1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.

mediums or psychics?

Discussion in 'After-Death Communication' started by mac, Mar 1, 2018.

  1. mac

    mac Staff Member

    Mediums and psychics – what are they and is there a difference? A few thoughts for consideration….

    It’s a recurrent situation that a seeker will visit a psychic or a medium hoping they’ll briefly be
    re-united with a lost one passed-over. Often they’ve struggled to find someone (they hope will be) suitable for their needs. They may have had to wait a long time for their appointment and then the sitting/reading doesn’t pan out as they hoped resulting in a disappointing outcome. Why might that be?

    Apart from the uncertainty about reaching any particular spirit person, or any difficulty that person may face trying to communicate through the incarnate medium, there is also uncertainty over what should realistically be expected from the practitioner. It’s a situation not helped if the practitioner fails to properly explain what to expect or their client fails to understand. Or perhaps just too much is expected.

    There are a number of words in common use for a practitioner. She may call herself a ‘psychic’ or a ‘medium’ but both those words may be shortened versions of psychic-medium or spiritual-medium. Does it matter? Well, yes, because each means a different thing and misunderstanding may be one cause for client disappointment. So what can be expected from each kind of practitioner?

    A psychic (psychic medium) may, but might not, communicate with discarnates. (spirits) If she does communicate in that way it’s possible her discarnate contact(s) may provide information intended to help or guide her, in turn assisting her client. In that case help may be seen as being partly of a spiritual nature. If, however, the psychic isn’t in contact with a discarnate helper then the assistance/advice she may provide will be of a psychic nature; perhaps empathetic or intuitive counseling.

    A medium (spiritual medium) should, by contrast, offer something more than a psychic. A medium might also offer help of a psychic nature but more importantly should also offer the possibility of linking with a spirit who has direct relevance to their client. A medium should then use her attributes to provide information to help her client identify the communicator. (‘evidential mediumship’) That information may need further consideration or research by the client because the spirit may not always be recognised. [Learning the identity later of an unknown communicator can be one of the most persuasive pieces of survival evidence.]

    There is, however, no guarantee that a meaningful communication will be achieved; trans-dimensional communication appears far from easy! There can be no ‘summoning’ of a particular spirit individual; they will come only if they wish to, helped perhaps if they perceive that someone is trying to reach them.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2018
  2. genewardsmith

    genewardsmith Active Member

    I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

    Why, so can I, or so can any man,
    But will they come when you do call for them?

    Henry IV Part One

    STEVEN LEVEE New Member

    Hi Mac,
    I always go with the saying that "All mediums are psychic but all psychics aren't mediums." A "psychic/medium" is just redundant, really. ANY title with Medium in it would refer to a communicator with the other side. A solely "psychic" person would be just that. I'm sure you know this already...just putting in my 2 cents!
  4. mac

    mac Staff Member

    What, then, is the 'title' for someone who can link to a discarnate (with 'the other side') but doesn't use information communicated for anyone other than herself? In my view that's not mediumship hence I don't see that individual as a medium. But from experience I know that some individuals do think they're mediums and, presumably, would refer to themselves as mediums. I'm not deliberately being awkward - it's what I hear folk say.
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2018
  5. jells

    jells New Member

    I guess this would include those that are considered to be Channelers, e.g., Jane Robert's?
  6. mac

    mac Staff Member

  7. jells

    jells New Member

    Ah, semantics.
  8. mac

    mac Staff Member

    '.....the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.'

    yes, absolutely! :)
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2018

    STEVEN LEVEE New Member

    What:)???? I guess you're saying this is a person who is communicating but NOT for a sitter...just for themselves? Not sure what you mean here, Macintosh:)? If that is what you're saying then...their "title" is "Medium." They are tuning into the other side...acting as a "medium" whether it be for themselves alone or not.
  10. mac

    mac Staff Member

    Now you probably see my point about how one word can be used to mean very different things dependent on who uses it? When I say 'medium' I mean a very different thing compared with, well, what you mean for example... :)

    Macintosh? nah, just 'mac' ;)

Share This Page