Talking Point: Instant Inductions and Modern Hypnotic Practice - Gil Boyne in Budapest

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lee Pelletier on November 25, 2009 at 8:46am

Saul:

You ask an entirely valid question. I wanted to think about my response rather than just provide a quick response. The more I think about it, the more I think that there are more important issues afoot in the lack of respect we have earned in the broader “helping” community. The first issue is the presuppositions of the observer. The trouble with presuppositions is that we tend to look at observable data in a way that reinforces our presuppositions. We see what we are expecting to see. Not only do we see what we expect to see, the presuppositions tend to close our thinking to alternative points of view. When any of us sees a technique work well our belief in the efficacy of that technique is reinforced. I have seen this tendency in a variety of environments. In religion, for example, you would be amazed at how strongly people argue about which method of baptism is “biblical”. Others argue with incredible passion about how salvation is obtained. There are those who argue that there are so many arguments about religion and faith that some suggest that the problem is “faith” as a concept. If we eliminate “faith” then we will have fewer arguments.

As humans we are thinking beings (well some of us). We also tend to be drawn to arguments. Like gamblers who will bet on anything, many of us will debate anything. When we adopt a point of view, we can find amazing data to support our point of view. The more we argue, the more committed we become to an idea. The more committed we become to an idea, the more likely we are to reject data that is contrary to that idea.

Add into the equation the fact that as humans we tend, overall, to look for the path of least resistance. A medical professional might be inclined to prescribe a medication rather than tell a patient to endure the pain. Antibiotics are over prescribed, because patients have learned to believe that you go to the doctor to get a pill to instantly solve the problem. The anti-biotics are over-prescribed, not because of good medical sense or efficacy, but because it is the path of least resistance. Fortunately, that is changing somewhat, but it remains a problem.

Saul, as I first considered your arguments, quite honestly gave them a lot of weight. The more I have considered the issues, the more inclined I am to think that you may be falling into the trap that is illustrated by the H. L. Menken’s statement: H.L. Mencken said: "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple—and wrong." Instead of wrong, I am more inclined to say “insufficient.” I did read the preface to your book, by clicking on the link you put in a prior post. In the preface you make it clear that your starting place is a point of view and that the purpose of the book is to prove your thesis.

Honestly, I think you are on to one of the causative factors for the problem. Most people would be shocked to know that the same basic issues that cause problems today have caused similar problems for we humans from time immemorium. The "have you in my power" has certainly fed the resistance to hypnosis in the religious communities of which I am a part. The fictionalized portrayals of hypnosis have, until recently, been entirely antithetical to a good image of our profession. This again supports your view that authoritarian approaches create a harmful impression of our profession. There are additional complications. There are some in our profession who focus on religious ideas in their hypnotic approach. I am frequently asked about Past Life Regression (PLR) when I make a public appearance. I realize that PLR is a relatively new concern and the "Power of the Hypnotist" question has been there more-or-less from the beginning with Anton Mesmer. PLR is very troubling to those who practice and believe in biblical Christianity.

Physicians have long been authoritarian in their approach. Most of us are familiar with the joke: "What is the difference between God and a neurosurgeon?" The answer: "God does not think He is an MD."

Clearly, Saul you take our profession very seriously, as do so many others including Gil. While I think the image of our profession has a long way to go, I think the way to enhance our image is with ongoing success. It will help to limit the "esoteric" and focus on the scientific. I think it is more important to note and explore the effectiveness of both indirect and authoritarian approaches than to worry too much about image. As we get our success rates up our influence will increase. I run into little physician resistance. Many are honestly intrigued.

I can also tell you that the next generation of clients (those from 16-35) have been positively influenced by hypnosis shows and authoritarian presentations. They have seen the unleashing of the subconscious mind and been impressed. They have listened as the stage professional has urged those in the audience to look into hypnosis to help them effect changes in their own lives. As the number of effective hypnotists increases, I believe our profession will increase in credibility. As we realize that, as Roy Hunter says, there are many pathways to the subconscious and hypnotic efficacy, we can respond to the concerns that may arise among those who have seen hypnosis shows. I enjoy telling clients how I was trained to select participants when I took stage training. They laugh and understand. They are amused at the thought of clucking like a chicken or barking like a dog. Some are both relieved and disappointed when I respond that “it is up to them.”

What I am saying, Saul, is that it is a mixed bag. Perhaps they are right in Hollywood when they say there is no such thing as bad publicity. Right now, I will take almost any conversation generator. I don’t always agree with how Hypnosis and NLP are portrayed on “The Mentalist” but it is so far an improvement on other presentations that I am very grateful for the quality of writing. It is showy. It might scare some people into believing they can be hypnotized into telling the truth. But, overall, I think it portrays both hypnosis and NLP more favorably than not.

One of the very positive initiatives of the NGH is to establish hypnosis as a separate and distinct profession. That will work to all of our advantages. We will not be well served by absorption into medicine or psychology. What we do is different from medicine and psychology. We need people willing to travel down different paths to find useful answers. We are as different from psychology as chiropractic is from allopathic medicine. Watch over the next 10 years as our profession takes off. I believe we are in for a fascinating ride. We all, as professional hypnotists need to be at the top of our game. We need to always be learning and improving. The question is not, “am I a good hypnotist today.” The important question is “am I a more effective hypnotist today than I was yesterday?” Clearly, Saul, you care about that, and it is my hope that every hypnotist browsing through hypnothougts.com cares about that as well.


Saul Rosenfeld said:

Hello Lee,
I'd never heard about DISC before and find it quite interesting, entirely plausible, and it certainly sounds as if it would make a VERY helpful indicator when applied to strategies for induction/therapeutic approach with individual clients. However, my concern all throughout this discussion has not been with various tactics/techniques for individuals, but rather the influence and effect that public demonstrations of highly authoritarian induction techniques have always had on the population at large- for the past two centuries (and counting).

I'd be interested in hearing what you thought of the question I posed in my book's introduction: namely, WHY has this marvelously beneficial modality for HEALING invariably been regarded, ALL throughout its history, with such horribly NEGATIVE connotations? Don't you agree that it's at least "possible", if not likely, that this has a great deal to do with the ONE "common denominator" linking the practice of hypnotism through the years: the general public's aversion/apprehension/trepidation after witnessing the "now I have you in my Power!" approach employed by highly authoritarian hypnotists...?

Saul

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on November 25, 2009 at 8:49am

Hugh,

I can't help wondering what you (and Michael H.) think about "passive-aggressive" ad hominem attacks-
such as, for instance, completely ignoring, or simply declining to answer, a serious thought-provoking question posed by a serious member-in-good-standing on this thread?
Not once, but twice.

I wonder...

Saul


P.S. Thanks at least for YOUR reply Lee, I have to go out for a while, but will respond later





Hugh Cole said:

Namaste, My friend, Its good to hear from you.
Hugh Cole The Pretty Goodest Hypnotist on the Planet. Michael Haifleigh said:

Lee Pelletier said:

I wonder what would happen if we kept discussion of concepts like this at the idea level and left off the "ad hominem" attacks?.

I wonder.

Permalink Reply by Hugh Cole on November 25, 2009 at 9:27am

For my part Saul, the discussion has run it's course. I don't believe I launched an "ad hominem" attack on you and if you feel I did I apologize for it. I don't believe your premise is faulty because you authored it, I believe it is faulty because it is counter to my observations and my intuition. But That's just me. I don't see this as a worthwhile productive debate for me. I'd rather you debate whomever you were debating when you wrote your book. It is not my job to prove or disprove the hypothesis that you and your referances postulated over the duration of several lifetimes, I am going to let you do that as any good scholar must if his research work is to gain acceptance. I am wishing you only success with your self publishing efforts. While I would love to be in Barcelona with Gil, sadly I am not, I am at home preparing to celebrate Thanksgiving with those I love.

Namaste,
Hugh Cole

Permalink Reply by James Hazlerig on November 25, 2009 at 10:43am

Saul,

My mother once told me that if you can't say something nice, it's better to say nothing at all.

The first time that I encountered your statements about the supposed evils of demonstrational hypnosis, I perused the free chapters of your book and considered your arguments. I did not at that time have any financial stake in demonstrational hypnosis; in fact, if your arguments had convinced me that ending demonstrational hypnosis right now would help hypnotherapy, I would stand to gain financially by adopting and advocating your stance.

However, I was not persuaded by your arguments. I said so on this forum and provided counter-arguments. You responded to my comments with explicit ad hominem attacks.

If no one is responding to you this time, it's because we know we won't convince you, and we know you've already failed to convince us. You're beating a dead horse, Saul.

Happy Holidays,

James






Saul Rosenfeld said:

Hugh,

I can't help wondering what you (and Michael H.) think about "passive-aggressive" ad hominem attacks-
such as, for instance, completely ignoring, or simply declining to answer, a serious thought-provoking question posed by a serious member-in-good-standing on this thread?
Not once, but twice.

I wonder...

Saul


P.S. Thanks at least for YOUR reply Lee, I have to go out for a while, but will respond later





Hugh Cole said:

Namaste, My friend, Its good to hear from you.
Hugh Cole The Pretty Goodest Hypnotist on the Planet. Michael Haifleigh said:

Lee Pelletier said:

I wonder what would happen if we kept discussion of concepts like this at the idea level and left off the "ad hominem" attacks?.

I wonder.

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on November 25, 2009 at 12:31pm

Lee,

Thank you for your cogent reply. I'll try my best to reply in kind to the various points you made.

1. I really didn't "adopt a point of view" and then spent the next thirteen years searching for data to support that view in order to write a book. Why in heaven's name would I waste my time doing something like THAT?
Unless one chooses a titilating subject/title like "Turbocharge your SEX life with hypnosis!!!", or "Ten easy steps to getting everything you want in life using the Power of Hypnosis!!!", there's more money to be made selling lemonade at a street corner stand than writing a scholarly tome on hypnosis, and I had better things to do with my life...; - )
No, Lee, I actually started out as a proverbial "clean slate" when it came to hypnosis, and when I began my hypnotherapy practice several years later, I was struck by the fact that, aside from a tiny handful of rare exceptions, EVERYONE who entered my office was filled with apprehension about having me "control" their minds or bending their "will" with my hypnotic (and posthypnotic) commands. It didn't take me long to discover that every single one of my colleagues experienced the same wary and fearful reaction from THEIR clients as well. This was back in 1982 in Holland; but as you saw from that email I posted in one of my earlier comments, THAT gentleman was experiencing the exact same reaction from HIS clients right now in Britain! And I'm quite certain that every hypnotherapist operating here in America (and elsewhere) ALSO needs to have the obligatory ""You won't be under my Power", "don't worry, YOU will retain control despite being hypnotized" chat with THEIR clients as well. But back in 1982, I couldn't help wondering just WHY people felt that way about hypnosis! It simply didn't make any sense that a phenomenon that could work "wonders" with patients' various ills should be regarded as anything other than a blessed miracle, and that hypnotists should be regarded as marvelous HEALERS rather as someone to be wary of, or even feared. And THAT is when I started my journey through the literature of the past two centuries, and THAT is when I stumbled upon fact after fact, case after case, of what was truly RESPONSIBLE for hypnotism's appalling IMAGE among the general public and health care professionals. Back in 1790, in 1890, and also in 1990. In Holland, in France, in Britain, in Germany, in Russia, in America, etc.
The ONE "common denominator" was that, all throughout its history, and all over the world, people had come to regard it as a form of "sinister mind control" by their exposure (either first hand or by word of mouth) to public displays/exhibitions/demonstrations of HIGHLY AUTHORITARIAN induction techniques of the "Now I have you in my Power!" variety.
Whether of the "Now you cannot bend your arm!", "Now you cannot open your eyes!" variety, or various forceful physical techniques (jerking the neck while bellowing "SLEEP!", etc.).

2. You make an excellent point about PLR being responsible for much current religious opposition to the phenomenon; and there is even an historical parallel with the "spiritualism" movement of the 1860's (table rapping by "ghosts", "spirit" photography, etc. that was an unfortunate offshoot of hypnotism for a while).
But those causes for its objectionable image are but blips on the radar screen when it comes to the Big Picture.

3. I disagree completely with your contention that "it is more important to note and explore the effectiveness of both indirect and authoritarian approaches than to worry too much about image", because that will mean a continuation of the status quo: a terrible legacy of lost potential. I will say again, for the third time, that I have no objection to the use of an authoritarian approach in a PRIVATE one-on-one setting. None! I am NOT debating the usefulness of "authoritarian" techniques per se', and have NEVER done so! I only object to PUBLIC displays of such techniques because they give otherwise ignorant people a totally skewed and misleading PERCEPTION of what hypnosis is all about.
As for the old adage "there's no such thing as bad publicity", well, that might apply to movies, or books, or getting celebrities in the news- but it has wreaked HAVOC with the image of HYPNOTISM for two hundred years (and counting...).

I'd like to end this reply by offering a quote from a brilliant, perceptive and eloquent mid-19th century clergyman named C.H. Townsend that appears at the end of my Chapter One:



"Regrettably enough, the continuing employment of such objectionable (not to mention ineffectual) tactics as bug-eyed glaring, seductive “passes”, and ominous gesticulations was going to ensure that the phenomenon would continue to be associated with this image of sinister and/or comical Authoritarian weirdness.
By the mid-1800’s in fact, mesmerism had practically become a synonym for all that was low and contemptible; and as far as official recognition of trance was concerned, Ray (1950) accurately portrayed the trend when writing: “...science would have none of it, wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole. Utterly repudiating mesmerism, science cast it to the charlatans...”
(p. 97)
The author (idem, p. 100) went on to note how it soon degenerated into “a parlour game, a vaudeville trick, a scandal”, which the scientific establishment then “tossed, like an uncut diamond, into the gutter”.

As Townshend (1841) sadly concluded:

“Such are the causes which have condemned mesmerism to lie beating, like a wreck, on the shore of substantial knowledge. The vessel, in itself, was beautiful and well built, but adverse currents turned it from its course, and by many a storm its sails were rent, and its noble frame was shattered...All the circumstances which are unfavorable to mesmerism end in one fatal word- contempt. Everything tends to raise a laugh at its expense- and against a laugh who shall have the courage to contend? This is the last possible degradation. Men love the mysterious...but shrink from the ridiculous; they can bear to be thought wicked, but not to be deemed fools; they will endure to be hated, but not to be despised. Now mesmerism has become not merely a persecuted but a ridiculous faith...There is no dignity in suffering (for) such a cause.”
(pp. 32-33)

Slowly but surely, it seems that mankind was being inadvertently conditioned to sneer at the very thought of a trance state- just as surely as Pavlov’s dogs would one day be trained to salivate to the bell..."

Saul

P.S. Yes, there will surely be a number of new clients who come for hypnotherapy after witnessing a stage hypnosis performance; but for every 10 new clients, there may well be 100, 500, or 1,000 who will NEVER set foot in the office of a hypnotherapist after seeing such a display. It's impossible to say with any accuracy, but it most certainly is something to think about, isn't it?

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on November 25, 2009 at 12:58pm

James,

As far as I recall, I was indeed initially rather curt and disrespectful towards you in that thread, but that was because I was being ganged up on by the inevitable "stage hypnotist mafia" (hey, I'm from New Joisey, so it's a valid simile for me!...; - )
However, unless I'm mistaken, after that initial tussle (once again, mea culpa), I thought we had quite a respectful and lively debate on the matter, and simply agreed to disagree in the end as gentlemen.
I did not bear any ill will towards you whatsoever just because we disagreed (unlike I did, and still do, towards certain others on that thread), and am truly surprised that you feel that way!

As for your "beating a dead horse" analogy (and you're probably unfortunately 100% correct about that), allow me to share another "horse-based" analogy that I learned from MY mother:

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't MAKE him drink"

Happy Thanksgiving,

Saul

James Hazlerig said:

Saul,
My mother once told me that if you can't say something nice, it's better to say nothing at all.
The first time that I encountered your statements about the supposed evils of demonstrational hypnosis, I perused the free chapters of your book and considered your arguments. I did not at that time have any financial stake in demonstrational hypnosis; in fact, if your arguments had convinced me that ending demonstrational hypnosis right now would help hypnotherapy, I would stand to gain financially by adopting and advocating your stance.

However, I was not persuaded by your arguments. I said so on this forum and provided counter-arguments. You responded to my comments with explicit ad hominem attacks.

If no one is responding to you this time, it's because we know we won't convince you, and we know you've already failed to convince us. You're beating a dead horse, Saul.

Happy Holidays,

James






Saul Rosenfeld said:

Hugh,

I can't help wondering what you (and Michael H.) think about "passive-aggressive" ad hominem attacks-
such as, for instance, completely ignoring, or simply declining to answer, a serious thought-provoking question posed by a serious member-in-good-standing on this thread?
Not once, but twice.

I wonder...

Saul


P.S. Thanks at least for YOUR reply Lee, I have to go out for a while, but will respond later





Hugh Cole said:

Namaste, My friend, Its good to hear from you.
Hugh Cole The Pretty Goodest Hypnotist on the Planet. Michael Haifleigh said:

Lee Pelletier said:

I wonder what would happen if we kept discussion of concepts like this at the idea level and left off the "ad hominem" attacks?.

I wonder.

Permalink Reply by Fable Goodman on November 25, 2009 at 2:38pm

Thanks Lee,

I consider that a very well thought out and sensitive post.

Love and hugs,

Fable

Permalink Reply by Michael Haifleigh on November 25, 2009 at 3:01pm

Namaste, my friend.

Hugh Cole said:

Namaste, My friend, Its good to hear from you.

Hugh Cole
The Pretty Goodest Hypnotist on the Planet.

Michael Haifleigh said:

Lee Pelletier said:

I wonder what would happen if we kept discussion of concepts like this at the idea level and left off the "ad hominem" attacks?.

I wonder.

Permalink Reply by Michael Haifleigh on November 25, 2009 at 3:06pm

Saul,

I did not communicate that well, my apologies.

My intent was to second, what I read as, Lee's implication that some of the input in this discussion consisted of ad hominem attacks. I was not singling out anyone in particular but was intended as a general comment.

I did not read all posts. If you would like to be specific regarding the “thought-provoking question posed by a serious member-in-good-standing” that I may have missed, please point it out.

I can’t guarantee that I will find it thought provoking.

Michael


Saul Rosenfeld said:

Hugh,

I can't help wondering what you (and Michael H.) think about "passive-aggressive" ad hominem attacks-
such as, for instance, completely ignoring, or simply declining to answer, a serious thought-provoking question posed by a serious member-in-good-standing on this thread?
Not once, but twice.

I wonder...

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on November 25, 2009 at 3:57pm

Hi Michael H.,

I now understand- so no harm, no foul, and let's leave it at that.
As for THE (potentially at least) "thought-provoking question", here's the second attempt, and I'll follow up by re-posting my (brief) "Introduction" so that you won't have to search through the thread to find it again:

"I'd be interested in hearing what you thought of the question I posed in my book's introduction: namely, WHY has this marvelously beneficial modality for HEALING invariably been regarded, ALL throughout its history, with such horribly NEGATIVE connotations? Don't you agree that it's at least "possible", if not likely, that this has a great deal to do with the ONE "common denominator" linking the practice of hypnotism through the years: the general public's aversion/apprehension/trepidation after witnessing the "now I have you in my Power!" approach employed by highly authoritarian hypnotists...?"


[ the following is from my original query...]


"The point I've been trying to make all along is that there is a REASON why the vast MAJORITY of the general public and health care practitioners have, ALL throughout its history, regarded this phenomenon with a jaundiced eye- with nervous trepidation instead of as a remarkable force that can promote HEALING in so many ways.
In fact, here is the "Introduction" to my book, which says it all:


"Suppose that there were no word or concept such as “hypnosis”, and that psychologists then discovered a technique whereby important aspects of a person’s belief system could be radically modified, for brief periods, by particular verbal inputs. Clearly, such a startling procedure would be seen to have to have the greatest of significance..."
(McReynolds in Sheehan & Perry, 1976, p.269)




Indeed, you’d think the universal response to such a momentous discovery would be one of profound delight; while surely even that reaction would pale before the excitement caused by the finding that people who were hypnotized could sometimes learn to regulate “involuntary” bodily functions like circulation, markedly accelerate the healing process, or (once again- by means of simple speech) be helped to reduce chronic intractable pain.
It was, after all, the stuff Nobel prizes were made of, and it’s not very likely that the implications would have been lost on anyone.

Back here on Earth, however, it seems that despite more than two centuries of having tacitly recognized its enormous potential utility, the phenomenon of hypnosis has commonly been regarded with outright Fear and Loathing.
Instead of hypnotists being looked upon as gentle, benevolent, Albert Schweitzer-type healers, they’ve invariably been characterized rather as sinister, Rasputin-like villains with “dark, piercing eyes”, a “penetrating, merciless stare”, and a “powerful, domineering will”.
In fact, the popular reaction to the whole subject of trance was perhaps best captured by Estabrooks’ and Gross’ (1961, p.88) candid observation that, to many people, the very word "hypnosis" still evokes "a whole series of lurid visions more properly associated with tales of horror, murder, and creatures that walk by night.”


What I wanted to know was: how did it ever come to THIS, for crying out loud?
How is it possible that something as potentially BENEFICIAL to humanity as hypnosis ever came to be regarded in such a horrible manner?

I intend to show that the history of hypnotism provides us with the clue to this unfortunate legacy. You see, the one common denominator found all throughout mankind’s 200+ year investigation of trance has been this IMAGE problem- the universal perception that hypnosis is a sinister force capable of "overpowering" the minds of hapless subjects.
As will be revealed in the following chapters, that’s the way people have ALWAYS tended to regard the phenomenon- whether back in Mesmer’s time in the latter 1700’s, all throughout the course of the 19th century and, as everyone reading this is probably aware, during most of the 20th as well.
To hear Aaronson (1973, p. 93) tell it, even nowadays, though hypnosis appears to have finally gained acceptance as a "proper" area of scientific study, the word hypnosis continues to evoke disturbing images of illigitimately held power; and researchers in hypnosis must continually justify their morals, motivation, methodology and conclusions to a degree seldom demanded of researchers in other areas of the behavioral sciences.

Now, if we stop to consider just how great a part this attitude has always played in preventing mankind’s acceptance of the phenomenon, it hardly seems irrelevant to wonder WHAT ever happened to make our image of trance SO consistently disagreeable over the years?
Even more important perhaps, is the question of what can STILL be causing so many people to PERSIST in regarding hypnosis this way?

There is much historical evidence to suggest that the answer to this problem lies in our MANNER of employing the phenomenon..."



Saul


P.S. I'm going off-line now, but will check back either late tonight or early tomorrow morning to take care of subsequent posts.
Happy Thanksgiving!




Michael Haifleigh said:

Saul,

I did not communicate that well, my apologies.

My intent was to second, what I read as, Lee's implication that some of the input in this discussion consisted of ad hominem attacks. I was not singling out anyone in particular but was intended as a general comment.

I did not read all posts. If you would like to be specific regarding the “thought-provoking question posed by a serious member-in-good-standing” that I may have missed, please point it out.

I can’t guarantee that I will find it thought provoking.

Michael


Saul Rosenfeld said:

Hugh,

I can't help wondering what you (and Michael H.) think about "passive-aggressive" ad hominem attacks-
such as, for instance, completely ignoring, or simply declining to answer, a serious thought-provoking question posed by a serious member-in-good-standing on this thread?
Not once, but twice.

I wonder...

Permalink Reply by James Hazlerig on November 25, 2009 at 4:29pm

Saul,

You are right that we did eventually close the debate on an agreement to disagree and respect one another's opinions, and I apologize if the early barbs still stand out in my mind more than the calmer conclusion. I just don't see any point in rehashing that argument--so it wasn't meant as a slight to you that I didn't respond to your posts in this thread, but rather that I didn't want to beat a dead horse either. :-)

Take care,

James





Saul Rosenfeld said:

James,

As far as I recall, I was indeed initially rather curt and disrespectful towards you in that thread, but that was because I was being ganged up on by the inevitable "stage hypnotist mafia" (hey, I'm from New Joisey, so it's a valid simile for me!...; - )
However, unless I'm mistaken, after that initial tussle (once again, mea culpa), I thought we had quite a respectful and lively debate on the matter, and simply agreed to disagree in the end as gentlemen.
I did not bear any ill will towards you whatsoever just because we disagreed (unlike I did, and still do, towards certain others on that thread), and am truly surprised that you feel that way!

As for your "beating a dead horse" analogy (and you're probably unfortunately 100% correct about that), allow me to share another "horse-based" analogy that I learned from MY mother:

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't MAKE him drink"

Happy Thanksgiving,

Saul

James Hazlerig said:

Saul,
My mother once told me that if you can't say something nice, it's better to say nothing at all.
The first time that I encountered your statements about the supposed evils of demonstrational hypnosis, I perused the free chapters of your book and considered your arguments. I did not at that time have any financial stake in demonstrational hypnosis; in fact, if your arguments had convinced me that ending demonstrational hypnosis right now would help hypnotherapy, I would stand to gain financially by adopting and advocating your stance.

However, I was not persuaded by your arguments. I said so on this forum and provided counter-arguments. You responded to my comments with explicit ad hominem attacks.

If no one is responding to you this time, it's because we know we won't convince you, and we know you've already failed to convince us. You're beating a dead horse, Saul.

Happy Holidays,

James






Saul Rosenfeld said:

Hugh,

I can't help wondering what you (and Michael H.) think about "passive-aggressive" ad hominem attacks-
such as, for instance, completely ignoring, or simply declining to answer, a serious thought-provoking question posed by a serious member-in-good-standing on this thread?
Not once, but twice.

I wonder...

Saul


P.S. Thanks at least for YOUR reply Lee, I have to go out for a while, but will respond later





Hugh Cole said:

Namaste, My friend, Its good to hear from you.
Hugh Cole The Pretty Goodest Hypnotist on the Planet. Michael Haifleigh said:

Lee Pelletier said:

I wonder what would happen if we kept discussion of concepts like this at the idea level and left off the "ad hominem" attacks?.

I wonder.

Permalink Reply by Michael Haifleigh on November 25, 2009 at 6:33pm

Saul,

Off the top of my head (so to speak), I think it has to do with multiple factors:

One would be a certain aspect within the forms of dualism that “The West” sees in existence.

The objectification of the human experience of “Me” or “I”. This object, which may be considered very precious, can be viewed as vulnerable to corruption and/or loss.

The concept of trust is another factor. Trust is something that may be seen as being built up or earned over time and through multiple acts/actions. This trust once built can be wiped out with a single act.

The ideas of power and submission also seem involved.

And something else that seems to be a factor here is the fact that what we call hypnosis predates modern medicine and may well be as old as human interaction itself.

The association of this modality with healing also seems potentially problematic. Healing, as a concept applied to the thoughts and perspectives people hold (consciously/unconsciously) is in my experience laden with subjective perspectives.

The query you present seems potentially, extremely, large in scope. And well worth an ongoing process.

I will in fact tuck this in to my sub-conscious and listen for additional perspectives to emerge.

Saul, I would agree with you (to some currently unknown degree) that the manner of employing the phenomenon is a relevant factor. That would it seems to include making or not making a sufficient distinction between three sub-domains: entertainment, personal growth/change, and healing/treating/curing an illness.

It’s time for a glass of Cabernet.
Have a wonder-filled Thanksgiving.

Michael



Saul Rosenfeld said:

Hi Michael H.,

I now understand- so no harm, no foul, and let's leave it at that.
As for THE (potentially at least) "thought-provoking question", here's the second attempt, and I'll follow up by re-posting my (brief) "Introduction" so that you won't have to search through the thread to find it again:

"I'd be interested in hearing what you thought of the question I posed in my book's introduction: namely, WHY has this marvelously beneficial modality for HEALING invariably been regarded, ALL throughout its history, with such horribly NEGATIVE connotations? Don't you agree that it's at least "possible", if not likely, that this has a great deal to do with the ONE "common denominator" linking the practice of hypnotism through the years: the general public's aversion/apprehension/trepidation after witnessing the "now I have you in my Power!" approach employed by highly authoritarian hypnotists...?"


[ the following is from my original query...]


"The point I've been trying to make all along is that there is a REASON why the vast MAJORITY of the general public and health care practitioners have, ALL throughout its history, regarded this phenomenon with a jaundiced eye- with nervous trepidation instead of as a remarkable force that can promote HEALING in so many ways.
In fact, here is the "Introduction" to my book, which says it all:


"Suppose that there were no word or concept such as “hypnosis”, and that psychologists then discovered a technique whereby important aspects of a person’s belief system could be radically modified, for brief periods, by particular verbal inputs. Clearly, such a startling procedure would be seen to have to have the greatest of significance..."
(McReynolds in Sheehan & Perry, 1976, p.269)




Indeed, you’d think the universal response to such a momentous discovery would be one of profound delight; while surely even that reaction would pale before the excitement caused by the finding that people who were hypnotized could sometimes learn to regulate “involuntary” bodily functions like circulation, markedly accelerate the healing process, or (once again- by means of simple speech) be helped to reduce chronic intractable pain.
It was, after all, the stuff Nobel prizes were made of, and it’s not very likely that the implications would have been lost on anyone.

Back here on Earth, however, it seems that despite more than two centuries of having tacitly recognized its enormous potential utility, the phenomenon of hypnosis has commonly been regarded with outright Fear and Loathing.
Instead of hypnotists being looked upon as gentle, benevolent, Albert Schweitzer-type healers, they’ve invariably been characterized rather as sinister, Rasputin-like villains with “dark, piercing eyes”, a “penetrating, merciless stare”, and a “powerful, domineering will”.
In fact, the popular reaction to the whole subject of trance was perhaps best captured by Estabrooks’ and Gross’ (1961, p.88) candid observation that, to many people, the very word "hypnosis" still evokes "a whole series of lurid visions more properly associated with tales of horror, murder, and creatures that walk by night.”


What I wanted to know was: how did it ever come to THIS, for crying out loud?
How is it possible that something as potentially BENEFICIAL to humanity as hypnosis ever came to be regarded in such a horrible manner?

I intend to show that the history of hypnotism provides us with the clue to this unfortunate legacy. You see, the one common denominator found all throughout mankind’s 200+ year investigation of trance has been this IMAGE problem- the universal perception that hypnosis is a sinister force capable of "overpowering" the minds of hapless subjects.
As will be revealed in the following chapters, that’s the way people have ALWAYS tended to regard the phenomenon- whether back in Mesmer’s time in the latter 1700’s, all throughout the course of the 19th century and, as everyone reading this is probably aware, during most of the 20th as well.
To hear Aaronson (1973, p. 93) tell it, even nowadays, though hypnosis appears to have finally gained acceptance as a "proper" area of scientific study, the word hypnosis continues to evoke disturbing images of illigitimately held power; and researchers in hypnosis must continually justify their morals, motivation, methodology and conclusions to a degree seldom demanded of researchers in other areas of the behavioral sciences.

Now, if we stop to consider just how great a part this attitude has always played in preventing mankind’s acceptance of the phenomenon, it hardly seems irrelevant to wonder WHAT ever happened to make our image of trance SO consistently disagreeable over the years?
Even more important perhaps, is the question of what can STILL be causing so many people to PERSIST in regarding hypnosis this way?

There is much historical evidence to suggest that the answer to this problem lies in our MANNER of employing the phenomenon..."



Saul


P.S. I'm going off-line now, but will check back either late tonight or early tomorrow morning to take care of subsequent posts.
Happy Thanksgiving!




Michael Haifleigh said:

Saul,

I did not communicate that well, my apologies.

My intent was to second, what I read as, Lee's implication that some of the input in this discussion consisted of ad hominem attacks. I was not singling out anyone in particular but was intended as a general comment.

I did not read all posts. If you would like to be specific regarding the “thought-provoking question posed by a serious member-in-good-standing” that I may have missed, please point it out.

I can’t guarantee that I will find it thought provoking.

Michael


Saul Rosenfeld said:

Hugh,

I can't help wondering what you (and Michael H.) think about "passive-aggressive" ad hominem attacks-
such as, for instance, completely ignoring, or simply declining to answer, a serious thought-provoking question posed by a serious member-in-good-standing on this thread?
Not once, but twice.

I wonder...

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• Next ›
• Page