talkmagic.co.uk

Craig Browning wrote:Well, for some of us Magic has been a bit more than a Past time... more along the lines of a full time job

Craig, you are indeed one of the lucky few who can support themselves with magic alone. But there is a world of difference between the value of magic to you and the value to society at large. Magic with respect to our society at large is a triviality, in the same way opera, theatre or television is.

Craig Browning wrote:Who is responsible for the person that blows their brains out or kills their entired family becasue some jackass convinced them that their guru was a fraud and they were fools?

I think the answer to this is straight forward, and for the avoidance of doubt it isn't the jackass. And why would convincing anyone that a guru is a fraud make them fools, especially considering my point about our overconfidence in our own abilities and sense. Even if this were true, the only one responsible for their feelings are themselves.

Craig Browning wrote:The dominos will fall and we are responsible when it comes to when, where and how... or have we forgotten about the most rudimentary law of physics?... something about every action and the reaction?

This is certainly true, but were not talking about the physical world, we are discussing the obligations and responsibilities we have with respect to our fellow humans.

Craig Browning wrote:So where does your responsibility fit in, after you've convinced someone to denounce any and all things mystical, spiritual, et al.? Are you responsible for their falling into a darker course in life instead of walking a path that is reasonably moral and up-standing? After all, you've removed from them their supporting reason for living in a "higher mind" kind of way, if we're nothing more than worm food then what the heck, let's become perverts, drunks and theives and enjoy life to the hilt... do as you will!

Interesting, you've just stated a principle argument used by religions to justify their existance. So are you saying that without your mystical or spiritual beliefs you would be out molesting and thieving. I have also stated clearly that I am an atheist, so its clear how you think of me.

Craig Browning wrote:But YOU took away that free will.. you removed from their choices, the one they had embraced, supposedly to help them and to protect them. So it is YOU and you alone that are responsible for what each of these people do, that you have helped see "the light" and get away from those pesky ideas found within the whole of religion, mysticism, the paranormal, and philosophy. You took it upon yourself to become their new priests and guru when you robbed from them, the fabric that was holding them together in the first place.

People only have choice when there are options available to them. I fail to see how your argument supports the concept of free will. Why would presenting people with an alternative option actually limit their free will.

Craig Browning wrote:I find it funny how my post got turned around to me being "in the wrong" for expressing how I am "Responsible" and yet, no one has responded as to where they are responsible for being overly agressive in demeaning people that claim to be or believe in things Psychic/Spiritual, etc.

I see fundamental disagreement, and little in the way of aggression. Even taking into account that as an athiest I have been accused of being a pervert and thief.

Craig Browning wrote:... I don't claim that I channel dead people.

Yet...

Craig Browning wrote:As you know John, I've shared about experiences I've had in which I've apparently "channeled" information to people from "the other side". I don't claim to be a Medium and I fully admit that I cannot explain how I was able to convey the insights with the level of pin point accuracy that I was able to do.

This is far from being an objective representation. You are mixing up experience with explanation, then you deny the conclusion.

Craig Browning wrote:Please don't try to direct the focus back onto me until we see some actual acceptance of responsibility for what's said, how it is said and how it affects people and who is directly responsible when the words and ideas of teh cynical bring about exceptionally negative, non-productive end results.

In this respect I concur with John.

JohnDoe wrote:What is it that you percieve as the negative impact of cynics?

I agree with Pdjamez analysis.

Also...

Craig Browning wrote:Who is responsible for the person that blows their brains out or kills their entired family becasue some jackass convinced them that their guru was a fraud and they were fools?

Craig - could you post some evidence, e.g. a weblink to a news story for this type of scenario?

I'm not saying it's impossible, there are 6 billion people in the world, but in terms of those that cause the most harm, it strikes me there is far far more harm done by irresponsible 'psychics' than those who investigate them.

With all due Respect, Craig Browning (and believe me I do have respect for you. It was a very well thought out piece and you're clearly very intelligent) your long post came across (certainly to me) as being a bombardment of confusing terms specifically designed to make our brains shut down in the mid-piece (which they do quite naturally. We have a tendency to remember the first and last things told to us) so that the points that you open and close with will stick with us.



And just so you know (this isn't exposure as its explained by Derren Brown on Channel 4's website) this is how Derren Brown makes people fall asleep at public telephones. He bombards them with nonsense that their brain filters out until he tells them something they know and can respond to. Namely "fall asleep". The confused brain then responds to something it knows and the person, naturally, falls asleep

http://www.randi.org/library/coldreading/index.html

But before you click on the above link - i would like to make a few points...

Kreskin said we cannot even explain emotions properly - what love means to one, might have another variant to someone else...so what hope and indeed what right do we have to completely and utterly dismiss something out of hand...

Most things are always worth discussion at least - certainly i have my own views, but im always more than happy to listen and explore alternatives...I find it all fascinating...Plus, im secure enough within myself and my beliefs to withstand any questioning from others...

Nietzsche said (as written in my sig line) "All of life is a dispute over taste and tasting."

And i feel there are very few absolute truths in the world. Even being an aetheist (which i might well even of spelt that incorrectly) as i am, is a belief. I choose to belief that there are no Gods...

The same with psychic abilities, Holistic treatments, Crystal-healing...If you believe its true, if you believe something exists - then it is true and it does exist for you...

The important thing to remember (i feel) - is that we all live in our own version of this world. We might share commonalities, yet all the tiny differences turn into major differences when we start comparing them to other peoples...

SO, if anyone feels like discussing the link above, please feel free obviously - it's the reason why i posted it. If you're going to start harrumphing and tutting and talking like an idiot - i'll delete it and no doubt the Mods will step in too...

Let's all respect each others world, however far away we are from it personally...please note - this post is also available in hardback, apologies for the length of it if you've made it that far..or indeed if you truly are psychic and you already know about this post without having read it...

Ok... EkoZero... you made one of the most confusing posts I think I've ever read. But I can assure you, my intent was not to make the brain go dead... then again, I didn't grow up with today's MTv Syndrome/Conditioning, my generation were taught to actually use their minds and be able to focus on things for more than three seconds.

As to the Randi article; it's nothing new! It's the same rhetoric and explanation he's used for decades (nearly word for word) and yet, logically and logestically, such things are nearly impossible for people like Edward to exploit. As John himself explained, to use all the methods Randi and other such cynics want to imply that he uses would require a black bags ops network comparable to that of the CIA and he simply don't have that kind of budget to work with.

"Cold" Reading has become one of the new cover-all explanations for anything that comes out of a Psychic's mouth. The cynic's intentionally point out the vague or generalized statements knowing full well that Psychics cannot readily describe what they see or feel -- this is exploitation in its own right; the manipulation of a known "weakness" if you would and little other. Should a psychic be able to hit hard with solid points then the cynic says we cheat in some way via advanced information gathering of one form or another. Or, they come to the conclusionof people misremembering what they heard or how things were said, etc.

What's so wonderfully clever about the Skeptic's world is their technique for presenting supposition as fact. But then, you tell a lie long enough, big enough and to enough people, it does evolve into a truth of sorts, right?

I'm not stating that there aren't frauds in the psychic world. There are and I've exposed many of them. I am just saying that there are fruads within our midst as well, that use just as many generalities to explain away something they don't want to believe exists as there are those that prey on the unsuspecting within the confines of faith or superstition.

Now, I intentionally avoided this thread and hoped it would die off due to the hair splitting people were getting into -- skeptics seeking proof as to where and how their gospels were resulting in people committing suicide or going into some mode of social, emotional and psychological decline. This is yet another typical ploy of the cynic, in that they know such factors aren't typically recorded in some kind of "official" report -- it's hearsay, in that those close to a person will know about such triggers and what takes place but not something that would be "offcially" recognized as a cause to such things. Believe me, I've seen it and worse, I've had to be there to catch a few people that were affected by the cruel nature today's "skeptics" feel they have the right to put forth on the public stage.

If you want to believe that Cold Reading techniques is all there is to it, take what you learn from Rowland, Tradecraft and Randi's "wisdom" and try to make a living with it as a Reader for a year or two. I think you'll find out really fast that it's about 85% hot air and goes nowhere fast.

Now, set that c*** (not the best) to the side and learn a real divination system forgetting all the magician's mumbo-jumbo and use only that system along side your own gut and see how people respond to your interpretations. If you honestly abandon yourself to nothing but the system, you will be in for a wonderful surprise. Believe me, I've had many ardent skeptics drop their defenses and reconsider their position as the result of this kind of activity because they can't readily explain it all away.

I am a Skeptic but, I'm also a realist. I simply cannot buy into the idea that it's all black & white when I know from personal experience, observation and numerous investigations of my own, that something more really is at hand. I think we're all arrogant as well as ignorant, when we close the door on things and say it "must be" this way or that. Such attitudes rob us from the ability to learn and thus, grow. That, for me at least, is not an option.

Anyone that has seen John Edwards live will know he is rubbish, there maybe some "real" readers out there but it ain't John Edwards.

Here's an annotated script from John and one from my personal favourite Doris Stokes.

http://www.re-quest.net/entertainment/m ... rd/#sample

I too am a realist - yet i would love to think that there are people with real gifts to make contact with people that have passed on...

So, how come no-one has ever heard from Doris Stokes since she died? Or rather - how come no-one has reported with definate facts that Doris Stokes has been in contact with definitive information?

I've got a lot of respect for Mr. Browning - and I'm a huge fan of the articles that are printed within online visions...one of which is this:
http://www.online-visions.com/other/0411psychic.html

I'm also hopeful in some respects that someone somewhere will prove Mr. Randi and others that they are irrefutably wrong. Yet no-one has so far...

Is this because that psychic contact does not work in the same logical sense as they are measured by i do not know...

Also the pints of beer i've just had haven't helped the fact either...yyyourseh allll mah besht pals you areeee....you get the idea...

Anway - i suppose the reason why this kinda stuff is so vehmantly divided is the thought that no-one likes the idea that some "eyes-open" readers would dilaberately con genuine people who have lost someone dear to them, and therefore tar everyone with the same brush...

I believe people with true psychic gifts (if they do exist) might shirk any form of 'advertising' for fear of exposure..and quite possibly the American military grabbing them and forcing them to exterminate goats (maybe that sentence might not make sense to some of you unless you've seen the documentary/read the book)...but then again, could they possibly avoid such problems with their gift?

I think the best (and posssibly easiest) way of explaining the problems with real psychic ability and such is Messiah by Derren Brown, where he fools some of the (possibly self-appointed) 'experts' on various psychic matters...

Though i don't want any kind of Houdini/Sir Arthur Conan Doyle reasoning, nor Derren Brown shows as any kind of get-out clause - i would like to think that anyone with real gifts would want to help people as much as they could - and cheekily for no charge...

I profess, i would not attribute "learning a real divination system" to being or having any kind of psychic ability - but then again (and i probably will be quoted as such) i know next to nothing about them...

I notice recently there was someone who had said that not only had they contacted Princess Diana, but would set up a seance with John Lennon (pay-per-view i believe) went out on satellite tv recently...and its kind of a shame that the one's who are genuine don't band together and try and stop these kind of people more often...

Im also curious of all this because of people's belief systems...that despite people having different beliefs in different Gods, yet they can all channel through the same individual (who in turn, might have a seperate belief themselves)...

So, in summing up - beer and posting bad, psychic talents a maybe...bad apples spoiling the whole crop - definate...

My fourpenn'orth is that there may be something in all this or there may not but until we get definitive proof one way or another perhaps we allow room for reasonable doubt and also reasonable belief.

My main beef is when it's all done on TV for "entertainment", heavily edited, dramatically presented and a lot made out of very little. I actually saw one of John's Crossing Over programmes recently and it was noticeable that the TV channel (Living TV) displayed a notice (to the effect that all this was for entertainment purposes only) which took up half the screen whilst the credits were rolling at the end. In those credits was a whole page stating that the program makers had relied heavily on John Edward and his associates plus other third parties, that it was all for entertainment and, in a nutshell, trying to keep their distance from the whole thing! One of the features involved a woman who's young child had died and John was attempting to give reassuring messages etc to the extent that she was in tears most of the time. This was followed by home movie footage in slow motion of the child running in the garden and generally looking full of health, and then there were after show 'interviews' with the woman who was obviously still at a highly emotional and distressed level. The whole thing just looked so tacky and exploitative. If this sort of thing is going to be done 'to assist' the relatives left behind then it really doesn't have to be done on TV - does it?

Mind you, I can never understand why people go on the Jerry Springer shows and the various UK clones of it. Perhaps I've just missed the plot somewhere.

And here is another link: I must inform you all that I know who the anonymous author of this article is. He is a most reprehensible fellow.

http://www.online-visions.com/other/0411psychic.html

I also know the author of the article in the first link which is from a sceptic's forum. The user name is Svengali. I know him personally and I approve of him wholeheartedly.

Mark Lewis - out of curiosity - why do you find the anonymous author to be reprehensible?

I'd be interested in your reasoning too - the anonymous article seems sensible and balanced to me.

Edit: on re-reading your post you say that the author is reprehensible but you aren't criticising this specific article.

The author of the article in question is obviously not a real psychic. He does not have the power. Therefore he is reprehensible.

I know him well and I can assure you all that he is a rogue and scam artist.

So you think there are "real" psychics???

Also, you approve of Svengali's post (and it is indeed excellent) but he says that people who think they are "real" psychics are deluding themselves.

How do you square your apparently contradictory positions?

I know both the svengali personage and the anonymous fellow personally. I can assure you that one is a genius and the other is a blaggard.

I do not recall saying that there are real psychics. Neither do I recall saying that there are unreal ones. I would prefer to see a definition of the word "psychic" before I can comment upon the matter. Of course there may be many definitions held by many different people. I cannot comment on what definition I can agree with or what I cannot agree with unless such a definition is proposed to me.

I see nothing whatever contradictory in my post but then I am not sure what you mean anyway. Perhaps you could clarify things for me.

Furthermore perhaps you could also clarify which side of this interminable debate you are on. I know I could refer back to this thread to find out but it does rather go on and I haven't the energy.

So are you a sceptic? Or are you a believer? Or are you a non believer but are full of the milk of human kindness towards the charlatans? Or do you believe they are not charlatans but good kind people doing humanity the world of good?

Before we can progress further a little clarification on your part would be welcome.