Self-hypnosis recordings - an oxymoron?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kathleen Watson on November 24, 2011 at 4:38am

I agree. For most of us though, I think "self hypnosis" through a recording can be more effective because we can go deeper with exploration and suggestion than without the recording. Those that are very experienced meditators Im sure can do much more on thier own than for example, I can.

For the sake of discussion, a recording is not true self hypnosis. Although I do record and turn the recorder on myself...and so on.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on November 24, 2011 at 6:06am

Then again, if you use the voice inside your head to guide your self-hypnosis or if you record that voice and use it, the only difference is modality and ability to change suggestions.

But if you are going to go the re-definition route, it would be more accurate to use the term "homo-hypnosis" when listening to a recording of yourself versus listening to the voice in your head, since the hypnotist is the same in both cases.

Hetero (from the Greek "heteros") literally means "different", while the inverse, "homo", means same.

 

Just my thoughts

John

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Graham Old on November 24, 2011 at 8:08am

My thoughts are that hardly any of the terms we use in hypnosis (sic) are accurate. So, I wouldn't worry about it. :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill Kennedy on November 24, 2011 at 11:16am

If I were a language purist, I would question the statement that "all hypnosis is self-hypnosis."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on November 24, 2011 at 11:41am

Bill,

I fought this one for years myself until I came to an understanding of what that statement really means.

We have no special powers. The subjects follow our instructions and allow the result to happen to themselves.

So it boils down to...we tell them what to do.. and "they do it".

 

Just one perspective

John

Bill Kennedy said:

If I were a language purist, I would question the statement that "all hypnosis is self-hypnosis."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill Kennedy on November 24, 2011 at 11:58am

If we're talking purity of language, my problem is with the word "all."   Not all hypnosis is ethical.  Some hypnosis is meant to manipulate the person, in which case this statement is used to lull the person into thinking that they cannot be manipulated, since they are only doing it to themselves.

John Cleesattel said:

Bill,

I fought this one for years myself until I came to an understanding of what that statement really means.

We have no special powers. The subjects follow our instructions and allow the result to happen to themselves.

So it boils down to...we tell them what to do.. and "they do it".

 

Just one perspective

John

Bill Kennedy said:

If I were a language purist, I would question the statement that "all hypnosis is self-hypnosis."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kathleen Watson on November 24, 2011 at 1:02pm

I think (all) hypnosis is meant to manipulate...some thought or mood or action. Part of the manipulation is so it seems we are not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fable Goodman on November 24, 2011 at 1:15pm

John Cleesattel said:

 

But if you are going to go the re-definition route, it would be more accurate to use the term "homo-hypnosis" when listening to a recording of yourself versus listening to the voice in your head, since the hypnotist is the same in both cases.

Hetero (from the Greek "heteros") literally means "different", while the inverse, "homo", means same.

 

Just my thoughts

John

I like the sound of 'Homo-hypnosis'

Like others have said, the definitions are all inaccurate,
so I wouldn't bother about it too much.

LOve and hugs,

lawrie

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion