|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Bambaladam Special user 636 Posts 
|
John,
Respectfully, an entertainer is not what I mean by a trickster. I was trying to point out that the "put one over on you" attitude that most poor magicians seem to have is even less productive to have (or be exposed to) as a mentalist. In fact, it will offend automatically, at least that is my belief. Entertaining is a noble ambition, and one many mentalists I admire carry. I think the excerpt from Magic and Meaning quoted above says it best, whether the ambition be "pure" entertainment or the "fabrication" you and I have argued about in the past. I think creating a moment of wonder and sharing it with someone is unequivocally a beautiful thing. You are more concerned about the implications it could have than I am, but if we can set that aside for a moment, I think you will agree the sincerity of which I speak is a virtue in any performer (even though it is a subset of what you would want to have called "sincerity"). The implied mocking of believers is what this thread is about. I don't believe anyone who seeks to entertain or mystify would knowingly mock anyone's belief. The trick is to come across as someone who wishes to empower rather than self-gratify. Hence my advice to avoid "tricksters". Although I disagree with you on many issues, and have had unpleasant discussions with you in the past, I have no doubts you are no "trickster" by my definition. Sorry for the breach of contract. Hope I have not offended. /bamba |
|||||||||
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts
|
On 2003-12-17 05:00, Bambaladam wrote...
Quote: ...giving new meaning to "nearly departed." ... 
And further suggested... Quote: Oh, I don't know. I suppose it depends on how one views mentalism. I have suggested, to no apparent avail, that those who believe that mentalism demands some sort of belief in their ability to perform paranormal feats (including the ability to talk with the dead) should begin their own forum, "The Graveyard Café: Mediums Helping Other Mediums." Imagine the possibilities! Goodness, they could all just sit, focus on their navels, hum "Ohm" and transfer their ideas about presentation to each other without even wasting Internet bandwidth. For those of us who see mentalism as a mere form of entertainment within the reach of even materialists and atheists, a magic forum works just fine...
But a magic forum is not the place for discussions on mentalism. It is painfully apparent. Quote: Our "contract", as I understand it, was that you would stop bombing my mailbox with multiple unpleasant missives provided I let you have the "last word" you demanded. I have no power, nor any desire, to stifle any reaction you may wish to post in a public forum to anything I may post. In this case, you have not offended.
On 2003-12-17 10:07, Bambaladam wrote: Quote: Yes, that attitude is offensive, whether displayed by a "poor magician" when performing cups and balls or by a "poor mentalist" when doing a drawing dupe or book test.
On 2003-12-17 10:07, Bambaladam wrote: Quote: If, by sincerity, you mean an honest regard for the well-being of an audience, I agree.
...I think you will agree the sincerity of which I speak is a virtue in any performer (even though it is a subset of what you would want to have called "sincerity"). Quote: Yes, that is the topic of the thread. I have suggested in a previous post, however, that if an act which uses our deceptions is presented as evidence of paranormal phenomena, it does, in fact, mock sincerely-held beliefs... even if the believer is unaware of the deception and therefore feels no immediate offense. This is an issue that is more relevant to mentalism (at least in this culture at this time) than to traditional magic. I am truly not so concerned with the individual conclusions that performers may draw as I am with the process of exploring the issue.
The implied mocking of believers is what this thread is about. I don't believe anyone who seeks to entertain or mystify would knowingly mock anyone's belief. The trick is to come across as someone who wishes to empower rather than self-gratify. Hence my advice to avoid "tricksters". Quote: With apologies to Bette Davis in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane: "But I am, Blanche, I am in that chair."
Although I disagree with you on many issues, and have had unpleasant discussions with you in the past, I have no doubts you are no "trickster" by my definition. 
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." —Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
|
Bambaladam Special user 636 Posts
|
Quote:
I would disagree. Again, Magic and Meaning offers an interesting perspective on this, specifically in the chapters on shamanistic magic. Essentially, the idea is, if one earnestly believes in the healing power of the drawing out of evil spirits that have infested a host, and earnestly performs the ritual that one believes will draw them out, no harm is done by enhancing the impact of the event by "artificially" providing visible physical evidence. In fact, one is providing more effective treatment. I sympathise strongly with this point of view. And to a certain extent, so does western medicine (I am thinking here of the impressive results achieved in blind placebo tests etc). The extent to which belief may aid a persons well-being is often underestimated. So from my point of view, sincerity is the key. I realise your criteria for honest sincerity most likely differ from mine, and I think "sincerity" is a quality best evaluated on a case by case basis, but again, I think this discussion will benefit from us setting that aside for the moment. If you have not read Magic and Meaning, I urge you to. It addresses these very issues, and is very thought-provoking. /bamba |
|||||||||
|
0pus Inner circle New Jersey 1739 Posts
|
Quote:
Essentially, the idea is, if one earnestly believes in the healing power of the drawing out of evil spirits that have infested a host, and earnestly performs the ritual that one believes will draw them out, no harm is done by enhancing the impact of the event by "artificially" providing visible physical evidence. In fact, one is providing more effective treatment. I think that this is claptrap. If one earnestly believes, no "enhancement" is necessary. The motivation for "enhancement" is to "prove" a power that isn't there. It is a fraud. |
|||||||||
|
Bambaladam Special user 636 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-12-17 11:22, 0pus wrote: Of course you are free to draw your own conclusions, but I think reading the book will offer you a more compelling case for this than I ever could. I think it is a bold statement to assume the motivations for people's actions, especially when they are made in a cultural context alien to our own and poorly and briefly related by someone you have never met. Also, suggesting fraud in this case is interesting as it has massive implications for our approach to many political, scientific and religious ideas. What is fraud? /bamba |
|||||||||
|
0pus Inner circle New Jersey 1739 Posts
|
Not so alien.
Are you familiar with fundamentalist christian evangelists using mentalists' electronic technology to demonstrate their powers? That is fraud, and naturally bears on the credibility of all of their claims. |
|||||||||
|
Bambaladam Special user 636 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-12-17 11:39, 0pus wrote: Is fraud the same thing as lying? Is that what you mean? /bamba |
|||||||||
|
John LeBlanc Special user Houston, TX 524 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-12-17 11:39, 0pus wrote: I think you left out the word "some" in front of the phrase "fundamentalist Christian evangelists". Also, I'd like to point out that "mentalist" is found in "fundamentalist". 
John LeBlanc Houston, TX |
|||||||||
|
0pus Inner circle New Jersey 1739 Posts
|
I thought "some" was implicit in the way I worded the sentence.
I agree that certainly not all evangelists engage in the kind of fraud for which several have been exposed. There are numerous sincere preachers and I did not mean to imply that all evangelists are frauds. It's that the argument that "just because a 'shaman' engages in deception does not mean that his belief system is untrue" really grates. The deception bears directly on the deceiver's credibility and undercuts both the legitimacy of the professed belief system and, naturally, the "sincerity" of the deceiver's own belief therein. |
|||||||||
|
Bambaladam Special user 636 Posts
|
Opus,
I think you're missing the point here. We are not discussing whether or not any kind if belief system is "true" or "untrue". We are discussing whether there can be deception which is not a mockery of belief. /bamba |
|||||||||
|
0pus Inner circle New Jersey 1739 Posts
|
And I am simply saying that deception passed off as the real thing IS a mockery of the belief in the real thing.
|
|||||||||
|
Bambaladam Special user 636 Posts
|
Even if it is beneficial?
Even if the deception is unwitting? Even if the deception is allowed for by the belief itself? /bamba |
|||||||||
|
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts
|
Quote: Assuming the "deception" is not by consent of the deceived, as it is with traditional magic shows (in this culture and at this time), that question smacks of paternalism and condescension: "I'll lie to you, mess with your beliefs, and present false evidence.... but, understand that I do so for your own benefit, since I am so much wiser and smarter than you..."
On 2003-12-17 14:12, Bambaladam wrote: Quote: First you cite examples of deception used as "enhancement," then you raise the possibility that it is unwitting. Perhaps it is the weakness of my mind, but I have a hard time reconciling those concepts. To bring it to the issue at hand: How many mentalists do you know who unwittingly use an impression device? Peter Popoff and his unwitting use of hidden mics... Good grief, /bamba, I know you can do better than that!
Even if the deception is unwitting? Quote: At first, I thought you were joking with this one, but, unfortunately, I fear you may not be! If this is your sincere position, then you have truly retreated to a lonely place defined by inescapable conundrum that no other sentient being can access or even approximate. If I cannot not assume that deception is not a valid part of your belief system, further dialog seems a trifle redundant, doesn't it? Of course, you may be deceiving me, believing that deception is acceptable. Or, on the other hand, I may be deceiving you, since that, too is acceptable. Or, /bamba, you may simply be imagining this entire thread.
Even if the deception is allowed for by the belief itself? -- Anyone here who is reasonably sure they mean pretty much what they say? :nose:
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." —Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
|
Bambaladam Special user 636 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-12-17 14:20, John Clarkson wrote: That is a tricky issue, and worth discussing. I think, again, it is a case-to-case basis. The culture-at-this-time part is an essential point here (as I feel we are not really in any position to make moral judgements out of context). In our paradigm, I would say there are instances were it is merited, and instances where it is not. An example of the first would be withholding evidence that the wonder-drug which you are successfully using to treat your tumours is actually not "scientifically" effective. I trust you can think of examples of the latter on your own. Quote:
I was actually not referring to "enhancement" specifically in this case. Deception can be unwitting. Every assurance of the reality of anything that is believed runs that risk. Every convincing display of "untruth" runs that risk, whether the "untruth" be believed or not. Quote:
I have heard of psychotherapeutic methods where lies are allowed on the therapists part if it is considered beneficial to the patient. That would be a belief system that fits the glove. Ericksonian Hypnotherapy with "flexible" induction methods is another I can think of. I can't see a clear difference between those things and shamanic "deception". Western medicine is aware of the power of "placebo", which is somewhere inbetween. Is "placebo" deception or not? Please be aware I am not really discussing my own beliefs in this thread. I know you are not interested in them. In this case I was asking questions, not making statements. I feel the answers to my questions are not obvious. If you feel they are, feel free to provide them. /bamba |
|||||||||
|
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts
|
Quote: And, I will point out that "evangelist" is an anagram for "evil gnats." Now, that should settle the issue! (What was the issue?)
On 2003-12-17 12:02, John W. LeBlanc wrote:
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." —Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
|
John LeBlanc Special user Houston, TX 524 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-12-17 15:00, John Clarkson wrote: I think the issue was "How to insult someone in one easy step." Or something like that. 
The difference between offending and not offending truly is in how you present yourself. I think the bottom line (which has already been drawn more than once) is that you are going to offend someone, sometime, no matter how hard you try to avoid it. Par for the course, I always say. John LeBlanc Houston, TX |
|||||||||
merlin1979 Veteran user Bottling the impossible 346 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-12-17 14:51, Bambaladam wrote: Bamba, Whilst Westerm medicine is aware of the power of the placebo, the ethics of its use are indeed not clearcut, as you suggested in the above post. I frequently have patients who are in need of a placebo medication for their symptoms but I am unsure whether it is ethical to provide it, as it would have to be passed off as a 'real' medicine for the effect to work. I am aware of colleagues who have used placebos, but I am concerned that this is the beginning of a slippery slope. I don't think we can necessarily judge whether our lies have an ultimately beneficial effect or not. Merlin |
|||||||||
|
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts
|
As Bamba says, it all boils down to sincerity.
Once you can fake that, you've got it made. (place ironic icon here) Jack Shalom
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
|
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts
|
Quote: Jack, Jack! You've overlooked a major point of context in the argument: feigned sincerity is only justified to enhance the efficacy of shaking rattles and burning pidgeon feathers in a rain forest to cure cancer...
On 2003-12-17 23:05, landmark wrote: For those of us who are performing mentalism instead of curing disease on the banks of the Amazon, the issue remains: how do we present it in a way that minimizes the possibility of mocking sincerely-held beliefs? There have been some good suggestions in the thread. Quote: As I understand it, Merlin, the ethics, at least in the setting of clinic trials, is pretty well-established: (1) The human subjects in a blind study must be told of the possibility that they are receiving a placebo instead of the drug and consent to that; and, (2) any person receiving a placebo MUST be switched to the drug as soon as it appears that the drug is efficacious.
On 2003-12-17 18:29, merlin1979 wrote:
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." —Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
Michael Singer New user Seattle 33 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-12-18 01:24, John Clarkson wrote: Well, on an admittedly less practical and far more philosophical note...an unrelated Web search tonight coincidentally led me to an interesting essay by occult author Ramsey Dukes entitled, "The Charlatan and the Magus." In 9,000 thought-provoking and sometimes hilarious words, he touches on spiritualists, frauds, parapsychologists, conjurors, Doc Shiels, Uri Geller, mentalism, and cold reading among other things...all to the end of exploring "the very nature of illusion and our response to it." And his conclusion surprised me. It's heavy reading for the non-philosophically inclined. But if you stick with it and read between the tangents, it may provide some food for thought regarding how to explain (or in my case simply rationalize) the value of illusion to seekers of truth. A taste: "I am sure that, in terms of sheer numbers, the majority of mankind probably subscribes to some religion that insists that the world is an illusion; even our own scientists are increasingly making it seem like an illusion. And yet, when we want to find out about the world, so many of us still choose to seek the answers among those who search for absolute truth. Might you not find out more about the nature of an illusion by following those who deal with illusions? Might not the spiritual path lead through the world of mountebanks and charlatans, rather than away from it?" We've been discussing ways to avoid mocking believers. Interesting to read one believer's surprising opinion on all this. Have some free time and a long attention span? Check it out: http://the-philosophers-stone.com/articl......agus.htm Mike
"The answer is never the answer. What's really interesting is the mystery." - Ken Kesey
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Do honest mentalists by nature mock believers? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Dec 17, 2003 03:07 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 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 <
|