|
|
Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Terry Holley Inner circle 1805 Posts |
I started this thread in response to the direction the “Secrets of Psychic Revealed” thread was moving. As many of you would probably admit, it began to move more toward a discussion of the ethics of exposure.
Also, before anyone else states his or her view on this post, let me say this might be looked at as a shameless plug for my book! That being said, let’s open this new discussion! In the summer of 1971 I performed mentalism in an outdoor venue at Cedar Point Theme Park in Ohio. If I remember correctly, I performed about 8 shows a day during that 3 month time period (I can predict the future, but I struggle with remembering the past!). I began my performance with a disclaimer that came for the most part from the Robert Nelson books: “I claim no supernatural powers or help from supernatural agencies, but I do claim that just as radio transmits the voice, and television the picture, so too the mind transmits the thought.” It was amazing to find out how many people (from all walks of life) actually believed I had some type of paranormal/supernatural ability. This was a good year to be performing this type of program because Kreskin was a hot commodity! The following school year I ran into a student at college who recognized me because she had seen one of my performances. She was amazed to see me at this college (a religious liberal arts school) because she and the rest of her church youth group had come to the conclusion, based on my performance, that I was “demon possessed.” Pretty tough to be labeled that when you are picking up a major in Biblical Education! That experience was the beginning of my venture into helping people understand that “just because you can’t explain it, it doesn’t mean that it’s supernatural.” Over the past several years I have performed a show where I “recreate fraudulent psychic phenomena.” This involves many effects from the realms of the paranormal. I give a disclaimer but I add that, “Although I do not claim any powers, I will attempt within the next __ minutes to convince you that I do indeed have these powers” (maybe an inversion of David Hoy and “I’m a fake”). Following the performance I may share a short lecture where I discuss psychic deception. Although I do not expose any of the “mechanics of the effects,” I do talk about cold reading because of a fairly powerful (I hope!) tarot reading/prediction effect. I also co-authored a book with illusionist Andre Kole titled “Astrology and Psychic Phenomena.” In that book we show how the success of psychics and other paranormal phenomena depends on deceit and sleight of hand rather than on genuine supernatural powers. We do the same to a degree with psychic surgery on Andre’s video “Miracles or Deception.” I was also involved with the research behind the book “Mind Games” that Andre coauthored with another magician/mentalist. It supposedly has been controversial based on the article available at http://www.peterduffie.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/garyward.htm Now my question to the readers of this forum is, where do we draw the line regarding exposure when we are attempting to educate people about fraud and deception? Is this a Pandora’s Box, or have we talked about it enough already? Terry
Co-author with illusionist Andre' Kole of "Astrology and Psychic Phenomena."
|
|||||||||
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts |
Terry,
Great topic. Thanks for opening it. You ask if we have we talked about it enough. I don't think so, or we would be closer to having reached some consensus (I say with great optimism...) For now, though, I think I'd prefer to read and listen. I'll pitch in a little later.
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) |
|||||||||
zeroG Regular user 183 Posts |
Please don't take this too seriously.
But do those people that labeled you believe in faith healers? Is it okay to fool people in the name of God? In my opinion those are exactly the people that need to question their faith and beliefs. Who knows maybe you strengthened their faith that day. |
|||||||||
Jim Reynolds Elite user Special Guest 431 Posts |
Ahh John, I knew you would jump in this one
Quote:
Now my question to the readers of this forum is, where do we draw the line regarding exposure when we are attempting to educate people about fraud and deception? A simple disclaimer is where I would draw the line. Nothing more. Otherwise, you either expose methods, or you don't. The problem with this 'educational' approach to mentalism is that you come too close to trampling on peoples beliefs. What may be a scam to you, could be another's spiritual belief. As mentalist, it not our jobs to expose frauds IMO. To paraphrase Lee Earle: People want to so believe - do not take that away from them. Attempts to expose fraud will only show how YOU would recreate supernatural powers. Nobody really benefits from that. Except for maybe satisfying a your own quilt. JR ps. growing up in Michigan, I have visited Cedar Pointe many times. Maybe we crossed paths back in '71. |
|||||||||
brainman Special user 971 Posts |
Exposure is a double sided blade.
But using this as a weapon for a "(personal and arrogant)war of defense of ethics" will make bleed the wrong ones. Harakiri with time delay or killing step by step. Sorry I want to live longer and better - so...I try to improve my art, my ideas and I try to do magic/mentalism in the same ethical acceptable manner as I walk my daily way of life. I HATE exposure. just a quick honest thought P |
|||||||||
teejay Inner circle Liverpool, UK 1831 Posts |
I'm ethical!!!
You need educating!!! Tireless and tiresome, it goes on. William Shakespeare said: Man dressed in but a little, brief authority Plays such tricks Before the heavens As makes the Angels weep The only problem is that the 'ethical authority' these people wax lyrical over is a self appointed one. You can't judge yourself ethical. The judgement must come from other people. Every villain in history (Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, Bush, Blair, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition) claimed the ethical high ground. It's so easy to self claim it. Here we have a person on the forum airing his 'ethical exposure' as a platform to sell products. IMHO Exposure is exposure is exposure. Should 'ethical exposure' be aired on this forum? There are other forums for discussing these matters. As a 'reader' I object to the way in which any good 'reading' thread comes under attack. I would fight for their right to speak. I just wish they would go elsewhere to say it. |
|||||||||
Pekka Special user Finland 560 Posts |
I do not claim to have a complete answer but I belive educating a selected group of people, whether you choose them or they choose you is insignificant, and is alright. I do, however, believe that 'in-your-face' type of television shows providing mass enetertainment is unethical exposure.
The line is thin but clear. If one would go to a religious group meaning to expose how we do the effects I would consider that to be ethical. To educate people who would otherwise think we are possesed by demons. But if one would do that same thing in an amusement park it would be unethical. It is also compleatly ethical to say ' I do not posses any supernatural powers nor am I in contact with the spirits but I can still make you believe I am'. If one does not expose any secrets while doing it, it is okay. Derren Brown uses similar kind of method. He informes the audience that there is nothing supernatural happening and still he performs effects that should contain supernatural powers. Just my 2 cents. P.S. Why is it that the bible people always thinks somebody is possesed by demons when something supernatural happens? And if you question their ideas of believing they will inform you that you will end up in hell. |
|||||||||
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts |
Quote: This seems like a quite appropriate forum to discuss ethics. After all, it is a forum of Magicians Helping Other Magicians. If you prefer a forum in which a thread about psychic readings won't be challenged, you might try "The Nailwriter."
On 2003-04-29 05:30, teejay wrote: As to your comment that exposure is exposure is exposure, I'm really not sure that repeating a word three times does much to elucidate your position on this matter. What about exposure of "psychic surgeons" to people who would become seriously ill without proper medical treatment? I think there is lots of room for discussion of the issues of what, exactly, exposure is, and what exposure people think is acceptable. I'm eager to hear more. :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) |
|||||||||
Turk Inner circle Portland, OR 3546 Posts |
Terry,
At most, if you feel "something" is warranted, a simple disclaimer is sufficient. (such as your suggested one of “Although I do not claim any powers, I will attempt within the next __ minutes to convince you that I do indeed have these powers”.) Why so? As Jim Reynolds correctly pointed out: "The problem with (an) 'educational' approach to mentalism is that you come too close to trampling on peoples (spiritual) beliefs." In addition, to paraphrase a famous quotation: "To those who do not believe, no explanation (disclaimer)is necessary, to those who do believe, no explanation (disclaimer) is possible". IMHO, the ethics of the situation only comes into play when you try to take advantage of those who do believe by relieving them of their money (savings as opposed to the price of a ticket to your performance) or by directing them to a course of action (sell or buy this stock, sell me your house, etc.) or when the performance goes from a general performance to a specific "performance" (such as when you claim to be communicating with a long lost personal "dearly departed")of a particular spectator. A simple disclaimer prior to a "general" performance should be sufficient. And remember, too specific a disclaimer will remove all mystery from you and your performance and will result in your performance becoming a "try to catch me" performance at best, and a totally boring and irrelevant performance at worst. Just my humble opinion. Mike
Magic is a vanishing Art.
This must not be Kansas anymore, Toto. Eschew obfuscation. |
|||||||||
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts |
Mike and Jim:
I think you have identified something that bothers me about some approaches to mentalism, and I'd like to hear more of your thoughts. If, in fact, exposure, even of the educational variety, comes close to trampling upon "(spiritual) beliefs", then should we be performing to that audience at all? This is not a question about the ethics of exposure, but the ethics of performing at all (at least to certain audiences). My thoughts about this are not yet well-formed (read that as "could be changed"). To illustrate (but not define) what makes me uncomfortable, here is an analogy: Roman Catholics believe that only a validly ordained priest can say Mass and cause bread and wine to transubstantiate into the body of Christ. If I, a layman, don a Roman collar, rent a hall, perform a ceremony that looks like a Mass, and distribute communion wafers, is it OK, as long as I give some sort of easily misinterpreted "disclaimer" during the homily, or don't pass a collection plate or accept donations? If not, what is the difference between that and performing demonstrations of "psychic phenomena" and "channeling," surreptiously using impression devices and center tears, to an audience who believes in (and attaches great value to) psychic phenomena and life after death... even with a cleverly worded disclaimer? Who is "trampling beliefs?" I, as the phoney priest, or the member of the congregation who catches on and reveals publicly that I have never been ordained? Yes, this idea of mentalism being linked to a set of beliefs, instead of being presented simply as a performance art is what has been bothering me all along. Maybe we could talk some about that. I suspect the ethics (both of performance and exposure) in these two very different approaches to mentalism (performance art vs. "(spiritual) beiefs") will be vastly different... and, perhaps, irreconcilable. Looking forward to hearing from you.
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) |
|||||||||
mystic1 Veteran user 342 Posts |
Disclaimer, yes.
Exposure, no. And anyone who is concerned about exploitative fraud and abuse should report such incidents about which they have personal knowledge to their local prosecutor or law enforcement agency. |
|||||||||
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts |
I think we need a little more than that to determine what constitutes exposure, and what kind of exposure is unacceptable.
I agree that we should report some kinds of illegal activities to law enforcement agencies. However, the thread is about ethics, not legalities. That is to say, some things that are illegal may be ethical, and some things that are legal may be unethical. Drawing the line at illegal acts doesn't address the issue.
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) |
|||||||||
IanBrodie Regular user 147 Posts |
In the lovely abstract world of theory this would be quite simple:
Exposure of methods of folks who fraudulently take people's money and perhaps even do them harm (e.g. psychic surgeons, perhaps TV psychics?) - good Exposure of methods used only by psychic/mystery entertainers - bad Trouble is that even when you try very hard to only hit the first group, you may well impact the second group. It's very difficult to weighh the benefits of helping people avoid being scammed against potentially harming genuine entertainers livelihood. Regarding "trampling on people's spiritual beliefs" - if your objectives are to help people avoid being scammed by fake mediums for example, then in some ways you do want to trample on their beliefs. If you want to do it effectively though you won't get there by hitting it head-on in the way some exposure shows do - that will often just provoke resentment and help to entrench beliefs. Big subjects... Ian |
|||||||||
sludge Special user milton keynes, england 530 Posts |
Exposure is unethical imho.
A disclaimer is not exposure imho. Even when an exposer "claims" he/she is trying to "educate" or "prevent illegal activities", he/she is deluding himself, as it is very unlikely that they will "educate" people whose beliefs are so strong as to be a possible cause of being "taken in" by a fraudster. The main result of exposure is hurting the art we all claim to love, and our fellows entertainers. I was lucky enough to grow up around people of both sides (spiritualists and readers). I know that one of my late relatives used spiritualism as a crux, and it was the only thing that kept them sane and stopped them attempting suicide after the death of a child. If she had seen any exposure programs I hate to think what would have happened if she had been taken in by the "exposer". Remember that there is still a massive stigma here in the UK against anyone going to see a counsellor of any sort, so readers are often the only option for people. Why does anyone have the right to play God the way that exposers do? |
|||||||||
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts |
It's impossible to know what (s)he might have done. Perhaps she'd have had such a massive change of world view that (s)he'd have gone on to become a Nobel Peace Prize winner in philosophy and ethics (if there is such a thing...)
Quote:
.... The same question could be asked about people who claim to communicate with the dead "to help" the poor wretches who would commit suicide without them. That is why this sort of name-calling is so unproductive. For every one you call, I could call another on the "other side" of the issue. Neither of us learns anything that way, except, perhaps, a new name to call people. Perhaps you could talk about what you see as exposure, what kinds of exposure you think are unethical, and what standard you use to determine what is and what is not ethical. These are tough issues, and they deserve serious consideration. :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) |
|||||||||
Dr Omni Regular user UK 199 Posts |
Sludge - You raise an interesting point there. From time immemorial, in all cultures throughout the world, there have been shamans (a combination of healer, teacher and spirutal guide). Even major institutionalised religions such a Christianity and Islam have had their mystics and healers who fit that role.
In the Western world over the past 150 years or so, their role has largely been taken over by doctors (and the whole paraphenalia of conventional medicine, including the pharmaceutical industry), and by a legion of advisors such as psychotherapists, agony aunts in the press and others, including arguably the entire medium of television. Yet there has still been that demand for direct connection with "primeval" and symbolic power, whether it is provided by "psychics", spiritualists, astrologers, readers, mystics, or whatever. As a hypnotherapist, I am coming more and more to appreciate the force and power of an appeal to symbols, to the primeval, even to the "spiritual" or "mystical" part of the psyche, as opposed to long words and intellectual concepts borrowed from the worlds of medicine and psychology. It's quite possible that a number of "psychics", "mediums", mystics or whatever, have bad intentions and end up harming those who pay them. (In Britain the Fraudulent Mediums Act is still law, but there have been no prosecutions under it for many years - I think, since 1944. The laws against witchcraft in Britain were repealed only in 1954.) But I think that the "bad apples" are a small minority, who would probably not last long in the business, as the unconscious mind has strong self-defence mechanisms and the punters can easily vote with their feet. With regard to exposure, deplorable as it undoubtedly is, what is worth noting is that lay people who (for instance) see exposure on TV, very quickly forget the details. A good performer who captures the audience's imagination and uses some creativity in presentation (i.e. not simply copying something word for word out of "Magic for Beginners") has nothing to fear from the fact that there is a bit of exposure going out here and there. |
|||||||||
Jim Reynolds Elite user Special Guest 431 Posts |
Quote:
if your objectives are to help people avoid being scammed by fake mediums for example… But a real medium is OK with you Ian? Quote:
These are tough issues, and they deserve serious consideration. It's only an ethical dilemma for those who seem to share a vendetta against psychics. I just don’t see how one can ‘expose’ without exposing. Terry lecturing about cold reading to justify a powerful prediction/tarot effect is still exposure. Even more bothersome is the fact that the method has nothing to do with traditional tarot readings. But hey, that’s how the psychics on TV do it, and we all know that psychics are just expert cold readers etc… This is not doing anybody any favors. Yes, there are frauds and gypsy con artist out there. Let’s not confuse these criminals with those in the ‘shut-eye’ community. We are in danger of destroying our art with McCarthyism-like zeal, just because we don’t approve of what others may be doing. Your turn…. |
|||||||||
Terry Holley Inner circle 1805 Posts |
In case anyone wonders where I am, I'm just sitting back taking this all in for right now!
Terry
Co-author with illusionist Andre' Kole of "Astrology and Psychic Phenomena."
|
|||||||||
Brent Allan Elite user Chicago 415 Posts |
As far as your posting, I do feel that disclaimers are a very interesting situation. I clothe my mentalism in the "preudo-scientific" approach, rather than the supernatural/psychic approach. Granted, there is still some linguistic deception involved, because I claim that my abilities stem from psychology, suggestion, body language, and lots of showmanship! While this is in fact true, it implies that I am NOT using trickery (which I obviously am.)
I use this scientific facade to keep away from the "are you psychic?" dilemma. In fact, I explain that, although I believe in the supernatural, I have yet to find anyone who can demonstrate such abilities at will under test conditions. As such, I believe that psychics are not really utilizing supernatural abilities, but rather the same type of techniques I am using. I go on to tell how some psychics know they are frauds, whereas others are "shut-eyes", int hat they use the same methods I use, but believe that when the answers come to them, it is due to the supernatural, rather than their picking up on subtle physiological cues and such. I then go on to present a mind-reading effect twice (Larry Becker's Ultimate Flashback). The first, I present it as a scientific experiment, and nail the thought of word exactly. Then I present a similar experiment as a psychic may perform it. I then get more of a vague picture, and proceed from there. I conclude by explianing that the methods are the same, but they are clothed in different presentations. Anyway, I have rambled on quite a lot by now, so I will let you get back to . . . whatever you were doing. Welcome to the Café, and I look forward to more posts from you.
Turn your business card into a relentless salesperson that brings you business!
http://www.TransformYourBusinesscard.com |
|||||||||
David_Libertine Regular user Lake Charles, LA 142 Posts |
How about this.
As "entertainers" or "wonder workers"it's not our responsibility or job to educate anyone. Leave people and their beliefs alone. The only ethical question I see is how do we deal with those who expose. As for the "psychics" who take grannys money, etc. If Granny is that gullable, her money is up for grabs, isn't it? If the "psychic" doesn't get it, the phoney home repair guys or someone else is going to. And THAT will be exposed by the local news and D.A.'s office... It's simply not our problem... unless, of course, you're into that line of work. It's just my opinion... I'm sure that a lot of you will disagree and feel it's your quest to save the world.
Boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth? Boy: There is no spoon. Neo: There is no spoon? Boy: Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Exposure and Ethics » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3~4 [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 < |