piercethevale: The only part where I'm having a problem is with the built-in assumption that one's interpretation of psychically-received information can't be wrong. Edgar Cayce serves as an excellent example of how the process really works. Upon studying the readings in-depth, it becomes apparent that Cayce, as the "medium," is functioning as a mirror for the mind of the questioner, allowing them to seek the answers within themselves. This was made obvious in at least one memorable reading. In the early days for Cayce, a psychologist (I forget his name because he was not usually involved with the readings) asked sleeping Cayce a good number of questions, one of which seems to be a flag. He asked, "Why is it impossible to give a reading for a negro?" Cayce responded with some gibberish about development of the races.
I find it terribly difficult to believe that out of 14,000+ readings in 40 years there wasn't one black guy in there. Also, there is no good reason why a reading can't be given for any human of any type. So, what happened? Cayce gave the man exactly the information that he wanted. If he had wanted to know the numbers on a horse race, he would have gotten them (and some people did, much to Cayce's dismay). If he had wanted to know about the true story of Jesus, he would have gotten that. It is the question that directs the mind and whatever is found is interpreted as "the answer."
This means that, even equipped with the most inscrutable psychic mind of recent history, mistakes still get made. The one who asks the question is responsible for the answer (which I would argue is why horary works in the first place, much like divination; an avenue for the mind to reflect upon itself). Being such an irrefutably mystic personality, I must observe that psychics can make some pretty silly mistakes when they are not careful. Case in point: most psychics are not "good psychics." I would be wary of putting too much faith in things unsupported (and I'm sure you agree, Perci).
I agree with your imaging/intuiting paradigm. It sounds like another description of the same thing. Also, I would throw in my 8 cents.