|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-05 20:17, PsiDroid wrote: But you aren't doing that. You are PRETENDING to do that. Now the question must be asked: WHY do you need to pretend to do that? As others here have said, you are creating distorted, fictional memories in the minds of the families or friends of the deceased. You might think that this helps in some way. If so, I return to my question: "If you create the illusion that you are able to make a connection with someone's deceased loved one, but present it as a "real" event, how would your audience feel if they knew the truth about what you were doing? Would they see that as entertainment? Do you care how they would feel?" How are you qualified to judge what would help, and why do you feel that you have the right to implant fictional memories of someone's deceased loved ones in their minds? As to what is to be lost or gained -- again, how are you qualified to decide that for someone else? Misrepresenting something so personal and sacred to many people for any reason -- and especially just in order to make money -- seems to me to be wrong. Perhaps it's just me. I think that there are other, more honestly sensitive and humanly considerate ways to evoke emotion in mentalism for the purposes of entertaining and moving our audiences. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
Oyama Inner circle Portland, OR. 1054 Posts |
Why must all threads like this, go this route? I don't think the original poster is do this.
Let's stop beating a dead horse and help the person who posted the question. I respect everyone opinion, but these discussions never go anywhere.
"it's better to live one day as a lion, than a thousand years as a lamb."
|
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
It's the nature of open discourse, Oyama.
The points of discussion open up other tangents that are related to the original post but may not directly address it. I think that people sharing their points of view in respectful and reasonable ways is the BEST way for readers to form or adjust their opinions. What would be the point in threads where everyone agreed on everything? What would we learn from that? - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
Oyama Inner circle Portland, OR. 1054 Posts |
That's my point. We hardly learn anything from these threads.
We learn who thinks it's ok to talk to the dead and who doesn't. It's been done hundreds of times But you are right, it is the nature of open discourse. Especially on a topic such as talking to the dead. I really don't think the original poster was saying that he was talking to the dead though. I could be wrong, but I think his issue was people were writing down a dead persons name and when he revealed it, they had an emotional reaction. I think this is a different topic then the one this thread is going. I haven't read your advice given to the poster on this. I have only seen your opinion on talking to the dead. If that's what the original poster is doing, then I apologize for not understanding his original question. Aaron
"it's better to live one day as a lion, than a thousand years as a lamb."
|
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Aaron:
Others gave good advice re: the living and dead test and dealing with emotion caused by them thinking of a deceased loved one. When the discussion turned to the performer talking to deceased loved ones, I felt that I could offer some questions as "food for thought". Because YOU don't learn anything from these discussions doesn't mean that no one else might. If the discussion bores you, move on. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
Oyama Inner circle Portland, OR. 1054 Posts |
I do learn from these discussions as I posted above.
I do see your point though. I did a spirit possession demonstration about two years ago. It was performed for a pretty large crowd. It was a VERY intense performance. During the "possession" I began to cry very heavily. My wife was in the crowd and she said it was very difficult to watch. She said it looked like I was having a breakdown. After I revealed the name of the person the woman was thinking of..she broke down into tears. The person she was thinking of WAS alive. After the show, I tool the woman backstage and talked with her to make sure she was ok. Before the performance, I told the crowd as I came out that was I was going to do was a theatrical presentation. That is what it was billed as on the flyer. After talking with the woman backstage, she said that I not only revealed the name she was thinking of, but I also revealed how she felt for this person at that moment. She was very sad for that person. That was a HUGE moment for me. Made me sit back and really think about what I am able to do. I never have performed that presentation again. I may again in the future and I may get a totally different response. Remember...I stressed to the woman in front of the crowd that I wanted her to think of someone who was alive. I wasn't comfortable asking her to think of a dead person, not for such a heavy presentation. I had music, low lights, candles and a shaman involved in the demonstration. It goes back to what I said earlier, you just never know where people are at in their lives. We can try and be as careful as possible and still affect people on a very deep level. I should also say that I did not charge money for the demonstration. I also did not pass out biz cards after the show. Someone once said "with great power, comes great responsibility". Aaron
"it's better to live one day as a lion, than a thousand years as a lamb."
|
|||||||||
bobser Inner circle 4178 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-05 20:39, entity wrote (again): If we are to make that open discourse even more open, we could then of course ask: 'f you create the illusion that you are able to read people's most innermost thoughts, and indeed show them that they also have the ability to read another person's thoughts, whilst presenting these as REAL, how do you believe your audience would feel if they knew the truth about what you were really doing? Would they see this as entertainment? Would you care how they would feel?' And to answer the second part: Perhaps reading someones mind or getting them to falsely believe they have an ability might be EVEN MORE personal and sacred to some people. My point?... It's ALL relevant. Or of course, it simply is not. bobser
Bob Burns is the creator of The Swan.
|
|||||||||
KBLV Regular user Las Vegas 188 Posts |
I do perform mentalism, cc.
I don't use a ct as part of my regular show. I do it, on occasion, in informal situations. I have used names as the target, but generally do not. |
|||||||||
KBLV Regular user Las Vegas 188 Posts |
....but never, EVER do I use dead people as the target.
|
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
[quote]On 2010-04-06 06:09, bobser wrote:
Quote:
If we are to make that open discourse even more open, we could then of course ask: 'f you create the illusion that you are able to read people's most innermost thoughts, and indeed show them that they also have the ability to read another person's thoughts, whilst presenting these as REAL, how do you believe your audience would feel if they knew the truth about what you were really doing? Would they see this as entertainment? Would you care how they would feel?' I it were presented as the real thing, and the audience learned it wasn't, they might be upset or feel duped, but I doubt the reaction would be the same if you involved their deceased loved ones. In either case, yes, I'd care how they felt, so I approach what I do in a way that I think is honest, without diluting the mystery. Re: your second point -- I wasn't arguing its relevance, just stating my thoughts on using deceased loved ones of audience members in mentalism for money. To say "it's all relevant or it is not" is a cute phrase that means nothing. It's like saying: "All dishonesty is bad, or it is not". In some cases dishonesty might be warranted, like German families who denied hiding Jewish refugees during the war. Things have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. In my opinion, apart from being in very bad taste, creating an illusion that utilizes an audience member's deceased loved ones as the means of eliciting emotion and/or money and presenting it as real is something audiences would not easily forgive were they to later discover the truth behind the illusion. But perhaps it's just me. - entity - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
David Alexander Special user 623 Posts |
A successful show requires a certain flow and forward momentum. A highly emotional reaction from a spectator when asked to think about a deceased relative is practically a guarantee that the forward momentum of the show will stumble or otherwise be interrupted. You may recover from it and you may not. Deliberately making someone feel bad in the context of an entertainment presentation is, in my view, a bad thing to do. It is not entertainment.
In the context of a show by the odious Sylvia Browne or John Edwards or one of those we-talk-with-the-dead performers it is expected, even encouraged as the show is essentially a form of psycho-drama …but in the context of an entertainment program presented by a mentalist I think it is a bad policy. I discovered a solution to this problem several years ago and have used it in a number of my private performances. I have only shown it to a couple of friends and they aren’t likely to give it away. I may write it up one of these days and make it available to the community. |
|||||||||
bobser Inner circle 4178 Posts |
[quote]On 2010-04-06 14:22, entity wrote:
Quote:
Well, "it's all relevant, or it is not!. is NOT just a cute phrase. Rather it is a truthful assessment of how different modalities and frames work for the individual. Indeed, based on that, I think that to say: "All dishonesty is bad, or it is not", becomes perfectly acceptable. I understand and completely agree with your final statement, but would argue further that that might also be true simply of a mentalist pretending to read a mind..... 'for some'.
Bob Burns is the creator of The Swan.
|
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Quote: Based on what passes for new entertainment these days, I'd say that opinion is not shared by "popular" entertainment. Modern audiences appear to have a growing taste for "reality" psycho drama.
On 2010-04-06 18:49, David Alexander wrote: I don't care for it, but it is out there, and the powers that be are trying it out under the label of mentalism. Quote: You would think, but history doesn't so much support that. Deceptions continue in the face of exposure because they tap into human greed, be that financial or emotional greed.
In my opinion... creating an illusion that utilizes an audience member's deceased loved ones as the means of eliciting emotion and/or money and presenting it as real is something audiences would not easily forgive were they to later discover the truth behind the illusion. |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
On the contrary, history does support my assertion.
Talk to those who have been scammed by fraudulent psychics and have found out the truth afterwards. That deceptions of that sort continue isn't evidence that people are forgiving of those who scammed them. It means that those offended have little redress in most cases to stop the perpetrator from doing it to others. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
bobser Inner circle 4178 Posts |
... what if I can make people believe that their loved ones aren't dead but live on, happily ever after, awaiting the time that they too can pass over and join them?
AND... they never suss me out!!! If they never suss me out then they live and die with the happy belief that all is well, kinda like Santa, The Tooth Fairy, pixies, fairies and of course all religions. Surely, if you can never be sussed out, and they remain happy, that just might be ok, huh? Especially if, in a way, I really do think I might be making contact.
Bob Burns is the creator of The Swan.
|
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Quote: On a micro level it may, on a macro level it doesn't.
On 2010-04-07 12:01, entity wrote: |
|||||||||
Lord Of The Horses Inner circle 5406 Posts |
Tom,
I like your answer.
Then you'll rise right before my eyes, on wings that fill the sky, like a phoenix rising!
|
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Paolo:
Which Tom? T.Cutts: Meaningless Jargon. Explain how, on any practical level, history does not support my assertion. Bobser: That's not mentalism, nor is it entertainment of any sort, in my opinion. Cultism, perhaps. If you know it's an illusion, but you present it as real in the context that you've described, it's a very callous and dishonest manipulation of people's emotions and bereavement in order to make money. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Quote: You may be on to the next "reality" show idea.
On 2010-04-07 14:48, entity wrote: e, see the myriad of televangelists and telepsychics who were exposed as fake and disingenuous only to come back for more. Thought before rejection. |
|||||||||
kcg5 Inner circle who wants four fried chickens and a coke 1868 Posts |
Did the girl know it's a trick? How many of these performances start with the performer making some kind of statement, an explanation?
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!
"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Spectators think of dead people (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 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 < |