Times have come to pass when I have been asked to present my own thoughts on the construct of and the quality to the "visions" that those who identify themselves as psychic present to others. In this line of ethereal thought there is almost always one of those follow-up questions that also ask for the opinion of other psychics abilities as well. In virtually every case I feign any opinion on anybody else who forwards their own psychic perceptions, whatever their form for the benefit of others. Why, many ask? To put it quite bluntly, the sensations and the perceptions of others are absolutely none of my concern and as long as I have any ability to express a viewpoint, there will be none in this arena. There are already enough stylists, skeptics and media venues available to hash this argument out. I remain that my own view is hardly ever needed or ever really desired so I choose to remain outside of it all.
What I will set forth is what I consider of a paramount consideration when many vex the views and the perceptions of one intuitive versus another, of any future event, of any paranormal presence and or of any matter throughout the fabric of the life of anyone. This is contained in one prime descriptive word; "perspective". Take this example if you will, for the construct of this encompasses my own general opinion of the varying contexts of one psychics perspective versus another's in any and every way.
In your mind set to your inner vision a major intersection where you are one of eight drivers at some crossroads. You are in the right lane of a two lane pass-way with one driver in front of you and one to the left of you parallel position to your own all at a stop. From the opposite side of the intersection in the oncoming lane, there are two more drivers one in each lane also at a stop at the head of the entry to the intersection. From the cross-road positions are two cars approaching the intersection one from both sides traveling at a moderate rate of speed. There is one car at park waiting to enter the road from behind your position just to the right.
Now, in what seems like an instant decision to your eyes, the driver just to the front of you accelerates into the intersection to cross into the other side when suddenly the two cars travelling perpendicular to that crossing car slam it on both sides turning the crossing car around into a 180 spin. The accident obviously shakes everyone up!
Soon thereafter there are police on the scene interviewing everyone who was a witness. You give your own account of what you saw. You carefully describe that you witnessed the driver accelerate to cross the road and then be struck by the oncoming two drivers from opposite directions. Your account could possibly make the other two drivers at fault, and you are aware of this so you try to get every detail as precisely as you can.
As it turns out, the other drivers at the intersection all provide the same genuine veracity to their own perspectives of what they swear they saw happen. There however are distinct differences in the many separate accounts. Your statement that you believe to be factual placed the center hit car leading into the intersection ahead of the others, while all but one of the other drivers agrees with your accounting of the event. One driver swears that the hit car entered after the other cars at a quick rate of speed. The driver who crossed the road who was hit from both sides unfortunately was unconscious on the scene so that person couldn't provide his statement.
Now, everyone who was at that intersection each had their own perspective of what they swear they saw and to whom they believed was at fault for the accident. Whose account was the proper one and whose account was the improper one? Did you really witness a true action or was your account based in some falsehood of a false perception? Were the other drivers who witnessed the event as careful of their own relations of and in their own recall of what they saw as you were? Was there some motive for providing a false account? Why would someone do so? Could it be that each driver who witnessed this event, was simply stating what they believed in their hearts were the facts of what they saw? In the end, that was all that could be expected, yes?
If we set aside the legalities and instead take this objective case for what it is, we can transpose this into the realm of the psychic's experience. In the realm of the psychic, the intuitive, the clairvoyant or whatever the label one wishes to apply to this experience of the spiritual senses, the individual is harnessing a sense and interpreting this into the existence of the physical world to the best of their own ability. Where one individual might communicate something they see, something they sense, or that they hear or feel in one way or another, some other individual might communicate this same perception from a completely altered perspective even if both are attempting to relay two separate sides of the same experiential coin if you will.
Just because there are varied perspectives and different views of some single eventuality or varied perceptions of the quality of some "subject", doesn't necessarily mean that one person is being more or less honest than another, and in many cases it doesn't clarify the point that one individual is being more disingenuous than another. Where one individual might have some clearer angle of one perception than another person simply means that there are varied perspectives to take into account where the greater matters of life and existence are concerned and the same is true of the perceptions of the psychic experience. As in the case of the many drivers who all had witnessed the same event at the same time, their separate viewing positions and their own varied perspectives left them all with different vision-paths to the happening that all led to the same conclusion. Unfortunately, it takes an objective experiential observer to sift through the details as they eventually unfold to decide if any one vision is more proper or more precise than another. Sometimes there is never any one person to hold any such view and thus nobody to truly behold one vision as being more precise than another one except for the one seeking some aid. One thing is certain, that the existence of many varied perspectives of the world, of the happenings of people's lives and of the energy of the spiritual realm remains an individually perceived quality to each person who views or senses "anything" that they try to tie to some bit of existence.
In a practical sense, of course there are differences between different individual perceptions. Nobody is perfect! Without the potential of error and yes, this includes the psychic perceptions that everyone has the potential for as a part of the experience of their lives, life itself would be wrought with unfound error made manifest with no correction. The psychic senses are not immune to any of this. Where one individual envisions one path and one outcome, it of course rests in the realm of possibility that another person could view an altered path and an altered outcome, both dependent upon unfolding factors of experience and allowing for the potential for miss-perceptions to a single resolve. Where the matters of many different views of one conclusive happening are concerned, one might have to sift through the details for themselves to decide upon the quality of another's views. As one questions the authenticity of one perceivers viewpoint versus another's, perhaps it might help to first question precisely what one needs to know versus what one expects to know. After this it might be an easier matter to begin to conclude if one psychic versus another is providing the sort of quality information that one seeks versus what one needs to hear.
Of course, it all depends on the perspectives of the perceiver and of the seeker to draw some final conclusion to all of this, for the final word really does rest with the person who comes to some conclusion in the psychic experience.
