Conference hydra::dejavu

re: .1 (Cindy)

       My understanding of the difference between the two is:
   
          -  Under hypnosis your conscious self 'goes away'
             as in dreaming.  In meditation, you are still
             'there'.

          -  Under hypnosis someone else does the 'guiding'
             (unless self-hypnosis).  In meditation you do.

        I'm sure there's much more to it but I hope this helps.

        Terry

    Cindy,
    
    Interesting question.  My first thought was that hypnotism is
    related more to exploring the physical-psychological and
    meditation to exploring the spiritual.  This has more to do
    with intention than anything else.  
    
    Then I got to thinking about how work with a hypnotist can lead
    to an ability to hypnotize yourself which is sort of a form of
    meditation.  After all, both "states" generally lead to an 
    altered state of conciousness.  There are the same results as
    far as brain-waves are concerned (achieving an alpha-state).
    Again this led me back to intention.  If one is hypnotized
    in order to achieve spiritual enlightenment then couldn't
    that also be termed meditation?  Does the meditative state
    _have_ to be self-induced.  In biofeedback the subject is
    taught to achieve a relaxed state through audio-tapes.  I
    have reached alpha-states through this technique.
    
    I guess what I'm doing is presenting more questions than
    answers.  This seems to me like a stream-of-conciousness
    kind of reply but I guess that's appropriate for the topic.
    (:*)
    
    Nanci

re: .0 (Cindy)

> Where is the line drawn and just what exactly are the differences?
              
re: .2 (Nancy)

> If one is hypnotized in order to achieve spiritual enlightenment
> then couldn't that also be termed meditation?  Does the meditative 
> state _have_ to be self-induced?  

The line which is drawn is really quite simple and distinct.  There's 
this house, you see, and it happens to be two stories.  The lower level 
is lower mind and the upper level is higher mind.  On the lower level, 
way in the back, there is a storage room full of "stuff".  This room is 
the sub-conscious. 

The purpose of hypnosis is to side step the conscious mind (lower mind, 
1st story) and get to the storage room.  As owners of the house we don't 
normally like people to see our messy storage room; and usually we don't 
like to see it ourselves.  As a result, we play games in the lower mind 
to prevent access to the storage room.  Hypnosis is the process of going 
around the house to the back and going into the storage room from the 
outside entrance.

Hypnosis is generally only useful as a clinical tool or a hilarious form 
of entertainment.  Hypnosis cannot achieve enlightenment as it cannot 
provide access to the upper level (there is no outside entrance to the 
second story).

Meditation, over time, provides access to the second story.  The process
of meditation is the process of climbing the stairs.  Once we discover
the second story, it is always accessible.  The view from the second 
story is much much better and we get a more clear, global picture of our 
environment than is available on the ground floor.

Meditation *must* be self-induced.  Only we can make the decision to go 
upstairs.  Nobody can force us to go; they can only tell us that the 
second floor exists and that there are stairs to get there, and they can 
provide us with instruction on climbing stairs.  There is one exception 
to this, however, and that is your mother.  If she tells you to go 
upstairs and go to your room, you better go. 

The analogy is simplistic, but you get the idea... :->

Jeff  >(:-)-->--<

    Jeff,
    
    What's the difference between self-hypnosis and meditation??
    I'm still confused.
    
    Nanci

.0 Cindy

See also 514.0  Self-Hypnosis/Meditation

Jay

Nancy,

Self-hypnosis is still hypnosis, and the same principles still apply.  
The goal is the same; to get around the conscious mind and into the 
sub-conscious where all the archives are stored.  This is not simply 
storage of experiences, but all of the behavior patterns which we have 
developed over eons.  These patterns influence the way we act and react 
to different situations.  With hypnosis we cannot remove these patterns, 
but we can add "suggestions" which counter patterns which are already 
there.  For instance, if someone has a pattern of always being nervous 
about speaking in front of a group of people, the suggestion can be 
planted that when they think of the word "apple" (can be anything) they 
will feel calm and sure.  The pattern of nervousness is still there, we 
just temporarily substituted it for a period of time with a fake 
pattern.  If the person speaks in public frequently and uses this 
technique frequently, then what is happening is that they are slowly 
replacing the old pattern with the new pattern of being calm.

With self-hypnosis the only real difference is that the individual is 
making his/her own suggestions.  To hypnotize oneself without making 
suggestions (working in the storage room) serves no purpose other than 
perhaps as a substitute for a nap.  A hypnotist will associate a word 
with a pattern (like the above example) so that the person can use it at 
will.  Self-hypnosis is generally used for an immediate need, therefore 
there is no need for any association with words.  An example of this 
which I have seen is to use it while being treated by a dentist as a 
replacement for anesthetics.

The benefit of meditation is that it modifies, in a positive way, the 
current patterns which are being stored day by day.  It also begins 
adding an increasing measure of mental control over the effects of the 
sub-conscious patterns, meaning we can develop the ability to more 
easily replace old unwanted patterns with new ones.  When this is 
learned, it is a far more powerful tool than hypnosis.

Meditation isn't, however, very useful as entertainment or a replacement 
for anesthesia.

Many people use the word meditation in many different contexts... 
sometimes it is really meditation and sometimes it isn't.  The word has 
become kind of a catch-all for mental practices which are considered 
somewhat metaphysical.  The important thing to recognize, in answer to 
your question, is the difference in what is actually occuring rather 
than the words which are used to describe it.

I am not at all sure that I have answered your question satisfactorily, 
but I will stop here for the sake of brevity just in case it has been 
answered.  More detailed mechanics of how each process works would take 
a lot more time/space.

Jeff

    I am one who couldn't even begin to meditate until I first learned
    to hypnotize myself.  So I don't agree with the undercurrent suggestion
    that hypnosis has no value in pursuit of spiritual enlightenment.
    
    Because, you see, in my "storage room" turned out to be the lumber
    with which to build the stairs.  But had I not learned first how
    to access the storage room I would never have found the lumber,
    and would have remained forever on the first floor jumping for the
    floor I couldn't reach.
    
    I also don't agree that hypnosis is not useful except as a thought
    pattern substituter (referencing the example given about the person
    afraid of public speaking)  In accessing my storage room, I found
    a lot of patterns that needed "cleaning", for want of a better word
    -- profound patterns from the past, terribly tarnished, twisted,
    broken.  I've symbolically "cleaned" a lot of them with great results.
    So I have used hypnosis as a tool for reworking (not just substituting)
    the past fairly completely.
    
    In addition, hypnosis works best for me if, while in trance, I allow
    the subconscious part of my mind to guide me; She is unbelievably
    wise.  I never over-structure a session.  If I want to work on a
    pattern, I go into the storage room (so to speak) and ask to
    be shown a symbol of the pattern.  Then I ask to be shown how to
    fix it.  Sometimes the answer comes in a burst of insight, or I
    suddenly spy a "tool" in a corner, or I hear a voice instructing
    me what to do next.  I always do what is offered to me, and the
    results have always been satisfactory.
    
    Since studying hypnosis I have also become keenly aware of my
    mind-heart-soul-body connection.  I used to express all my negative
    energies through my bodily illnesses and never knew it; they were
    also very delayed reactions (like getting sick three weeks after
    a major trauma).  That kind of garbage backed up in the system
    leaves one in no condition to climb stairs.  Now that enough of
    that is beginning to clear, I find I just may have the strength
    to do it (after I get the staircase built) :-).
    
    Marcia

    This is a personal reply to you, Cindy.  No, hypnosis is not giving
    away your personal power.  The hypnotist does not "control" you
    at any time during the teaching sessions; what (s)he is teaching
    you to do is to lower your ego control so that you can begin to
    "hear" and "see" the marvelous imagery of the rest of your mind.
    In this state you do become more suggestible, but as Topher has
    pointed out in other notes on hypnotism, one cannot be forced to
    do anything by a hypnotist -- or by yourself, for that matter, if
    the rest of your mind is dead set against whatever conscious goal
    you may have set for yourself.
    
    Marcia

    
    	Hmmm...   I see hypnosis as using suggestion to influence 
    the 'emotional body'.    It seems to me to be a separate part
    of the self, potentially under the command of the conscious mind.
    If you don't have the ability to command this portion of yourself,
    then perhaps others *can*.   Many methods exist, through which
    we can learn to communicate to the {subconscious/lower self/right brain}
    ...call it what you will.     Topher has written (somewhere in
    this file) an account of how to use a pendulum to communicate 
    with this part of the self.    As I see it, the goal of self-hypnosis
    is to clarify the communication links between the various parts
    of the self.

        Meditation can be many different things, including some
    which might be 'hypnotic' in nature.   I think that meditation
    covers a wider variety of altered states than does hypnosis.
    In it's higher forms, meditation goes way beyond hypnosis.
    I like the analagy of the house with two floors.  (but I think
    three floors would be better...   ;^)   I see consciousness as
    the ground floor, with a subconscious basement and superconscious
    (higher self) upper floor.     The ultimate goal of meditation
    is to unite the entire being...   to gain conscious access to
    all the powers of the mind.

    					Alan.

    Both "hypnosis" and "meditation" (and "contemplation" and "guided
    imagery" and ...) are names of ways of getting somewhere rather
    than where you get to.

    Neither describe a single path but rather both actually describe a
    wide range of quite different paths -- some of which are very, very
    different from others.

    Of the two hypnosis seems to be the more narrowly defined.  That is
    when two knowledgeable people talk about hypnosis they are likely to
    be talking about more similar things than when two knowledgeable people
    talk about meditation.

    Zazen is not equal to yogic meditation is not equal to TM is not
    equal to tantric meditation is not equal to ....  Many of these
    seem to be more similar to hypnosis than they are to each other.

    Many meditation procedures are indistinguishable from hypnotic
    procedures.

    Whether or not the methods used to reach them are essentially the same,
    I rather suspect that frequently the place reached is the same.  That
    you got there by tricycle and I got there by pogo-stick doesn't mean
    that we are not both in Kalamazoo Michigan.

    I do not mean to imply, however, that I think that all hypnotic states
    (states of consciousness reached by methods we label "hypnosis") are
    the same as meditative states (states of consciousness reached by
    methods we label "meditation").  Pogo-sticks may not be allowed
    in Death Valley, and neither tricycles nor pogo-sticks are very
    much use in getting to Antarctica.

    Charles Tart, one of the leading experts (and I mean that in a positive
    way) in states of consciousness, believes that all methods of achieving
    altered states are really equivalent.  All (according to Tart) involve
    two essential ingredients: 1) Disruption of the assumptions and mental
    feedbacks which maintain our consciousness at the consensus reality
    state and 2) Covert or overt "programming" of the destination state
    by means of a process of setting of expectations.  He believes
    that the details used to accomplish the first are irrelevant to the
    state reached except as they come with culturally determined
    expectations as to their effect.  I think their is some truth in
    this, though it seems to me to be simplistic, especially in connection
    with the use of drugs to cause disruption of the consensus reality
    orientation.

    Dr. Tart also feels that the value of hypnosis is that the associated
    expectations are deliberately broad and flexible -- hypnotic states are
    therefore highly malleable, and general-purpose meditative states.

    A hypnotic guide (hypnotist) is very useful because of this
    non-specificity.  If the expectations are narrow and inflexible then
    there is no need for a guide during the altered state -- there is
    nowhere to go.  When there is flexibility and movement within the
    state (between related states?) someone has to make the decisions
    about when and how to move.  They can be self-preprogrammed, which
    is effective but inflexible, and therefore somewhat self-defeating.
    They can be made by the experient during the experience, but this
    is generally ineffective -- the requirements of making "rational"
    or "semi-rational" decisions seems to conflict with the maintenance
    of a pure state.  Or they can be made by a trusted and knowledgeable
    guide -- they hypnotist.

    Hypnosis is always entirely essentially self-induced -- though
    frequently with the active guidance of another during the process.
    It is hard to see how the rather delicate interactive nature of
    hypnotic states could be maintained for more than a second or two
    without the very active aid of the experient.  The closest to being
    externally induced that I can think of is when the experient is
    unaware that the state that they are being guided into is one that
    would be called "hypnotic" (not knowing the label doesn't, however,
    make it any less controlled -- the label mostly carries with it
    misunderstandings rather than knowledge).  Alternately "stage hypnosis"
    depends heavily on social pressures to secure the experient's active
    cooperation.  Frequently, this results in the "subject" consciously
    playing along, which, since it appears the same to the audience,
    makes no difference to the entertainer.  Generally, stage-hypnosis
    results in rather weak, far from profound hypnotic states.
    
    Some forms of "meditation" using drugs, physical deprivation or
    pain are very much induced independent of and frequently against
    the will of the experient (please, let's not get into circular
    arguments where you define something as not being meditation if
    it operates against the will of the individual.  You are welcome
    to make that distinction if you wish, but as near as I can determine
    the outcome -- the spiritual or psychological transformation of the
    individual -- is effected little or none by this).

    When either hypnosis or meditation is being used to change the
    psychological state of the experient, a quick, reliable but shallow
    "fix" may effected by overlaying a new behavioral or emotional
    pattern.  For many desired changes this is all that is needed.
    If a deeper, more fundamental change is desired, then either class
    of procedures may be used, but less reliably and it takes much
    more time.  Its all in the expectations folks.

    Let's not get hung up with misleading terms like "*sub*conscious"
    inherited from outdated theories invented by a clever egomaniac
    roughly a century ago.  The subconscious as generally used today
    refers to the entire human mind except that part of it which we
    are directly aware of (the conscious).  It is immensely more complex
    than the conscious mind is (to the extent that the conscious mind
    is something real) and its various components may be placed on
    various scales of lower-to-higher.  Such scaling, however, says
    almost nothing about the subconscious, though frequently it says
    a lot about the person doing the scaling (e.g., Freud's hangups
    about sex and excretory functions).  Hypnosis allows us to interact
    with some of what is *behind* the facade we call the conscious --
    some of which represents what most people would identify as the
    best of what we could be and some of which represents the worst
    (though generally the former is much more easily connected to with
    hypnosis -- I have glimpsed the still very distant potential for
    sainthood in hypnotic experients, but have seen nothing worse than
    pettiness and anger on the negative side).

					    Topher

    This summary of a current article about the nature of hypnosis
    was also posted in QUOKKA::PSYCHOLOGY as note 245.0.
    
    There are some interesting articles in the March/April 1992
    _Psychology_Today_.  One in particular was
    "The trouble with HYPNOSIS.  Whose power is it, anyway ?"
    by Keith Harary, PhD..
    
    The article summarizes much of the current research in hypnosis
    and introduces a few of the main players in the various
    debates about the nature of hypnosis.  I'll include some highlights
    here for the benefit of anyone interested.  The parts I found
    most revealing were the studies showing that hypnosis may not 
    be a distinct state, that 'hypnotizability' may just be
    willingness to cooperate with the therapeutic relationship,
    and that there is no good evidence that recall under hypnosis
    procedures is any more accurate than other recall, and that it is
    particularly liable to being confused with suggestion and fantasy.
    
    To cut to the chase, in the end, the power is in your own hands.
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Several respected foundations and technical journals have been
    established for this subject which for a long time lacked scientific
    credibility.   
    
    In practice, viewed widely among the therapists who use hypnosis,
    there is no identifiable distinct 'hypnotic induction,' 
    virtually any therapeutic exchange could be equally considered 
    hypnosis.  Even the late Milton Erickson's approach of considering
    hypnosis to be the therapeutic strategy of directing the patient
    toward solving the problem themself rather than stopping to 
    analyze its causes is not unique enough to use as a definition
    of hypnosis.
    
    There is no reliable evidence indicating that hypnosis is 
    a special altered state of consciousness, or that any of the
    phenomena of hypnosis are beyond the ability of individuals in
    other 'non-hypnosis' situations.  The notion of trace is considered
    unneccessary by many or most of the leading theorists.
    Famed altered-states researcher Charles Tart is quoted as criticizing 
    approaches which lump a vast variety of different phenomena into 
    'hypnotic' as if it were a single identified state, and as if all people 
    who undergo something called a hypnotic induction were undergoing the same 
    experience.
    
    Some research suggests that while 'suggestibility' is apparently
    a stable trait, it is not hypnotizibility per se that is
    measured, but the willingness of the patient to work within the
    that particular therapeutic authority relationship.
    
    T.X. Barber, called 'an elder stateman' of hypnosis,
    says that he's "known from the beginning" that people
    can bring out their own inner capabilities by direct requests to
    think, feel, and experience in a suggested way, without any need
    for hypnotic induction.  He says that the secret of hypnosis
    involves the ability to fantasize in a hallucinatory way
    and provide the drama and excitement.  Also the way in which 
    suggestions are given, language which gives firm but
    metaphorical suggestions.  
    
    D. Corydon Hammond calls hypnosis :
    	"the art of securing a patient's attention and then effectively
    	 communicating ideas that boost motivation and change perceptions."
    
    Phobias , by their nature, seem particularly responsive to suggestion,
    whether called hypnosis or not.  
    
    Pain control 'under hypnosis' has been demonstrated without hypnotic
    induction as well.
    
    Hypnosis has been used to facilitate the elimination of warts.
    However, direct suggestion, without hypnotic induction, has been shown to 
    have the same effect, assumed through the influence of suggestion on
    the immune system since warts are virally related.  
    
    There's very good evidence that hypnosis does NOT increase accurate
    recollection of the past, as has often been claimed.  That the main
    effect is increasing the level of detail that is imagined, whether it
    is accurate or not.  The memory in effect is reconstructed from both
    actual remembrances and current imagination and suggestions.  Suggestions
    integral to the usual hypnotic induction process lead people to
    fantasize freely and to confuse suggested and/or fantasized scenarios
    with remembered ones.   This is of particular importance where
    testimony based on hypnotic recall is relied upon, and therapy
    where hypnosis is used to attempt to recall or reconstruct
    alleged abuse as a child.
    
    Hypnosis, according to the summary in the article, is a 'power
    transaction' between the hypnotist and the subject much more than it
    is any paranormal state of consciousness.  
    
    "Packaging them [the true claims made about hypnosis] under the label
     'hypnosis' conceals what is really going on.  It doesn't even begin
     to suggest that they are our very own powers and there might be ways
     to get at them directly and entirely on our own."
    
    							todd

re: Note 1748.87 by ESSB::BROCKLEBANK (Dave),

    (taken from 'comments to natural disaster' topic)
    
    Dave, you suggest that you've identified what you call the scientific
    view of hypnosis, and found it lacking, and that you stretch your 
    perspective with other views.  I'm curious as to what exactly
    this scientific view is, and what the alternatives are, from your
    new perspective ?   Could you please expand on your ideas ?
    
    Are you talking about revisiting Mesmer's method of sitting in a bathtub 
    full of magentized iron filings while being treated for psychogenic
    components of illness ?
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

Todd,
By the 'view of the scientific community' of hypnosis, I was thinking
of the view that hypnosis is
1.   produced by the subject rather than the hypnotist
2.   the hypnotist merely provides an environment whereby the subject
     enters into state
3.   no matter (waves or anything else measured) passes from the hypnotist
     to the subject

The above description is a bit hazy in my memory.  The first factor 
came about from the new field of psychology trying to seperate itself
from any ideas of witchcraft of one free will controlling another.

The second was based on the fact that certain people appear to be more
suceptible to hypnotism while others don't.  It also backs up the first
premise.

The third was based on the fact that screens, electric fields etc. placed
between the subject and the hypnotist didn't prevent the hypnosis from
occuring.

I'm sure that that are many more aspects of hypnotism which are commonly 
held views but I can't remember them offhand.  

These were/are the views that I held to describe hypnotism.  However,
after reading Juan's notes, I considered the possible explanations
which could have been presented in the last century, that
hypnotism could be produced by the hypnotist having a stronger will
than the subject.  That possibly this 'will' could be used to influence
someone/something.  This view is closer to a view that there are other
'worlds' that we can't see or fully understand at present.  Some may
refer to this as the astral plane or some other term.  Possibly on this
plane, somehow the hypnotist can reach reach the subject sufficiently
to influence them.  But as science hasn't been able to measure this
world, it cannot use it as an explanation.

How one could tune their will, or possibly clear away anything which
is draining the potential strength of their will is another area which
comes under the 'new perspective'.  This may be connected to reducing
the ammount of physical attachments to the material world and increasing
one's strenght in other areas by the use of imagination etc.  

I hope this clarifies where I was coming from.  I can't recall Mesmer's
bathtub treatment...I must look it up for my own interest.

Regards,
Dave

    What causes hypnosis? Since one can train to be a hypnotist, what are
    hypnotist told to do to hypnotise? What is the secret?
    
    Dougie
    

    >What causes hypnosis? 

    The hypnotist.

    >Since one can train to be a hypnotist, what are hypnotist told to do to
    >hypnotise? What is the secret?
     
    Ok what you have to do is to get your victim to believe in something
    that is not true. This is commonly done by repeatedly giving them
    suggestions that they are becoming tired. This can be assisted by
    causing eye strain, the old swing a pocket watch before their eyes,
    then adding the suggestion that their eyelids are becoming heavy.

    As they drift off you keep giving them suggestions that they must
    listen to your voice. Once they appear to be asleep you will find that
    their minds are open to suggestion, they can be given commands that
    take effect at a later time and their memory becomes much clearer.

    There seems to be a limit to what you can get them to do, this varies
    from person to person, but usually stops them doing something that
    they, for moral reasons, would not do. 

    It is also possible to let them use the hysterical strength that is
    usually reserved for extreme emergencies, but this is *VERY* dangerous.

    Jamie.
                               

    re: .13,
    	Thanks very much for elaborating your ideas.  I'm going to try
    	to do the same.
    
    	There are actually (today) a number of movements (within science) that 
    	are *not* based entirely on a mechanistic materialism philosophy,
    	but I think you're entirely correct that 'early psychology'
    	could be viewed as strongly leaning in that direction, and that
    	there is still a powerful contingent of conventional theorists
    	that thinks that way.  
    
    	There are in fact views, even within science, that delve into what
    	I would consider the mystical or the spiritual in the form of their
    	theories.  There are also some basically physicalist theories, such 
    	as within Cognitive Science, that I think of as falling somewhere 
    	between the extremes of radical materialism and 
    	supernaturalism-of-a-sort.
    
    	I seem to be attracted mostly to the Cognitive theories, probably
    	a lot of that has to do with my computer background, Cognitive
    	Science having strong connections with Computer Science.  I don't
    	really consider these to be radically materialist, in the
    	strict mechanical sense you seem to imply in your description,
    	though.  They leave a lot of room within the physical
    	(and basically non-supernatural) for complex undiscovered patterns
    	like some of the things we see in hypnotic phenomena.
    
    	I hope that helps clarify where I'm coming from.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

      <<< Note 847.15 by HOO78C::ANDERSON "Friday the 13th - Part 12a" >>>
     
.    >Since one can train to be a hypnotist, what are hypnotist told to do to
.    >hypnotise? What is the secret?
.
.    Ok what you have to do is to get your victim to believe in something
.    that is not true. This is commonly done by repeatedly giving them
.    suggestions that they are becoming tired. 

But does the hypnotist do anything special with his voice? What is stopping
you sitting me down and hypnotising me, assuming I want to be hypnotised? 

Dougie

    >But does the hypnotist do anything special with his voice? What is
    >stopping you sitting me down and hypnotising me, assuming I want to be
    >hypnotised? 

    Basically nothing. I'm not very good at it and do know people who are
    much more competent.

    The state can also be reached naturally. Whilst you are in the process
    of going to sleep you pass through it and will react to suggestion.

    When I was a Boy Scout our Troop had a small cottage that we used for
    winter camping, it was too cold for tents. There we used to play tricks
    on kids who were in this state. For example one lad had an irrational
    fear of ants, whispering in his ear that there were ants in his
    sleeping bag usually worked. Two minutes later he would come out of his
    sleeping bag like a bat out of hell, screaming that it was full of ants.
    After a few minutes of shaking the sleeping bag he would return to the
    world and calm down. Teenagers are cruel to each other. 

    Jamie.
                                    

    Jamie's statements about hypnosis are simplistic, misleading, cynical
    and rather out of date.

				    Topher

    I've had seen two hypnotherapists. Hypnotism is a fascinating
    experience, but sometimes being too interested in what is happening can
    stop or reduce hypnotism taking place.
    
    The very first time I saw a hypnotist, he suggested to me that one arm
    was heavier than the other. (Shopping Bag). There was nothing
    particularly noticable about the inflections in his voice, or the way
    he spoke, but the trembling in my arm was unmistakable. Which returns
    me to my question - how does it work?
    
    Dougie
    
    

    re: .19 and previous,
    
    One of the reasons why I usually suggest articles and books for
    general information about hypnosis, even though I've studied it
    somewhat and even have some formal training at some forms of it, is that it
    really is more complicated than most of the descriptions I've seen here
    so far would imply.   The theories in vogue in the peak of popularity of
    Watson and Skinner's brand of psychology relied on 'conditioning' 
    theories, and these while useful in some areas proved insufficient
    for the range of phenomena demonstrated.  Recent theories are
    many and varied.
    
    There are a number of complex psychological processes
    going on in an induction, and inductions can be remarkably varied
    in style, content, and in their behavioral and subjective effects.
    
    I really suggest that anyone seriously interested in hypnotic
    effects (from a scientific viewpoint) get a hold of some good recent 
    literature on the field, by T.X. Barber, or one of the others studying it.
    It is far from a completely understood or simple collection of
    phenomena.   Some aspects revolve around the very nature and
    neurological basis of human perception and consciousness.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    But where would one find stuff like that, Todd?
    
    Having some modest interest in the subject myself... I was wondering
    what modern concensus of thought was on the subject.
    
    Mary

>    But where would one find stuff like that, Todd?
    
>    Having some modest interest in the subject myself... I was wondering
>    what modern concensus of thought was on the subject.
    
    Most is easily available.  I think a good start would
    be the one I recommended before, _Theories_of_Hypnosis_, from
    Guilford Press, by Steven Lynn and Judith Rhue.   With apologies 
    for reposting this review here ... (I can't remember where else I posted it
    at the moment !) ... 
    
    Caveat, this is not a how-to book on hypnotizing your friends for fun
    and profit :-),  it is a theoretical overview of the topic.  
    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "... Henceforth, serious discussion of the nature of hypnosis 
    will begin here."
    
    	... says T.X. Barber reviewing the new book _Theories_of_Hypnosis_,
    	promoted by Guilford Press as a collection of authoritative articles 
    	on the most current theories of hypnosis, edited by Steven Lynn
    	and Judith W. Rhue.  
    
    	Guilford claims that this is the current state-of-the-science
    	in this field, covering all major theories, organized to promote
    	the reader's ability to compare and contrast the strengths and
    	weaknesses of the various empirical methods used to address
    	crucial theoretical questions.
    
    	Important issues covered from a number of different perspectives
    	include the relationship between hypnosis and altered states
    	of consciousness, the voluntary and involuntary nature of
    	hypnotic behavior, the stability and modifiability of the 
    	hypnotizability 'trait,' and making meaningful distinctions between
    	hypnotic and non-hypnotic behaviors.  
    
    	Here is the table of contents :
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    	Theories of Hypnosis, an Introduction, Lynn and Rhue
    
    I.	HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
    
    	1.  Early Theories : A clinical perspective, Hilgard
    	2.  History and Historigraphy , Spanos and Chaves
    
    II. SINGLE-FACTOR THEMES
    
      A.  The Neodissociation Perspective
    
        3.  A Neodissociation Interpretation of Hypnosis, Hilgard
    	4.  An Neodisssociative Critique of Spano's Social-Psychological
    		Model of Hypnosis, Bowers and Davison
    	5.  Hypontizability : Individual differences in dissociation
    		and the flexible control of psychological processes,
    		Evans
    
      B.  Hypnosis as psychological regression
    
    	6.  Hypnosis as a special case of regression, Nash
    
      C.  Hypnosis as relaxation
    
    	7.  Anesis, Edmonston
    
    III.  CLINICAL PERSPECTIVES
    
        8.  The Locksmith model :  accessing hypnotic responsiveness,
    		Barber.
    
    	9.  Ericksonian Hypnotherapy : A Communications approach, Zeig and
    		Rennick
    
    IV.   THE SOCIAL-COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE
    
    	10.  Role Theory : a dramaturgical and narrational perspetive, Coe 
    		and Sarbin
    
    	11.  Social-Cognitive approach, Spanos
    
    	12.  Compliance, belief, and semantics in hypnosis : a nonstate,
    		social-cognitive perspective, Wagstaff
    
    	13.  An integrative model of hypnosis, Lynn and Rhue
    
    	14.  Social Learning Theory of hypnosis, Kirsch
    
    	15.  Ecosystemic approach, Fourie
    
    V.  INTERACTIVE-PHENOMENOLOGICAL MODELS
    
    	16.  Two disciplines of scientific hypnosis : a synergistic model,
    		Nadon, Laurence, Perry
    
    	17.  Hypnosis, Context, and Committment, Sheehan
    
    	18.  The construction and resolution of experience and behavior
    		in hypnosis, McConkey
    
    	19.  Toward a Social-Psychobiological Model of Hypnosis, Banyai
    
    VI. CONCLUSIONS
    
    	20.  Hypnosis Theories : Themes, Variations, and Research
    		Directions, Lynn and Rhue.
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    	634 pp., ISBN 0-89862-343-X.  Recent publication price of $45 from
    	the publisher.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    							todd

    
    I'm also as mislead concerning hypnosis as Jamie is.  And I've
    hypnotized on many occasions.  
    
    I can't imagine what the big deal is, what is so amiss with this
    concept of hypnosis, but I guess that explains why Jamie and I 
    are so hopelessly ignorant on the subject.
    
    
    guy

>    what causes hypnosis?
>    boredom.
    
    That is one of the common principles used in hypnosis, as I understand
    it.  Paradoxically, not only boredom, but also the opposite; intensely 
    focused attention, can be related to various hypnotic effects.   
    
    						todd

    Guy,
    
>    I can't imagine what the big deal is, 
    
    It's not neccessarily a big deal, imo, mainly an interesting collection
    of phenomena that appear tell us things about the mind and body that
    are more difficult to pin down under other kinds of conditions.
    
    There are correlations of hypnosis and psi or psi-like effects,
    important legal implications for the reliability of testimony under
    hypnosis when it's used to enhance memory of a crime, psychotherapeutic 
    implications, and so on, not to mention the previously mentioned 
    theoretical questions about consciousness.
    
    Then, it all depends on what you think is a big deal, I guess. :-)
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    I find it really interesting, Todd.  Thank you for entering it.

    
    Todd, et al,
    
    
    Those points you mentioned, in some circumstances, can of course
    be a "big deal".  
    
    My beef is that because someone writes a note that discusses 
    hypnosis on one level that it can be assumed they do not understand
    hypnosis on any other level.
    
    I am familiar with about 90% of the stuff you mentioned, though in
    a sort of cursory way.  If I were going to undertake any serious
    study of hypnosis, or practice it, or teach it I would familiar-
    ize myself with more relevant information.
    
    Basically, I don't think Jamie was really misrepresenting things
    in his note any more than I would if I were to tell of my exper-
    iences...
    
    
    
    guy

    re: .29, Guy,
    
    One more try.
    
    Ok, I suppose we're talking mostly about Topher's comments in 847.19
    about Jamie's 847.15.
    
    I guess I got into the middle of that unintentionally by responding
    in general to .19.  Now that I'm 
    obviously involved in it, I'll address it more directly.
    
    The problem I would have with 847.15 as a description of hypnosis
    to be left on its own is not so much that it is inaccurate but that it 
    describes one very limited view of the topic, and gives the impression that
    hypnosis only takes place under conditions where a hypnotist
    bores you to sleep by swinging an old pocket watch in front of
    your face and repeating monotonous nonsense to you.  And that
    some odd but uninteresting stuff might happen under hypnosis.  
    
    To give a completely offbeat but hopefully pointed analogy, this view seems 
    to me a little like describing sex as two people rubbing various body parts 
    together and making mostly unintelligible sounds.  It hardly does much 
    justice to the topic for those that might have been interested in persuing 
    it further :-D.  
    
    But it's in the end just a value judgement on my part.
    
    I hope that's clearer.  I never meant to insult anyone's
    knowledge or intelligence or imagination in this thread.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    why does it work ?  because the subconscious can't discern between
    objective and subjective reality.  The Silva Mind Control folks have
    this stuff down to a science.
    
    A famous therapist, Milton Erickson, of Phoenix AZ, could put clients 
    in a trance state in moments thru words or gestures ('Mandrake gestures 
    hypnotically').  Other folks studied his work and came up with NLP, 
    NeuroLinguistic Programming.
    
    karl

    Well I thought that I explained it slightly better than Topher did.

    Jamie.

    I've only ever seen two hypnotists, both professional entertainers,
    both at private parties where they were introduced as fellow guests.
    Both were supremely good at it, and there wasn't a watch in sight. They
    were, it should be added, VERY selective in whom they chose to "play
    with".
    
    Laurie.

I've seen two entertainers (Robert  Halpern & Raveen) as well as the therapists
I went to see.

The 'professional' therapist said that the best subjects for stage  hypnotists
are "Intelligent Extroverts". Again I have heard that it is difficult or
impossible to get subjects to do something they genuinely don't want to do.

I was never a particularly good subject at my therapy sessions. I was always
too interested in what was going on. However, I appreciated the candour of 
the hypnotherapist I spent the longest time with. 

He said 'Six months from now you might be feeling a lot better. We won't know
whether it is a result of these sessions, or something that would have 
happened anyway. And it doesn't matter. What matters is that you get better."

I used to mention other forms of therapy (e.g. Jungian, Riechian etc). He had 
another surprising answer for me;

'A lot of people go to lots of therapists because they are "into therapy". 
They are more interested in therapy than they are in getting better".

The advantage to me of seeing a professional therapist, was that they don't
worry about giving you the answer you want to here. The truth is rather boring.
Friends can unwittingly excarcabate the  situation, by saying all 'the right 
things'.

Got too expensive in the end!

Dougie

    
    Todd,
    
    Points well taken....no harm done.
    
    (But I've never used a pocket watch, only words..;-)
    
    
    guy
    
    P.S.  I'm not a good hypnotic subject.....I'm too aware of what's going
          on....and sometimes the whole situation just tickles my funny
          bone....

    :-)