Conference hydra::dejavu

    I would like to amend one thing:
    
    >is a genetic/physical attribute of humans
    
    to "attribute of living creatures".
    
    Beth

    Sounds like the distinction you draw is between:
    
    1) paranormal interaction with mundane objects (e.g. dowsing for water,
    poltergeist effects, much of what people think of as ESP and PK),
    labeled "psionic"
     
    and 
    
    2) paranormal interaction with paranormal objects (e.g. mediumship/
    "channeling," seeing spirits, conjuring spirits, maybe seeing auras, 
    though that might be in the other class), labeled "psychic"
    
    Have I understood you correctly?
    
    I am not familiar with the labels you use.  I've heard both things
    called "psychic," and I've rarely heard "psionic" at all.  When I have
    heard "psionic," it was generally in SF literature and was meant as a
    hi-tech-sounding substitute for "psychic," implying that these
    paranormal things were now as well-understood and readily-controlled as
    the sound-alike "electronics."  (In fact, I believe "psionic" was coined
    by John W. Campbell, Jr., when he was editor of "Analog" science
    fiction magazine.)  Is this a new usage of the terms?
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    
    Earl,
    
    I have never seen channeling referenced along with other psionic skills. 
    I have only seen things like telepathy, empathy, telekinesis, and such,
    as psionic.  I have seen psychic to encorporate psionics as well.  By
    those examples, I suppose that psionics is a subgroup of psychic.
    
    As for seeing auras, well, right now I tend to class that with the
    psionic skill.
    
    Beth

    Some history is, I think, relevant:

    Back over a century ago, there was a new (at least in scope) religion
    called Spiritualism, which claimed to be based on objective evidence
    rather than on faith.  The evidence was in the form of mediumistic
    phenomena -- contact with the spirit world through people who were
    known as mediums.  The earliest mediums were pretty much what we would
    call "channelers" today.  They allowed communication with the spirits
    of the dead either through speech, through alternatives such as
    automatic writing, or through effects apparently less tied to the
    medium (though she or he was held to be a necessary catalyst) such
    as table-tipping and spirit-rapping.  In time the last category evolved
    into the full range of phenomena associated with physical mediumship:
    levitations, materializations, apparitions, spirit-slate messages and
    disembodied voices.  "Practitioners" (for lack of a better term)
    started to appear who were not specifically tied into the Spiritualist
    movement began to appear as well.

    All this resulted in groups of scientists who wished to study these
    phenomena and see if they were genuine (by this time many fakers
    had been revealed).  These researchers came to be known as psychical
    researchers.  Many of these early researchers were what would later
    be called psychologists and they saw the trance phenomenon being
    displayed as examples of the hidden characteristics of the mind (that
    is not to say that they rejected the possibility that spirits were
    being contacted, only that the trance which made this possible was
    a psychological state).  The word "psychic" basically just refers to
    the mind.  It is the root word in "psychology" and is still used
    in that sense not infrequently in phrases such as "psychic stress"
    meaning mental rather than physical stress.

    They began to refer to people who apparently manifested such phenomenon
    generically as "psychics" thereby avoiding using the assumption-laden
    jargon of Spiritualism.  Psychic phenomena back then was much broader,
    encompassing all kinds of trance phenomena including hypnotism, various
    forms of automism, whether or not in a spiritualist setting, amnesia,
    etc.  Gradually the focus narrowed.  Whatever side interests the
    psychical researcher had, the primary focus of psychical research was
    the investigation of purported objective evidence for post-mortum
    survival.

    In investigating this question, it was necessary to examine all other
    explanations for the phenomenon under question.  The primary focus was
    on mediums (and non-Spiritualistic psychics) who allowed spirits to
    communicate with the living.  In particular who provided information
    which would be known to the deceased but would be unknown to the
    medium.  Even if it was to be assumed that this took place, was there
    any other way that the medium could have come to know that information
    other than being told by the spirits?  The answer was "thought
    transference", or as it later came to be called "telepathy".  Similar
    questions directed at somewhat less common situations raised other
    alternate hyphotheses to survival: what came to be known as
    psychokinesis, clairvoyance and precognition.

    A term was needed which did not make assumptions (which was theory-
    neutral) about what was going on and which meant "the explanation,
    whatever it is, for what psychics do".  The term which ended up
    being accepted was "psi" -- which is simply the name of the first
    letter of the greek root-word for psychic.

    So "psi" is whatever "psychics" do, and a psion is simply an (IMHO)
    unneeded synonym for psychic.  Whether "channeling" is the same
    phenomenon (at least the mysterious part of it) as ESP is an open
    question -- indeed is *the* question of psychical research, which
    lead to the study of ESP.

    What you refer to as "psionic skills" would generally be refered to
    as "psi ablilities" or "psi skills" or "psychic skills".  ESP is
    defined as the aquisition of information by other than the known
    sensory modalities, and covers verifiable channeled information
    equally with any other form of it.  To the extent that a channel
    does not claim to provide verifiable information, the channel is not
    a "psychic".

    If I understand the disinction you are trying to make, I would say
    that what you call "psionic" is what is generally understood by
    "psychic" and what you call "psychic" would seem to correspond to
    "mediumistic" or "channelled".  The latter phenomena are, indeed
    special cases of psychic phenomena.

				Topher

Re .4 (Topher):

    >A term was needed which did not make assumptions (which was theory-
    >neutral) about what was going on and which meant "the explanation,
    >whatever it is, for what psychics do".  The term which ended up
    >being accepted was "psi" -- which is simply the name of the first
    >letter of the greek root-word for psychic.
    >
    >So "psi" is whatever "psychics" do, and a psion is simply an (IMHO)
    >unneeded synonym for psychic.  ...

In my readings, I've seen a slightly different tack.  "Psionic" has generally
                                                          ^^
been used in those areas I've seen it discussed as something vaguely associated
with "electronic"; that is, something possibly "mechanically augmented" (using
"mechanical" in its broadest sense) as opposed to something entirely inherent.
"Psionics" started to gain wide currency as a term from a series of articles in
_Analog_ magazine, then edited by John W. Campbell, Jr.  "Psi" as a term had
been in come use before that; Campbell made the distinction when first writing
about the Hieronymous Machine (which was supposed to work using "eloptic
radiation" of an object).  "Psionic machines" were supposed to amplify or
(excuse the term, which means something a bit different these days) channel the
users' psi faculties to achieve the desired end.

Admittedly, usages alter meanings (the original meaning of "robot" is now the
definition of "andriod," for example), but "psion" was propposed as a hypothetical
smallest-unit-of-thought particle sometime in the 1960s as an element in a
science fiction story; "psion" as a human with a specific set of characteristics
is new to me.  Such a definition would track with "psionic" as a mechanism used
to generate/amplify psi functions, analogously to "electron" and "electronic"
in more famiuliar applications.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

For more discussion on psionics and psionic machines, see Note 86.*

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    The pointer was helpful, however, I feel this topic different enough
    from 86.* to continue here.
    
    From all the above, plus 86.*, it looks like the psionic skill set is
    either:
    
    a subset of psychic skills.
    
    OR
    
    The means by which beings perform psychic acts.
    
    Sounds like these definitions may still be evolving, through (mis)usage, 
    as well.
    
    Beth