talkmagic.co.uk

If I were to read this whole thread it would take me as long as reading the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

I have no idea what my definition of the word "psychic" is. It probably coincides with that of svengali on the sceptic forum. He did say that he believes 100% in the tarot cards and so do I.

However if someone tells me what they believe "psychic" means then I will be able to tell them whether I think it is "real" or not.

As for the subject of this thread no doubt it consists of non believers arguing with non believers who are pretending to be believers or perhaps rabid sceptics tut tutting and arguing with people with elastic consciences who are tut tutting about the tut tutting.

At least that is the way these discussions tend to disintegrate into. I have no intention of getting into any argument. It is well known that I am a model of peace and decorum. Besides there is no money in it............

I merely posted a couple of links as a service for those on this thread that required a bit more insight. I do hope they received the insight. I haven't read the thread but I bet the odds are high that the insight is well needed. I find that lots of magicians chatter about psychic work but actually know very little about it.

mark lewis wrote:As for the subject of this thread no doubt it consists of non believers arguing with non believers who are pretending to be believers or perhaps rabid sceptics tut tutting and arguing with people with elastic consciences who are tut tutting about the tut tutting.

At least that is the way these discussions tend to disintegrate into. I have no intention of getting into any argument. It is well known that I am a model of peace and decorum. Besides there is no money in it............

I like your style...

Looks like I deleted my post as you were replying to it - sorry, that was rude of me. Just read a few more of your posts and I see you've been around. With that in mind my post looked a bit patronising, although that wasn't my intention.

yet again...it dissolves into a non-discussion, neither "side" really communicating with the other...hmmmm i see a similarity with the actual topic at least...

if you wish for a statement defining a psychic - please check your local dictionary...

my questions are:
if there are people with these talents - where do the talents come from? A God? IF so, what i'd REALLY like to know is - which God has won? ooh ok im being cheeky here - no offense meant to anyone's religion truly...

why the charge for the service? Or rather - doesnt it cheapen the gift by asking for money? I would say there is a difference between a skill (like writing or guitar playing) and a gift...a gift to be would like having second-sight and so on in this instance...

and i would like to think that if i had some kind of psychic gift - i would want to help as many people as possible with it...i would have no fear in being 'used' by any kind of Government due to being able to forsee any such kidnapping plot...

Im leaning towards the cynical rather than psychic-al...but would love to be given evidence to the contrary..

mark lewis wrote: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.

Hi Mark,

That's a good question, especially because I hadn't really thought about the detail before so it was a good exercise.

1) I am a sceptic about all/any non-natural phenomenon. This includes religion, mediumship, genuine mind-reading etc.

2) I think Cold Reading and its allied arts are fantastically interesting and a lot harder than they can sometimes seem. The presence of mind and thinking on your feet and the sheer guts you need to do your first one are impressive.

3) The ethical problems fall into 3 categories for me. At one end is the pure entertainment, like Derren Brown doing it on morning TV. No tough subjects are broached, the sitters are amazed and everyone's happy. At the other end of the spectrum is anything to do with contacting the dead - in my personal opinion this is peddling dangerous nonsense and fraudulently taking money off the badly deluded.

The difficult area for me is the middle ground - CR based on astrology, tarot, numerology etc. Clearly (in my view) one would still be taking money for nonsense, in that astrology, tarot etc are nonsense. However I also accept that they can be a method to just talk to the sitter and listen to their problems.

I further think that the sitter has a responsibility too - it is their money and if that's how they choose to spend it, good luck to them. It's harmless and no worse than spending it down the pub. The same could be argued for those going to see mediums but in my view they are so deluded they aren't fair game.

4) Because my workplace is under threat of closure in the medium term (2-3 years) I am wondering if Cold Reading (etc.) could be a way forward. Now, given my sceptic POV, I do feel pangs of conscience about that. However currently I (among many other things) trade cigarettes and alcohol, even though several of my customers have respiratory, drink and mental health problems. Every retailer in the UK, large and small, does the same. I think that the punter needs to take responsibility for what they spend their money on and if the demand is there ...

5) I guess what this adds up to is that I think they are all charlatans. I'm open-minded as to whether any of them do any good. Doubtless some do and some don't. Taking the sitter's money may be unethical in a narrow sense but it's their money and no worse than selling fags.

Guys, I hate being lumped in with sceptics, I really do. The term implies that I've come to some point of view or attitude towards something being, on balance, probably false. It also implies some sort of straight fight between two opposing sides. It's far more complicated than that. Here's a for instance:

I've never been much of a joiner-in. I've managed to get this far ploughing my path, not some conveniently identifiable doctrine. I'm an individual, a cynic, a realist, a moderate, and reasonable person who still has to eat and sleep and live and die regardless of how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Reality is too wonderful and too terrible a place all on its own without having to imagine what it would be like if there was even more of it. If you want to find out what reality really contains, then find out. But please guys, don't keep on insisting one way or the other back and forth, reducing the rich tapestry of humanity to two convenient and easily-identfied groups. It's all just so much wasted effort. Find out for yourselves as individuals what's right and what's wrong, even if the truth is unpalatable to you; don't simply insist on what you'd like the answer to be. Oh, and if you keep it to yourselves, then no one will think you've gone a bit "David Ike". Geddit?

And now here's Ted with the weather.

"Do as thou whilst shall be the whole of the law...love under law, love is the law...."

I've been reading some Crowley stuff recently, (slightly off topic i know) - but i enjoy that view point "love is the law"...and its also one of my favourite songs going even further off topic...by Graham Bond...

"Every man and every woman is a star"...and there was that report thing a little while ago that we contain the same material within us that is found in stars...

its a shame a certain mystique attributed to Crowley stuff is lost for me, as i can buy alot of his books off Amazon, which doesnt tie in very well with the "read these pages once and destroy them" segments...

Anyway, yes - i agree with Tomo's comments really...

Is life not a thousand times too short for us to bore ourselves? - Nietzsche

I can explain love neurologically - but that doesn't stop me from being in love. I can explain taste and the digestive system - but that doesn't stop me from enjoying good food and wine. I have read about the big bang theory and I have studied biology - but that doesn't stop me from seeing a creator behind all of this. The point is - I'm a human being and sometimes my explanation of life doesn't always do justice to my experience of living. Understanding politics and socio-economics doesn't take the sting out of poverty and seeing children dying. While I can do some of the maths - I still see the powers at work. The ancients called them demons, angels, gods - I may call them something else - the point is what I experience. Explanation doesn't always help.

We look at psychics, shamans, ministers, sangomas, gurus - and sure, we have our explanations. That doesn't mean the need I have to share my life with others goes away. Maybe a lot of what Psychics do can be explained - why does that make it wrong?

We use language words like 'supernatural' - but what does that mean. The myths and the gods of the ancients weren't necesarily taken literally. The difference is that they had a form of language to convey truths about our experience of life - power, love, evil, birth, death and the cycles of life..

I also see myself as a skeptic to some degree - but I like to investigate something from a number of angles.

Sometimes when someone offers to explain an effect to me I ask them not to, because I enjoy the experience of magic. In life it's like that too - I enjoy the fact that some things aren't solved in my mind. I like believing that miracles are possible. I love loving and enjoying good food and wine, being amazed that birds fly despite my knowlege of aerodynamics. I am mystified by magnets - by their invisible force, I love looking at the moon on a misty evening and getting the feeling that something mysterious is about to happen. I guess I really believe in magic

If I'm being foolish and there is nothing outside of our scientific explanations - well I've lost nothing in that I'll just fade away into a memory when I expire one day, joining all those 'enlightened ones' in the same fate. Until then I plan on keeping an open mind and continually being surprised by life..

PS. - Tomo I like your last post.

Tomo wrote:Oh, and if you keep it to yourselves, then no one will think you've gone a bit "David Ike". Geddit?

The thing is, if you are asked directly where you're coming from, it's rude not to answer.

Secondly, in a discussion about the ethics of CR/psychics etc, it really does matter whether you "believe". If you believe and act as a psychic you are clearly ethically on firmer ground than those who don't believe but would still take the money.

That depends on what you mean by 'believe' and what you mean by 'psychic' (which is probably what Mark was getting at). On the other hand - I have had experiences that some would define as psychic - but I never thought of it that way before, for me it was just intuition and perfectly natural to use in the situation. For instance - while councelling people I would sometimes get an image of something in my mind. When sharing that with them - it made a big difference. I can sort of explain how that works - but it's not that important - it worked. This was long before I had any knowlege of cold reading etc.

I think we waste too much time putting people into categories so we can judge them. Maybe it makes us feel better about ourselves or something - but it's certainly not going to change anything.

I don't think it's about putting other people in categories - it's just useful shorthand to say "I'm a sceptic" rather than spell it all out, just as saying somebody's views are "left-wing" is far simpler than spelling out the detail. Most people know what is meant.

Agreed - but that's not always the case. For instance Craig called himself a psychic. Looking at the posts in this thread it is reasonably clear that a lot of people don't really bother to really read (as in understand) what he has written because they equate psychic with conman or fake, or on the other hand 'wierdo and shut-eye'. I have found it frustrating to read a really well thought out post followed by someone totally missing the point, just because they want to give 'the psychic' a jab.

I guess that's not really what you're getting at - but it gave me a nice launchpad to say what I've been wanting to say

ian69 wrote:Secondly, in a discussion about the ethics of CR/psychics etc, it really does matter whether you "believe". If you believe and act as a psychic you are clearly ethically on firmer ground than those who don't believe but would still take the money.

Just been thinking about this (I know - I should be working or something). How is this different from someone saying they are using various psychological techniques - when they're actually using trickery, and accepting money for it?

I've been pondering my navel about this one for some time and I've come up with a simple test. I doubt its comprehensive, but I think it has some merit. Here's the scenario:

You've just finished a show and the client comes backstage to give you the balance of your payment. He is pleased with your show but asks the question "Is it all just a trick?". If your reply has an impact on whether you get paid or not, then your probably on sticky ground.

Okay, its not perfect, but hopefully you see my point. Now some would argue, and have, that this is not always the case. Craig in particular has pointed out some of the gray areas that exist in this type of scenario and I can see that some of his arguments have merit. Unfortunately, the more you look at this subject area the murkier it becomes.

I am astonished and dismayed by all the multitude of answers since I last visited. All we need is the presence of Reverend Browning to swamp us in a further deluge of words.

Alas I cannot answer everyone. I shall therefore search the last few responses to see if anyone has been unnecessarily impertinent.

One moment please.

Aha! It appears that the first response to me is an impertinent one by some chap named Abraxus. I have noticed that sceptics always seem to go under false names for some unearthly reason. No doubt they are all scared that we psychic people might put a hex on them. It hasn't ocurred to them that they may already be cursed.

I consider his statement about consulting a dictionary to be a very rude one and I consider it to be disrespectful to a holy man of the cloth like myself who has been ordained by the Right Reverend Nelson Guyette on the booth of a psychic fair. No doubt Abraxus is young and British a most unfortunate combination which seems to bring out the rudeness in people.
I am old and British and have more experience at being rude to people than he has so I would advise him to show more reverence to the clergy.

I suggest that if wants to present a definition of "psychic" then let him do so. I haven't the time to be looking up dictionaries. Besides there is no money in it.

With regard to his question about money I can assure him that it is an ESSENTIAL part of a reading. If you put a nothing value on something you will get nothing out of it. The payment is part of the therapy. There is a rather cynical saying which I like. It goes like this "All the best psychiatrists in America agree that charging the patient a high fee has a strong therapeutic effect"

In Canada where I live hypnosis to stop smoking was not covered by the Government Health Service and patients had to pay for it. However one day the Ontario government decided to allow patients coverage and they could at last have it done free. The success rate went down.

Sorry old chap. You really have to pay to get the benefit. And so that holy psychic reverends like myself can also get the benefit which of course is infinitely more important.

I must correct Ian's statement that if you really believe in your psychic ability you are better off from an ethical point of view. That is because if you are hampered by too much belief you can actually harm a client by telling them a load of dangerous and irresponsible claptrap. However an intelligent fake like that reprehensible anonymous person I linked to can do a lot more good than an extreme shut eye type.

However I naturally do not approve of fakery and I certainly do not approve of that anonymous person's great wickedness. If this statement seems contradictory I shall let the more intelligent among you figure it out.

Derren Brown's programmes are perfectly ethical except that they have a tendency to bore people to death and that might be considered a trifle tut tut in some quarters.

However when you do a psychic reading for people on a one to one basis you are walking an ethical tightrope. You can do so much good for people but yet you can do so much harm.

But then that goes for doctors and psychiatrists too. And in fact more so. I dare say that my track record may well be better than a lot of doctors or psychiatrists in the "do no harm" department.

I do think selling cigarettes are just as unethical and in some cases more so than doing psychic readings. As for alcohol as a holy man of the cloth and psychic reverend I cannot approve of the devil's buttermilk.

Now do talk among yourselves. I must go. I have members of my congregation waiting with money in hand. Naturally my church accepts donations.

good post