I conceive further that under certain circumstances this primary telæsthetic faculty resumes direct operations, in spite of the fleshly barriers which are constructed so as to allow it to operate through certain channels alone. And I conceive that in thus resuming exercise of the wider faculty, the incarnate spirit will be influenced or hampered by the habits or self-suggestions of the more specialised faculty; so that there may be apparent _compromises_ of different kinds between telæsthetic and hyperæsthetic perception,--as the specialised senses endeavour, as it were, to retain credit for the perception which is in reality widening beyond their scope. In this attitude of mind, then, I approach the recorded cases of transposition of special sense.[83] Two main hypotheses have been put forward as a general explanation of such cases, neither of which seems to me quite satisfactory. (1) The common theory would be that these are merely cases of erroneous self-suggestion;--that the subject really sees with the eye, but thinks that he sees with the knee, or the stomach, or the finger-tips. This may probably have been so in many, but not, I think, in all instances. (2) Dr. Prosper Despine and others suppose that, while the accustomed cerebral centres are still concerned in the act of sight, the finger-end (for example) acts for the nonce as the end-organ required to carry the visual sensation to the brain. I cannot here get over the mechanical difficulty of the absence of a lens. However hyperæsthetic the finger-end might be (say) to light and darkness, I can hardly imagine its acting as an organ of definite sight. My own suggestion (which, for aught I know, may have been made before) is that the finger-end is no more a true organ of sight than the arbitrary "hypnogenous zone" is a true organ for inducing trance. I think it possible that there may be actual telæsthesia,--not necessarily involving any perception by the bodily organism;--and that the spirit which thus perceives in wholly supernormal fashion may be under the impression that it is perceiving through some bizarre corporeal channel--as the knee or the stomach. I think, therefore, that the perception may not be _optical_ sight at all, but rather some generalised telæsthetic perception represented as visual, but _incoherently_ so represented; so that it may be referred to the knee instead of the retina. And here again, as at several previous points in my argument, I must refer the reader to what will be said in my chapter on _Possession_ by external spirits (Chapter IX.) to illustrate the operation even of the subject's own spirit acting without external aid. And now I come to the third main type of the dynamogenic efficacy of suggestion: its influence, namely, on _attention_, on _will_, and on _character_--character, indeed, being largely a resultant of the direction and persistence of voluntary attention.