The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Enrique Enriquez' "Invisible Readings" (1 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
takeachance
View Profile
Inner circle
3331 Posts

Profile of takeachance
This book lost me quite frankly. The only vision I got was that of a middle aged European man with a pony tail sitting across from me reading this, no pig or fox not even a cat. I could never imagine in a million years using this material in the entertainment field. I believe this to be more along the lines a writings for fortune tellers rather than mentalist. I see from the reviews above, some speak of it for readings and others to use in mentalism. I guess I just got confused by some of the reviews and wasted my money. Oh well, one lives and learns.
parmenion
View Profile
Inner circle
Switzerland/Zürich
3993 Posts

Profile of parmenion
As say Jerome this book is not for everybody.
I think you must have a good knowledge of the life and a general knowledge(history, social,etc...) high to appreciate plenty this book.
because of this "invisible reading is really an "elitist book"
Perhaps even the more elitist book I've ever read.
It doesn't talk about statistique or russian dolls technique but about understand the nature being.
It talk about create a connection with others.
I's so far more powerfull than everything because they're not really a "trick".
I like the word in French, we say "artifice"
I have to confess, I don't use it myself but I learned a lot and it help me to understand lot of thing and brought me some respond I was looking for.
At least it helped me to improve my work in this field.
“I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about.”
<BR>Oscar Wilde experimentaliste <br>
<BR>Artist pickpocket Professional
<BR>
<BR>Looking for the best book test in French? send me a PM!
takeachance
View Profile
Inner circle
3331 Posts

Profile of takeachance
Good for you. You must have wonderful knowledge of life to see rabbits coming from peoples mouths. Yes yes I'm starting to see!!!
takeachance
View Profile
Inner circle
3331 Posts

Profile of takeachance
Oh and buy the way, as far as connecting with people goes, I've spent the last 35 years of my life working with ethnic groups around the globe. I'm presently in Borneo working mainly with Ibans. After Xmas its back to the Congo in Africa. The crew is made up of 23 different nationalities which I co-ordinate daily. Oh and yeah, my wife is Aboriginal, part of my family is Christian, the other half Muslim, and we all get along wonderfully. Me, I'm neither. I guess I'm just not an elitist so I'll never understand communicating with real people like those that "get it" Oh well, my bad. I wish I had the knowledge of life like you guys!
Erdnase27
View Profile
Inner circle
2485 Posts

Profile of Erdnase27
Quote:
On 2008-10-12 04:52, parmenion wrote:
As say Jerome this book is not for everybody.
I think you must have a good knowledge of the life and a general knowledge(history, social,etc...) high to appreciate plenty this book.
because of this "invisible reading is really an "elitist book"
Perhaps even the more elitist book I've ever read.
It doesn't talk about statistique or russian dolls technique but about understand the nature being.
It talk about create a connection with others.
I's so far more powerfull than everything because they're not really a "trick".
I like the word in French, we say "artifice"
I have to confess, I don't use it myself but I learned a lot and it help me to understand lot of thing and brought me some respond I was looking for.
At least it helped me to improve my work in this field.


whats wrong with russian dolls technique?
"He must be content to rank with the common herd." - S.W. Erdnase
parmenion
View Profile
Inner circle
Switzerland/Zürich
3993 Posts

Profile of parmenion
I never said this technique was wrong, lol
I just explained Enriquez works is different.

Takeachance, it's just my opinion !
You don't like his works it's you right, nothing wrong with that.
“I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about.”
<BR>Oscar Wilde experimentaliste <br>
<BR>Artist pickpocket Professional
<BR>
<BR>Looking for the best book test in French? send me a PM!
Seth speaks
View Profile
Inner circle
New Mexico
1256 Posts

Profile of Seth speaks
The more I read through this manuscript months ago, the more my heart was literally racing, and I found myself laughing out loud at the sheer brilliance of it. Some bits of it can be found elsewhere, but the way Enrique puts it together with such poetry and passion, and made theory into something practical, I found to be groundbreaking. It really is a profound meditation on the subject of symbology and meaning-making, and a very scholarly work. And you don't have to see foxes or rabbits around people--that is simply Enrique's example of how the process works in his mind. It is about freeing the imagination from social constraints, and creating a meaningful connection with a person -- at least as I see it. I consider it a deeply important work on the subject of propless readings.

Seth
DrTodd
View Profile
Inner circle
1876 Posts

Profile of DrTodd
Quote:
On 2008-10-12 05:56, takeachance wrote:
Oh and buy the way, as far as connecting with people goes, I've spent the last 35 years of my life working with ethnic groups around the globe. I'm presently in Borneo working mainly with Ibans. After Xmas its back to the Congo in Africa. The crew is made up of 23 different nationalities which I co-ordinate daily. Oh and yeah, my wife is Aboriginal, part of my family is Christian, the other half Muslim, and we all get along wonderfully. Me, I'm neither. I guess I'm just not an elitist so I'll never understand communicating with real people like those that "get it" Oh well, my bad. I wish I had the knowledge of life like you guys!


It is odd that someone with such worldly experience and insight did not get on with EE's Invisible Readings...I found it a compelling read and remarkable in many ways. I also now find myself imagining many of the things he outlines in the book as I move about the globe, whether in meetings, at the airport, on the tube, etc.

When EE lectured at our Psycrets meeting in April, there was a noticeable tension and discomfort among the assembled mentalists: (1) those who wanted an 'effect' of the kind that is typical of mentalist performances (2) those who worried about the ethics in the elision between and among reading, healing, and mentalism, and (3) those who simply did not like it.

I would not describe this book as elitist, but wise, well-informed, and clearly the result of doing a lot of work with people over the years.

This post will probably not convince you, but the thread does contain strong endorsements from a range of top performers in the field, so perhaps it warrants a second look?
takeachance
View Profile
Inner circle
3331 Posts

Profile of takeachance
Quote:
On 2008-10-12 04:52, parmenion wrote:
I think you must have a good knowledge of the life and a general knowledge(history, social, etc...) high to appreciate plenty this book.
because of this "invisible reading is really an "elitist book."

I take your point Dr. Todd, however, it was these lines from the above quote that I found especially condescending. I also don't find it odd at all that I don't appreciate EE writings. I'm confused as to the intent of that comment. I can see why at the meeting you mentioned others felt uncomfortable and disliked it. One of the groups you mention "those who wanted an effect of the kind typical of mentalist."

What can I say, Of course they did, why should they be put down for that?
I will reread it and come back to comment after further study but my first impressions are not flattering as far as this piece of work being put forward for mentalism. Jerome can attest to the fact if I believe I have been wrong in my assessment or original opinion I will openly state so. This is in no way an attack on the author as a person, just an opinion on this single piece of writing being aimed at a mentalist market. I make no apology for being the odd person out on this forum, I'm giving an honest opinion.
bevbevvybev
View Profile
Inner circle
UK
2571 Posts

Profile of bevbevvybev
I dunno, Enrique's stuff is in my top ten list of things to read before you give a reading

The thing is, the book was called 'Invisible Readings' and not 'Invisible mentalism' - and it's pretty obvious if you check out the blurb on the website and even scan these forums that his material is about readings

So if you are not in the business of giving readings I'm not sure why you bought it in the first place, his stuff is all about readings and he's only released one mentalism book 'Act Of Imagination' and even that is readings influenced material
takeachance
View Profile
Inner circle
3331 Posts

Profile of takeachance
You're absolutly right bevbevvybev, and if you want to do readings then perhaps my assessment would have been different, well in fact I wouldn't have bought it. But if you look above at the above few references you'll also notice that there is solid endorsements aimed towards mentalism. That's were the problem lies with me. Anyway, glad that you guys are getting so much from it, I wish you all well.
DrTodd
View Profile
Inner circle
1876 Posts

Profile of DrTodd
[quote]On 2008-10-13 03:21, takeachance wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-10-12 04:52, parmenion wrote:

I think you must have a good knowledge of the life and a general knowledge(history, social,etc...) high to appreciate plenty this book.
because of this "invisible reading is really an "elitist book"



I take your point Dr Todd, however, it was these lines from the above quote that I found especially condescending. I also don't find it odd at all that I don't appriciate EE writings. I'm confused as to the intent of that comment. I can see why at the meeting you mentioned others felt uncomfortable and disliked it. One of the groups you mention "those who wanted an effect of the kind typical of mentalist" what can I say, Of course they did, why should they be put down for that.
I will re read it and come back to comment after further study but my first impressions are not flattering as far as this piece of work being put forward for mentalism. Jerome can attest to the fact if I believe I have been wrong in my assessment or original opinion I will openly state so. This is in no way an attack on the author as a person, just an opinion on this single piece of writing being aimed at a mentalist market. I make no apology for being the odd person out on this forum, I'm giving an honest opinion.


Yes, the quote you quote was not particularly helpful and appears condescending, although there are translation issues here a bit. I am not in any way putting down the group that did not like EE's lecture. If it sounded that way, I did not mean it to. In constructing the day's schedule and hosting EE in London, I was keen to expose mentalists to all the allied arts, which is why Tabula Mentis IV is covering bizarre magic, seance, and psychic demonstrations.

What is interesting in this discussion is how we draw the boundaries of mentalism. Reading is an allied art, where EE's approach is to the far end of the 'no props' continuum, while other practitioners blend principles and methods of mentalism with readings (e.g. using Acidus Globus or equivalent to gain information before giving a reading or Ron Martin's work on quick commercial readings), or more mainstream combinations of predictions and routines that contain an element of readings (e.g. Scott Grossberg's Mindcast or some of the work that combines ESP symbols with stacks and readings, etc.)

I am keen not to draw such boundaries and to benefit from the insights across the spectrum of mystery entertainment. I can easily imagine a scenario in which EEs system will become quite useful while in the middle of a psuedo-psychometry routine or other effect in which the character and attributes of the participant become a factor in identifying (rationalising/justifying) their choice.

As to the 'oddity' of the disconnect between your wordly experiences and absence of appreciation for EEs work, you raised the issue of your varied life as a defence of worldiness that would in some way counter the condescension implied in the quote that you quote. I thus found it odd that given your experience working with a variety of ethnic and indigenous communities (many of whom have fantastic systems of divination) that you were so turned off by Invisible Readings, when much of EEs work is influenced by precisely the world views and systems of meanings held by the very people with whom you are working.

Anyway, perhaps another read and a set of follow up comments would be good.

Cheers

Todd
takeachance
View Profile
Inner circle
3331 Posts

Profile of takeachance
In retrospect and having time to cool down I agree with your evaluation of parmenion intent with his reply and apoligise to him for my hot headed responce. I imagine Enrique sees that boar or warthog sitting next to me and is smiling. Coming from an Annamann, Fogel type of background for a base in mentalism I am probably not the best person to critique this piece of work. Next time in London would very much like to catch up for a pint at the Pig and Whistle. Thank you Todd for your very balanced reply. Take care
Neil
DrTodd
View Profile
Inner circle
1876 Posts

Profile of DrTodd
Thanks Neil! I too am steeped in Annemann and Fogel (I love his bags for a routine I do with cats-eye crystal balls and character readings) and see EEs stuff as a logical extension of these greats in the genre of 'propless' mentalism.

Despite the economic tempest in which we all find ourselves, the pints are still flowing in London. I'll take you up on that!

Cheers

Todd
lumberjohn
View Profile
Special user
Memphis, TN
618 Posts

Profile of lumberjohn
I have completed Mr. Enriquez's work, "Invisible Readings." I did not find it as useful and revolutionary as some on this board. First, I thought it was loaded with filler. This is ten pages of material spread out to fill ninety-one pages. What you get in between is Mr. Enriquez's justifications for his ideas and a great deal of discussion that I believe would have no application without having Mr. Enriquez's own unique gifts and specific approach.

Basically, Mr. Enriquez has taken the tendency of the human mind to find meaning and patterns in virtually anything to its absolute limit, using it as almost a method in itself. Mr. Enriquez appears to believe that if you make a reading ambiguous enough, then it really doesn't matter what you say because your subject will make it meaningful to them.

I have a few comments. First, I think this approach depends heavily upon the prestige the reader brings to the table. For it to work consistently, the subject must be convinced that you as the reader are very skilled at readings. In such cases, the subject has virtually convinced him or herself before you even begin that the reading will be successful, so your job is simply not to screw it up by stating specific details that the subject would be forced to concede are incorrect. In other words, embrace ambiguity and you can't go wrong. This appears to be Mr. Enriquez's main point.

Second, I found extremely annoying Mr. Enriquez's tendency to introduce and then discuss certain techniques as if they were very important, only to ultimately conclude that the techniques are entirely unnecessary. For instance, Mr. Enriquez spends a considerable amount of paper and ink suggesting ways to generate a steady stream of different thoughts, only to ultimately concede that because the thoughts are random, they could be anything, or nothing, and it will make no difference to the outcome. You could simply make something up on the spot or dispense with the procedure entirely. So why would anyone engage in this complicated procedure at all? Many times I had the feeling that what I had just been reading in the last several pages had been negated and rendered a complete waste of time by a single passage or two near the end of the discussion.

I was not able to find a use for most of "Invisible Readings," but found it relatively harmless. Mr. Enriquez's "metaphorical mind reading" process generally manifests itself as a free form psychotherapy session which will be whatever the subject makes of it. Not so when he got to the section on answering the subject's specific questions. Mr. Enriquez provides an example of a subject asking him for assistance in evaluating two job interviewees, neither with which Mr. Enriquez knew anything other then the subject's brief description. Mr. Enriquez then described how he related specific character attributes to each of these interviewees based upon what we as readers are aware are completely random images. The subject, no doubt influenced by Mr. Enriquez's prestige as a mystical guide, made his decision based upon the description that most closely fit the job requirements.

I can't help but feel that this type of thing is reckless and irresponsible. Mr. Enriquez never claims to have psychic powers, either in his ebook or, presumably, to those for whom he performs readings. Nevertheless, he apparently feels it acceptable to answer specific questions with random information presented as if it were anything but random, and upon which he knows his subjects are likely to rely. I feel for the interviewee that was rejected because of Mr. Enriquez's completely baseless representation of what kind of worker he would end up being.

So in sum, I would not recommend this ebook. Mr. Enriquez makes a valid point that physical oracles such as Tarot cards are not necessary to perform readings due to the strong tendency of subjects to read meaning into virtually any random pattern, even those of words. But beyond that point, I don't feel he offers much of practical value. And when he gets into the area of answering specific questions during readings, I believe he is on dangerous and reckless grounds.
Bill Cushman
View Profile
Inner circle
Florida
2830 Posts

Profile of Bill Cushman
Without qualification, Enrique is one of the most ethical people I've ever had the pleasure (or displeasure!) of discussing the topic of ethics within the context of readings. I take great exception to lumberjohn's characterization of Enrique as being anything less than extraordinarily sensitive to the impact of his work.

I have rarely read a review of something that I've found so much to disagree about. The areas that lumberjohn addresses are areas that I am very tuned into when I read any book on mentalism and/or readings. Or psychotherapy for that matter.

My first impression is that in finding 80 pages of “filler,” that those are the pages most needing of more attention. Filler drives me nuts and I found little to no filler in IR. Instead I found great passion, compassion and an effort to make every attempt to clearly communicate principles that tend to be taught in ways that often confuse the reader.

As far as relying on prestige to be effective with his methods, my take on this is that Enrique is a truly humble man who personifies the opposite of what lumberjohn accuses him of; relying on surface impressions to make "magic" work. Enrique teaches how to powerfully communicate and connect with others via means available to anyone.

Nor is Enrique's work about ambiguity by any means. Instead it is about respecting how the other person conceptualizes the world and using this as a way to join them in their world.

I stated in my first post on this thread (was it really over a year ago!) that I don't employ the methods in IR for readings (which is a no brainer since I am not a reader!) but in psychotherapy. I have learned and discarded much in my journey to find the best ways to help those who come to me with their problems. Much of the literature of psychotherapy and psychology turns me off by its inherent lack of respect for the client.

This becomes readily evident when a work is convoluted and confusing in its explanation of conceptualizing and relieving the suffering of human beings. One of the many accomplishments of IR is that it is so straightforward and accessible. For me, this is the hallmark of a work that teaches a respectful means of helping others.

Of course, Enrique is not teaching psychotherapy in IR. However, and Enrique and I have disagreed on aspects of this, I believe that once one enters into the inherent "contract" with another person that exists when doing individual readings similar territory is being explored. So the qualification of deep respect for another still pertains.

My understanding of what Enrique was sharing in IR was not that "because the thoughts are random, they could be anything, or nothing, and it will make no difference to the outcome. You could simply make something up on the spot or dispense with the procedure entirely." Rather, he was going to great lengths to share his belief that oracles are equivalent without insulting anyone. Perhaps he was trying too hard to be diplomatic. This is one aspect of what I meant when I referred to IR as being "subversive."

Another aspect of what led me to call IR subversive is that it isn't necessarily harmless. But one thing I've come to realize about IR and all of Enrique's work is the existence of built-in "safety mechanisms." People who might be tempted to use the methods taught in IR to do harm, as well as those who might inadvertently do harm by a superficial understanding, are unlikely to appreciate the contents at a level that would allow them to do so.

As I read the above paragraph over, I realize that it may come off as condescending. That isn’t my desire at all; I am simply at a loss for expressing my point any more simply. I take great exception to authors (I am not naming names) who imply or state outright that if you can’t apply their work it means you are not ready to or are too simple minded to understand it.

Regarding Enrique’s approach to the gentleman who came to him seeking answers about which of two candidates for a job to hire, what I took from this very brief vignette was that he simply validated what the gentleman shared with him. He used his typical metaphorical approach to doing so but in essence this was an essentially “Rogerian” method that empowered the client to act on what he already knew and was saying to Enrique. It is my experience that the most ethical of readers endorse and adopt such a Rogerian approach when posed a specific question.

That Enrique transformed this into metaphor is merely in keeping with his overall approach and I didn’t find it remotely reckless. It is simply about effective and respectful communication of what the client was telling him. Enrique wasn’t working on behalf of the interviewee but of the interviewer. He was helping him to make sense of his own reactions, not offering an answer out of the blue.

Enrique is a dear friend and it would be disingenuous of me not to acknowledge my own biases in this regard. One of the reasons I have so much respect for Enrique is his readiness to admit HIS own biases and take part in ongoing self-examination. He has a deeply ingrained willingness to learn, grow and teach based of the resulting self-discovery. This is a goal I believe we should all strive to achieve in any endeavor and can find no better example than that in Enrique’s body of work.
takeachance
View Profile
Inner circle
3331 Posts

Profile of takeachance
You are entitled to your opinion Bill, just as lumberjohn is entitled to his.
mota
View Profile
Inner circle
1658 Posts

Profile of mota
Still, all opinions are not created equally. Those who do readings have a vastly different view than lumberjohns. His mindset is indicated by his pic with Randi.

To be fair, IR is one of the more difficult works of Enrique's to wrap one's head around. Lumberjohn is not the first to look at this work and wonder. I too have had some adventures looking into this and applying it. It isn't something you get by reading and thinking...it is more of a doing thing. Without some personal experience with readings (a picture with Randi doesn't qualify) lumberjohn's thought processes may just not fit this work. It is much more than surface appearance.

This isn't a slam on lumberjohn...I see he is an attorney. I don't think my thought processes would work well in his world.

I can criticize lumberjohn's law work...I am entitled to my opinion too. My opinion on lumberjohn's legal work would be unqualified. As he has no idea what IR is about I too would have no idea what his legal work is about. Though an opinion, it would be an unqualified opinion no matter how eloquently put.

To conclude I must point out that to say someone is on dangerous and reckless grounds indicates lumberjohn's mindset and real lack of knowledge in this area.

Answering specific questions is what you do in readings.

To question Enrique's ethics is equally uninformed.

It is a good review if you have a Randi-esque mindset. Many of the observations in lumberjohn's review are stock skeptic positions, presented much more eloquently than one usually sees. If that mind set is your reality then you will find lumberjohn's review accurate.

If you have any other world view and you do readings you will find IR to be quite useful. Still you should understand it is a different type of readings book and uses parts of your brain you don't normally use.
Tony Iacoviello
View Profile
Eternal Order
13144 Posts

Profile of Tony Iacoviello
The recent posts on this thread confuse me. Enrique's Invisible Reading series (there are 3 manuscripts thus far) all deal with "Readings" it has been discussed, it is in the descriptions where they are purchased from, heck, and it is in the titles. Let's be straight here, if someone is not interested in readings, he should not purchase these books. If you are looking for a source of cold reading lines to spice up a mentalism routine, these are not the source. (My opinion).

What Enrique's manuscripts do provide is an excellent framework for someone interested in reading, and with Enrique’s novel approach, a way of opening yourself up to your intuition. The book being discussed in this thread being a prime example. This work is based on his evolution as a reader and as a shaman. The book is filled with information learned form many years of study and work as well as cultural heritage and tradition. I personally found it exciting and stimulating.

In my opinion, with this work, what you bring to it directly impacts what you will take away from it.

Tony Iacoviello
lumberjohn
View Profile
Special user
Memphis, TN
618 Posts

Profile of lumberjohn
I’d like to first address the comments of Bill Cushman (I do not know if he is a PhD or medical doctor, so I will simply refer to him as Mr. Cushman – intending no disrespect if he is so credentialed). I should say right off the bat that I greatly respect Mr. Cushman. I have read many of his posts and they are always well stated and thought out. He is also an excellent magical thinker. I think his manuscript, Mirabill, is absolutely fantastic. Moreover, I am well aware that he brings with him a great deal of relevant expertise as a licensed psychotherapist. Accordingly, I should perhaps make my points with greater clarity so that is clearer where we do and do not disagree.

First, I at no point intended to impugn Mr. Enriquez’s ethics or morals. To the contrary, he went out of his way in his manuscript to honestly describe exactly what he does and how he does it. And I stated that he does not make explicit claims to paranormal powers either in the course of his ebook or during his readings.

What I did say was that I believed the example he chose to demonstrate how to answer specific questions during a reading showed recklessness. Recklessness is generally defined as disregarding a known risk of potential injury. It does not imply any conscious or intentional intent to injure or defraud, and I do not believe that Mr. Enriquez has or had any such intent.

I will modify the example slightly to make my point more clearly. Assume Alex comes to you for a reading. He tells you that earlier that day, he interviewed Bill and Charlie for a job and can’t choose between the two of them. Alex asks for your assistance in this dilemma. As Alex says the name Bill, you generate a random image in your head, which turns out to be a snake. As Alex says the word Charlie, you randomly picture a lion. You make a connection between these names and images and tell Alex that you see Bill as devious and sneaky and you see Charlie as brave and loyal. Alex tells you that he agrees with you and that he will be choosing Charlie for the position.

Now, there was nothing inherently deceptive about this process. You randomly generated associations in your mind and shared them with Alex. Alex drew his own conclusions and even found that he agreed with your assessment. But I do believe that making these statements to Alex would be reckless and would unfairly prejudice Bill’s chances, therefore causing him a great deal of undeserved misery.

Mr. Cushman refers to Mr. Enriquez’s technique as simply “validat[ing] what the gentleman shared with him,” perhaps relying upon the man’s statement after hearing the reading that he agreed with Mr. Enriquez’s assessment of the two candidates. While I would admit it is possible that Mr. Enriquez randomly stumbled upon the exact assessment that his subject secretly had in mind of the two candidates – exactly replicating the experience of reading the subject’s unconscious mind – I would posit that another explanation is more likely.

That is that the subject really hadn’t made up his mind when he posed his question to Mr. Enriquez. He felt the interviewees were equally weighted, which is why he needed assistance in choosing between them. He believed, for whatever reason, that Mr. Enriquez possessed some expertise that would assist him in resolving the dilemma. Mr. Enriquez’s statement suggested a solution, which the subject quickly seized upon as his own. In other words, through the power of suggestion, which mentalists and psychotherapists both know can be very strong, Mr. Enriquez caused the subject to accept his assessment as the subject’s assessment. The problem is that Mr. Enriquez had no expertise and was really not in a better position than the subject himself to resolve this issue. That is why I believe Mr. Enriquez’s actions were reckless.

Mr. Cushman also takes issue with my characterization of eighty pages of IR as “filler.” I will readily admit that this is a subjective assessment, as one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. When I spend forty-five or more dollars on a book that purports to be about giving readings, however, I expect practical advice on the giving of readings. I found the majority of this book not to fall into that category. I know that many people like to read about others’ philosophies and worldviews, and I suspect that Mr. Cushman, as a close personal friend of Mr. Enriquez, may be especially interested in such subjects, but I must admit that I was not. Readers of this post can make their own assessment of where their own interests lie.

I share Mr. Cushman’s taking of exception to posters who “imply or state outright that if you can’t apply their work it means you are not ready or are too simple minded to understand it.” This seems to be a common argument against those who post negative reviews of products the poster feels strongly about. While I don’t give readings professionally, I don’t believe that is necessary to understand what Mr. Enriquez is saying or to validly criticize it, especially when it fails even the test of internal consistency, which it does in many instances. I do not need to be a nuclear scientist, for instance, to know when an argument for or against nuclear power is well-reasoned or fallacious. The content of the argument itself tells me all I need to know.

Finally, I want to clearly state that I do not intend to imply that I believe Mr. Enriquez to be a bad person or someone whose motives are impure. I suspect he genuinely believes what he is doing is helpful and ethical. My critique is not of Mr. Enriquez as a man, but of his book, which I simply do not believe is a good value for those interested in mentalism and/or the giving of readings. For what you would pay for this book, there are better resources available.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Enrique Enriquez' "Invisible Readings" (1 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.36 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL