the Free Hypnosis Social Network
Does the Sichort state really exist?
Some say it does (Kein, Banyan, Hogan), some say it doesn't (Boyne). To have a better overview of the subject, I would like to ask all of you: have any of you ever put a subject into Ultra-Depth?
Thanks in advance!
Thanks in advance!
Tags: james, ramey, sichort, state, ultra-depth
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by GIL BOYNE on
-
Posted - 04/25/2005 : 11:18:29 PM
________________________________________
Until recently, the old belief prevailed that the therapeutic response of the client was linked to the depth of trance achieved during therapy. This belief is based upon another false idea that the subject goes into trance and is deepened to a supposed depth that guarantees results. Therapeutic response comes from the client's readiness for change, the relationship with the hypnotherapist, the client's willingness to give up secondary benefits and the Grace of God. "Depth of trance" is more correctly named "quality of response". So-called "depth" is controlled by the prevailing brain wave patterns and is subject to instant change created by input from the therapist and the clients emotionalized response. You can improve the result by giving up the belief that "the deeper the trance the faster (better) the result"
However, there is a state called “ultra depth” by some, “coma state” by others and "lethargic Trance" by many more. It is characterized by a powerful disinclination to move or speak or think or act. In fifty-five years of practice, I have only seen it a dozen times or so.
The subject is very reluctant to speak or follow physical suggestions. Take their hand gently, put your mouth close to the ear and speak softly. You may have to get them started by means of finger signaling (ideomotor movements). However, remarkable hypnotic phenomena can be demonstrated in this state although not necessarily therapeutic response on the presenting issues.
-
Permalink Reply by Pablo Manzano on -
Why not calling it "depth of trance"? After all it is just a name like any other, which refers to the level of acceptance of the suggestions given to the subject, usually related with how much is s/he focusing attention on the hypnotist. In other words, the level of his/her bypassing of the critical facculties.
About the Esdaile state, I've never applied it, but I understand Jerry Kein and other trainers do it regularly in their classses. However, the Ultra-Depth or Sichort State is supposed to have some differences compared with the coma state. I would love to hear from someone who has put it in practice (or has tried unsuccessfully to do it).
GIL BOYNE said:Posted - 04/25/2005 : 11:18:29 PM
________________________________________
Until recently, the old belief prevailed that the therapeutic response of the client was linked to the depth of trance achieved during therapy. This belief is based upon another false idea that the subject goes into trance and is deepened to a supposed depth that guarantees results. Therapeutic response comes from the client's readiness for change, the relationship with the hypnotherapist, the client's willingness to give up secondary benefits and the Grace of God. "Depth of trance" is more correctly named "quality of response". So-called "depth" is controlled by the prevailing brain wave patterns and is subject to instant change created by input from the therapist and the clients emotionalized response. You can improve the result by giving up the belief that "the deeper the trance the faster (better) the result"
However, there is a state called “ultra depth” by some, “coma state” by others and "lethargic Trance" by many more. It is characterized by a powerful disinclination to move or speak or think or act. In fifty-five years of practice, I have only seen it a dozen times or so.
The subject is very reluctant to speak or follow physical suggestions. Take their hand gently, put your mouth close to the ear and speak softly. You may have to get them started by means of finger signaling (ideomotor movements). However, remarkable hypnotic phenomena can be demonstrated in this state although not necessarily therapeutic response on the presenting issues.
-
-
I knew Walter Sicort very well and was an invited guest to several
of his seminar demonstrations of the “Sicort Ultra Depth State”. The total effect depended on a female subject (Sarah) who was a somnambulistic
(very deep trance) subject. After Sarah was hypnotized by Walter, (for the thousandth time) he would turn to the audience and say,” Now, I am going to take her down to a deeper level and you will notice that etc."
He would repeat this for five or six supposed "depths" until she reached the "Ultra Depth" state. At that time (more than forty years ago) those in attendance did not understand that as he spoke to them, Sarah was also receiving direct suggestions from him. After a few years, Walter and Sarah, could draw only a few naive students who came to learn the "Sicort Ultra Depth" method. When Sarah died, the "act" was over. Curtain down!
Since then, a few entrepreneurs, have tried to market the discredited
Sicort Ultra Depth Method as a "sure-fire" miracle method.
Ask any "old timer" who has been around this profession for a very long time to learn the facts.
________________________________________
I received an email that said in part “No one can teach the “Sicort State” unless they are taught by James Ramey (on line course) because it has been patented by someone, whoever.. What about James Ramey, what is your opinion about his work?
Why are all Sichort's script and original manuscripts locked in sealed container by International Hypnosis Hall of Fame Guild, Inc. and not released even to his family?”
I am not personally acquainted with James Ramey. On his web site, Mr. Ramey states that he was an apprentice to Walter Sicort in the sixties. I was a featured presenter at the Midwest Hypnosis Convention in Chicago every year from the late sixties to 1975. Walter Sicort was also a presenter during those years and although I attended several of Sicort's seminars,I never met a James Ramey nor did Sicort even mention his name or state that he had ever had an apprentice and his only assistant was “Sarah”.
You cannot patent scripts or manuscripts. Patents are issued for inventions (products). You cannot copyright titles unless the words used are newly created (not in the dictionary).
IN 2000 I was received an award, "Man of the Century" from the International Hypnosis Hall of Fame at Valley Forge, Pa.
This organization never was international and the people behind it were not hypnotherapists and were very misguided. They had only one activity each year, an Annual Conference with minimal attendance and after a few years they folded their tent and disappeared.
They sent a notice to many hypnotherapists offering to sell the name, all assets and memorabilia. It was recently bought by a`hypnotherapy organization which has plans to turn it into a meaningful operation. To my knowledge, Walter Sicort never had any scripts or manuscripts (he would have offered them for sale). He never became financially well-off. There is no "sealed container."
I have no service or product to sell you. I have only given you information so that you may be informed if you plan to buy a "distance Learning Course" on "Ultra Depth" secrets.
Sicort has been dead these many years and ANYONE can make ANY claim about his "secret and powerful methods" and who can say nay?
Only an old-timer, like me because, “I was there”
With Respect,Gil Boyne
________________________________________
Gil Boyne
-
Permalink Reply by Fable Goodman on -
thanks Gil,
I can concur with what you say,
in both of your posts here.
It is quality of work that counts,
not 'depth'
any fool can create depth of trance...
but it is what you are able to do with it.
(and in this case, how you market it)
that counts.
Any depth,
or no depth at all
is adequste for most purposes.
Love and hugs to you my friend.
Fable
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on -
Just say Ixnay -- I agree with Gil and Fable--
Newbies -- be aware it can get very deep out there..
Fable Goodman said:thanks Gil,
I can concur with what you say,
in both of your posts here.
It is quality of work that counts,
not 'depth'
any fool can create depth of trance...
but it is what you are able to do with it.
(and in this case, how you market it)
that counts.
Any depth,
or no depth at all
is adequste for most purposes.
Love and hugs to you my friend.
Fable
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Nongard - NLPBoard.com on -
Gil, Fable, Michael all have it correct. I stated in my hypnosummit presentation on deepeners, deep trance is usually to impress other hypnotists at conventions rather than truly produce change. In fact, I view hypnosis as educational and WANT my clients in a light level of trance more often than a deep level of trance. Deep trance is important in pain management and eliciting certain phenomena with some clients, but generally, a client cycles through various depths and awarenesses, all of which can be therapeutic.
Naming deep trance with some registered trademark, attempting to make it a "brand" is a bit odd to me also.
I like profit as much as the next guy, but I always find it amazing when someone sells something natural, and calls it their own territory...
RIchard
-
Permalink Reply by Pablo Manzano on
-
From what I understand, "depth" is simply the level of bypass of the critical faculties the subject accepts. In other words: how far is he ready and willing to follow your suggestions. Words like depth or deep are not correct in a literal way; however, I think they make a good analogy (always that we use it in the knowledge that it is an analogy).
Elman, and Kein, and Banyan later, insist in the neccessity in having somnambulism (amnesia, loosing the numbers) to guarantee a good degree of success in a therapy. I think these methods try to obtain a reference based on comparation: from our experience we can tell that if the subject accepts a suggestion of total amnesia about the numbers, more often than not he will accept the age regression suggestion".
Of course, somnambulism is not a state defined by nature, nor is it a "depth". But, knowing that, what does it matter what we call it? Depth or the noun "somnambulism" are only references which can make things easier for us in the work.
And my question is open: has anyone tried to achieve the state that Ramey tells that exist with his techniques? I would love to hear from Ultra-Depth practitioners or people who tried to be one of them unsuccessfully.
-
Permalink Reply by Joshua Johnston on
-
I know Taylor has a video from the first Hypnoticon where he and ... Oscar (?) did a dual induction on a couple people to take them into Ultra Depth/Height. I acted as the cameraman for it, but it wasn't with my camera, so I don't have the video. I don't know if he'd be willing to post a clip from it, but I'm sure he can answer some questions.
As for my own opinion on the topic, I'm with Gil, Richard, Fable, etc., I think. Depth of trance is really just a way of codifying *responsiveness*, which is what we're looking for. We don't need to hit any certain level of depth to do our work, but we do need to have enough responsiveness in the client.
I've always been a bit leery about Ultra Depth and things like it because of the spiritual emphasis people put on it; I'm not opposed to spirituality, but I am leery about claims that going deep enough in trance gives you access to your "higher self" and magical instantaneous healing happens, psychic powers displayed, etc.
Joshua
Pablo Manzano said:And my question is open: has anyone tried to achieve the state that Ramey tells that exist with his techniques? I would love to hear from Ultra-Depth practitioners or people who tried to be one of them unsuccessfully.
-
Permalink Reply by Brian David Phillips on -
"Depth of trance" is all muddied water as it is often tied into so-called levels of hypnotizeability and scales based upon "phenomena" with the assumption that some phenomena are more easily achieved than others and some are extremely difficult so that if a person has a positive hallucination, for example, then they must inherently be deeply hypnotized . . . and yet ALL trance phenomena are achievable without the so-called deep depth inductions the very same scales claim to be required to achieve them.
Depth - in my opinion, and it's okay if you disagree with me, I don't mind if you agree to disagree on this - is better considered less about "depth of trance" then as a form of intensifying imaginative involvement within the hypnotic experience.
To me - and as I mentioned in my Hypnosummit presentation today as well as on many occasions elsewhere - the Esdaile State (Hypnotic Coma by Dave Elman) or Sichort State (Ulrta-Depth adaptation of Walter Sichort's work by James Ramey) or Ultra-Height (Jerry Kein's take) or even what I do with ecstasy or higher self are all simply suggested states. They are less independent states in and of themselves then they are compliance to suggestions to feel certain ways or experience particular phenomena. It's all hypnosis is hypnosis is hypnosis with suggestions. You want someone to feel ultra-depth? Then hypnotize 'em and tell 'em to experience that feeling of ultra-depth with a description of the phenomena associated with the suggested state and that's what they experience (no need for a perfectly worded script that must be parroted exactly, just any effective induction with the suggestion will do). You want 'em to feel ultra-height or ecstasy or ultramegalove or any positive emotional flood state then do the same thing. I include the hypnotic coma here too as the process Elman suggests is less an independent state than it is a deepener process. Run the Esdaile protocol with someone who does not know the symptoms of the hypnotic coma and it's just a deepener (a good one, but a deepener nonetheless) but run it with someone who has been told what to expect (as Walter Sichort suggested to his own trance partner when demonstrating the phenomena of ultradepth) and there will be a startling difference in responsiveness, particularly if you run the process with ten folks one way and ten the other.
This is not a bad thing . . . actually, it's pretty good as by understanding that these are all suggested states we can create even more useful adaptations of positive emotional flood states for all sorts of nifty purposes.
Of course, this is my opinion and you can take it or leave it.
Pablo, I have suggested ultradepth using Ramey's protocol and using my own . . . it is simple and straightforward. However, having said that, I posit that some of the claims of benefit for folks who claim to use ultradepth for mind to mind communication or universal healing or distance healing or telepathy or stretching the truth quite a bit . . . well stretching it the way one would a rubberband that snaps in half because of the tension. My lack of success in creating a state where a person actually achived mind to mind communication may simply be, as some folks have explained it to me, based upon my poor technique (although I've observed recordings of myself running such processes and technique does not seem to be a weakness) or perhaps my incompetence as a hypnotist (which is always possible although I have been told by those whose opinion I trust that incompetence is not one of my weaknesses) or my skepticism getting in the way (which is certainly possible as despite my personal beliefs in certain otherworldly things I do have a tendency to look at those who make certain claims with a rather critical eye) . . . I would suggest that it is more likely that such a failure is based upon there being a wall called "reality" that just won't let certain phenomena crash through. Yes, I have managed to use flood states to guide a person into BELIEVING they have certain abilities at the time . . . BUT . . . this is not the same as actually achieving it.
Of course, without the over-reaching claims some attribute to the state, such a positive emotional flood state can be extremely beneficial to a trance partner and is well worth practicing . . . I would suggest that it's a response to suggestion rather than some other state . . . sure, that suggested state is qualitatively different from other suggested states but this does not make it a non-hypnotic process because of that.
In my opinion.
All the best,
Brian
http://www.briandavidphillips.com
-
-
Many Thanks to Brian, Fable, Richard, Michael and Pablo for their well-defined views on another "sacred cow", viz--depth of trance" I wish to add that this myth can serve several purposes that are not in the therapists' best interests. For example, The client says, "This hypnosis is not working for me but I don't think I'm going deep enough" When the therapist responds," I can deepen your trance today", the trap snaps shut and the client has taken control of the therapy! No matter how many of "favorite deepeners" the therapist uses, (learned in expensive seminars), the client can always justify his lack of response. The other use of the depth trap works against the client when they are told "you are a difficult subject, it will take more sessions for you"Of course,the worst sin is to tell the client,"you are not hypnotizable!" The client arrives feeling hopeful, usually after many failed efforts to deal with the presenting issues, and to have that hope demolished by an arrogant therapist is a terrible, unethical act. The truth is that the therapist feels incompetent due to inadequate or superficial instruction.
Brian David Phillips said:"Depth of trance" is all muddied water as it is often tied into so-called levels of hypnotizeability and scales based upon "phenomena" with the assumption that some phenomena are more easily achieved than others and some are extremely difficult so that if a person has a positive hallucination, for example, then they must inherently be deeply hypnotized . . . and yet ALL trance phenomena are achievable without the so-called deep depth inductions the very same scales claim to be required to achieve them.
Depth - in my opinion, is better considered less about "depth of trance" then as a form of intensifying imaginative involvement within the hypnotic experience.
To me, the Esdaile State (Hypnotic Coma by Dave Elman) or Sichort State (Ulrta-Depth adaptation of Walter Sichort's work by James Ramey) or Ultra-Height (Jerry Kein's take) or even what I do with ecstasy or higher self are all simply suggested states. They are less independent states in and of themselves then they are compliance to suggestions to feel certain ways or experience particular phenomena. It's all hypnosis is hypnosis is hypnosis with suggestions. You want someone to feel ultra-depth? Then hypnotize 'em and tell 'em to experience that feeling of ultra-depth with a description of the phenomena associated with the suggested state and that's what they experience (no need for a perfectly worded script that must be parroted exactly, just any effective induction with the suggestion will do). You want 'em to feel ultra-height or ecstasy or ultramegalove or any positive emotional flood state then do the same thing. I include the hypnotic coma here too as the process Elman suggests is less an independent state than it is a deepener process. Run the Esdaile protocol with someone who does not know the symptoms of the hypnotic coma and it's just a deepener (a good one, but a deepener nonetheless) but run it with someone who has been told what to expect (as Walter Sichort suggested to his own trance partner when demonstrating the phenomena of ultradepth) and there will be a startling difference in responsiveness, particularly if you run the process with ten folks one way and ten the other.
This is not a bad thing . . . actually, it's pretty good as by understanding that these are all suggested states we can create even more useful adaptations of positive emotional flood states for all sorts of nifty purposes.
Of course, this is my opinion and you can take it or leave it.
Pablo, I have suggested ultradepth using Ramey's protocol and using my own . . . it is simple and straightforward. However, having said that, I posit that some of the claims of benefit for folks who claim to use ultradepth for mind to mind communication or universal healing or distance healing or telepathy or stretching the truth quite a bit . . . well stretching it the way one would a rubberband that snaps in half because of the tension. My lack of success in creating a state where a person actually achived mind to mind communication may simply be, as some folks have explained it to me, based upon my poor technique (although I've observed recordings of myself running such processes and technique does not seem to be a weakness) or perhaps my incompetence as a hypnotist (which is always possible although I have been told by those whose opinion I trust that incompetence is not one of my weaknesses) or my skepticism getting in the way (which is certainly possible as despite my personal beliefs in certain otherworldly things I do have a tendency to look at those who make certain claims with a rather critical eye) . . . I would suggest that it is more likely that such a failure is based upon there being a wall called "reality" that just won't let certain phenomena crash through. Yes, I have managed to use flood states to guide a person into BELIEVING they have certain abilities at the time . . . BUT . . . this is not the same as actually achieving it.
Of course, without the over-reaching claims some attribute to the state, such a positive emotional flood state can be extremely beneficial to a trance partner and is well worth practicing . . . I would suggest that it's a response to suggestion rather than some other state . . . sure, that suggested state is qualitatively different from other suggested states but this does not make it a non-hypnotic process because of that.
In my opinion.
All the best,
Brian
http://www.briandavidphillips.com
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on
-
FYI-
Quantification of the Hypnotic State
http://www.hypnothoughts.com/forum/topics/functional-brain-imaging-of
-
Permalink Reply by Kelley Woods on -
Brian David Phillips, I love you! And I'm not in a somnabulistic state when I say that. You have addressed this inquiry with just the right amount of credibility, humor and nuance. If only all the hypnotists could have your insight and approach, what a wonderful world this could be. Thanks for reinforcing my own approach to helping people achieve their best. Regards, Kelley
Learning Center
Featured Advertising
Latest Activity
© 2012 Created by Scott Sandland.
About Us
Contact Us
Subscribe To RSS