talkmagic.co.uk

For all you new users who were planning on making a post regarding magic in a "magic spell" sense, before you post something about some wierd form of magic; this forum is meant for the entertainment type of magic, known as illusion. It is a way of using deceptive "tricks" merely as a form of entertainment. Its about "Illusion" not "spells." It is fake magic. I personally don't beleive in any "real" magic, but if you do, I don't see what more I could say to you. Remember this forum is NOT for "Spells," Its for illusions.

-Ben

silly boy... there are those here as well, who are quite well versed in the things that go bump in the dark

Your are correct, of course... the game players (as in "the Gathering") and Pagan types may find far friendlier grounds elsewhere; I'd start with Witchvox and maybe look up Selene Fox or Silver Ravenhawk, they both have nice sites

Blessed Be

actually you can perform some really nice illusions under the disguise of making some arkane ritual

so i wouldnt knock off discussions on magick they can be very inspiring for new presentations!

greets

memorire wrote:actually you can perform some really nice illusions under the disguise of making some arkane ritual

so i wouldnt knock off discussions on magick they can be very inspiring for new presentations!

greets

I could not agree more....there is so much material out there that can enhance and modify a humdrum magic trick into a really memorable routine!

Craig Browning wrote::twisted: silly boy... there are those here as well, who are quite well versed in the things that go bump in the dark

Your are correct, of course... the game players (as in "the Gathering") and Pagan types may find far friendlier grounds elsewhere

Blessed Be

Without fail, "The Gathering" would always pop up in my regular magic-related Ebay searches, whether it be for a Rising Card or anything else with "magic" in the title. From what I gather, these "mana" or whatnot are used in some kind of card game? But, I recall one person at some point in my life defending Warhammer (similar ish to The Gathering, i think), defiantly defending it: "it's not a game, it's like life". Each to their own I suppose. I know very little of such circles, but they they do seem to produce a helluva lotta things. On the way to band practice I always pass one of those The Gathering / Warhammer type shops, which doubles as a youth centre for adolescent boys gathered around a large table. Still, i'd imagine it's a safer and less violent environment than the bus shelters and parks for the youth of today. Tsk. It always seems to be open much later than all the other shops too. How bizarre.

As to presentation, I'd agree that yes, a trick could be enhanced, but it shouldn't stray too much from the right side of morbid or believability, and I think it's possible to over egg the pudding in these contexts. In any case, fair do's if it's your style, but personally I wouldn't want to even begin to suggest that an effect is dabbling with some arcane ritual, even if it was Halloween and i wanted to do some spooky magic - simply because i find it personally unmoving. Perhaps someone presenting things in a mediumistic fashion would be more credible, but to go the extra mile and conjure up the notion of Pagan rituals seems a tad too far fetched and incompatible if it wasn't in a self-deprecating tongue in cheek manner.

It's one thing to suggest an effect is voodoo and similarly to an extent it's acceptable to suggest an effect "originated from Pagan times when the new villagers would light a fire... etc " as even then it's patter. But anything in the context of you actually invoking some spell, regardless of how able and qualified as a character you are to feasibly pull it off would negate the effect in the eyes of the spectator. However, it is quite interesting how this thread was in response to a couple of new users referring to demi-gods and such like, and you could argue at the very least argue that it has been post-provoking(!). As a new forum user, it'd be quite fun to sit back and play Devil's advocate.

Rufio, from my own observations i can say if you do everything right and give he spectator/participant the ony explanation why it works that its magick (or voodoo or whatever else) he actually believes that on some level. He wont necessary show it or say it...maybe even not think it but some part of him, the doubting part that most ppl have will ask him "what if?" and thats where the effect nails him

but those presentations are as you said not for everyone. you cant pull them off if you are a young kid and tell that it took years and years of work to learn what you just about are to show and you have a plastic pentagram ring around your finger (well if you do everything to clichee) nobody will believe you. On the other hand if you do this voodoo pesentation and say that you stayed at haiti for a year and you accidentaly saved some voodoo priests life and as a sign of friendship (which began afterwards) he initiated you into some of the rituals and religion. and if you really know what you are talking about and have been to haiti it comes over differently. these are extreme examples and most ppl can create some believable stuff somwhere in between.

i dont understand your last 2 sentences!

greets

memorire wrote:Rufio, from my own observations i can say if you do everything right and give he spectator/participant the ony explanation why it works that its magick (or voodoo or whatever else) he actually believes that on some level. He wont necessary show it or say it...maybe even not think it but some part of him, the doubting part that most ppl have will ask him "what if?" and thats where the effect nails him

I wholeheartedly agree. I would like to think that when performing magic the spectator has that "what if?" moment too. I agree it's those moments when belief is suspended that they are then nailed. Yup, i should have really qualified my previous post by saying that such voodoo or pagan presentations are not for everyone - that's what i meant really. but i do still feel that using such references will still be met with scepticism.

Logically, such argument could lead to the inference that in that case, adopting such a view makes me sound elitist and hypocriictal in the sense that if those magic "what if" moments can be canvassed as a possibility, then why can't sorcery, why can't incantations of magic spells? For example, if one form / genre of illusion exists (i.e. general magic as I cheekily suggest), why can't another exist? I can't really begin to answer this, BUT... if sceptics and hecklers (i.e. rationale people) are willing to recognise what you are doing (i.e. ostensibly tricking them), whilst refusing to accept magic at face value, it must therefore be a question of magican and spectator knowing that it isn't real. Of course, i've no false aspirations as to my magic and whilst I don't say it is fake, for example, there is a mutual unsaid understanding that regardless of how much of a high art it could be perceived as potnetially, I am clearly not magically changing the ink of one 6 of hearts into a 9 of clubs other than by way of a colour change. It is still magical and entertaining, but it is not real or literal. I appreciate there are darker presentations to magic and agree with Dr Todd and memorire taht they could enhance a presentation potentially, but for me the crucial difference is the unspoken disclaimer that what I am doing is not some otherworldly or supernatural power, rather it is entertaining tomfoolery. Even mentalism to some extent retains this purpose and role, but you are simply using undetectable methods.

What I meant was in relation to this notion of witchcraft or sorcery as prompted by the relative furore of some additional TM members. I agree that you're right memorire - yes, the presentational spin you describe would work well on the proviso the performer could pull it off. However, whilst it may be a fine line, IF said performer was to go TOO far, in effect, suggesting that there is no disclaimer, unlike as described above, then the relationship between performer and spectator in their traditional roles as entertainer and the entertained is broken. Given the breakdown i'd imagine it would alienate if the perfomer, illustrating a display of spells and sorcery, etc. taken his role too seriously. Having said this, I realise i come across as a bit too serious in this post too, so to return to one's Dickensian street urchin mode will have recourse merely to repeat a joke: why the baker have dirty hands? Because he kneaded a poo.

First things first... I can and have presented "magic" in ways that made people wet themselves and in more than a few instances scared the ever living crapola out of them... this includes aspects of grand illusion as well as Mentalism/Bizarre Magick.

Now, as an old carney it is seriously against my nature to use any kind of formal disclaimer. I believe they are insulting to the public's intelligence as well as arrogant on the part of the performing thinking him/her self to be good enough to begin a new religion. As Lee Earle says in almost every one of his videos. "Magicians hold an unspoken agreement that he is to fool the patron and they are their to enjoy the theatrical fantasy, thereby suspending their disbelief." One the other hand, "The Mentalist hosts no such agreement but rather invokes belief as a psychological leverage that allows what he/she presents to look and feel real -- genuine."

Even people like Derren Brown and Banachek strive for realism even though they may negate it post show and even in their verbal disclaimers through the program. Ironically, the more they deny any kind of paranormal connection, the more people give them credit for being "gifted" in other ways and too, certain hold-outs excuse the disclaimer, understanding it is just a ruse because of legal issues pertaining to fortune tellers and such.

Many years ago I presented a Seance... a very dark and effects filed seane whose primary intent was to help a group of very wealthy parents in Hollywood, wake their misguided teens away from the literal Satanic and drug filled paths they were on. Though they understood the rebellion factor in teens, they also understood that their course of travel was a lot more than that.

To put is mildly, all hell broke loose in this seance and I seemingly got so screwed up as the result of the possession that an ambulance had to be brought in, etc. to this day, nearly 25 years later, the 8 kids involved in this encounter swear everything they witnessed was real as well as terrifying enough to make them "go straight"

Was I wrong for doing this?

What do you think they'd do if they knew the truth... even at this point in time?

How is what I did with these kids any different than the use of the Light & Heavy Chest and allowing its presentation to put an end to potential war?

Just like a gun or nuclear energy it is the way one chooses to use it that makes any form of magic... any thing in life ... dangerous, manipulative, misleading, etc.

Right now we are dealing with a major election in this country and we've seen how a pack of deliberate and very cruel lies woven by one side of things about the opponent, have encouraged extreme fear in the hearts & minds of "their" public -- the people they've manipulated by just using innuendo -- words -- for the sake of personal gain. There are no disclaimers in place, not even the idea that they are presenting "a show" and everything is just fake -- untrue. Like the charlatans we're weighing here, these politicians and religionists have taken advantage of the fears, weaknesses, phobias and bias (racial bigotry) for the sake of self/group advantage.

Yes, there are people that are cruel who will misuse the technologies associated with our craft. Today's ease in getting hold of this information, the disrespect shown the craft by the fools on boob tube that expose our secrets as well as the general GREED (and plethora) of shop owners, effects developers, "writers", etc. All of these things haven't only created opportunity for "the wrong kind" of person to get their hands on things, but we've pointed them in the right direction for learning how to do so. The past six months alone creating an onslaught of idiots using Hypnosis techniques that they picked up on the net, as a way to steal people's wallets (identities) and rob stores.

Who's in the wrong in such case?

Granted, the person that did the crime is definitely in the wrong, but what about the irresponsible jackarse that make the information so easy to find or even planted the thought that it could be done in the first place... Who was that? hmmm.... certainly not some famed Tv personality...

In my book the Karmic and moral responsibility goes all the way back to just such an impetus.

Morality & Ethos belong to the individual; just like pit bulls getting a bad rap as a breed, when in fact they are love bugs so certain (Old School) students of Mentalism get a bad rep for not using disclaimers or "playing the game by the new rules" that have but recently become "an issue" within the industry... more so in the UK than the US but a pain in the butt nonetheless.

It is not wrong or immoral, unethical, etc. UNLESS THAT IS YOUR NATURE AND HOW YOU EMPLOY IT. So stop trying to nail lifts onto everyone's feet by categorizing all that "do it" (such as Readings) into the same niche -- that's just plain ignorant and far from fair minded.

Rufio wrote:

memorire wrote:Rufio, from my own observations i can say if you do everything right and give he spectator/participant the ony explanation why it works that its magick (or voodoo or whatever else) he actually believes that on some level. He wont necessary show it or say it...maybe even not think it but some part of him, the doubting part that most ppl have will ask him "what if?" and thats where the effect nails him

I wholeheartedly agree. I would like to think that when performing magic the spectator has that "what if?" moment too. I agree it's those moments when belief is suspended that they are then nailed. Yup, i should have really qualified my previous post by saying that such voodoo or pagan presentations are not for everyone - that's what i meant really. but i do still feel that using such references will still be met with scepticism.

Logically, such argument could lead to the inference that in that case, adopting such a view makes me sound elitist and hypocriictal in the sense that if those magic "what if" moments can be canvassed as a possibility, then why can't sorcery, why can't incantations of magic spells? For example, if one form / genre of illusion exists (i.e. general magic as I cheekily suggest), why can't another exist? I can't really begin to answer this, BUT... if sceptics and hecklers (i.e. rationale people) are willing to recognise what you are doing (i.e. ostensibly tricking them), whilst refusing to accept magic at face value, it must therefore be a question of magican and spectator knowing that it isn't real. Of course, i've no false aspirations as to my magic and whilst I don't say it is fake, for example, there is a mutual unsaid understanding that regardless of how much of a high art it could be perceived as potnetially, I am clearly not magically changing the ink of one 6 of hearts into a 9 of clubs other than by way of a colour change. It is still magical and entertaining, but it is not real or literal. I appreciate there are darker presentations to magic and agree with Dr Todd and memorire taht they could enhance a presentation potentially, but for me the crucial difference is the unspoken disclaimer that what I am doing is not some otherworldly or supernatural power, rather it is entertaining tomfoolery. Even mentalism to some extent retains this purpose and role, but you are simply using undetectable methods.

What I meant was in relation to this notion of witchcraft or sorcery as prompted by the relative furore of some additional TM members. I agree that you're right memorire - yes, the presentational spin you describe would work well on the proviso the performer could pull it off. However, whilst it may be a fine line, IF said performer was to go TOO far, in effect, suggesting that there is no disclaimer, unlike as described above, then the relationship between performer and spectator in their traditional roles as entertainer and the entertained is broken. Given the breakdown i'd imagine it would alienate if the perfomer, illustrating a display of spells and sorcery, etc. taken his role too seriously. Having said this, I realise i come across as a bit too serious in this post too, so to return to one's Dickensian street urchin mode will have recourse merely to repeat a joke: why the baker have dirty hands? Because he kneaded a poo.

I did not say anything about darker necessarily, but unseen forces, deeper traditions, history, and metaphysical philosophy...absolutely! I would also ask you to delve a bit deeper into the 'enlightenment' scientists and philosophers to whom modern rationalists most often make their appeals. Darwin was devoutly Christian, Newton was interested in ether and alchemy, and Descartes was a Rosicrucian.

Moreover, modern atomic theory draws on many of the images and metaphors of the occult. There are no clear lines of distinction, but rather dominant ideas that have managed to hegmonise scientific discourse for certain periods of time. Much of this discourse is supported by evidence and inference until, a la Kuhn, too many anomalies appear for a particular paradigm to account for them and then we have a shift to a new paradigm.. all of this and more presents us magicians and mentalists with particularly fecund material with which to create our material.

Interesting points have been raised, as similarly to a TV documentary series called Paul Merton In India. For our American friends, Paul Merton is a British comedian who has travelled firstly across China in the first series and now India for the second. Think of him as a fairly bold but still trepid Michael Palin - Ernest Hemingway's plains of Africa replaced with Indian villages; less game hunting and more eunuchs. Indians were portayed with deeply superstitious beliefs in the supernatural. Some gurus were worshipped on the basis of their magic abilities. However, Paul merton came across a band of street magicians who, armed with the ashes on palm trick, and possibly Yigel Mesika's Electric Touch, like Buddha, they proclaimed themselves as simply ordinary men who should not be worshipped. It suggested how certain types would manipulate their knowledge and abilties for personal gain.

However, I would like to point out that there seems to have been some misunderstanding: Craig suggests that I am nailing those who do readings, for example, into the same niche as those who give the art a bad name. I am not. As said, seances, mentalism, readings, unseen forces, etc. are not in dispute as to thier ability to potentially genuinely frighten people for whatever reason, if so desired. Further, throughout history and illusionism (whilst i do not profess to have any knowledge of such matters) whilst it sounds correct that a new thinking when any paradigm shift occurs does give greater scope for new material, I'd imagine that such material will still find ways of justification regardless of current scientific thought.

Secondly, understand my argument is weakened by accepting that Craig's example of the therapeutic seance, whilst having supernatual connotations, still seems plausible and within the boundaries of credibility. Similarly, whilst out of my depth, unseen forces and metaphysical ideas seem credible too as magical presentations. Even then there is the notion of some inexplicable unseen force that is somehow being harnessed that is being played on. But my original point referred to an entirely different kettle of magicians who claim that they themselves are in fact a supernatural force, that they are able to eliminate people and are able to use spells. I think there is a clear difference in what Dr Todd or Craig are doing, which I do not view negatively at all, compared to the notion of certain individuals professing to be some form of demi-god, and using magic as a method to curse people and whatnot. Whilst I admit the agnostic tendencies in me would like to believe that it is possible for someone to walk on water for real, i personally find such themes more like fantasy. Understand that my original post was not knocking the work of Craig or Dr Todd as I'd imagine what they are doing is not going round telling people that they are demi-gods. Rather, there is a line to be drawn, and all of the examples Dr Todd and Craig give I accept are within such remit, but there is a clear difference between harnessing such material or forces as opposed to actually suggesting that you yourself are some kind of supernatural force or phenomena to be reckoned with. It is the latter that I refer to, in that the difference lies not necessarily in presentation but what you are conveying, that is, that you are in fact otherworldly.

Similarly, and thirdly, this brings me back to why I think there has been misunderstanding to my reference to a disclaimer. I should have said(admittedly not very succinctly) that a disclaimer should at no point be said or made. I think we agree on all this, althogh accept that the point made about how apparent legal disclaimers serve really for dramatic effect. I really should have clarified my earlier post to mean that the disclaimer relates to what is being done: the example of the seance is one thing and I accept there is no disclaimer, as that "what if" moment toys with the idea of possibility and perhaps in effect a new philosophical paradigm shift occurs in the spectator's mind - in outlook, at the very least. Such phenomenona seems more acceptable - socially, but also intellectually it seems, as such ideas focus on the notion of mystery and (ironically, if conveniently as an intellectual principle) the inexplicable. Because all of this remains contentious in the spectator's mind, so too is the concept of any disclaimer. In contrast to the ideas suggested by Craig and Dr Todd the idea of someone actually professing to be a deity remains a completely kettle of fish and disclaimer, as such person is in effect forcing the spectator to refuse to accept any disclaimer, unsaid or otherwise.

Going back to some of Craig's earlier posts in the past on other threads, whilst I may come across as being overly defensive here, understand that you should not feel that I am disparaging your work in any way. I am making a different point entirely which does not intend to criticise your area at all. Rather, i do actually find such dialogue quite interesting, and whilst looking back at this convoluted post I myself am not really sure of what point, if any, I am making, i apologise if it comes across in text as somewhat of a rant. It's not!

Sounds good Rufio.

DO BEAR IN MIND... when it comes to those who deliberately mislead/misguide the public, seek to build their own cult-following et al; I'm almost always one of the first in line seeking to expose them and bring them into the courts. As I've said many times in the past, I have literally put my life on the line in such instances and many of these people simply do not play "fair" -- they will kill if they think you are threatening their livelihood and what they do makes the revelations of "The Psychic Mafia" look like child's play.