|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Matt Pulsar Inner circle 1130 Posts 
|
I'm interested to learn the etymology of this as well. I've heard or read some of this before but I can't remember where. I'm a little confused why people are being so esoteric about it. I like the term "shut-eye" about as much as I like the term "cold reading" as they have both been turned around mostly by magicians to support the belief that nothing psychic can be true.
Belief Manifests Reality.
Nebula CT: https://www.penguinmagic.com/p/8517 |
|||||||||
Slim King Eternal Order Orlando 18028 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 24, 2017, StuartPalm wrote: You seem to be totally correct in this viewpoint. Unfortunately "Shut Eye" being an Occupational Hazard as Wells put it is extremely illogical. Primarily, only a person seeking the truth will find it. IMHO that is why researchers actually become "Shut Eyes" since they are the only ones really ambitiously seeking the truth... In one day Wells confessed that he spooked himself so badly that he turned away..... 
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
|||||||||
January Veteran user 390 Posts
|
I don't think the terms *necessarily* have anything to do with whether or not we believe that psychic phenomena exist. In some ways, "shut eye" can seem pejorative, but "open eye" certainly seems even more so in the usage of Houdini, et al.
Even for firm believers in ESP, we still know there are some who explicitly know that they are using trickery and deception to achieve ESP-type results. See thread on Psychic Blues in the reviews forum. Mark Edward performed as a 'real' psychic, all the while knowing that he was just using trickery. Even if we admit the possibility of ESP, or even firmly believe in its existence, we still know for a fact that many use trickery to accomplish similar results. I for one am quite open to both possibilities--that ESP exists, or that it doesn't. Quote:
On Mar 24, 2017, MentalistCreationLab wrote: How would it be a coincidence? Wolfe is the author of the book. Wolfe was a devout spiritualist and an accomplished doctor who had published quite a bit on pulmonary diseases, but also wrote this massive 600-page tome on all the spiritualist phenomena of the time. I haven't finished reading the entire thing, but it is extremely interesting. Most of the phenomena he believes are authentic, but those he judges to be tricksters anger him because he feels that such "rank impostors" damage the reputation of true spiritualism even more than the debunkers: Quote:
It may be doing a good service to the reader, though the task is as unpleasant as it is thankless, to sample the mediums who, in my judgment, have given the cause of spiritualism more discredit than all its open foes have done. (p. 69) For more of Wolfe's work from the medical fields, see: Correspondence with an Invalid on the Curability and Treatment of Consumption (1862) An Historical Essay on Medicated Inhalation (1862) Some of his correspondence can also be found in the following work: Examination Papers of Mary Wolfe: Pulte Medical College, Class 1883 (1886) To be honest I'm a little surprised to see that people here don't know who Wolfe is, if they are privy to such esoteric knowledge. 
Startling Facts in Modern Spiritualism definitely appears to be a must-read text for anyone interested in the subject of 19th c. mediumship. It has detailed firsthand accounts of table tipping, automatic writing, clairvoyance, mediumship, seances, etc., and seems to be a staple entry in the bibliographies of most recent books on the subject. |
|||||||||
jacobsw.jpg "View Profile"){kind=avatar} New user London 67 Posts
|
January, thanks for all that fascinating information!I have to confess that I haven't read Wolfe's book, other than the few bits that seemed directly relevant to the etymology of "shut eye". I found Wolfe's book (and the Houdini testimony) through the Google Books search function, which is my go-to method for researching the origins of words and phrases.
Or, at least, that's my story. But my third-cousin twice removed once lived across the street from a Freemason, so I might just be part of the massive conspiracy that is apparently controlling the world by falsifying the origins of obscure phrases. |
|||||||||
|
January Veteran user 390 Posts
|
Google Books is getting amazingly good. I actually used it quite a bit during the writing on my dissertation, and I wrote on 17th century texts! It's amazing how many old volumes they've digitized.
|
|||||||||
|
Matt Pulsar Inner circle 1130 Posts
|
Started reading Wolff's book. Great read. Enlightening from the start. I had never heard that horse shoes were for keeping witches out. They were always just for luck. I'm two chapters in. I'll post more later.
Belief Manifests Reality.
Nebula CT: https://www.penguinmagic.com/p/8517 |
|||||||||
|
Djin Regular user 191 Posts
|
This is great information and is shining a whole new light for me. The way I had heard the terms "shut eye" and "open eye" left me puzzling the meanings from the context in which I heard them. I thought they referred to the reader, and that an "open eye" used a "peek" like a billet trick or a shill and a "shut eye" was using intuition or otherwise not working off surreptitious information.
That brings me to mediums. I've known more than one or two who (as best as I can tell) truly believe they are psychic or getting their information from the stars, the cards, or the like. To a one, these people believe, and they care. Point being I have a hard time calling them "charlatans." Don't get me wrong, I have met some frauds, and they present themselves as believing in themselves too. Maybe the "sincere" ones I've known just pitched their sincerity well enough that I believe that they believed. I don't think that's the case based on the totality of how I knew these people. I really believe that a good number of psychics, particularly hobbyists who charge little to no money, really believe. So, would they be "shut eye?" Maybe so, but "charlatans" may be a bit too far. |
|||||||||
|
Slim King Eternal Order Orlando 18028 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 25, 2017, Djin wrote: Not to bash you ... But a common mistake is to interchange the words "Psychic" and "Medium" ... There is a definite distinction. A Psychic may get his information from the stars, cards or the like .... However a "Medium" is a conduit between the living and the dead.  
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
|||||||||
|
MentalistCreationLab Inner circle 1528 Posts
|
Rose Mackenberg (July 10, 1892 – April 1968) this is the psychic investigator spoken about in the Congressional subcommittee report that Houdini used. Note: she was trained by Houdini in how a magician would do psychic work, yet and I quote “Because of her investigative work, Mackenberg became an expert on the practices of fraudulent psychics. She claimed to have investigated over 1,000 mediums and never found one who was not a fraud.” Even though 3 dozen mediums got information wrong. What is interesting here is that she was trained in the so called methods of the fraudulent mediums and psychics by Houdini and a fraudulent psychic investigator prior to meeting Houdini yet she discovered no evidence fraudulent methods being employed, including the methods Houdini stated they used. Also eluding to the fact that the methods of the psychic medium and the methods of how a magician would do it are different things. Also I must point out that Robert Gysel also found evidence of both, some psychics used methods of trickery and some he thought may be real. The reason I mention Gysel here he is the one who took over the IBM psychic Fraud squad before being booted by Bill Durbin from the IBM for doing what Durbin told him to do. Which is around the same time as the above congressional subcommittee on HR 8989. Which is also interesting.
Perhaps the most interesting thing is she traveled around doing lectures on psychic fraud wherein she would show demonstrations of the methods taught to here by Houdini table tipping and billet work and now I shall say it once again “Because of her investigative work, Mackenberg became an expert on the practices of fraudulent psychics. She claimed to have investigated over 1,000 mediums and never found one who was not a fraud.” You can read the full entry at the below link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Mackenberg Oh let me also say it again the so called methods of the medium were created and taught to mediums and psychics by magicians! It's not the other way around and Rose is just one example of the documentation of the proof that magicians taught psychics. The main reason for this sort of teaching was so they could expose them later on and make a name for themselves in the press at the time. It's not theory folks it's fact and above is just some of the evidence as to what one who is sane would think is a crazy Bill Montana theory. Truth is I done the research and examined the facts which is more than I can say for PSICOPS. Who by the way have since admitted they did not do any scientific investigations. Oh yes! Please read that last line again as it's fact too! And I not crazy! I may share more later on about this but for now I do not want to have your heads explode with too much information about what really occurred. This rabbit hole is very deep but enlightening as it teaches us about the real history of magic and mentalism. Which is not at all what most of us where taught or have read in most of the magic books on the subject. |
|||||||||
|
Matt Pulsar Inner circle 1130 Posts
|
Just started watching the Hulu show "shut eye". That's going to have an interesting effect on the zeitgeist.
Belief Manifests Reality.
Nebula CT: https://www.penguinmagic.com/p/8517 |
|||||||||
|
Second Sight Regular user Ireland 156 Posts
|
Djin --
In another current thread on ethics, in response to Pop Haydn's blog post about the reanimation of a dead fly, I discuss definitions of fraud and charlatanry, and whether such words should, or shouldn't, be applied to the average mentalist. http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......tart=120 It might be worth a look. |
|||||||||
|
Djin Regular user 191 Posts
|
Second Sight, I went and re read your post. Your point is valid and well stated. I agree that charlatanry is not necessarily ill intended nor is it innately harmful.
To make what I said before more accurate, I believe that the psychics I referred to before who as best as I can tell truly, sincerely believe that they are really psychic think of themselves as honest. Myself, I don't know. I think they have well tuned conversational skills and are doing what entertainers know as "cold reading" except they do so innately. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they are psychic, but I think it's more likely they are following the card or star system and when their audience agrees (as they want to believe) the reader's belief in the system becomes belief in their own abilities. Whatever the case may be, I can't call them dishonest as I believe that they believe. Slim King, thanks for busting me on my sloppy use of language. Seriously, words have meanings. Misusing language has caused far worse loss of face than internet forum faux pas. Its better for me to be called out here in a small way than for me to continue using the wrong words. I don't feel "flamed" for the correction. |
|||||||||
|
Matt Pulsar Inner circle 1130 Posts
|
I have a lovely time every Tuesday giving psychic readings in a local pub. I'm not acting as a charlatan, I'm not acting as a mentalist as it is thought of here, and I'm not being a magician. I'm reading Tarot cards and giving intuitive responses to each client. I don't do cold readings as it is generally defined in terms of giving Barnum statements or the like. A cold reading in the truest sense is giving a reading without having met the person or knowing anything about them. This happens often. When I'm reading cards I read the cards and interpret the patterns. I'm told that I'm very actuarate.
Djin, your perspective does a few things. First, you take it for granted that readings are fake. Take a moment to think on the fact that people have been giving readings as long as they have been communicating. Yes, there are people who lie and cheat in every field, but that doesn't mean the whole field is a sham.
Belief Manifests Reality.
Nebula CT: https://www.penguinmagic.com/p/8517 |
|||||||||
|
jacobsw New user London 67 Posts
|
"Open Eye" vs "Shut Eye" makes it sound binary, but I think there's probably more of a spectrum.
Some points on the spectrum might include: 1. Those who believe they have no psychic powers, but use deliberate trickery to convince other people that they do; 2. Those who believe they have real but unreliable psychic powers, and use deliberately trickery to shore up their reputation when their powers don't seem to work; 3. Those who believe they have real psychic powers and who also do magic tricks, but let the audience know when they're doing tricks; 4. Those who believe they have real psychic powers and never use deliberate trickery. I am a skeptic so I think categories 2-4 are probably deceiving themselves -- but I would only describe categories 1 & 2 as "frauds." I would describe categories 3 & 4 as "Honest people who see the world differently than I do." Stuart, it sounds as if you fall into that group. |
|||||||||
|
Djin Regular user 191 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 27, 2017, StuartPalm wrote: I think we are saying nearly the same thing but at the same time I think you may be taking umbrage with my two cents. I don't think that people who truly believe are a "sham" and I thought I expressed that. I also articulated that psychic ability may be more real than I think it is. Yes, the practice of reading and divination is as old as communication and no, we still do not definitively know what human senses are capable of. I think "psychics" have acute perception not extra sensory perception and that some let themselves believe it's extra sensory. That's my opinion. I'm open to learning something that might change it. Years ago I believed differently than I do now, this is where what I have seen thus far has lead me and I intend to keep living and learning so time will tell where I end up. As far as people who lie about psychic ability, well... that includes a lot of us and it's not necessarily done out of malice. In fact any of us who claim to bend a spoon with the "power of our mind" are playing fast and loose with the truth and it's all in good fun. If my opinion in some way denigrates what you do, I regret that you feel that way. I know a number of people ("know" meaning offline real contact) who believe in their psychic abilities. Some of these people I'm close to and I don't discuss this with them because I don't want to put them down. I don't want to put you down either. |
|||||||||
|
jacobsw New user London 67 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 29, 2017, Djin wrote: I know you were responding to StuartPalm but just to clarify my previous post... To me, "letting the audience know you're doing tricks" doesn't mean you need a flashing neon sign that says "I am not a genuine psychic." If you're in a context in which a reasonable person would understand that it's a show, everything becomes fair game. At that point, if you say "I'm bending this spoon with the power of my mind," you're helping people temporarily suspend their disbelief, which is the whole point of your performance. I reserve the word "fraud" for people who go out of their way to make people permanently believe something they know to be false. |
|||||||||
|
Slim King Eternal Order Orlando 18028 Posts
|
I tell people I do a GENUINE GYPSY READING..... just like they did it..with improvements...
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
|||||||||
|
seadog93 Inner circle 3200 Posts
|
I love discussions of old spiritualist books and theories and wether or not "shut eye," as used now, is pejorative (IMO it absolutely is).
As for the alleged origin of "shut eye" as being the top level for real psychics: Well, maybe so. I wouldn't be all that surprised, I certainly would be interested, but if the only reference comes from 6 books, 4 of which are owned by one person, 2 are owned by another and one of those people is anonymous and the other isn't sharing... ...what the he!! is the point of bringing it up? I understand secrecy. If you have secret knowledge that you're not willing to share with others that's fine; why not keep it secret? In terms of interesting words and phrases (that I may be using incorrectly, my apologies) I recently heard the term "epistemological currency" in relationship to how conspiracy theorists and alien enthusiasts (and, you know, ...everyone else) increase their status by explaining how they know whats REALLY going on.
"Love is the magician who pulls man out of his own hat" - Ben Hecht
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing'. Between the two, my life flows." -Nisargadatta Maharaj Seadog=C-Dawg=C.ou.rtn.ey Kol.b |
|||||||||
|
seadog93 Inner circle 3200 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 26, 2017, MentalistCreationLab wrote: Quote:
Perhaps the most interesting thing is she traveled around doing lectures on psychic fraud wherein she would show demonstrations of the methods taught to here by Houdini table tipping and billet work and now I shall say it once again “Because of her investigative work, Mackenberg became an expert on the practices of fraudulent psychics. She claimed to have investigated over 1,000 mediums and never found one who was not a fraud.” I may genuinely be reading your comments wrong, and if so I apologize. To be clear, I'm on your side for the rest of the spot that the JREF and PSICOP, etc are in no way scientific and that magician's explanations of fraud are themselves generally fraud. That being said, at least in my reading, you seem to referring the quote that you use twice as saying Mackenberg didn't find any evidence of fraud. I'm not trying to be rude, I am probably misreading your comments, but the quote clearly says that after investigating over 1,000 mediums she NEVER found one who was NOT a fraud; meaning that everyone that she investigated WAS a fraud. I'm not saying that they were frauds, and I am certainly suspicious of anyone trained by Houdini; but she clearly was in agreeance with his point of view.
"Love is the magician who pulls man out of his own hat" - Ben Hecht
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing'. Between the two, my life flows." -Nisargadatta Maharaj Seadog=C-Dawg=C.ou.rtn.ey Kol.b |
|||||||||
|
Slim King Eternal Order Orlando 18028 Posts
|
I think it's of value to compare the actual pictures taken under the seance table of Margery and the drawings used by Houdini in his booklet .. You can see a problem right away ....
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Origin and definition of Shut-Eye and Open-Eye (36 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Mar 25, 2017 03:43 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 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 < 
|