What Would A Real Psychic Do

Dec 31, 2019
17
6
I've been doing magic for about 20 years and half that time has been spent doing mentalism specifically. I've done a lot of shows and have read a lot of books.

I too have struggled with finding the "best method" for gaining someone's thought. In constant search of the holy grail of Mentalism feats.

I've noticed on a lot of these forums people get fairly heated about what the most "real" form of Mentalism is. People will argue that billet work is the only true form of Mentalism and that propless mentalism is just like playing 20 questions and isn't amazing. You read people argue back "writing it down is illogical" or "why should I need to tear it up?"

These are all valid points but the question I always come back to is this:

What would it look like if I were really psychic?

I think people often misinterpret this question to mean how would a psychic present his abilities in an experimental setting.

I've done a lot of thinking on the nature of psychic activity and have found what I believe to be the true answer to this most important question in Mentalism.

A psychic wouldn't care AT ALL about whether it was written down or not or where it went when it was written down. It would literally be inconsequential.

A mind reader would see into your mind and simply tell you about yourself. Who you are, what you love, what you hate, your deepest dreams and desires. He would be aware of your strengths, your joy, your pain, and your fears. And we would feel these things with you.

A real mind reader would respond to thoughts in your head without you having to say them.

You'd think "ok prove it, read my mind then"

And he would say "I sense you feel some doubt in my abilities and would like me to prove them to you"


A Mentalist who is a real mind reader wouldn't care about method at all he would seek to understand his spectators and feel with them. To genuinely care about Who that person is.

When I got my B.A. Psychology I studied a lot about human emotions and how we process and remember things. We are emotional animals and normally remember that in which makes us feel the most.

It's not that hard to be a real mind reader all you need to do is be mindful of what others feel and share those experiences with them in a way that builds. Relate to them and feel their pain and successes with them as if it was your own life you were talking about.

All the tests we do (Billets, Book tests, P.A., Etc) is simply a way to have them make a decision so we can tell them why we think they made it.

I'm convinced that all you need to know to be a great mind reader is the seven universal facial expressions:

Anger, Fear, Sadness, Joy, Surprise, Disgust, and Contempt

With these you can really and truly read people's minds because these are a very real physical manifestation of people's thoughts.

I promise you that if you try to really read people's minds they won't give a f**k if the choice they made was 1 in 5 or 1 in 1,000,000,000. They will have had the a genuine experience of real compassion, made a real connection with another human being.

That's what we have to offer the world and that's why our art matters.

I don't know, just my thoughts on it anyway
 

Josh Burch

Elite Member
Aug 11, 2011
2,966
1,101
Utah
Yeah, good thoughts.

As a guide with this kind of approach to mentalism I think of Charles Xavier from X-Men. He's my reference for a "real" psychic. What would he do if someone said, "Read my mind!" Probably nothing. He'd continue to talk with them, like a kind human.

What would it look like if he did a show?

I think it could be a few things. Some demonstrations would "prove" his abilities were genuine, others would be emotionally charged, and others would be interesting (theaterical)way to make decisions and reveal information.

He would still have to think about method though. Some feats of his are painful and overwhelming. His demonstrations would need to take his limitations into account just like ours do.
 
Dec 31, 2019
17
6
I agree! I think though that the method is kind of inconsequential and more importantly would come down to what he would be more comfortable presenting. He might use an envelope or a wallet or just a folded piece of paper or he might just tell people facts about themselves that he picks up and writes them down for them to keep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Antonio Diavolo

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
What would it look like if I were really psychic?

The person seeing the demonstration would choose the task that the psychic would have to do to prove their abilities. Read the stories about Banachek in Project Alpha.

A Mentalist who is a real mind reader wouldn't care about method at all he would seek to understand his spectators and feel with them.

The your use of the word "method" betrays your thinking. You are thinking like a magician in that if you see something written down you think that is a clue as to the method. If you were a psychic, you would think of it as the "conditions" of the demonstration.

The answer is not trying to develop routine without a "method" but instead to justify the conditions. Take something simple like Mad-Libs. If you had one of them with just the blanks to be filled in shown (i.e. you cut rectangles in a sheet of paper and put that over the sheet with the story), wouldn't it make sense to have the spectator write in the nouns and adjectives? In fact, writing down the words would seem to be a necessary "condition" of the test for the psychic when they try to figure out what the person was thinking.

I've noticed on a lot of these forums people get fairly heated about what the most "real" form of Mentalism is. People will argue that billet work is the only true form of Mentalism and that propless mentalism is just like playing 20 questions and isn't amazing. You read people argue back "writing it down is illogical" or "why should I need to tear it up?"

Mentalism isn't the method, but the effect.

I'm convinced that all you need to know to be a great mind reader is the seven universal facial expressions:

Anger, Fear, Sadness, Joy, Surprise, Disgust, and Contempt

With these you can really and truly read people's minds because these are a very real physical manifestation of people's thoughts.

I disagree. Knowing how to read expressions and body language can be a useful tool, but that provides only the emotion regarding the thought, not the substance of the thought.

Thus, if you ask someone to think of someone and their reaction is anger, your first "read" would be that it is someone they don't like. But, you may have missed their hesitation which would explain that they thought of someone they loved who was killed in a car accident and their response was thinking about how angry they were at the driver of the other car.

I too have struggled with finding the "best method" for gaining someone's thought. In constant search of the holy grail of Mentalism feats.

Mentalism is no different than magic. Learn multiple methods because each has its advantages and drawbacks. The method you use depends on the context of the effect. You should have at least two different ways to accomplish the same effect.

Remember, it is what the audience sees as the effect that matters... not how the magician or mentalist accomplishes the effect. Would it matter if the spectator wrote something down but the magician used a method that didn't rely on them writing something down? Answer is no. Would it matter if there was no reason for that person to write the information down? Answer is yes, even if it had nothing to do with the method. The flip side of that is it won't matter if writing something down is related to the method if there is a logical reason from the audience's point of view for writing it down.

You'd think "ok prove it, read my mind then"

This statement is a good place to point out the importance of defining your psychic powers. There should be things you can and can't do. A mentalist loses credibility if they can read thoughts, predict the future and levitate tables. Just as what you do need to be defined, the why behind how you can do it needs to be cohesive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Theorist19
Dec 31, 2019
17
6
The person seeing the demonstration would choose the task that the psychic would have to do to prove their abilities. Read the stories about Banachek in Project Alpha.



The your use of the word "method" betrays your thinking. You are thinking like a magician in that if you see something written down you think that is a clue as to the method. If you were a psychic, you would think of it as the "conditions" of the demonstration.

The answer is not trying to develop routine without a "method" but instead to justify the conditions. Take something simple like Mad-Libs. If you had one of them with just the blanks to be filled in shown (i.e. you cut rectangles in a sheet of paper and put that over the sheet with the story), wouldn't it make sense to have the spectator write in the nouns and adjectives? In fact, writing down the words would seem to be a necessary "condition" of the test for the psychic when they try to figure out what the person was thinking.



Mentalism isn't the method, but the effect.



I disagree. Knowing how to read expressions and body language can be a useful tool, but that provides only the emotion regarding the thought, not the substance of the thought.

Thus, if you ask someone to think of someone and their reaction is anger, your first "read" would be that it is someone they don't like. But, you may have missed their hesitation which would explain that they thought of someone they loved who was killed in a car accident and their response was thinking about how angry they were at the driver of the other car.



Mentalism is no different than magic. Learn multiple methods because each has its advantages and drawbacks. The method you use depends on the context of the effect. You should have at least two different ways to accomplish the same effect.

Remember, it is what the audience sees as the effect that matters... not how the magician or mentalist accomplishes the effect. Would it matter if the spectator wrote something down but the magician used a method that didn't rely on them writing something down? Answer is no. Would it matter if there was no reason for that person to write the information down? Answer is yes, even if it had nothing to do with the method. The flip side of that is it won't matter if writing something down is related to the method if there is a logical reason from the audience's point of view for writing it down.



This statement is a good place to point out the importance of defining your psychic powers. There should be things you can and can't do. A mentalist loses credibility if they can read thoughts, predict the future and levitate tables. Just as what you do need to be defined, the why behind how you can do it needs to be cohesive.


RealityOne, First off I have read project alpha, I am a huge fan of banachek. I was trying to make a point of what I believe a mind reader should be.

Your second point is arguing the exact same point I was making. But to reiterate. I don't believe in trying to justify what I'm doing as from my experience what I believe, they too will believe.

On your third point, you're once again arguing my point with me. Thank you!

Fourth, you can 100% read people's minds with facial expressions if you understand learned and universal triggers and how they relate to context and personality. I do it all the time and it's what I'm most known for.

Fifth, I know many, many methods but the method doesn't matter at all.

Sixth, you're absolutely right again about making a claim about what you do but it would seem awfully silly to say you do telekinesis and they respond with "ok read my mind then" wouldn't it lol

My point was that we spend too much time focusing on irrelevant stuff like which billet work to use and even get to the point of talking down to eachother, all the while missing the point that it's about doing what you're comfortable with and being sensitive to the experience of our patrons.

I'm glad a moderator such as yourself is on my side here :)
 

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
But to reiterate. I don't believe in trying to justify what I'm doing as from my experience what I believe, they too will believe.

I think that "motivate" is a better word for what I'm trying to convey than "justify." That is, there is a logical reason in the context of the presentation for taking the steps you take. If you provide a motivation for the steps that facilitate a method, then the method remains invisible.

I also think that equating your beliefs with the audience's is a mistake. You know the method and therefore you have to "un-know" the method to see the audience's perspective. If what you are saying is that you have to convey your sense of belief to the audience despite knowing the method (e.g. a magician believing the coin was transferred from the left hand to the right hand), then I agree with you.

Fourth, you can 100% read people's minds with facial expressions if you understand learned and universal triggers and how they relate to context and personality. I do it all the time and it's what I'm most known for.

I'm not arguing that expressions cannot be a useful tool. Rather, I'm arguing that they should be one tool used in the context of an effect. For example, you cannot use expressions to discern the name of somebody's first kiss. You can use expressions to gauge reactions to statements like, "it wasn't your husband was it?" or "in remembering the kiss, think about but don't tell me, was it spectacular or awkward?" It becomes, in Banachek's words, a subtlety.

Also, I'm not arguing that expressions are not useful when used with other cold reading techniques (which is the context you seem to use them in). In my opinion, cold reading is more entertaining in a close-up setting then in a parlor or stage show.

In constant search of the holy grail of Mentalism feats.

I'm curious if you are seeking "no-method" mentalism, where you develop skills that allow you to "read minds" without the use of a method (e.g. forces, billet switching, double writing, electronics, etc.)? That was my impression. If so, that is where we differ.

I'm more of a "best method in context" -- that is considering all possible methods and using the one that is best in the context of the effect and developing the presentation with sufficient motivation so that the method is invisible to spectators.
 
Dec 31, 2019
17
6
I think that "motivate" is a better word for what I'm trying to convey than "justify." That is, there is a logical reason in the context of the presentation for taking the steps you take. If you provide a motivation for the steps that facilitate a method, then the method remains invisible.

I also think that equating your beliefs with the audience's is a mistake. You know the method and therefore you have to "un-know" the method to see the audience's perspective. If what you are saying is that you have to convey your sense of belief to the audience despite knowing the method (e.g. a magician believing the coin was transferred from the left hand to the right hand), then I agree with you.



I'm not arguing that expressions cannot be a useful tool. Rather, I'm arguing that they should be one tool used in the context of an effect. For example, you cannot use expressions to discern the name of somebody's first kiss. You can use expressions to gauge reactions to statements like, "it wasn't your husband was it?" or "in remembering the kiss, think about but don't tell me, was it spectacular or awkward?" It becomes, in Banachek's words, a subtlety.

Also, I'm not arguing that expressions are not useful when used with other cold reading techniques (which is the context you seem to use them in). In my opinion, cold reading is more entertaining in a close-up setting then in a parlor or stage show.



I'm curious if you are seeking "no-method" mentalism, where you develop skills that allow you to "read minds" without the use of a method (e.g. forces, billet switching, double writing, electronics, etc.)? That was my impression. If so, that is where we differ.

I'm more of a "best method in context" -- that is considering all possible methods and using the one that is best in the context of the effect and developing the presentation with sufficient motivation so that the method is invisible to spectators.

Ahhhh that makes much more sense! And yes you did call it. I have been working on a "no-method" mind reading style for years now. In all fairness though, even that I couple with things like ESP cards, and P.A., and even billet work. But I've always treated those as minor "targets" in the grand scheme of the readings. Though, of course I never claim to be psychic.

I 100% agree that the best method for the context is a great approach to finding what works but when it comes to the spectators believing what I believe. It's much less of me trying to unlearn the method and a lot more of what I think our greatest subtlety, Confidence, because I'm so comfortable with the methods I do use they flow in my mind as though there is nothing suspicious and there for I'm able to "believe" in what I'm doing more.

Honestly it might have sounded presumptuous before but I do think that our values on this subject align quite a bit and that does make me very happy!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RealityOne

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
And yes you did call it. I have been working on a "no-method" mind reading style for years now.

I knew that.

Though, of course I never claim to be psychic.

I just did. :cool:

But I've always treated those as minor "targets" in the grand scheme of the readings.

I think any difference is a matter of emphasis... I'm "methods" with "subtleties" and you are "real skills" with "add-ons."

a lot more of what I think our greatest subtlety, Confidence

You cannot instill belief if you don't believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MMChangingReality
Dec 31, 2019
17
6
Yes! See?! We're growing here! I'm so glad I made this post!

My dream is to transcend traditional methods while maintaining the specificity and processless nature of things like Billets.

Maybe one day.... Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Antonio Diavolo

Josh Burch

Elite Member
Aug 11, 2011
2,966
1,101
Utah
I should say, while I think this is a helpful discussion, it's not the way I like to present mentalism. I have really liked odd presentations lately, at least casually they have been more fun.

I'm working on an effect where I put a tinfoil hat on the participants head and chem trails cause the spectator to do exactly what I want. It's odd and fun.

I'm very interested in new ways that magic can be presented.
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,877
2,945
My dream is to transcend traditional methods while maintaining the specificity and processless nature of things like Billets.

The ironic thing there is that the stuff you're talking about doing is the "traditional" method, whereas the billets and such are much more contemporary.

I think RealityOne really covered most of what I would have said already but I am curious about one thing -

You mention "real psychics" several times and give definite conclusions about what they would and would not do. Out of curiosity - how much time have you spent with people who truly believe they are psychic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RealityOne
Dec 31, 2019
17
6
The ironic thing there is that the stuff you're talking about doing is the "traditional" method, whereas the billets and such are much more contemporary.

I think RealityOne really covered most of what I would have said already but I am curious about one thing -

You mention "real psychics" several times and give definite conclusions about what they would and would not do. Out of curiosity - how much time have you spent with people who truly believe they are psychic?

True! It is very ironic! But I would be inclined to argue that the CT is a pretty traditional method as well.

Well the city I live in has quite a bit of occult shops so I have seen "psychics" many times out of curiosity. Also watching the likes of Silvia Brown and John Edwards. And don't forget as Mr. Burch pointed out Professor X!

But all those aside I think back to when I was younger and I dreamed of being able to know what people were thinking. To understand why they were to they were and why they did what they did. I remember imagining that I could hear their thoughts and what that experience would be like.

I naive me, dreamed that it would one day happen and the scientist in me found a way to get pretty darn close with psychology and forensic science. I call myself The Modern Fortune Teller because I want the feel of the psychics of old but without claiming to be psychic and using more modern presentation styles.
 
Jun 18, 2019
540
293
20
West Bengal, India
A psychic wouldn't care AT ALL about whether it was written down or not or where it went when it was written down. It would literally be inconsequential.
Which is why, in my opinion, mentalist is easy to get wrong, but very difficult to do properly and more importantly, beautifully.

I am curious however, how do mentalists not cross the line between blatantly lying and pretending to be something they aren't, and expressing true art in mentalism?

The line is murky in magic itself, which is why I am even more curious for the case of mentalists which, for the lack if focus better term, is more ''real''.
 
Dec 31, 2019
17
6
Which is why, in my opinion, mentalist is easy to get wrong, but very difficult to do properly and more importantly, beautifully.

I am curious however, how do mentalists not cross the line between blatantly lying and pretending to be something they aren't, and expressing true art in mentalism?

The line is murky in magic itself, which is why I am even more curious for the case of mentalists which, for the lack if focus better term, is more ''real''.

I've always been a firm believer in making no claims to be psychic. I've always told people I'm not psychic and that I simply read people. The interesting thing is that the people who believe in psychics generally believe that you must be anyway.

At the end of the day though I think it's really up to the performer and that the morality of the subject doesn't rest with the claim itself but the motives of the performer. As in if you claim to be psychic but try to do a fun and uplifting show for entertainment purposes solely you're just as moral as the performer who claims not to have psychic powers but does the same kind of show. Maybe that's the Immanuel Kant in me though!
 
Dec 31, 2019
17
6
The ironic thing there is that the stuff you're talking about doing is the "traditional" method, whereas the billets and such are much more contemporary.

I think RealityOne really covered most of what I would have said already but I am curious about one thing -

You mention "real psychics" several times and give definite conclusions about what they would and would not do. Out of curiosity - how much time have you spent with people who truly believe they are psychic?

Perhaps it's a perceptual error on my part or I didn't communicate myself clearly enough in my original post but I'm not understanding the argument.

My thesis was mainly that a mentalist shouldn't have to rely on any particular method and should do what it is that is most natural to them because that is what's going to have the best reactions. And that we need to stop trivializing our art by focusing on what the best CT is and what wallet is the best or whether or not something should be written down. These things shouldn't matter in the mind of a mind reader.

What I'm trying to hopefully get out of this post is encouraging people to try to transcend their art and give real value to our patrons.

I'm missing why that is a wrong way of thinking.
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,877
2,945
But I would be inclined to argue that the CT is a pretty traditional method as well.

It's not. There's an easy litmus test on whether it's contemporary or traditional - is it presented deceptively? If yes, probably contemporary. If no, probably something that's been done for hundreds of years.

Mentalism began as an esoteric practice. Many people still practice it today. But the 'real psychic' would probably not do much of anything you see on a Mentalist's stage today.

The discussion of "What would a real psychic do?" in the mentalist community is often flawed because it begins on an incorrect premise - that the 'real psychic' would do anything like what we do on stage anyway.

I am curious however, how do mentalists not cross the line between blatantly lying and pretending to be something they aren't, and expressing true art in mentalism?

Depends on the mentalist. Many of them are blatantly lying. Actually, I'd say most do. Claiming to use "NLP" and "Microexpression reading" when one is just peeking information is just as much a lie as claiming to speak to the spirits when peeking information. But the Post Houdini/Randi crew have made it such a thing to crusade against anyone claiming anything other than "it's all tricks" that people would rather go the scientific lie than anything else.

The line is in intent. If one is presenting a theatrical experience, and only taking from the audience the ticket fee and/or merch prices, that's perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. The moral/ethical issues arise when someone decides to milk a client/audience/whatever for as much money as they can get, regardless of the impact to said audience.

I'm missing why that is a wrong way of thinking.

I don't actually disagree with your conclusions. I'm curious about your workings, as it were. I'm actually somewhat known for "doing it for real" in many circles - there is a foundation of classic mentalist skills which allows one to honestly divine thoughts from volunteers without having to be deceptive about it. These skills are talked about but relatively very few people actually use them regularly. Probably because they can be difficult, require practice and actual knowledge, and will never be 100% sure fire so casual performers won't invest the time required to do them.

My curiosity comes from wondering if you've actually explored the world you are talking about mimicking. ie: When you ask, "What would a real psychic do?" How can you answer that question if you haven't spent any time around a 'real psychic'? I do travel in esoteric circles on a regular basis and what most mentalists and magicians think a psychic would do is wildly inaccurate.

When I say "you" I also mean the generic you, not you specifically. Think of it less as "an argument" and more "exploring the subject".
 
Dec 31, 2019
17
6
It's not. There's an easy litmus test on whether it's contemporary or traditional - is it presented deceptively? If yes, probably contemporary. If no, probably something that's been done for hundreds of years.

Mentalism began as an esoteric practice. Many people still practice it today. But the 'real psychic' would probably not do much of anything you see on a Mentalist's stage today.

The discussion of "What would a real psychic do?" in the mentalist community is often flawed because it begins on an incorrect premise - that the 'real psychic' would do anything like what we do on stage anyway.



Depends on the mentalist. Many of them are blatantly lying. Actually, I'd say most do. Claiming to use "NLP" and "Microexpression reading" when one is just peeking information is just as much a lie as claiming to speak to the spirits when peeking information. But the Post Houdini/Randi crew have made it such a thing to crusade against anyone claiming anything other than "it's all tricks" that people would rather go the scientific lie than anything else.

The line is in intent. If one is presenting a theatrical experience, and only taking from the audience the ticket fee and/or merch prices, that's perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. The moral/ethical issues arise when someone decides to milk a client/audience/whatever for as much money as they can get, regardless of the impact to said audience.



I don't actually disagree with your conclusions. I'm curious about your workings, as it were. I'm actually somewhat known for "doing it for real" in many circles - there is a foundation of classic mentalist skills which allows one to honestly divine thoughts from volunteers without having to be deceptive about it. These skills are talked about but relatively very few people actually use them regularly. Probably because they can be difficult, require practice and actual knowledge, and will never be 100% sure fire so casual performers won't invest the time required to do them.

My curiosity comes from wondering if you've actually explored the world you are talking about mimicking. ie: When you ask, "What would a real psychic do?" How can you answer that question if you haven't spent any time around a 'real psychic'? I do travel in esoteric circles on a regular basis and what most mentalists and magicians think a psychic would do is wildly inaccurate.

When I say "you" I also mean the generic you, not you specifically. Think of it less as "an argument" and more "exploring the subject".

Ok! Awesome! That's actually a huge relief :)

I 100% agree with your reasons about why people avoid doing it for real. Personally I love the rush of genuinely figuring out what's in their minds. Of course as you said it's never a guarantee but I think to not try is doing ourselves a disservice.

Also trying to do it for real leaves no room for magicians guilt!

I have definitely done my best to understand what it is that pseudo psychics do that makes them so convincing and why despite living in such a secular age they're still so prevalent.

Honestly though, I would say that most of my conclusions are drawn from thought experiments on what it would feel like for me if I were on either end of the reading as well as experience in performing for people. I've watched a few mentalists perform live and always find that there is something missing. For me I think that is the readings.
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,877
2,945
I have definitely done my best to understand what it is that pseudo psychics do that makes them so convincing and why despite living in such a secular age they're still so prevalent.

What makes you think we're in a secular age?

A massive part of what makes us human is our ability to recognize patterns. The issue, of course, is that we see patterns that aren't even there - ie: superstitions. Which means while we may not put it out there like they did in the good ol' days, most Americans still believe in ghosts and gods and other such supernatural things.

Here's a fun thing you can do - at a party or whatever, during a lull, ask everyone their ghost story. Almost everyone has one. Not their favorite, but the one that happened to them or someone they know. It's also fun how often you'll hear phrases like, "I don't believe in ghosts" followed by, "But don't go into the barn at night."

So, all that to say this - you specified psuedo-psychics. This tells me you assume all people claiming to be psychics are faking it. Sure, fine. But by spending time in that world, and getting to know these people on a personal level, you will learn a lot more about how a 'real psychic' operates and why they are so believable.
 
Dec 31, 2019
17
6
What makes you think we're in a secular age?

A massive part of what makes us human is our ability to recognize patterns. The issue, of course, is that we see patterns that aren't even there - ie: superstitions. Which means while we may not put it out there like they did in the good ol' days, most Americans still believe in ghosts and gods and other such supernatural things.

Here's a fun thing you can do - at a party or whatever, during a lull, ask everyone their ghost story. Almost everyone has one. Not their favorite, but the one that happened to them or someone they know. It's also fun how often you'll hear phrases like, "I don't believe in ghosts" followed by, "But don't go into the barn at night."

So, all that to say this - you specified psuedo-psychics. This tells me you assume all people claiming to be psychics are faking it. Sure, fine. But by spending time in that world, and getting to know these people on a personal level, you will learn a lot more about how a 'real psychic' operates and why they are so believable.

I think we live in a secular age because science and technology seem to be the most relevant aspects of modern culture. Of course people still have spiritual beliefs, I just think it's less prevalent than it has been in the past.

As i'm sure you've noticed for yourself as well, I don't even find myself needing to ask for people's ghost stories since people are normally more than happy to share these things when we offer what we do. I noticed this as well with their psychic experiences in general!

To clarify, when I say pseudo-psychics I don't presume that they are intentionally faking it. A few people in my life from a young age have been practitioners in Wicca and psychic practices. I've been asked by people whether or not I believe in psychic activity(which I don't technically) and my answer to them is related to my belief in Magick. There is nothing in this universe that exists as something supernatural because by definition if it exists it's natural. I do however believe in magic because it is the intention and will that we put into the universe that causes us to subconsciously (or sometimes consciously) act upon our will and make our dreams a reality. An inherent belief in magic allows us to utilize the law of attraction and the self fulfilling to produce tangible results in our lives. So no I don't believe in psychic powers in the sense of a super-natural phenomenon but I think with being mindful of your intuition and a sensitivity to others we can achieve almost supernatural results.

The scientist in me craves the knowledge of how the cake is made but to me that doesn't make the cake any less delicious!
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,877
2,945
I've been saying it for years, when we don't understand something we sometimes call it magic(k). When we understand it, we call it science.

I think we're largely thinking along the same lines.

Have you looked into anything by Paul Voodini, Aaron Alexander, or Jerome Finley?
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results