This post is a transcript of some old notes
I found recently that I had started on this topic, notes which were not complete so I have now
added more and edited some of this, but, given time I would write yet
more ...
*****
I have a personal rule that I don’t do
readings [1] . In part this is a concern about self-fulfilling prophecies, in
part being disinterested in the sorts of unspiritual rubbish some people want
to ask about (which is, obviously, of
great importance to them),and in part because I think people would, in the
long term, be better off learning how to access (which includes “debate with”)
sources of spiritual guidance themselves. For the record, I also don’t consider
that I am very good at giving readings, but:
(a) that doesn’t mean I can’t do them [2] ; and(b) I consider a lot of other people to be no better than I, or even worse [3] .
The concerns that sceptics [4] [5] present (e.g., “cold reading” [6] [7] ) ARE
valid concerns. If you are, or have any intention of being, connected to a
psychic reading in ANY way
(whether that is either as the “readee” OR as the reader), you need to consider
such issues – genuinely, carefully, and with all the Deity(ies)-given faculties
at your disposal (including thought,
intuition, feelings [which may be clues to things needing further exploration],
knowledge / experience / wisdom, etc).
I happen to consider that “Skeptics” (i.e., the “professional” version of
“sceptics :) ) set the bar of proof
too high, by taking an automatic “ridicule what seems to be outside your
experience” stance / “setting the standards of proof too high” [8], but that is
not what I want to write about here. (I
have another rule, by the way: don’t try to prove anything – which is because
everyone’s standard of proof is different [AND there is the valid and genuine issue of
scepticism blocking psychism [9] ).
Going back to readings, let’s suppose
you’re giving someone a reading and, when you tune in to the client, you sense a great deal of
anger. The types of possibilities you need to sort through (and "Briefing for the Landing on Planet Earth" by Stuart
Holroyd (renamed "Prelude for the Planet Earth" in some markets; Pub.
Corgi 1979 [originally W.H. Allen 1977], ISBN 0 552 10997 5) is the BEST
example I have ever come across of what is involved in doing that) include:
- the client may be angry;
- someone, incarnate or discarnate [10] may be angry at the client, either anger because the client is “doing something weird” like consulting a psychic (this would normally be an incarnate, but a conservative person who winds up earthbound could also be the course of such anger), or anger from a karmic situation (i.e., something the client did that was genuinely wrong [11] , whether in this life or a past one), or psychic attack from someone trying to harm the readee.
- whether there is any unresolved karma between you and the readee (for instance, you may have tortured / killed the readee OR someone close to the readee in a previous life [12] , or they may have done something which harmed or offended you, or someone close to you [13] );
and so on.
Notes
[1] I will possibly do an online definition at some stage – at least I have finally posted the flow chart on this that I prepared quite some years ago.[2] I’ve come across some people who think I “simply need encouragement”, people who are so limited that the possibility I might I may have valid, ethical reasons for not wanting to do readings. Although, when I sat in a spiritualist development circle a few years ago (mainly to get my partner to try that out), I did enjoy doing the psychic art.[3] I once went to a spiritualist church with someone I knew, a friend at that time, who started giving me a kick every time the demonstrating medium said something to someone else that she, the former friend, could relate to. I moved chairs to avoid getting a massive bruise :) I consider she did well, when the medium asked if he could come to here, to say “no” – which is always acceptable. Good mediums also warn people to limit their answers to yes or no before they start.[4] I’ve written about scpetics / “Skeptics” (I always imagine a majestic but ironic fanfare when I read or type that) / scepticism (including the need for a balanced version of that) here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
You can find others’ thoughts on this here, here, and a good (which doesn’t mean always accurate, nor that she gets something always) medium’s website is here.[5] You can find Skeptics associations online here and here (and, no doubt, elsewhere). Don’t be afraid: have a look.[6] See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_reading&oldid=709169856 – which is an excellent and useful list of what you should NOT do, as a medium.[7] Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Body_language&oldid=712631125 and elsewhere, and make sure you’re not doing that :)[8] One of the things to consider here is the difference between “beyond reasonable doubt”, which is the standard of proof applicable in criminal law justice and is AIMED AT ENSURING NO-ONE WHO COULD POSSIBLY BE INNOCENT IS CONVICTED (which means some guilty people will not be found guilty because of lack of evidence), and “balance of probability”, which is the standard of proof often applied to civil legal cases and by most people in their everyday life.
There are also some very good explanations of the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) biases that can created by words here and here (which is why I did not use the Skeptics Association definition of cold reading, for instance).[9] (unfortunately I cannot find the link I was going to add in here)[10] If you don’t know the difference, or cannot discern the difference with the aid of your BPM Guides, then I would suggest that perhaps you should not be doing that reading?[11] Be wary of value judgements! A clear example of this would be a monogamous reader assuming that a polyamorous readee’s past ethical relationships with other than the primary is the cause of such anger. You need a clear warning sign from your BPM Guides of when this is happening, or at risk of happening (e.g., a bright colour, a bell or some striking scent). When that happens, you should, in my opinion, state “my Guides have just warned me that I may misinterpret something because of differing values we have. If I make that error, which I will endeavour not to do, I apologise, and request some leniency.” After all, you’re human too.[12] If you cannot admit to this possibility with EQUANIMITY, then, in my opinion, you should NOT be doing that reading![13] When I first started this article, I wrote, at this point, that I think we need a Code of Ethics, and that such a Code need not be as strict as, say, the medical profession (where one is, in effect, supposed to give aid no matter what), but if you can’t objectively give your enemy a reading, you should at least tell them so (rather than mislead them, which discredits the whole reading “profession”). I’ve subsequently found out that such a Code does exist, but it is, in my opinion, flawed as it does not mention that fraud is illegal, as is the case of client’s trying to blackmail me. My writing on this from the very brief time I was trying to do some of my psychic work as a business is here, and includes those two points and stuff about karma, etc.
