I was watching old episodes of Room 101 last night on my laptop, filling my head with amusing stuff prior to falling asleep. For anyone who isn’t familiar with Room 101, it is a tv programme in which 3 different celebrities per week get to voice their opinions about things that bug them, from selected catagories, which may be something like ‘modern life’, or ‘people’. Then the host, Frank Skinner, gets to decide which hopefully comedic rant has been most persuasive, and dumps the object/subject in question into the imaginary room 101. The winning celeb is the one who has been most persuasive, overall.
Last night, on a re – run, I was dumped into room 101. Well, not me personally, but people who are ‘like’ me, professionally speaking…..under the banner heading of ‘clairvoyants’. And the audience applauded enthusiastically, I am afraid to say. The actress Caroline Quentin scathingly described what was obviously an evening of mediumship at a local cricket club, and indeed, it did sound as if it had been a bit pathetic……wild generalisations and things being made to fit, etc. She stated that she was choosing the subject because she didn’t ‘believe’, and Frank Skinner agreed that clairvoyants can be exploitative……..and off they zoomed, into the dark depths of an imaginary dungeon.
Now, I don’t have a problem with that, as such……people are absolutely entitled to their beliefs, or lack of. But uninformed opinions, ignorance, does bug me. If I was on the programme I would select Caroline Quentin to be dispatched to room 101 (I’d let Frank Skinner off because he is funny, and because he generally looks at stuff from different angles!) In French, “clairvoyant” literally means “clear-seeing,” mentally or optically. The term made a brief appearance in English in the 17th century, as an adjective suggesting a keen sense of perception, but it did not become firmly established in the language until the 19th century (I copied and pasted the highlighted bit from Merriam-Webster because it explains it better than I can can!)
Technically, clairvoyance means to see with the mind’s eye, in a perceptive way. When we sleep, and we dream, we do not observe our dreams through the use of our eyes, in a physical sense……we observe them through our mind……we see them upon a screen within our mind (but not a screen that can ever be physically located!). That means that everyone, apart maybe from those who are blind from birth, has clairvoyant ability. I imagine, though I can’t say for sure (will research the subject!), that blind people dream clairsentiently……they ‘feel’ rather than see. The term clairvoyant is now used to label anyone who works within the arena of prediction and/or mediumship…..but a person who communicates with the deceased is actually called a medium, not a clairvoyant.
Mediums, good and bad, effective or ineffective, honest or dishonest, MAY use clairvoyance, as in they are ‘seeing’ the spiritual entities they are actually communicating with, or pretending to communicate with, whichever it may be. Or they may use clairsentience, or they may use clairaudience, or a combination of all three. Anyone who describes him/herself as a clairvoyant is saying “I use intuitive vision”, whether they are a medium, and/or call themselves a psychic or an intuitive consultant.
Going back to Caroline Quentin’s sneering criticism, I have witnessed very wooden performances by actors, over – acting, and unconvincing acting. Does that mean that ALL performers (let’s use a cover – all term to lump everyone in the entertainment industry together!) are rubbish, and that all entertainment is a rip off and should be banned? Certain actors/actresses always play the same kind of character…..let’s not mention any names. On that basis, should those individuals be sent off to room 101, because I don’t believe in the characters they play, having seen the same performance again and again, regardless of the role? Some would say yes, and some would say no.
It is 2016, and surely by now spirituality…….our own spirituality………should no longer be considered something worthy of ridicule? Let’s be clear about what we are criticising. Is it people who are obviously not delivering what they say they can deliver, regardless of their profession? Or are we saying that anyone who works at an intuitive level is completely delusional…….that life is purely one dimensional, physical and practical, and there is nothing else beyond what we can see in the here and now? Even science doesn’t take THAT stance. ‘Future’ prediction seems possible and logical, when considering Einstein’s ‘fabric of time’! No – one, not even the best intuitive sees and feels everything, and neither do they all work in exactly the same way.
If people are con artists, or very poor at what they do, then put THEM into room 101 on that basis, whatever their profession. The human mind is an amazing, still largely unexplored, transmitter. We all have our own unique spiritual nature, and plenty of smart, informed and respected individuals can testify to experiences that are outside of the ‘norm’, in terms of limited human consciousness and understanding. You know, I personally have never seen Australia with my own eyes, but if I was to say “I only believe in what I can see”, as some still do, even in this enlightened age, I would be saying Australia doesn’t exist. It couldn’t do, because my closed mind would not allow it to. But some pretty believeable people have told me that THEY have seen Australia, and that it DOES exist……so hey, I think I’d be pretty dim if I continued to scoff at an idea or a concept because I consider myself just too damned smart to be fooled by something I haven’t adequately researched or experienced!