Talk:Clairvoyance/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] npov

I'm kind of sketchy on the idea that this discussion of the topic constitutes a neutral point of view. It implies that the scientific community considers the existence of clairvoyance an open question, which I don't believe to be the case. There are certainly people who believe that clairvoyance does exist, and they are entitled to that belief. But that doesn't make it a mainstream scientific perspective, even if they're right. rhaas 23:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] about encyclopedic

* Clairvoyance, voluntary and involuntary, the pituitary body and the pineal gland, unused sex force, types of sensitives, children.

About this link - one among those removed - the most you may say is that it is not scientific and that is correct, according to our mainstream science tenets; however, it is an anlysis of Clairvoyance from the esoteric point of view, and this is a valid - encyclopedic - view, as it expresses points not available in the scientic view. The function of the encyclopedia it is not to make science experiments to validate the veracity of the facts, but to state in a logic NPOV or MPOV way the knowledge available. So, the stated link goes back to its place again. Regards, --GalaazV 09:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] The Marquis de Puységur

Re CREDIT. Well, I am glad to read in the article that the earliest recorded report of somnambulistic clairvoyance is credited to the Marquis de Puységur. Who else but the Marquis de Puységur would deserve the honor. Greek and Roman historians, not to mention the Bible, have written on the theme at length, but that, of course, was anecdotal evidence. With the Marquis de Puységur we are dealing with SCIENCE. Credit where credit is due!--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 12:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


Re DULL-WITTED. Victor Race, the peasant mentioned in the article, may well have been dull-witted, but no evidence for this can be found in the report of the Marquis de Puységur. The Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire et à l'établissement du magnétisme animal (1784) are nevertheless well worth reading, if only for the passage where the Marquis and his brother the Comte de Puységur, also a scientist, bring a dead dog back to life through magnetism.
Note, however, the comment by a famous Parisian wit quoted in the Petites Affichages that a man who submitted on his own free will to a treatment by the Puységurs cannot have been anything but dull-witted.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 17:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a Non-NPOV Tag

At the moment it seems like this is taking the fact that all of this stuff is all "esp", why is there nothing about Cold Reading? All I can see is one negative sentance. I don't want to offend anyone, too much, so I was wondering what other people think! Help plz 15:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It definitely needs the tag. There are some quotes of dissenting opinions at the bottom of the page, but the entire article treats the subject as if it were an accepted reality, which it is not even close to being. I'm not really the expert here, but I think the statement that "scientific opinion appears divided" is extraordinarily misleading. Chalkieperfect 04:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and put the NPOV tag on if you want, but this is really rather moderate relative to the state of the research. Read the parapsychology article for more. There are quite a few high-ranking scientists who think psi has scientific support. Also, it doesn't really matter whether it is "accepted" or not, it matters what the WP:V sources say.
How are you going to cold read something miles away? Cold reading is a magical act for an audience. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, cold reading applies pretty much exclusively to one individual using audience reactions and body language to tailor a series of generic responses to an individual. You can't cold remotely, doing so would be a psychic ability in itself. perfectblue 09:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional characters category

I feel that there are so many precognitive/precient characters in fiction, it demands its own category, and I'm surprised to find it doesn't have one. What should the categroy be called, for example, the telekinetic characters have the category Category:Fictional psychokineticists. The category could hold a lot of characters like Buffy Summers, Phoebe Halliwell, Cordelia Chase, Cassie Newton, Sam Winchester etc... there are literally hundreds... would anyone like to be a part of this? Feel free to discuss on my talk page too. Zythe 23:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about it, but I definitely believe that this is a very good idea. Go for it! Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I made the article NPOV by saying outright that it is about parapsychology, by sourcing it, and by taking out the weasel words. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Tauist arts / Qi

I think the way this aspect of the article is written is a little misleading. While I am no expert, I am familier enough to know that translating "Qi" as "air" does not convey an accurate idea of the concept. While there is no direct translation so it is difficult, "life force" is generally thought to be closer to the mark. The factual statements regarding the abilities taht can be developed using Tauist technique might want to be framed a little less catagorically?

[edit] hi mate

hi mate....i thought you might be interested in the ongoing debate and drama at the Clairsentience page.... dont worry..if you`re not too bothered about it.Thesource42 18:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

i did a whole new section placing clairsentience in the context of altered states with references to mckenna , tim leary , gordon wasson .... shamanic use of ayuhasca , iboga.... shamnic drumming and dancing... the protestent shaker movement ... the whirling dervishes .... and even a mental health section showing how all of the phenomena thought meaningfull to one group was equally thought to be symptomatic of various mental health diagnosis.....

my aproach was agnostic and included all aproaches with equal validity so that any curios reader could follow their own path of reasoning and research....

i thought from the nature of your remarks elsewhere and your chosen study area that you mighht be sympathetique.... cheers Thesource42 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] childish redirect

(the article presently on the main Clairsentience page .. if it stays there for 5 minutes ... is the old first draft before months of work was childishly trashed and a meaningless redirect to the clairvoyance page put in its place...Thesource42 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

the playground games continue...


ive posted this on the clairvoyance talk page after someone completely removed the clar#irsentience article which had gone through a process of months of work , rewrites , endless discussion , removasl of personal matereal , edits for style and content .... endless work on correct sourcing and wikpedia referencing and formatting..... the article which had been arrived at with co operation and discussion over many weeks and v man who himself put some hours into grammer , punctuation ... re editting for stlye and content ... and much help in correct sourcing and referencing .....Thesource42 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

this article was the sum of many peoples input , effort and hard work so i dont know how or who removed it so thoughtlessly and put the meaningless redirect to the clairvoyance page... any help would be great.... cheers..Thesource42 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Thesource42 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] hi guys

i see youve redirected the clairsentience article.... let me ask....what was the point of the weeks of discussions and rewrites if you guys were going to redirect it anyway....you should have told me t get lost out of here...... what was the point of it all? why did i listen to you ? at all? why did i remove all personal references? why did i reference and source all of my matereal diligently and in great detail ? why did i edit and re edit for style and content ? why did i make additional references to religios , anthropological ,socialogical , philosophical ,medical , physics , chemistry , botany , mental health etc so that all views were included and respected? why did i fulfill all of the above hurdles and hoops to fulfill wikpedia formatting and guidlines for you too to delete months of hard work and effort. your actions are without integrity or honour .....Thesource42 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] clairsentience article redirect ?

Hi ..... whoever removed the clairsentience article and made it redirect ... can you please try and respect that the article that was there had evolved over a couple of months of discussion and many rewrites and multiple edits which involved much discussion over a long period...... .........i could delete this clairvoyance article.... but i wont because revert and delete wars then stupidly take place which is a real shame when a library becomes a bar room brawl......

..... i hope you can respect the clairsentience article...

..... ive been clairsentient for most of my adult life and it wasnt easy to come this far and to struggle for decades to articulate my experience in a way which makes rational sense to the world at large of which the clairsentience article is a manifest example..... so please try and respect the vast amount of struggle and work which has gone into it....Thesource42 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] fair enough

its a fair point...... but why oh why did i do so much fulfilling all of the wikpedia guidlines for personal content , editting style , correct sourcing and referencing , wiki formatting etc .....months tireless work on an article which was to be so casually consigned to the dustbin.......Thesource42 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


however much i respect your views, a redirect to the clairvoyance article would however be entirely meaningless... one is not exchangeable for the other... like cheese isn`t milk etc.....

covering the groundwork general background to establish a context for understanding extra sensory phenomena in general needed to be done and it might as well happen at the Clairsentience page for now.....

the reason i did it there was because fundamental doubts were being expressed about my earliest article`s conents were concerned implicitly announcing that the background for understanding extra sensory phenomena in general had not been done.... which was ... as remember saying to you a few weeks ago the frustrating context which motivated the writing of the second article with all of its references to the background research of brennan , lylle , mckenna , bohm , wilber , sheldrake etc......because this background had to be established before any specifics about clairsentience could even be begun to be aproached ....... thus the many weeks days and months of toil which has been endured to even get this background matereal into a wikpedia format and guidlines shape ...... all of which criterea have been met .... or at leasst were until the finished product was mindlessly deleted...

the new additional altered states matereal was a tentative beginning into finding a context for tentatively describing the specifics of the clairsentience phenomena itself...

but , agian it was trashed with no thought or care....

[edit] clairsentience article redirect ?

Hi ..... whoever removed the clairsaentience article and made it redirect ... can you please try and respect that the article that was there had evolved over a couple of months of discussion and many rewrites and multiple edits which involved much discussion over a long period...... .........i could delete this clairvoyance article.... but i wont because revert and delete wars then stupidly take place which is a real shame when a library becomes a bar room brawl......

..... i hope you can respect the clairsentience article...

..... ive been clairsentient for most of my adult life and it wasnt easy to come this far and to struggle for decades to articulate my experience in a way which makes rational sense to the world at large of which the clairsentience article is a manifest example..... so please try and respect the vast amount of struggle and work which has gone into it....Thesource42 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

-Current thinking in clairvoyant circles posits that most are born with clairvoyant abilities but then start to turn them off as children are brought up to adhere to demonstrable social norms. Numerous institutes offer training courses that attempt to revive the abilities present in those early years.-

to my opinion, this is true as I myself and most of my family have such ability although a weak version of it. To me, there's no such thing as lose of this ability but more of an evolution of the ability to suit, adapt and compansate the growth of the child and the person themself as I've saw this change in my own self although it's still a weak version of clairvoyance. This is ability most can't belive as the effect and result is rather subjective and variable to the extend that neither could be reproduced in any manner unless for a particular person themself.

personaly i believe what they say that we all are psychic just not psychics. i believe that we teach our selfs how to use this um ability. i have experienced all except for("seeing" through opaque objects) i am yet for that, that i know of they did not start for me till i was 14 for reasons i would not like to go into. i am also wondering if any of you happen to be like some of my friends who some share something like it in a way but not enought of it and for simmilar reasons and that we all seem to be coming up with a year i shall not specifi for other reasons but if you do please post here

^^^^ What????????? I don't even understand what you're trying to say here, but this page is not for general discussion and personal experiences. It's for talking about the article itself.

That said, this article is waaaaaay NPOV. What a joke!~`~~