Observation of how divination works...

Blueanchor wrote:Yes I see your point re educating people on the difference between psychic and medium, so they know what a reading might bring. But again, the idea that everyone's a psychic, but not everyone's a medium is another of those myths that seem to come out of spiritualist churches, perhaps because the churches focus is on developing medium communication. 

But everyone has the potential to connect both psychically and through mediumship. Many people don't connect through either. But I have known mediums that rarely connect psychically and psychics that rarely connect to discarnates. The few times that I have spoken to peoples deceased relatives is when it was right for a particular situation. I already believe that life doesn't end at death, so that kind of spiritualism doesn't attract me   

But with these myths that psychics work with lower vibrations and that everyones psychic, but not everyones a medium, it's unsurprising that commercial readers often call themselves psychic/mediums. Why would anyone pay for something that anyone can do.

hehe, I have to get down off my soap box and go to work though now :)

mac wrote:"But again, the idea that everyone's a psychic, but not everyone's a medium is another of those myths that seem to come out of spiritualist churches, perhaps because the churches focus is on developing medium communication."

This isn't an accurate representation of the position concerning the Modern Spiritualist church. 



The Spiritualist church doesn't maintain that everyone is a psychic etc. although I accept it may be misunderstood that way.   What is closer to the situation is that mediums are psychic (adjective) but not all who are psychic are also mediums.  A 'medium' is considered to be someone helping bring about communication between the etheric and the physical worlds.


Put more simply, someone may have psychic sensitivity but not necessarily be able to act as a third party facilitator of communication as described above.

mac wrote:"There is no suggestion that Spiritualism is mainly about discovering our loved ones have survived physical death, mediumship is only a part of it. After some people have received evidential communication from their 'deceased' loved ones some choose Spiritualism has being a way of life, which it is to many people."


It might be more appropriate to say that Spiritualism primarily demonstrates evidence that those said to be dead actually are very much alive and that the same principle applies to us all.  That doesn't, though, mean that every individual will experience a personalised demonstration.

Beyond that each individual will choose how much, or how little, to pursue a life-path that's been changed by Spiritualism.  Sometimes it will be a choice to adopt Spiritualist values and principles whereas others get on with their lives little changed. 

I don't know what it means to call Spiritualism a 'way of life'.  I see myself as a staunch Modern Spiritualist but rarely attend a church and I don't go looking for messages from mediums.  I am, though, greatly influenced by what I've since learned after Spiritualism provided the fundamentals.  I do see events in this world with a perspective very different from what I once had.  But I wouldn't see that as choosing Spiritualism as my way way of life. 

Others may have a very similar approach but not have been exposed to, or influenced by, Spiritualism at all.

Blueanchor wrote:

mac wrote:"But again, the idea that everyone's a psychic, but not everyone's a medium is another of those myths that seem to come out of spiritualist churches, perhaps because the churches focus is on developing medium communication."

This isn't an accurate representation of the position concerning the Modern Spiritualist church. 



The Spiritualist church doesn't maintain that everyone is a psychic etc. although I accept it may be misunderstood that way.   What is closer to the situation is that mediums are psychic (adjective) but not all who are psychic are also mediums.  A 'medium' is considered to be someone helping bring about communication between the etheric and the physical worlds.


Put more simply, someone may have psychic sensitivity but not necessarily be able to act as a third party facilitator of communication as described above.

When I read Skye talk earlier of how people were asked to raise their vibrations to meet the vibration of the spirit realm, it sounded very similar to how I described how I connect psychically and that is that I alter vibration to meet the vibration of what I'm connecting to. technically that doesn't sound any different from what Skye described trainee mediums as doing. 

So certainly there are likenesses, but there are differences too. And this is why mediums may have sensitivity, but most mediums that I have met don't pick up what my kind of psychic connection picks up.

So in the sense of picking up on peoples auras, as Skye suggests, then it is likely that this is part of mediumship, as they tend to communicate the connection between the discarnate and the incarnate relative and it seems as necessary to pick up on the relative as it is to pick up on the deceased. But it is not necessary for mediums to tune in to the earths vibrations or to the energy created in the universe and it is rare to meet someone that is a medium on a regular basis that does this (or is even aware that this is what psychic connection can be). And if this was accepted as what being psychic is, then the adage that 'all mediums are psychic' would not be the case.

I respect the spiritualist church for doing what it does - for offering people comfort by communicating life after death. But it's bias is naturally on mediumship and no doubt those that work in the church know a lot about mediumship. But their teachings about what psychic connection is seem negligent or misinformed - and as a psychic, I rather wish they would let psychics speak for themselves, and stick to teaching mediumship.

mac wrote:It looks like one person's (or group's) view of what 'psychic' means is somewhat different from another's.  It's a constant struggle to reach agreement about certain words and 'psychic' and 'medium' are regulars. Until there is an agreed definition of both then discussions such as those here feel muddled and unwieldy.

skye wrote:

mac wrote:"There is no suggestion that Spiritualism is mainly about discovering our loved ones have survived physical death, mediumship is only a part of it. After some people have received evidential communication from their 'deceased' loved ones some choose Spiritualism has being a way of life, which it is to many people."


It might be more appropriate to say that Spiritualism primarily demonstrates evidence that those said to be dead actually are very much alive and that the same principle applies to us all.  That doesn't, though, mean that every individual will experience a personalised demonstration.

Beyond that each individual will choose how much, or how little, to pursue a life-path that's been changed by Spiritualism.  Sometimes it will be a choice to adopt Spiritualist values and principles whereas others get on with their lives little changed. 

I don't know what it means to call Spiritualism a 'way of life'.  I see myself as a staunch Modern Spiritualist but rarely attend a church and I don't go looking for messages from mediums.  I am, though, greatly influenced by what I've since learned after Spiritualism provided the fundamentals.  I do see events in this world with a perspective very different from what I once had.  But I wouldn't see that as choosing Spiritualism as my way way of life. 

Others may have a very similar approach but not have been exposed to, or influenced by, Spiritualism at all.

Yes, I agree it might have been more appropriate to word it in your style of writing. Nonetheless, the point was written to say that mediumship is not the be all and end all of Spiritualism. If members have an interest in any aspect of Spiritualism, I believe they would approach the SNU in the UK for further support and/or study. The point of ...Spiritualism being a way of life... is more about living a Spiritualist way of life which falls under the umbrella of Spiritualism in my understanding.

However, I am under no illusion that the majority of people live their lives with social and moral ethics and are willing to accept responsibility in how they conduct their lives and interact with others. So, yes, one doesn't have to be a Spiritualist or be influenced by Spiritualism to apply its philosophy, principles or values to enhance their lives, how ever they may choose to live. 

skye wrote:

Blueanchor wrote:

mac wrote:"But again, the idea that everyone's a psychic, but not everyone's a medium is another of those myths that seem to come out of spiritualist churches, perhaps because the churches focus is on developing medium communication."

This isn't an accurate representation of the position concerning the Modern Spiritualist church. 



The Spiritualist church doesn't maintain that everyone is a psychic etc. although I accept it may be misunderstood that way.   What is closer to the situation is that mediums are psychic (adjective) but not all who are psychic are also mediums.  A 'medium' is considered to be someone helping bring about communication between the etheric and the physical worlds.


Put more simply, someone may have psychic sensitivity but not necessarily be able to act as a third party facilitator of communication as described above.

When I read Skye talk earlier of how people were asked to raise their vibrations to meet the vibration of the spirit realm, it sounded very similar to how I described how I connect psychically and that is that I alter vibration to meet the vibration of what I'm connecting to. technically that doesn't sound any different from what Skye described trainee mediums as doing. 

So certainly there are likenesses, but there are differences too. And this is why mediums may have sensitivity, but most mediums that I have met don't pick up what my kind of psychic connection picks up.

So in the sense of picking up on peoples auras, as Skye suggests, then it is likely that this is part of mediumship, as they tend to communicate the connection between the discarnate and the incarnate relative and it seems as necessary to pick up on the relative as it is to pick up on the deceased. But it is not necessary for mediums to tune in to the earths vibrations or to the energy created in the universe and it is rare to meet someone that is a medium on a regular basis that does this (or is even aware that this is what psychic connection can be). And if this was accepted as what being psychic is, then the adage that 'all mediums are psychic' would not be the case.

I respect the spiritualist church for doing what it does - for offering people comfort by communicating life after death. But it's bias is naturally on mediumship and no doubt those that work in the church know a lot about mediumship. But their teachings about what psychic connection is seem negligent or misinformed - and as a psychic, I rather wish they would let psychics speak for themselves, and stick to teaching mediumship.

In a previous post, I said, "This is not to say that during a demonstration of mediumship, a Spiritualist medium will not link psychically because they may do, however, they will be aware of the differences in how they receive the information."  This doesn't suggest that linking into people's auras is a part of mediumship, it isn't, it is a psychic practice.  There is no need for a medium to link into an incarnate relative's aura during a spirit communication, as the information exchanged between the two would then be of a psychic nature. 

To suggest the teachings from a Spiritualist church appear 'negligent or misinformed' is in my view a hostile comment. No one, in particular myself, is teaching anyone here anything. I am expressing a personal opinion as well as my experiences of the differences between psychic ability and mediumistic ability as I understand them. As to be expected with any kind of spiritual or psychic practices, opinions and experiences of an individual will differ. 

Unfortunately other members of this forum who claim to read psychically, for some reason appear to be unwilling to explain how the psychic process works for them. Understandably it could be that they don't know how the process works. If this is correct though, perhaps it is as you previously suggested  "unsurprising commercial readers often call themselves psychic or mediums."

mac wrote:

skye wrote:

mac wrote:"There is no suggestion that Spiritualism is mainly about discovering our loved ones have survived physical death, mediumship is only a part of it. After some people have received evidential communication from their 'deceased' loved ones some choose Spiritualism has being a way of life, which it is to many people."


It might be more appropriate to say that Spiritualism primarily demonstrates evidence that those said to be dead actually are very much alive and that the same principle applies to us all.  That doesn't, though, mean that every individual will experience a personalised demonstration.

Beyond that each individual will choose how much, or how little, to pursue a life-path that's been changed by Spiritualism.  Sometimes it will be a choice to adopt Spiritualist values and principles whereas others get on with their lives little changed. 

I don't know what it means to call Spiritualism a 'way of life'.  I see myself as a staunch Modern Spiritualist but rarely attend a church and I don't go looking for messages from mediums.  I am, though, greatly influenced by what I've since learned after Spiritualism provided the fundamentals.  I do see events in this world with a perspective very different from what I once had.  But I wouldn't see that as choosing Spiritualism as my way way of life. 

Others may have a very similar approach but not have been exposed to, or influenced by, Spiritualism at all.

Yes, I agree it might have been more appropriate to word it in your style of writing. Nonetheless, the point was written to say that mediumship is not the be all and end all of Spiritualism. If members have an interest in any aspect of Spiritualism, I believe they would approach the SNU in the UK for further support and/or study. The point of ...Spiritualism being a way of life... is more about living a Spiritualist way of life which falls under the umbrella of Spiritualism in my understanding.

However, I am under no illusion that the majority of people live their lives with social and moral ethics and are willing to accept responsibility in how they conduct their lives and interact with others. So, yes, one doesn't have to be a Spiritualist or be influenced by Spiritualism to apply its philosophy, principles or values to enhance their lives, how ever they may choose to live. 

I guess we each see Modern Spiritualism in different ways. 

My approach to it is simple.  Fundamentally Spiritualism is about offering the chance of comfort for the bereaved.  It does that by explaining life after death and through mediumship the bringing together briefly those parted by death - sometimes but not guaranteed.  [Spiritualism also offers healing mediumship, again not guaranteed.] 

Without communication through mediumship I wonder what Spiritualism would have to offer that would be different from other religions.  After all much/most/all of its teachings came via mediumship.  For me it's pivotal to all else that follows. 

The SNU provides formal structures for those so inclined and Spiritualist churches provide a focal point for teaching, mediumship, healing and companionship.  Perhaps that's what's meant by Spiritualism being a way of life?  I could go with that.

Blueanchor wrote:

skye wrote:

Blueanchor wrote:

mac wrote:"But again, the idea that everyone's a psychic, but not everyone's a medium is another of those myths that seem to come out of spiritualist churches, perhaps because the churches focus is on developing medium communication."

This isn't an accurate representation of the position concerning the Modern Spiritualist church. 



The Spiritualist church doesn't maintain that everyone is a psychic etc. although I accept it may be misunderstood that way.   What is closer to the situation is that mediums are psychic (adjective) but not all who are psychic are also mediums.  A 'medium' is considered to be someone helping bring about communication between the etheric and the physical worlds.


Put more simply, someone may have psychic sensitivity but not necessarily be able to act as a third party facilitator of communication as described above.

When I read Skye talk earlier of how people were asked to raise their vibrations to meet the vibration of the spirit realm, it sounded very similar to how I described how I connect psychically and that is that I alter vibration to meet the vibration of what I'm connecting to. technically that doesn't sound any different from what Skye described trainee mediums as doing. 

So certainly there are likenesses, but there are differences too. And this is why mediums may have sensitivity, but most mediums that I have met don't pick up what my kind of psychic connection picks up.

So in the sense of picking up on peoples auras, as Skye suggests, then it is likely that this is part of mediumship, as they tend to communicate the connection between the discarnate and the incarnate relative and it seems as necessary to pick up on the relative as it is to pick up on the deceased. But it is not necessary for mediums to tune in to the earths vibrations or to the energy created in the universe and it is rare to meet someone that is a medium on a regular basis that does this (or is even aware that this is what psychic connection can be). And if this was accepted as what being psychic is, then the adage that 'all mediums are psychic' would not be the case.

I respect the spiritualist church for doing what it does - for offering people comfort by communicating life after death. But it's bias is naturally on mediumship and no doubt those that work in the church know a lot about mediumship. But their teachings about what psychic connection is seem negligent or misinformed - and as a psychic, I rather wish they would let psychics speak for themselves, and stick to teaching mediumship.

In a previous post, I said, "This is not to say that during a demonstration of mediumship, a Spiritualist medium will not link psychically because they may do, however, they will be aware of the differences in how they receive the information."  This doesn't suggest that linking into people's auras is a part of mediumship, it isn't, it is a psychic practice.  There is no need for a medium to link into an incarnate relative's aura during a spirit communication, as the information exchanged between the two would then be of a psychic nature. 

To suggest the teachings from a Spiritualist church appear 'negligent or misinformed' is in my view a hostile comment. No one, in particular myself, is teaching anyone here anything. I am expressing a personal opinion as well as my experiences of the differences between psychic ability and mediumistic ability as I understand them. As to be expected with any kind of spiritual or psychic practices, opinions and experiences of an individual will differ. 

Unfortunately other members of this forum who claim to read psychically, for some reason appear to be unwilling to explain how the psychic process works for them. Understandably it could be that they don't know how the process works. If this is correct though, perhaps it is as you previously suggested  "unsurprising commercial readers often call themselves psychic or mediums."

It's not hostile skye, it is just a different view from your own.

When I read things like, 'psychics work on a lower vibration' or 'all mediums are psychic, but not all psychics are mediums' - then I'm reading all inclusive generalisations, that I've heard many times, rather than somebody's own personal experiences.

You have suggested that most peoples idea of psychics is of people giving readings of auras, and I accept that. But I have explained a different aspect of being psychic, and if you were to take that on board, then you might also accept that there is more to being psychic than what the generalisations that you have used are based upon.

I have said that I respect the church and mediums and what they are able to offer people - they communicate with discarnates for incarnates. But I would sometimes like the same respect from those whose interest is in mediumship, for the whole scope of psychic communication. Then perhaps psychics like myself can be accepted into the spiritual community, not just for reading auras, but also for the understanding of the different dimensions of the universe, of karmic energies (some say akashic records) and for understanding the purpose of life.

I see your call for psychics to speak up, perhaps you would like them to speak up against me - and that's fine. But if I can't call my experiences psychic, and don't feel that they match the common view of mediumship, what should I call them instead?

ameliorate wrote:Well, for what it's worth I can offer my own experience of being claircognizant, i.e.
the ability to read people (for me it is best done on first meeting the person) and how
that operates.  I realise this isn't in the realm of reading cards but, nevertheless, it IS
a psychic ability and it involves reading people.

I thought everyone is claircognizant and it came as a surprise to find out that this was
not so.   When I meet someone I get bombarded by data about them...e.g. via their tone of
voice, normal facial expression, the eyes, their stance/posture etc.  I can detect what character
traits they have, indications of personal blocks/problems etc.  However I am not clairvoyant
so get no indication of how they will fare regarding in time to come.

Is this helpful to the current posts here?

Blueanchor wrote:Skye, I've been in groups and have friends that got into spirituality by going to the church and the ideas that you're sharing are ideas that often come up in discussion. So I don't feel saddened by it and I don't feel that you personally have shown any disrespect.  

Mac, I have no interest in medium communication with discarnates, and feel similarly about mediums teaching people about what psychic ability is.

If you can point those threads out, and if you're still interested, I'd be happy to share my experiences.

psychics, sensitives and mediums

mac wrote:

ameliorate wrote:Well, for what it's worth I can offer my own experience of being claircognizant, i.e.
the ability to read people (for me it is best done on first meeting the person) and how
that operates.  I realise this isn't in the realm of reading cards but, nevertheless, it IS
a psychic ability and it involves reading people.

I thought everyone is claircognizant and it came as a surprise to find out that this was
not so.   When I meet someone I get bombarded by data about them...e.g. via their tone of
voice, normal facial expression, the eyes, their stance/posture etc.  I can detect what character
traits they have, indications of personal blocks/problems etc.  However I am not clairvoyant
so get no indication of how they will fare regarding in time to come.

Is this helpful to the current posts here?

It certainly could start a discussion!  Perhaps you could add what you see as a potential benefit of the characteristics etc. you are aware of through 'claircognisance'?

And straight away I see a difference between what I understand as 'clairvoyance' and what you have alluded to. 

ameliorate wrote:

mac wrote:

ameliorate wrote:Well, for what it's worth I can offer my own experience of being claircognizant, i.e.
the ability to read people (for me it is best done on first meeting the person) and how
that operates.  I realise this isn't in the realm of reading cards but, nevertheless, it IS
a psychic ability and it involves reading people.

I thought everyone is claircognizant and it came as a surprise to find out that this was
not so.   When I meet someone I get bombarded by data about them...e.g. via their tone of
voice, normal facial expression, the eyes, their stance/posture etc.  I can detect what character
traits they have, indications of personal blocks/problems etc.  However I am not clairvoyant
so get no indication of how they will fare regarding in time to come.

Is this helpful to the current posts here?

It certainly could start a discussion!  Perhaps you could add what you see as a potential benefit of the characteristics etc. you are aware of through 'claircognisance'?

And straight away I see a difference between what I understand as 'clairvoyance' and what you have alluded to. 

Well this is the rub really...to give a reading to the person would entail a lot of tact on my part since I am naturally honest!  The 'data' I get is invariably a mix of some good but also many unattractive traits, conditions that I perceive.  I would be somewhat reluctant to divulge this to the person since, whilst they might be self effacing enough to acknowledge and confirm the reading, the more common reaction could well be to be offended as it is personal info.

It has no potential benefit as such to them i.e. they could just test my skills since, presumably they
would already be aware of all that they are.

As such, I tend to keep this psychic ability mostly to myself (with the exception of talking about it to those
who are spiritual).  I don't wish to make people feel uncomfortable although people can often tell when you 'see through' them.

mac wrote:

ameliorate wrote:

mac wrote:

ameliorate wrote:Well, for what it's worth I can offer my own experience of being claircognizant, i.e.
the ability to read people (for me it is best done on first meeting the person) and how
that operates.  I realise this isn't in the realm of reading cards but, nevertheless, it IS
a psychic ability and it involves reading people.

I thought everyone is claircognizant and it came as a surprise to find out that this was
not so.   When I meet someone I get bombarded by data about them...e.g. via their tone of
voice, normal facial expression, the eyes, their stance/posture etc.  I can detect what character
traits they have, indications of personal blocks/problems etc.  However I am not clairvoyant
so get no indication of how they will fare regarding in time to come.

Is this helpful to the current posts here?

It certainly could start a discussion!  Perhaps you could add what you see as a potential benefit of the characteristics etc. you are aware of through 'claircognisance'?

And straight away I see a difference between what I understand as 'clairvoyance' and what you have alluded to. 

Well this is the rub really...to give a reading to the person would entail a lot of tact on my part since I am naturally honest!  The 'data' I get is invariably a mix of some good but also many unattractive traits, conditions that I perceive.  I would be somewhat reluctant to divulge this to the person since, whilst they might be self effacing enough to acknowledge and confirm the reading, the more common reaction could well be to be offended as it is personal info.

It has no potential benefit as such to them i.e. they could just test my skills since, presumably they
would already be aware of all that they are.

As such, I tend to keep this psychic ability mostly to myself (with the exception of talking about it to those
who are spiritual).  I don't wish to make people feel uncomfortable although people can often tell when you 'see through' them.

I assume you mean that you speak about your aptitude to those who are interested in such issues - not only (quote)  "...to those who are spiritual"?  (Is there any spiritual component anyway?)

 And although it has no benefit for those whose characters you're reading, do you use your attribute routinely to benefit yourself?

Crystal wrote:Wow, some really interesting points, I wish we could all sit together and discuss these things in person, I really am not sure if written words can do any of this real justice?