Marked cards for readings

Yes way off topic, so what you're saying is that no one should do readings? Well lets go a bit further with this then, I've worked with a lot of mental health professionals and no two psychotherapists work the same. They all follow different schools of philosophy, I've said before that people go un-diagnosed or mis-diagnosed for years because alot of GPs and Psyc nurses don't know what they're doing with mental health. Having suffered from mental health problems myself I know first hand.

So I'd say no one is really trained to deal with anyone with problems just some are more prepaired as they have some training but who's to say that is the right training?

How do you know that a quick 'entertainment' reading can't be more damaging then a full reading? At least with a full reading there is time to listen to people and maybe pick up that something is wrong, thats all we can do.

Whats to say that wathching a mentalist or magician for that matter can't damage people more as they may belive that what they see is real (and I know I've had first hand experience of that happening in my last job.)

Films and books have caused people with mental issues to go over the edge and these don't listen at all.

What am I saying?
That maybe readers are DOING some good, they are a chance for people that wouldn't normaly go to a doctor or shrink to talk to someone about their problems. Maybe the person WILL pick up on it and be able to guide them in the right direction to get help.

Maybe they won't pick up or make that person worse but like I said other people and films and books do this already (and by that I'm not saying it's a good thing)

So a reader is no worse then any other person in my eyes.

First of all, i would like to say that I think this is very interesting debate conducted in a reasoned fashion. Personally, I do not think anyone needs to apologise for their opinion, just because it differs from someone else's. This is the nature of debate. It only becomes offensive if it an attack on the person. Questioning a person's beliefs, or defending an alternative is debate, in my view.

I take the position that reality is not fixed, but is an individual experience. Person X thinks that psychic phenomena exists and has 'proof', person Y believes that science gives the best model of reality and also has proof. Both are right - a the same time! People who know me will know I am a great fan of Robert Anton Wilson - he coined the phrase 'reality tunnel' - meaning, we are all in our own reality, believing that this must be the only reality. In fact, reality is highly subjective. This allows me to sit on the fence and dangle my legs over both sides (a vicarious thrill, at my age).

There is a BIG debate at the back of all of this, regarding what we do and why we do it. I intend to open this debate up as a separate thread, when the manifesto is out and we are kicking off a little more.

Personally, I would make a distinction between a 'magic' performance and a 'psychic performance' and would not use marked cards. However, I do not feel the need, as (the way I did it) the sitter does all the work anyway. I would be horrified if I actually went for a reading and found that trickery was involved. In the same way, I would (personally) feel uncomfortable using trickery. This does not mean that I am right... or wrong.


I do think that readers are starting to fulfill a vital function in society, that of a 'listener'. With the breakdown of the extended family, with the dissolution of identifiable (communicating) communities. With the medical profession being a mechanism that merely matches a drug to a symptom. And so on... Many people have no one they can turn to who will just listen. However (hopping back on my fence), I have been in a situation on more than one occasion where I was 'in too deep' and a damaged person was looking to me as 'the person with the solution', when I was not up to that job - where something that was intended as entertainment, was taken into an uncomfortably unknown area. So much so, that I do not do readings anymore. If someone is psychologically in need of help, and you are seen as the solution - you had better be prepared, because that person will see you as having far more ability than you actually do possess. You are literally their 'Saviour' - and will attach themselves to you, until you provide a solution that you are incapable of administering. What then?

For me the answer must lie somewhere in the middle. In the day, I am a teacher and lecturer and a tutor to six form students - people at a very vulnerable stage in life - the guidance given to us is very simple - if a student starts opening up and talking about something that is outside of my responsibility - I stop the conversation and tell them that anything they say cannot be kept confidential, but I must refer it to someone with appropriate training. I also give advise as to where appropriate help can be found.

People are seeking - but they are seeking something that already exists inside them (and beyond their individual ego). If a entertainer, of whatever shade, can help the individual liberate this from within themselves, how can harm ensue? However, if the entertainer starts dabbling around in areas where psychological transference can happen, rather than enjoying the feeling of power this may give- that performer needs to act with responsibility.

None of this is fact, just my reality tunnel.

I have to agree with you on matching a drug to a problem, been there got the t-shirt ditched the drugs and never looked back all I wanted was someone to talk to!

As for being in over your head, as I said I used to be a support worker and some of the stuff I've been told I've had to tell the service users there and then that I would have take the matter further.

Right back to the debate

One key element I incorporate into readings is good, solid, common sense advice dressed up in a mystical fashion. I always imply that I won't be able to resolve their problems but the cards (or whatever I am using) will guide them in the correct direction.

I have had a lot of clients come back to me with great stories. One woman was trying to trace her long lost brother who she presumed may be deceased. The 'cards' told her the steps needed to take. They were reunited.

It was common sense advice that anyone could have given, but if someone's belief is strong then they will listen more. Of course, you have to be VERY responsible with readings and dealiing with people's lives.

Which is why it annoys me when some finger-flinging 16 year old magician see's Derren Brown or someone else on television doing something similar and adding it to their repotoire of "tricks", snickering that someone "believed" them if they ever manage to pull off anything appraoching a half-decent reading.

It's people's lives and emotions you are dealing with, so it annoys me when some people see it all as a 'game'.

Here here Freddie, if someone belives then they will listen more. Also people do come for a reading for piece of mind.
I sometimes do readings in a new age shop that my friend owns.

A lady came in and was talking to the owner, I heard the owner say 'well Tristan can give you a reading for now and I'll give you a propper reading next time.' her partner said 'can we have a refund if we're not happy?'

I sat and listened and we worked through her problem (which the cards had answered) and then her pertner came back about 10 mins after for her own reaing.

So my reading had done it's job. I give a proper reading just not a psychic reading though I do pick up on things through intuition.

Anyway I'm waffling

You're not waffling. It's all good stuff.

New age shops are great places to get work such as this. I was an in-house tarot reader for one (which sadly closed down - a victim of the recession) and it's far easier working in that environment than in a general place as the people that goes in a shop such as this are already believers or want to believe.

The shop took a cut of my earnings for use of a private room out the back (and advertising as in posters in the window and word of mouth).

A funny story (or interesting depending on your point of view) was that the two female owners of the shop believed in all things spiritual and attributed much greater powers to me than someone who read cards. There was an ex-business associate who was giving them a hard time and they wanted me to put a curse on them so that they would leave them alone and stop hassling them.

I aged some paper to look like parchment and copied some esotoric seals from an old witchcraft tome and drew a figure in the middle of the seal with a Frixion pen. I told them to write the name of the person on a piece of paper (you know where this is going - it was flash paper!) scrumple it into a loose ball and place it on top of the figure.

Of course I it the paper and the figure vanished. They told me a month later they hadn't heard from this person and although I wouldn't accept payment for this, they insisted I could have anything free from the shop that I liked. I plumped for an altar cloth cover in pentagrams which I now use when performing readings or bizarre magick.

There is a story to make James Randi's hair stand on end!

I have witnessed many stories, and I also have many personal stories that would cause Mr James Randi's hair to stand on end.

I don't like his approach.

Somethings just can't be proven according to his ways of testing. I don't think his tests are entirely fair.

But that is talk for another subject.


Julia

Boys oh boys has this ever strayed from the original post. With respect to that post, yes I do use marked cards, but never use the markings, one has to look at the back of the cards to do that. Hooray for Julia, I am a gentleman of some antiquity, who works full time as a reader/ close up magician.. What you say es 60% reading 40% close up.
To look at 'councillors' there is a large variety of concepts used by the various varieties of councillors, e.g. those doing graduate studies in this area learn one particular system, in a situation where challenging the concepts being taught would not be a useful career move. It is not surprising that they themselves aquire a beleif in this system. Nota Bene I am not aware of any evidence suggesting one system is superior to another. My point is only on the importance of story and I would suggest that each client is learning a new story, and it doesn't seem to matter what the story is.
To suggest that tarot card readers can cause harm, I have no doubt that this is true, whereas no trained councillor has ever caused harm ( add a little laughing face, I can't.

bob1a

Here is your laughing face



Julia

Psychic Julia wrote:
Somethings just can't be proven according to his ways of testing. I don't think his tests are entirely fair.

Please explain to me, why his tests aren´t fair?!
He is, like any good scientist, using the normal test conditions. Everything is based on the natural laws. Sow what is unfair about that?
If somebody claims to have some certain powers, it doesn´t matter what kind of, he/she has to prove it, if he/she wants his ability to be accepted as the real thing.

And if you blame Randy, have a look up at the Penn and Teller series bullshit. Also very very funny and the same results...

Best

Claas

Please let me chuckle at what you call scientific. As a reader you have just told me you are not a scientist. I have only seen one television programme with Randi. Some aura readers were being tested. The readers were shown the test subjects who were behind a screen. It was proposed that the auras would extend above the screens and that the readers who had previously met the subjects could then identify the subjects by their aura. The subjects were of course of differing heights, the screens were all the same height ( presumably because the art director thought this looked better on television), no reader could identify anyone. Since there must be varying levels of competence in aura reading, these readers are after all human, yet they were presented as 'objects' of equal competence, etc. etc. Lets not continue in this direction. Please do remember what happened with the Skeptics when Gauquelin ( produced the relationship between athletic performance and posiiion of mars. If you cannot remember the Skeptics falsified there numbers in their response.
bob1a

Skeptics are hugely important, otherwise we lose all sense of perspective. However, a skeptic is someone with an open but critical mind. Many scientists and certainly those, such as Randi, who profit from skepticism often have an agenda that they want to prove and are therefore not skeptics. Rather they have the 'blind faith' exhibited by those they seek to ridicule.




In my opinion.

Bob1a wrote:
I have only seen one television programme with Randi. Some aura readers were being tested. The readers were shown the test subjects who were behind a screen.

I think you are talking about a TV series from 1991 which Randy produced for the UK (6 parts in whole / have them all)

Randi is like me a member of the Sceptics (me of course the German section). And the rules of the sceptics are easy... You have something supernatural to show, show it under test conditions. If you succeed 1.000.000 $ is yours.

From what I understand, Randi makes psychics repeat a test under his conditions, over and over again, otherwise you are a fraud. Then he has the choice of having the test done yet again if he doesn't like the results. The problem is that a lot of what we, the psychics, do, can't be tested in such a way, therefore skeptics claim the things we experience and do are lies.

When a psychic proposes a fair test, one that can be proven to be fair, with scientists, some skeptics say no, it's not good enough for them. Nothing will ever be good enough for hard skeptics because they are severely biased and not in the least open minded.

I have never been interested in Randi's test, but I know a couple of people who have and they tell me the way the test is set up, no one will ever get it, and not because they can't do what they say they can do, but because of the way the test is set up.

I have been a approached by a skeptic before who challenged me on the spot. I told him what he asked me, and he said it was a lucky guess and proposed another question. I told him I didn't have all day to entertain his bias. He knows what happened and I think he was afraid of it. Just couldn't accept it.


Julia

So where is the common ground?

What can (true) psychics learn from (true) skeptics?
What can (true) skeptics learn from (true) psychics?

Or do we have to agree on the existence of two irreconcilable 'reality tunnels'?

I've had great conversations with skeptics. I don't require people to believe what I do to be friends of mine. The problem is with those who won't respect what I do, or allow me the respect to do it. The latter, most psychics have irreconcilable differences with.

I think skeptics can learn a lot from psychics. Science changes all the time, always proving something that was not provable before, or calling a lie what scientists have sworn to in the past. There are many things out there science has not yet discovered. Psychics have very open minds, so open, that we receive information regular blocked people don't. What we have is a gift, a gift scientists can learn to appreciate and to properly study instead of trying to wipe us out because they believe something different than we do.

Am I being too harsh?


Julia

A lovely example is creative visualisation. Roundly dismissed as nonsense. Then athletes discovered athletes from the USSR were using this, finally it was tested found 'scientifically' valid now Sports Psychologists are the only people that can teach it. However the point I do wish to make, for those who do not know of the fierce discussion of visualisation that went on at one time, does the scientific discovery that it worked mean that those who would not use it before this discovery were foolish? I would only suggest that they were incapable of paying attention to themselves. A further point visualisation for musicians especially professional musicians who travel a great deal has been used for many many years, I recall one professional pianist saying that if he had a technical problem when he boarded a plane often when he got off the plane the problem was solved.
Something for the scientists among you, Tylenol can mend a broken heart, perhaps you can see the connection.
bob1a

I've often mentioned dreams.

I remember having such a discussion once, and the skeptic said "everything that exists can be proven that it exists, so...."

Bullshit, I said. Can you prove that you dream?

Well, prove, I mean ... everyone dreams, so yeah, it's an accepted fact.

Did you dream last night or recently?

Last night, yeah.

Do you remember your specific dream?

Bits of it, sure.

Prove it. So it happened, you would swear on your own mother that you had that specific dream, yet you can't prove it to anyone in the world.

So there must be things out there that exist, that actually happen, but they are, as of yet, kind of hard to prove. Like whether you dream in color or black/white. You know if you dream in color or black/white, but you can't prove it to anyone ... people have to just "trust" you.

The above post on visualization was meant to be a response to what can true skeptics learn from psychics etc. whim in my opinion is to learn to pay attention to oneself. Plus ahem! are you suggesting psychics cannot be skeptical?
Plus Tylenol can cure a broken heart, if the mind can influence the body then of course the body can influence the mind. The Tylenol thing is genuine.
bob1a

What is Tylenol/ I mean what is it perscribed for?

Be kind people someone has a broken heart. Let me present my medical competence, something like an aspirin.
bob1a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol