|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next] | ||||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
Quote:
I think that a lot of people who do a psychological presentation feel that they are in the right because they do, in fact, believe in the power of applied psychology and have no problem (ethically or presentationally) presenting it as real. I'm not sure that's the case. Does anyone really believe in the power of applied psychology to achieve the types of feats that mentalists frequently explain? You might believe it was possible in principle - but does anyone think there is a living human being that has come anywhere near the success rate being examplified?
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
magic4545 Inner circle Jimmy Fingers 1159 Posts |
No, and that's where our collective overuse of this line of explanation begins to compromise our credibility.
|
|||||||||
Danyel Loyal user Italy 293 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-10-07 12:18, theinternetguru wrote: They often do. Atheism is an act of faith like any (other) religion. Quote:
But when our performances (which are based on gimmicked props, misdirection and sleights) are offered up as a reality (not an illusion) which supports a particular belief system, I think various ethical issues come into play. I don't think so. I don't have problems in lying. My ethics is of a situational nature. If I don't harm anyone, I don't have no problems at all. I do repeat: as a Mentalist, I am an entertainer. A psychic entertainer, to be exact. Quote:
But if I pretend to be a psychic, with nothing in my performance to mitigate the seriousness of the claim, people in desperate need of help may make critical life decisions based on what is simply a deception. I therefore agree that not all lies are the same. I have had several friends -some in really desperate need- who asked me for a reading. In those cases, I made clear that I) reading is using a symbolic system to elicitate inner psychological energies they themselves have the control on; II) that the future doesn't exist -that it is up to them to make their own. Then, **i did** the reading, of course. A reading -in my way- is nothing more than a good deal of socratic dialogue. I drive them to consider their own situation, asking that they interpret the cards (a symbolic kind of work, in sum.) If seriousness of the situation impels, I have often adviced (sometimes with a good success) people to look for professional aid (psychoterapy). But I do this kind of reading only for people I already know very well. When, instead, I'm in some funny situation and girls swarm around me for a palm reading session, I have no problems at all -always bearing in mind that there are topics one mustn't touch in any case. Ment shows and their ethical responsibility? Nay, 'people in desperate need of help' don't make decisions based on a show... it is the same as for 'Gloomy sunday': people don't kill themselves because they hear a song. The song is not even the trigger. Quote:
This is an ethical issue that every mentalist needs to resolve in their own mind, I am not preaching my perspective. I think the simple solution is to communicate -- either directly or in the manner it is presented -- that this is a performance and is entertainment, not reality. There are a wide range of ways to do that. There are, and many of us -me included make use of them. But, please -don't overestimate rationality. Last year I gave a show in a school (Ph.D. level) where I just held some hour of lesson on epistemological issues. An Annemanian show -quite creepy. And I -the rationalist they know well- had clearly stated that I don't possess... etc.. etc.. Guess what? The day after, a friend reported to me that several of them said 'BUT I AM SURE THAT NOT ALL WAS TRICKERY, SOMETHING WAS SURELY REAL'.. Don't, don't ever overestimate the rationality of people...
'People who lean on logic and philosophy and rational exposition
end by starving the best part of the mind' -William Butler Yeats |
|||||||||
Amirá Inner circle MentalismCenter.com 5131 Posts |
Excellent contribution Danyel.
Truly a great example of what I said about "constructive criticism".
Pablo
Performer and Author Mentalism Center: The best online space to get quality Mentalism www.mentalismcenter.com Arkanosophy: The Boutique for Mystery Performers www.arkanosophy.com |
|||||||||
JasonR New user 52 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-10-07 05:38, Voodini wrote: Isn't that comparing apples to oranges, though? For a mentalist to claim that his abilities are based on NLP/body language/applied psychology is (at least superficially) plausible, even to people who are psychologists; I'm sure that there is no shortage of psychologists who have been fooled over the years by Derren Brown and others like him. Soap operas, on the other hand, are demonstrably fake. The actors/actresses have real names, give interviews, are written about in tabloids, etc etc. Comparing people who believe that DB uses NLP to do what he does, to people who believe that 'One Life to Live' is real is a bit unfair to them. |
|||||||||
theinternetguru Elite user I hacked the Café but I still only have 426 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-10-07 13:48, Danyel wrote: This is your ethic, then. It is situational and based on your intent. Ethical issues do come into play, and this is your resolution. What I hear you saying is: no harm, no foul. You are an entertainer, and in the context of a performance, what you say about your psychic abilities is ethically justified as long as no one is hurt. I think this is a very valid perspective. What I was exploring is the possibility (however remote, in your thinking) that someone walks away and is harmed. This is the issue I and others have raised. |
|||||||||
Tom Jorgenson Inner circle LOOSE ANGLES, CALIFORNIA 4451 Posts |
Amira: "I wonder why some performers don't want to be related to psychic abilities and prefer to lie about pseudo psychological explanations about their mentalism performances."
Is there a moral or ethical preference in which lie to tell? In general, aren't you, also, lying about your 'psychic abilities' in your mentalism performances? I think it just boils down to which Mitox you prefer to work within. Most stage claims about psychic phenomena and abilities require both Kohonies and a commitment to that persona that most performers are unwilling to assume. It takes, I think, continuing exhausting stamina to be a Sylvia Brown. No thanks. I'll lie and tell them its NLP or real psychic or VooDoo Booga-Booga...no matter, it's all pretty much a lie...but I DON'T want to be that 'Real Psychic' 24/7. I'll pick the most entertaining but easiest-to-live-with lie that fits a big Mitox. The bigger the Mitox, the bigger the Magic. But I think, to offer my answer your question, it's probably just a business decision on most people's part. No big deal.
We dance an invisible dance to music they cannot hear.
|
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
Quote:
They often do. Atheism is an act of faith like any (other) religion. Nonsense. Atheism is a (often misunderstood) descriptor for people who do not have a faith. It means "without theistic belief" not a faith that there is no god.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
theinternetguru Elite user I hacked the Café but I still only have 426 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-10-07 14:35, Davit Sicseek wrote: Lol, well... apologies to everyone who did not know they were at the Religion Café. Atheism is actually a positive belief that there is no God. Atheists adopt a humanistic or naturalistic worldview which excludes a number of intangibles, God being one of them. But spirituality, psychic powers, life after death, souls, etc. would be included, under the same criteria. Atheism contends that theism is irrational, that the very idea of a god is either meaningless or logically impossible (depending on which philosopher you are reading). It's not the absence of a belief, which would simply amount to agnosticism. There are of course eastern religions which are not theistic, but they would not represent themselves as atheist. When (formerly) atheistic philosophers like Antony Flew claim that atheism is a belief system or a "religion", what they mean is that it is a worldview which claims to be true, and that affects the decisions that someone makes. In your post, you let us know how your atheism impacts your persona in your performances. This is therefore your belief system. |
|||||||||
Amirá Inner circle MentalismCenter.com 5131 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-10-07 14:14, Tom Jorgenson wrote: Exactly. We all lie for the creation of mystery entertainment. So the discussion is open in that mood, sharing our own perspective about this. In my experience performances about body reading and that type of psychological premises are less appealing that the psychic premises. In my case I fulfil my goal (create mystery in an artistic and entertainment context)in a better way using the psychic approach.
Pablo
Performer and Author Mentalism Center: The best online space to get quality Mentalism www.mentalismcenter.com Arkanosophy: The Boutique for Mystery Performers www.arkanosophy.com |
|||||||||
John C Eternal Order I THINK therefore I wrote 12938 Posts |
Danyel brother
There is no belief in atheism so there can't be any faith as in any religion. Just wanted to clarify. |
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
Quote:
Atheism is actually a positive belief that there is no God. Nonsense. The 'a' in atheism means "not/without" the theism is "belief in theology" and theology refers to religion. There isn't even an explicit reference to God in the word. I appreciate that some people (mainly poorly read or those wishing to characterize atheism negatively) use atheism in the positive sense "believe there are no gods" - but if you actually read prominent authors who have written on atheism, speak to people that self identify as atheists or even talk to religious apologists that have debated with atheists the vast majority of all of these people can grasp the difference. After all - a positive belief that there is no god would be laughable. No-one with a head on their shoulders would ever subscribe to that.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
IAIN Eternal Order england 18807 Posts |
I'm going to out myself, I have only found this out in the past couple of years - turns out I'm an atheist existentialist...
go figure... we as mentalists are all "stand-up philosiphers" (as used as a term in a film, a special prize to the first who names it)... as I said previously - I get the concern, however - I hate the broad brush strokes a lot of guys use when discussing (well, not discussing cos that would involve actual knowledge about the subject) the magic word "psychic".... I know what I do and say is ethical and moral, and would be willing to bet my morals are far above the average... my world, my definitions...simple.
I've asked to be banned
|
|||||||||
JasonR New user 52 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-10-07 15:41, IAIN wrote: History of the World, Part I. |
|||||||||
theinternetguru Elite user I hacked the Café but I still only have 426 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-10-07 15:22, Davit Sicseek wrote: I have an undergraduate degree in philosophy and three graduate degrees in religion, including a Ph.D. from a major (secular) research university. So I am well read on this topic. Your definition here of theism is incorrect. Theos, from the Greek, means God. The "a" means "not" or "against", it is a negation. The term has no reference to religion. There are theists who are not religious, and are not Christian. This would include the former champion of atheism, Antony Flew. He became a theist prior to his death but had no interest or belief in any religious system of any kind. Common dictionary definitions of "atheism" support this meaning for good reason. This is what the term means, historically, and how it is used today by nearly everyone. You either believe god exists, you believe god does not exist, or you claim to have no idea or opinion either way. There is logically no fourth option. There are indeed a number of practical atheists who play with the semantic as you do (to escape challenges relating to affirming a negative), but the majority of atheistic philosophers since the 1700s have argued that the mere idea of god (and all supernatural phenomena) is irrational and inconsistent with a naturalistic worldview. Bertrand Russell argued that there was no god. Contemporary atheists Dawkins and Hawking claim outright that there is no God. These people do not think there might be a God; they believe God cannot exist, that there are logical and scientific grounds that contradict the existence of a god. These are heroes of contemporary atheism. They have heads on their shoulders. This thread is about whether one lie is better than another, with respect to how we represent our abilities in the context of a mentalism performance. It is obvious that our beliefs with regard to the reality of the supernatural play an important part in our comfort level in using a psychic explanation. Those who do not believe (or "withhold belief," meaning they disbelieve) seem uncomfortable with even pretending to have psychic powers. Those who are religious but view "psychic" in a pejorative way will also be uncomfortable going this route. A lot of this will also be cultural. Many perform in cultures that are more open to psychic displays than we are in the United States and western Europe. The differing opinions in this thread will be conditioned by these factors. |
|||||||||
IAIN Eternal Order england 18807 Posts |
Ha! That's you told, Davit!
I've asked to be banned
|
|||||||||
theinternetguru Elite user I hacked the Café but I still only have 426 Posts |
Thus the appeal of the psychological explanation. It is a lie also, but escapes the issues relating to belief systems. It is a safe ground in almost any culture, but especially in western culture. It doesn't challenge most religious sensibilities.
Michael |
|||||||||
Danyel Loyal user Italy 293 Posts |
@Davit: here many of us are in fact quite well-read. But even if not, there would be no point in insulting who has lesser academic degrees. (And not even in assuming bellicose tones: nobody here is interested in derogating the concept of 'atheism' or the belief itself. We are only discussing. Michael's last two posts are a great example of a fair and constructive contribution.)
@theinternetguru: chapeau to your synthesis, Michael. (From the Other side, Voltaire himself agrees).
'People who lean on logic and philosophy and rational exposition
end by starving the best part of the mind' -William Butler Yeats |
|||||||||
IAIN Eternal Order england 18807 Posts |
From - http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/
If you’re an expert who can make people do stuff they wouldn’t ordinarily do, shouldn’t you be working for the secret service? [Laughs] We were discussing this today – the implications of some of these things are very interesting. I just leave that to others, that’s not my thing. If other people want to make something of it and apply it in their own way, that’s up to them. Who knows, maybe this sort of stuff does go on. It’s brought me closer to a lot of the conspiracy theories around those assassinations and things.
I've asked to be banned
|
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-10-07 16:54, theinternetguru wrote: I will be gentle - I'd hate for you to think that you have wasted your time I'm also well read on the topic, but spent my time taking three degrees in subjects other that religion. Quote:
Your definition here of theism is incorrect. Theos, from the Greek, means God. First blood shed by theinternetguru. You are correct. I am wrong. I can only plead a moment of fuzzy thinking. I will allow you the same face saving admission as needed. Quote:
The "a" means "not" or "against", it is a negation. You are at least half wrong and the point you are arguing is entirely. I'm not a fluent greek speaker, but I have looked this up and 'a' is most commonly not/without - not against. In fact I even found this list of greek derived words. "Against" is a rare (or perhaps non-existent) in the definitions - yet without, absent, lack of all make regular appearances. I invite you to take a look: http://wordinfo.info/units/view/2838/page:1/ip:1 Theist describes someone who believes in at least one deity. If you are "not" (to use the only remaining working part of your definition of 'a') someone who believes in at least one deity then you are without a belief in God. Logically you can't prove a negative, and therefore you suggestion that one of your three options is that "you believe got does not exist" is not logical in itself. Perhaps you would graciously concede that it is my claim that represents the only sensible 3rd option. Quote:
Common dictionary definitions of "atheism" support this meaning for good reason. This is what the term means, historically, and how it is used today by nearly everyone [...] There are indeed a number of practical atheists who play with the semantic as you do (to escape challenges relating to affirming a negative), but the majority of atheistic philosophers since the 1700s have argued that the mere idea of god (and all supernatural phenomena) is irrational and inconsistent with a naturalistic worldview. Bertrand Russell argued that there was no god. Contemporary atheists Dawkins and Hawking claim outright that there is no God. These people do not think there might be a God; they believe God cannot exist, that there are logical and scientific grounds that contradict the existence of a god. These are heroes of contemporary atheism. They have heads on their shoulders. Historically the terms atheist has been only pejorative. People did not willingly described themselves as atheists and thus early definitions and those that emanate from religious groups typically always characterise atheism as being a positive belief. At least since times of the Enlightenment were it became increasing socially permissible to express views contrary to local religious dogma the term atheism has been used in the 'lack of belief sense'. You are wrong to characterize it as otherwise - especially amongst the modern day atheists such as Dawkins. Charles Bradlaugh was an early example of eloquently expressing this notion. Dawkins develops a scale of atheistic belief from 1-7 with 1 being a certain belief that god exists and 7 being a certain belief that no god exists. Dawkins self identifies in The God Delusion not as a 7, but as a 6 "Very low probability, but short of zero." "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." Later he states that no thinking atheists would think themselves a 7. You are correct, Dawkins does have a head on his shoulders - you are just ill informed as to what it contains. I've got no idea about Hawking. Hitchens takes a similar view as Dawkins. Dennett (who is a world renowned philosopher to boot) is similar. This idea that atheists actually hold the positive belief that there is no god is an unfortunate caricature. Virtually no self identifying atheist who has actually thought about it holds such a belief. So much so that some atheists have even tried to disavow the word altogether with Sam Harris saying: "In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs." I'm afraid you are simply mistaken in this line of argument.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » A lie is a lie (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 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 < |