talkmagic.co.uk

themagicwand wrote:For the benefit of some who may not appreciate the difference, I would just like to re-iterate that a psychic is a mind-reader while a medium talks to the dead. A world of difference.

In my performance I use the good old fashioned psychic line - old school guy that I am. Plus I like to think it p*sses off the NLP crowd.

Just one interesting point: If Corinda were to contact us from the other side of the veil I think he would be disturbed to find that mentalists by and large do not claim to be psychic anymore. He certainly did.

then why do Sylvia Browne and other mediums claim to be psychic but also contact the dead? do they not care about the distinction between the two as long as they can rip people off?

AndyRegs wrote:Of course...all the magical arts require a lie/deception of some sort. That isn't disputed. But its not just black and white like that. Stating that you are reading body language etc does not prey on the vulnerable, and can not be compared to claiming to a greieving mother/wife that you are talking to a dead husband or child.

Sorry, but yes it can and has... in fact most all of you here have fallen for the scam in that you believe that things like NLP which has been seriously (critically) disproven, not only exists but that you are using it. Same with the whole Hypnosis issue... most of you haven't a clue as to what real hypnosis is and you are deceiving yourselves by using tricks that you think or at least suggest to be hypnosis.

What you are doing here Andy is justifying the "less evil" lie when, as my buddy John Riggs pointed out in a similar discussion, doesn't change the facts... if you re-label Poison A as being Poison Z does not change the fact that it is still poison.

Truth is, I've seen far more people gain positive attitudes and freedom from issues surrounding the loss of a loved one AFTER talking with a professed Medium or Psychic than I've seen in those that go to professional Shrinks who get them hooked on antidepressants and other modern day elixirs. I've seen this "legitimate" mode cause far more harm and loss than the other and that is the kind of fact most cynically minded don't want to weigh.

I've personally used the idea of being real so as to scare young people away from dangerous cult situations, drug use and other self-destructive actions. I've helped people that were clinging on to lost family and friends, to learn how to let go and move on... how is this wrong? How is helping and healing wrong? How is giving people the belief they need in themselves without drugs or on-going therapy a negative?

Now before you go there, most of the "real" Mentalists in the world who work the trenches and do "the work" are likewise aware and honest enough to guide clients that need deeper, more professional aid, to an appropriate source. Just this past week I had to get very blunt with a client and tell her that she needed professional help. It pi**ed her off because she wanted me to heal her which I told her, no one can heal her other than her self and it will only be through proper therapy and possibly medication, that she will get to know some semblance of normalcy in her life.

The point is, not everyone that's out there doing the Readings or even Seance/Mediumistic work is a crook and it's time for the magic world to grow up and see the more broad portrait of things; including the fact that all this "professional counseling" c*** (not the best) evolved from occult/esoteric knowledge and perspectives -- truths and sciences that the shut-eye knew, understood and employed much in the same manner that analytical science has done; they've just renamed it all and dressed it up in a new outfit if the truth were to be known.

Sorry, but yes it can and has... in fact most all of you here have fallen for the scam in that you believe that things like NLP which has been seriously (critically) disproven, not only exists but that you are using it. Same with the whole Hypnosis issue... most of you haven't a clue as to what real hypnosis is and you are deceiving yourselves by using tricks that you think or at least suggest to be hypnosis.

Oh believe me...I hate all that nlp rubbish just as passionately. I've seen too many NLP zombies trying to heal the world. They think they are creating rapport, and instead making people think they are wierd. Dont subscribe to hypnosis either. I even went up on stage to be hypnotised to check for myself. Nothing...except a bunch of plonkers sitting around me thinking they were in love with a mop! And then the walk of shame to my seat.

So those assumptions aside, I understand your argument, but cant see what right someone has to tell people such things.
Also, how would someone feel who was helped in such a way by being told their loved one was happy and well on the other side, then read about fraudulent mediums.
If someone told me they were channeling my dead grandfather, I would be genuinely disgusted.

I also cant agree with you that one deception is the same as another.
Is saying 'your bum doesn't look big' the same as 'no I'm not sleeping with your sister'?
In the same way, saying that you are using psychology is no where near as vulgar as claiming to be speaking to a grieving mothers dead baby.

if you re-label Poison A as being Poison Z does not change the fact that it is still poison.

Yep, but one poison can kill in an instant, while another will just make you flush your bowels! I dont think things are just black and white, no matter how it is justified.

Craig Browning wrote:Truth is, I've seen far more people gain positive attitudes and freedom from issues surrounding the loss of a loved one AFTER talking with a professed Medium or Psychic than I've seen in those that go to professional Shrinks who get them hooked on antidepressants and other modern day elixirs. I've seen this "legitimate" mode cause far more harm and loss than the other and that is the kind of fact most cynically minded don't want to weigh.

That really depends on what model the psychiatrist is working from though...

AndyRegs wrote:
Dont subscribe to hypnosis either. I even went up on stage to be hypnotised to check for myself. Nothing...except a bunch of plonkers sitting around me thinking they were in love with a mop! And then the walk of shame to my seat.

Going up on stage and actually taking time to work through a proper induction and set of tests are two very different things. I participated in hypnosis experiments in the 1980s with Martin Orne, a well-respected professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and the things I discovered and witnessed there are a world apart from someone on stage saying 'sleep now'...I recommend digging a bit deeper

DrTodd wrote:Going up on stage and actually taking time to work through a proper induction and set of tests are two very different things. I participated in hypnosis experiments in the 1980s with Martin Orne, a well-respected professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and the things I discovered and witnessed there are a world apart from someone on stage saying 'sleep now'...I recommend digging a bit deeper

Seconded. There's also a world of difference between the clumsy bill of goods NLP has become and the original model of communication it defined. As with all things, it pays to pause to see if you're not throwing the baby out with the bath water

cragglecat wrote:Not arguing with you as I know very little about mentalism but is the psychic/medium distinction a terminology within mentalism? The Oxford English Dictionary has the two words as synonymous. Pointing this out not to be disrespectful but just because I'm curious.

The Oxford English Dictionary may not be as well informed as we are.

Looking in the Encyclopedia of the Occult (as one does of a Sunday evening) the definitions are thus:

Psychic - a sensitive one susceptible to psychic influences. A psychic is not necessarily a medium, unless he is sufficiently sensitive to be controlled by disembodied spirits. The term psychic includes the somnabule, the magnetic or mesmeric subject, anyone who is in any degree sensitive.

Medium - A person supposed to be qualified in some special manner to form a link between the dead and the living. etc.

There. Hopefully that's muddied the waters some more. These psychic debates do take off like a sky rocket don't they? Ah well. They pass the time of day til Michael Krass or KARL come back.

My comment was aimed at stage hypnosis, which I presumed the it was pretty much agreed that is was more 'showmanship' than psychology. I dont know enough about any other types to really comment.
As for NLP, from what I have read and experienced, it just seems to be a little bit of obvious common sense surrounded by a load of exagerated unsubstanciated claims, all wrapped up with a load of flower fairy nonsense in an evangelical package.
This again is aimed at the 'Anthony Robbins' disciples who believe that walking on hot coals is possible because of positive thought. Then walk on whie hot metal and see how much positive thought helps.
Apparently he gets them all chanting 'I am a force for good' and then changes it to 'I am a force for God'.

Ok Magicwand, you got me with that last line...

Edgar Cayce describes the Psychic as someone that has learned how to see and be more aware of what is there... at least this is the rudimentary perspective; one that supports much of what I "teach" in my shows and lectures on the subject and one that falls fairly close to the "explanations" held by so many Skeptics... especially when it comes to the whole "Cold Reading" and "Body Language" game.

What I find most interesting is that the deeper sides of occult tradition sustains this idea and actually discards the boogiemen, so to speak. The know-it-alls of magic failing to dig deep enough into occult/hermetic lore to find this common truth -- that it is all science in one hand but a matter of "faith" in the other.

Now when it comes to the whole Mediumship thing I will repeat the fact that I've had similar experiences, found them physically draining and to be frank "repulsive" and yet, the information I gave out when experiencing such things was dead on... not the generic psycho-babble so many want to say it would have to be but pin-point hits that were uncanny.

No, it is not a "repeatable" thing and further more, it shouldn't have to be. The message, if true, belongs to those present not the rest of the world and most especially the curious minded that want to see how it all works vs. humbling themselves a bit and just letting faith be what it is.
... and before someone goes there (again) I'm not saying we need to stay stuck in the stone age with archaic ideas about Gods & Demons either, just that something need to just be accepted and not screwed with... for now.

We have to remember that the mantra of the skeptic is PROVE IT and that of the faithful is I DON'T HAVE TO, I KNOW IT TO BE TRUE e.g. those that don't believe probably never will for whatever reason. Psychologically there is a plethora of reasons why people take on this hardened position and a huge part of it centers on the need to feel superior and more intelligent than others a.k.a. ego. Interestingly, those that believe tend to not have such a strong need or expression of insecurity.

I have a challenge. I challenge any TM poster who thinks that earning money as a medium is easy to book their local village hall, sell tickets for a demonstartion of mediumship, conduct the show themselves and leave the audience happy and convinced, then afterwards come clean and refund everyone their entrance fee or donate it to charity. Ooh. This could be fun.

No takers? Go on - it'd be a hoot.

AndyRegs wrote:As for NLP, from what I have read and experienced, it just seems to be a little bit of obvious common sense surrounded by a load of exagerated unsubstanciated claims, all wrapped up with a load of flower fairy nonsense in an evangelical package.

Yup, that's the clumsy bill of goods end of things. Dreadful, isn't it...

It pays massive dividends to to start if you can with the pre-NLP era by taking in the published papers of Milton Erickson - not the books written about him or trying to interpret him, but his published, peer-reviewed clinical research. I think a lot of it is publicly available for free now, but it'll probably take some hunting down and it's a lot to plough through.

Tomo wrote:

AndyRegs wrote:As for NLP, from what I have read and experienced, it just seems to be a little bit of obvious common sense surrounded by a load of exagerated unsubstanciated claims, all wrapped up with a load of flower fairy nonsense in an evangelical package.

Yup, that's the clumsy bill of goods end of things. Dreadful, isn't it...

It pays massive dividends to to start if you can with the pre-NLP era by taking in the published papers of Milton Erickson - not the books written about him or trying to interpret him, but his published, peer-reviewed clinical research. I think a lot of it is publicly available for free now, but it'll probably take some hunting down and it's a lot to plough through.

A great starting source on Erickson believe it or not, is Richard Busch... his "mentor" and teacher for psychology & hypnosis in particular was a prodigy to old Milton... actually there, at the right hand of god, so to speak.

Imagine for a moment that you are a heartless conman and decide that you can make a fortune by passing on messages from the other side of the grave. So you get a booking to do a "demonstration of mediumship" (as they're called) on a stage before let's say 200 people. So on the night you're sitting in the dressing room waiting to go on stage, no props, no gimmicks, just your brain. And you know that 200 folk are out there waiting to be impressed. They want to hear from their dead relatives and they expect you to do it. If you knew you were a fake and planned using "cold reading", how much guts do you think it would take to actually step out onto stage and say "Hello. My name is [insert your name here] and I'm a spirit medium..."

off topic but this gave me an old feeling of dread, all you need to add to this is that the medium is a 10 year old kid and you reading my past.

Somebody mentioned on this thread the reaction if Corinda appeared from "beyond the veil"

I know what my reaction would be. Bloody astonishment since the chap isn't dead yet.

Incidentally I worked for him years ago.

And just to put a myth straight. Corinda was never a professional mentalist. He was a magic dealer who specialised in mentalism merchandise and was the equivalent of Nelson in the United States.

He did have a history (or so Roy Walton once told me) of working with spiritualist mediums doing work like looking through the coats of the believer for information when they hung their coats up.

He came from a background of carnival workers and that kind of showman. He once had a stand in Battersea Park with some kind of glass product. I cannot remember what it was. Perhaps glass blowing.

He sprung up out of nowhere and became the Nelson of Britain. He was very interested in mentalism but I don't think he did many or even any shows. However he knew the top mentalists of his day such as Jon Tremaine, Maurice Fogel etc; And he was a very sharp businessman indeed.