upon a
particular visual aspect of “spirit” manifestations or apparitions,
phenomena that is sometimes even acknowledged by those who
systematically deny existence
of any spirits at all: the appearance of faces in various settings.
It is generally recognized in the
psychological sciences that the human brain has a very developed
capacity to recognize human or anthropomorphic faces. It has been
demonstrated that this capacity is biologically and genetically
preprogrammed within the human species. Because of this mental
faculty, the infant – as a reflex – shall smile to his parents even
prior to his being conscious that there are other human beings with
whom he can interrelate. This capacity stays with him throughout
his life and when he reaches adulthood, the individual will have
achieved an outstanding ability to recognize, singularize or tell apart
from other faces, and remember nearly every human
or anthropomorphic face that he will see.
Of course, the human being – whether
child or adult – doesn't only recognize faces on human beings for
instance, he sees them on animals, in the intricate forms of tree bark,
in the plushy shapes of clouds, in the shadowy mists of morning fog, in
the vivacious flames of a campfire, in incense smoke, or even in the
vague tenebrous silhouettes that fill the darkness when the sun has
left us for the night. These images are often vivid enough to
leave us stunned or amazed... must we then conclude that these are the
faces of “spirits”
which have manifested amongst the living?
Many will explain the phenomena in
this way: “these faces are in fact illusions created by the highly
developed facial recognition capacities of the human brain.”
Hence the faces would be completely made up by a brain that doesn't
tell the difference between a 'real' face – a human face – and a 'fake'
face which is in fact nothing more than a random pattern which just
happened to stimulate our visual cortex. The face then only
exists in mankind's imagination and therefore certainly not in nature.
Facial identification is ascribed as the arbitrary reflex of a brain
which automatically organizes visual information in order to perceive
faces. Therefore, when we see these “faces” in such incidental
patterns of nature, we are left to conclude that our vivid human
imagination deforms reality. This reasoning is based on a very
precise postulate: that there are no faces to see other than human
faces. For the purposes of this essay, we shall call this
“pseudo-scientific dogma.”
Let us now adopt a skeptical stance,
albeit more neutral. We will not claim or disclaim the fact that
there may or may not be faces in nature other than human. Given
this, we can now consider the possibility that there may, in fact,
exist faces in other places than on human heads. We could then go on to
say that, “our brain has a highly developed capacity for facial
recognition, therefore, it would be possible to recognize faces
elsewhere than on human heads, IF there are any to be found.” By
extension, could we not then deduce that WHEN there are faces to be
found elsewhere, humans have the necessary ability to identify
them? Or even further: that when we identity these faces, we are
efficiently using our biologically innate skill? In other words:
in having the capacity to identify faces, we identify them when they
are made manifest to our senses. Following this, the faces that
we see in natural phenomena take on a whole new signification, much
more profound and also more credible when it comes to their
authenticity. The authenticity of faces AS faces (rather than
random geometrical patterns) is established by the authenticity of our
capacity to recognize them. Let us call this reasoning, “magical
thinking.”
An analogy can be used to further
demonstrate the argumentation. The human being has a capacity to
use formal reasoning to understand connections between events and
discern the causal relationships between them. The argument of
“pseudo-scientific dogma” stated above will say that the capacity to
make out connections between events can create logical illusions so we
can therefore see causal connections where there are none.
“Pseudo-scientific dogma” will then have to use a postulate to
differentiate a 'real' causal link and that which is not, because
formal reason will be used equally in both 'real' and 'unreal' cases –
just as the facial recognition capacity is used equally for facial
recognition in ALL circumstances. If then we turn to “magical
thinking”, we will say that “in having the capacity to use formal
reason to make connections between events, we CAN discern and identity
causal relationships where they are, therefore we DO discern and
identify them by this same capacity.” An error would then be to
not identify them when there are to be found.
Hence, the causal link that I wish to
establish here is that, “a capacity to recognize faces, recognizes
faces.” In other words, the faces must be present a priori in
order to be recognized by the human recognition capacity. For
example, it is this very capacity that can distinguish between a tree
that has a face, and a tree that has no face.
To push our comparison further, we
shall notice that “pseudo-scientific dogma” adduces an extraneous
postulate which is then used as an anchor and objective measure in
order to make a judgment that conforms to the postulate, yet being
completely alien to both the observer and the observed phenomena.
On the other hand, “magical thinking” stems from direct subjective
observation of phenomena. Even though “pseudo-scientific dogma”
might seem objective at first, each approach is equally as subjective
as the other: the “pseudo-scientific dogma” is arbitrarily chosen
(according to a given philosophical system or world-view); it falsely
affirms itself as an objective truth on the grounds that the postulate
is exteriorized from the observer: biased objectivity. “Magical
thinking”, on the other hand, recognizes and uses the subjectivity of
the human condition without trying to remove itself from it: unbiased
subjectivity becomes the axle of observation and understanding.
For this reason, this essay will
dissociate itself from “pseudo-scientific dogma”, which blindly
postulates the inexistence of non-human faces: we prefer to affirm what
we see rather than deny it, as this approach seems more realistic –
truer to our reality. Furthermore, we claim that
“pseudo-scientific dogma” attempts to define a reality and force the
observer into self-denial and conformity, whereas “magical thinking”
leaves the observer with the freedom and responsibility to discover
reality according to the dispositions of his intrinsic human capacities.
In consideration of this, two
fundamental questions pop up. First, “what is a face” and second, “why
are there faces to be found all around nature in the first place?”
To the first question, considering
that we are our own focal point, our spontaneous answer lies within
circular reasoning: a face is what our facial recognition capacity
recognizes! It would be a lazy mistake stop there, however; it is
important to know what we precisely recognize when we see a face – so
this definition must be one of function rather than one of design so as
to circumvent circular definitions. Nonetheless, it is obvious
that we distinguish precise geometrical forms, all the while being
non-specific, namely two eyes a nose and a mouth on an enclosed
area. But these forms are perceived in essence and not in
substance, as even when hideously disfigured or lacking important
detail, the brain can still recognize them, although often accompanied
by a feeling of disgust, of uneasiness or ugliness towards the
malformed face. Secondly, faces are recognized organically and
not mechanically, meaning that the recognition of faces happens in the
context of a living relationship between the face and the
observer. (Of course, the understanding of a relationship and the
capacity to be in a relationship improves, matures and complexifies
according to the age and the individual's level of personal
development.) In sum, a face is a perceptibly tangible witness in
a relationship of recognition between a being and a symbol that is
fundamental to humanity.
What, then, does the symbol represent
? Invariably, it is an expression of life (not 'life' as in
opposition to 'death', but 'life' in existential terms). If faces
are recognized, then it is for a reason that goes beyond their simple
geometrical arrangement, hence according to their interactional and
functional relationships with human existence (or, in short, their
usefulness to the species). Naturally, if this is true for human
beings in relation to the faces of other human beings, then by
extension it is also true for human beings in relation to other faces
seen in nature, because nature is neither less living nor less
essential for the survival of humanity than are the parents of the
newborn infant who inevitably smiles when he or she recognizes a face
that presents itself in his or her still limited eyesight.
The answer to the second fundamental
question est now self-evident: faces exist in nature (or at least
according to the relative human point of view – the only point of view
to which we really have access) as witnesses of a life (or existence)
to which we are inexorably dependent at the beginning of our lives and
with which we are progressively interdependent throughout our lives as
our individual autonomy increases. As demonstrated above, this
principle is then equally valid in both ontogenetic and phylogenetic
contexts: faces are vital for the individual in relationships with his
peers just as they are vital for the human species in its relationship
with nature.
We can henceforth understand how
shamans, magicians, druids and other sages of old – in their magical
thinking – had logically deduced the “animism” of and in nature through
their reasonable perceptual experience (rather than blind
superstition). As infants, each of us recognized faces – those of
our parents – in order to interact with them and later, as adults, we
are recognizing other faces beyond our own species. This facial
recognition that helped the infant interact with his parents probably
also helped the adult interact with its natural environment throughout
the history of mankind. If, under a human face, we find a
sentient being having its own intentionality, personality and
spirituality, why not explore further when we identify a non-human
face? The least we can say is that the face offers a significant
door which opens to exploration, communication and an opportunity to
learn from and share with that or who can be found behind the
mask. Indeed, there can be no doubt as to the good will of the
sorcerers of old...
Even today, in our society heavily
dominated by pseudo-scientific dogmas – imposed realities and
postulates – the innate human capacities keep sending us back to an
instinctual transcendence of the momentary culture; yet the choice to
listen to ourselves (or not) has always belonged to each and every one
of us. Will we deny that which is evident to our innate senses,
which evolved into what they are through millions of years of
perfectionment? Or shall we more deeply explore the meanings and
intersubjective relationships that life brings to our
perceptions? (Of course, the phenomena of faces is one example
amongst many, as "magic" goes far beyond the scopes of
what we can say about it.)
Dear Reader, you see a face: shall
you ignore it or will you say hello? If so, how? ... and so
ye walk the magical path.
