talkmagic.co.uk

Sure, perhaps that's true. But I have no time for them whatsoever if they claim to see the future or talk to the dead. The word 'psychic' shouldn't be applied to those naturally able to read people, since it's definition is that of someone with extrasensory perception in a supernatural way.

I fully agree about not 'talking to the dead' or 'seeing into the future', there are far better ways of doing readings which don't involve such claims and, if the 'reader' is astute enough, the focus will be on the sitter, their circumstances, wants and desires rather than 'communicating' with the dear departed Aunty Gertrude - or Big Chief Sitting Bull!

I am the expert in these matters. Therefore it is MY definition of psychic that must be accepted. In my post I explained that my definition is somewhat different from other definitions and I made that perfectly plain. However, since I am MARK LEWIS and others aren't then it is my definition that should be regarded as gospel. There is utterly no need for me to "rename" anything. I do not believe in the supernatural. I only believe in the natural. And I have explained how the psychic process works. All perfectly natural. As for the expression "extra sensory perception". Let us call it simply perception. However, it is a little extra of it. And my senses are involved. So it is called "extra sensory perception".

Mandrake wrote:

MisterRawlings wrote:through potentially learn-able methods.

Possibly but, there again, some people simply can't learn some things. Technically it's straightforward enough to learn a foreign language or ballroom dancing but many folks simply can't master them. Perhaps the successful 'psychics' are those who are naturally more adept at reading people?

This is indeed right and Marks post which describes it is one of the more succinct and accurate ones relating to the area of readings. The more experience you have with people, the more natural it becomes and you can surprise yourself how accurate things can be. I worked and trained for many years in the shut eye world and they teach you to go by your instinct no matter how ridiculous it seems, if it pop into your head - say it.
Often this supplies you with some of your biggest 'hits'.

There is a lot of bad feeling and misunderstanding in the magic world regarding anyone who works vaguely near anything that is considered 'psychic'. I think the main issue with doing this kind of work is that the focus is on the sitter and you need to be able to listen to people and understand them whereas most magicians and mentalists like to talk incessantly, have the focus entirely on them and look better than their audience. To be honest, it gives them a sense of importance whereas in a reading the sitter is important. Of course in 13 Steps, Corinda considers readings to be the height of mentalism but those that can't do it seem to resort to trying to discredit those who can.

I get far more work from tarot than I do magic. Even people that have previously booked me to perform magic at a party have rebooked and then seen I also do tarot and asked if I can do that instead. People are far more interested in a tarot reading than any ACR routine. And I think to many magicians - that hurts!

mark lewis wrote:I am the expert in these matters. Therefore it is MY definition of psychic that must be accepted. In my post I explained that my definition is somewhat different from other definitions and I made that perfectly plain. However, since I am MARK LEWIS and others aren't then it is my definition that should be regarded as gospel. There is utterly no need for me to "rename" anything. I do not believe in the supernatural. I only believe in the natural. And I have explained how the psychic process works. All perfectly natural. As for the expression "extra sensory perception". Let us call it simply perception. However, it is a little extra of it. And my senses are involved. So it is called "extra sensory perception".

Sorry, you seem to define readings as something very different to what most 'psychics' would define. The definition of 'psychic' can be found below which clearly shows me to be correct:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/psychic

Lord Freddie wrote:

Mandrake wrote:

MisterRawlings wrote:through potentially learn-able methods.

Possibly but, there again, some people simply can't learn some things. Technically it's straightforward enough to learn a foreign language or ballroom dancing but many folks simply can't master them. Perhaps the successful 'psychics' are those who are naturally more adept at reading people?

This is indeed right and Marks post which describes it is one of the more succinct and accurate ones relating to the area of readings. The more experience you have with people, the more natural it becomes and you can surprise yourself how accurate things can be. I worked and trained for many years in the shut eye world and they teach you to go by your instinct no matter how ridiculous it seems, if it pop into your head - say it.
Often this supplies you with some of your biggest 'hits'.

There is a lot of bad feeling and misunderstanding in the magic world regarding anyone who works vaguely near anything that is considered 'psychic'. I think the main issue with doing this kind of work is that the focus is on the sitter and you need to be able to listen to people and understand them whereas most magicians and mentalists like to talk incessantly, have the focus entirely on them and look better than their audience. To be honest, it gives them a sense of importance whereas in a reading the sitter is important. Of course in 13 Steps, Corinda considers readings to be the height of mentalism but those that can't do it seem to resort to trying to discredit those who can.

I get far more work from tarot than I do magic. Even people that have previously booked me to perform magic at a party have rebooked and then seen I also do tarot and asked if I can do that instead. People are far more interested in a tarot reading than any ACR routine. And I think to many magicians - that hurts!

Sorry but I find it hard to agree with someone who says tarot cards work. I was reading the rest of it and agreeing somewhat, but in my opinion the post loses all credibility as soon as someone mentions something such as tarot cards to work. Also, the definition of 'psychic' is quite clear, perhaps they should use a different word if they don't want to claim to have supernatural powers or extrasensory perception.

Tarot cards 'work' in the sense that they do give a focus of attention to both the reader and the sitter. Whether they actually foretell/reveal stuff is a different matter - they're only rectangles of printed card, just like Happy Families or recipe cards and I can't see them having any properties more exotic than that - I may be horribly wrong, of course.

This has been one of the most useful threads on what is usually a very sensitive topic and I for one would ike to see it continue for as long as there are interesting arguments to be put forward for debate. Can we therefore all now be aware that we're getting close to dealing with firmly entrenched personal opinion and each set of beliefs is as valid as the others when it comes to discussions. We're supposed to be offering help based on what we believe rather than trying to disprove the beliefs of others. If it works for you, it works !

Yes exactly, they give something to talk about, but in my opinion they are just shown at random and do not predict anything.

MisterRawlings wrote:Sorry, you seem to define readings as something very different to what most 'psychics' would define. The definition of 'psychic' can be found below which clearly shows me to be correct:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/psychic

That's A definition. It's the original meaning of the word ("having to do with the mind or psyche"), and arguably the most technically defensible definition.

But the meaning of a word depends on how people use it in the real world (and any good dictionary will say that). Most people have never known that psychic means "relating to the mind". As I mentioned above, there are two popular meanings of the word nowadays:
1. Relating to some paranormal or unexplained mental function, e.g. telepathy, precognition.
2. Relating to human contact with a spiritual realm or spirit beings, e.g. mediumship, seance.
Some people believe that 1 is possible but 2 isn't, others vice versa, others believe in both, others believe in neither. (And that's without discussing what belief means!)

Somebody might get up on stage and say "I'm psychic, I have telepathic intuition, and I'll answer your questions." Another person might say "I'm psychic, I can talk to spirits, and I'll answer your questions." The word psychic is used loosely enough to cover them both.

MisterRawlings wrote:Yes exactly, they give something to talk about, but in my opinion they are just shown at random and do not predict anything.

Spot on !

Me thinks Mr Rawlings just wants to argue with me for the sake of it.
Coming from someone who has probabl never given a reading in his life, you seem quite keen to spout off on subjects you know little about.
Crikey, give someone a nailwriter and a copy of 13 Steps and they become a pompous know-it all.

Here's a challenge, we go into a venue and you do your "Pick a card...put in the deck...oh! I've found it!" and I'll bring a deck of tarot cards and we'll see who ends up sitting alone in the corner.

For the record, I didn't state that tarot cards "work" so you quoted a post you barely bothered to read, but I suspect your defensiveness is because there were some home truths concealed in it.

Just musing a while, am I right in thinking that mediums at one time had to fall into a trance and be taken over by another entity, usually using a totally different voice, to deliver their prognostications? The medium would eventually return to consciousness unaware of what had been said or revealed. The next stage was where the medium remained conscious all the while but had to channel the contact via a spirit guide who would be perhaps a long dead Red Indian (sorry to be politically incorrect there but that’s the phrase used at the time) or a servant at the court of Marie Antoinette (never someone basic such as a fish porter at Billingsgate). More recently they either appear on TV or do stage tours summoning reassuring messages for someone whose name begins with ‘R’ at the drop of a hat. Apologies for my cynicism showing through.....

They did indeed used to do that and many in fact do. One of the most surreal experiences I had in my early twenties was a woman in her late nineties giving me a reading and said my spirit guide was an oriental gentleman. She then went into a trance and started talking in a Benny Hill "Chow Mein" type voice as my spirit guide!
It was scary and hilarious in equal measures...

"Ah, heavybody crapping!"

Ha ha! It was identical! I did have a tape recording of it, but god knows where it is. She was an old school medium who I was meeting as I was involved with a psychic development circle. One bizarre afternoon.