definitions abound

[tdiamond]

definitions are tricky.. who's are we using on this forum?

Hypnosis... an induced sleeplike state in which the subject may experience forgotten or suppressed memories, hallucinations and heightened suggestibility.

Trance.... a hyponotic, cataleptic or estatic state.. detachment from one's physical surrounding, as in day dreaming or contemplation

hypnotize...to fascinate mesmerize...

I guess one could see where people new to the words or field might be a bit confused when all the terms are bantered around..


Maybe we could have a disclaimer at the head of the forum on who's definition was being used when in a discussion, and what that definition was... worth considering..

p.s not my definitions above

[Connie]

Why should we agree on someone else's definition? Use your own. If you believe it's unique and atypical, define what you're talking about in the course of the discussion.

[tdiamond]

I wouldnt use anyone else's... thats my point..

You see when I post a question it doesn't mean I don't know or get it...

I am simply asking people to think about it... think about it...

I got it...

[Poodle]

I think Merlin and I would disagree on the definitions, but, on the other hand I've seen some definitions from some pretty big name teachers that are a lot worse than what you wrote.

Hypnosis is simply the bypass of CF. That's a given.

There is trance which occurs naturally and the trance which is induced by hypnosis and they are not similar or the same and have nothing to do with sleep, mesmerism, etc. Actually hypnosis is from about 2500BC or 3500BC that we can prove. Maybe the quickest and easiest history of hypnosis is in "Hypnosis - A Comprehensive Guide" by Tad James. I can't say I agree with everything in the book as I would never use Estabrooks -- the same can be produced without saying sleep, sleep, sleep. Milton Erickson also produced somnambulism in 30 seconds so Dave Elman is not the only one, just one of the firsts.

What is interesting is that western medicine is around 200 years old and look how far they have come. It's amazing. George Washington died as he had the flu and they bled him. We're still using stupid words like sleep and wake up which do not apply to our profession. We need to update semantics if we are to be taken seriously. We are in a somewhat precarious spot as we have the evangelical ministers on one side of us and witch doctors on the other which is almost where chiropractors used to be. Every day, more and more, the medical community is figuring out hypnosis works -- no kidding? We know it! We do it all the time. I sorta like Charles Tebbett's definition: Miracles on Demand!

I would not say heightened suggestibility as much as hyperawareness even though there may be drool coming out of the mouth as the client is sooo deep the mind is still totally aware of the voice of the hypnotist and we can and do produce all deep trance phenomena.

Clients in a hypnotic trance can and do change states without us. Most everything can easily be taken care of in a light trance and that's a big statement coming from "set-in-her-way" me.

Sorry. I'm about as bad as Soren on this post for length! YIKES!! I also read recently that "guided imagery" isn't hypnosis. If the CF has been by-passed by a hypnotist, it sure is IMHO. There's my $50 worth. Pood

[Terry (existing)]

Since I am the one dealing with a particullar client, and responsible for the success of the session, I use my own definitions, and do so without apology to anyone, you are of course are also responsible for the definition you choose to accept, based on experience and observation. For me, trance can be produced with intent a hundred different ways, but is not hypnosis. Trance can be produced accidentally in a thousand ways, and is not hypnosis. When an intentional trance is produced, and followed by suggestions given by an experienced and skilled practitioner, THAT IS HYPNOSIS, and results bear out that fact. Now of course there are likely to be situations that belie that statement, but in fact all they do is prove the point in my opinion. It aint hypnosis unless it is produced by a skilled person, and them's the facts.:) I would be happy to see any other definition that makes sense, since I am always ready to learn more about that wonderful tool we call the mind.

[tyku]

For me, trance can be produced with intent a hundred different ways, but is not hypnosis. Trance can be produced accidentally in a thousand ways, and is not hypnosis. When an intentional trance is produced, and followed by suggestions given by an experienced and skilled practitioner, THAT IS HYPNOSIS, and results bear out that fact. Now of course there are likely to be situations that belie that statement, but in fact all they do is prove the point in my opinion.

It seems to me that you're stating a difference between trancing(or the bypass of the CF), and being able to utilize it for some purpose other than simply trancing. Am I correct?

It aint hypnosis unless it is produced by a skilled person, and them's the facts.
I noticed that you didn't specify in this sentence whether the "skilled person" was inducing a trance with conscious intent, or unkowingly. I will assume from the previous sentences in the quoted post that you meant that it's only hypnosis if it's consciously induced and utilized. In which case you seem to have cut out, to some extent at least, religious representatives, and authority figures. These people don't usually knowingly, with conscious intent, induce and utilize trances, do they?

[Jack]

Hypnosis is trance and trance is hypnosis. An hypnotic trance does not require an experienced practitioner to instigate, it can happen entirely on its own, and regularly does. It is the bypassing of the CF and many sensory experiences can cause it, including religious ones.

Hypnotherapy - the utilisation of a trance state for therapeutic purposes - does require an experienced practitioner however. When Terry uses the term 'hypnosis' I think he is meaning 'hypnotherapy' but, unlike the UK, in the US and Canada this term is not legally allowable unless the practitioner is medically qualified.

Jack

[Terry (existing)]

A question was asked, and I replied as I understood the intent of the question. Yes it is my contention that "Hypnosis" does indeed imply intent and a plan. If trance is induced differently, such as Jack implies, via religious experience etc, it is NOT hypnosis but trance only, and the intent is not present. Obviously others have the right to think differently to me, and I see no reason why they shouldn't express their opinion along with mine, but I can only reply based on my own thinking processees.
In the case of Hitler for example, though writers love to offer him as a natural hypnotist, he was nothing more than a rabble rouser who battened on the existing beliefs, or desired of the German people of his time. He had no skill, no understanding such as is required of a highly skilled practitioner of hypnosis, and was of course mad to boot.:) If your idea of hypnosis differs to mine, that is of interest to me, since having only one opinion to depend on is not making progress, but stagnating, so feel free to express the differences in return for me using my time to express mine please. Besides, there are those who have no opinion, and are here to learn, so they need to have information on which to base a belief system that will suffice to keep them learning.

[tyku]

So, you don't think that Hitlers' acceptance, reinforcement, and building onto his audiences' existing beliefs and desires to get what he wanted counts as hypnosis?

[skip]

Terry,

"Yes it is my contention that "Hypnosis" does indeed imply intent and a plan. If trance is induced differently, such as Jack implies, via religious experience etc, it is NOT hypnosis but trance only, and the intent is not present."


I think I understand and likely agree with what you are attempting to say, but I disagree with the way you said it.

I would submit to you that trance induced by religious or any good speaker is in response to a plan and deliberate intent. Same for a good movie or book.

Now I do agree that many trances are induced with no intent. Such as that in an elevator, or getting in your car.

And I'll agree that hypnosis per se, definately has intent and most likely a plan if done by someone skilled.

But please Terry, when 'Red' catches your eye, and then just ever so briefly glances at the mistletoe, and then loks back at you and holds your gaze ... dont tell me that isnt trance, and dont tell me she has no intent. :)

cheers,

skip

[Merlin]

This & that

> Milton Erickson also produced somnambulism in 30 seconds so Dave Elman is not the only one, just one of the firsts.

In class, Elman required somnambulism in one minute or less.


>I also read recently that "guided imagery" isn't hypnosis. If the CF has been by-passed by a hypnotist, it sure is IMHO.

But it's not the guided imagery, it's bypassing the CF that is the hypnosis.
The guided imagery is mostly the 'suggestion' part, though a good story can allow one to bypass their CF

>It's amazing. George Washington died as he had the flu and they bled him.

Bleeding someone can be very effective if not overdone.
Most doctors of the dat thought
if a little bit works, a lot is better.
Alas, that's not so with bleeding.

[Terry (existing)]

Damn it Skip, you do indeed have a way with words:D

However, thank you for repeating what I said in a different way, because it does highlight the intent that I had in explaining that Hypnosis and trance are NOT the same thing, though a trance state is produced in order to use hypnotic suggestion, which is what most people understand by the word. It is always good to have something explained by several persons, since the differing aproaches ensure that more will understand what is being implied.
Have a super holiday....:)

[Don]

It seems to me that what is going on here is not so much a debate over reality so much as it is individual definitions.

On one hand we have the definition that hypnosis=trance (and therefore, trance=hypnosis).

On the other hand we have the definition that seems to be hypnotic trance is a subset of trance. That is, all hypnotic trances are trances, but not all trances are hypnotic trances.

And of course, there is the point that some definitions of hypnosis do not require trance at all, only the bypassing of the critical factor.

In respect to all of the debators here, it seems to me that you're all trying to hold back the tides with a leaky bucket. Everybody has their own definitions (some have more than one) and the truth is: everyone is right. It's just a definition, a term that is a symbolic representation of reality.

Arguing over this is like arguing over the title of a Fleetwood Mac (and later Santana) song: Is she a magic woman who is black, or a woman who does black magic?

Doing the work is more important than the names anyway.

Happy Turkey Day to my fraternal and sororital friends!

[Merlin]

To a hammer, everything is a nail.

[Jack]

Well, Terry, I wasn't implying that trance was hypnosis and hypnosis was trance, I was stating it as an opinion. No implication needed.

After all, what is a trance? It is an altered state of awareness. And what is 'hypnosis'? It is an altered state of awareness. Now, I think the difference between us in semantic and based on what we understand by the word 'hypnosis'. To me it is a word describing the ability to enter an altered state of awareness in which we have direct access to subconscious processes- something we all do many times a day with a huge variety of stimulii - so everyone has this ability to a greater or lesser degree. Intent is not present in these instances, unless there is a subconscious intent to enter an altered state of which we are not aware when we do it.

As I understand it, your contention is that for this state to be 'hypnosis' there has to be intent, and if I were to accept the idea that hypnosis was a discrete state different in some way from trance then I would agree, since I could not disagree as I do not know what the difference is and you do. But it is a word and we have a different interpretation.

As for Hitler: because a man is a fascist thug and possibly the ultimate serial killer does not mean to say that he is also unintelligent. To subjugate Europe, North Africa and part of Asia was not just good luck. Mad? Maybe. Stupid? Not likely. So perhaps one has to ask whether or not his use of hypnotic technique was accidental or part of a carefully crafted master plan by a consummate performer.

As I said several years ago on the forum, we need to get rid of this archaic word 'hypnosis' since it does not mean what it appears to mean, is tainted with 19th century mysticism and can lead to great misunderstanding.

Jack

[Terry (existing)]

You are correct Jack, we do had differing interpretations of hypnosis, and what the word is intended to mean, so obviously we will not agree and must therefor agree to differ and remain respectful of each other while we do so. One thing we do agree on, is the word "hypnosis", but I have no idea what we might replace that word with, unless we return to Mesmerism. As for what we do, I have already stated what hypnosis means to me in my post to Skip, so will not repeat it, but I do wonder, if we accept what you say can we teach it and expect satisfactory results from our pupils? I can teach trance production in less than half an hour, but I am damned if I would let loose a student who only got that far in the course and expect them to help a client. To do that requires hundreds of hours of study and practise in my opinion. Once that is done, we have a respectable practitioner of what I call hypnosis, since it then has a value. What value can we place on "Trance Production"? We can't even replace the word hypnosis with those words and still have it give meaning to what we do....

[Don]

To a hammer, everything is a nail.

Hmmm. I think it might be more appropriate to say that If a person only has a hammer, everything is a nail. Otherwise, you're implying that hammers have consciousness.

Now, I have seen some politicians who have the consciousness level of a hammer, but I've never seen a hammer with a consciousness.
:eek:

[Merlin]

Otherwise, you're implying that hammers have consciousness.


Don't they??

Now, I have seen some politicians who have the consciousness level of a hammer, but I've never seen a hammer with a consciousness.

No??

[Jack]

You make a fair point, Terry - the label is important to some people, so in deleting 'hypnosis' what would we call it? Mesmerism has all sorts of connotations which would not be helpful and although 'hypnotherapy' has a more professional feel to it, it still includes the sleep word, and I think we are agreed that the hypnotic state is not one of sleep, even though I would contend that it is on the same continuum as sleep, and perhaps you would not agree with that.

The practice of hypnosis for therapeutic purposes makes it a therapy, but that doesn't get us any further since we do not want it falling into the 'it's a subsection of psychotherapy' trap, since it is not. Anyone have any ideas?

To me, what you practice, and what you have practiced for the last century or two (I am not quite there yet, but catching up fast!), is hypnotherapy, not hypnosis, which is simple to learn mechanically, and not just 'trance production' which is easy and has an indeterminate outcome, unlike hypnotherapy which demands intelligence, skill and many long years of honing. So forgive me if I insist that you are an hypnotherapist and not an hypnotist - it is meant in the best possible sense. For me, the word 'hypnotist' has too many references to stage hypnotism, of which I am not a great fan.

But we can agree to differ and I will understand that when you use the word 'hypnotist', in my cognition it will translate as 'hypnotherapist'. In that way we can respect each other's viewpoint, so nothing has really changed since I have always respected both your viewpoint and your numerous insights, even though you deserted England to live amongst Canadians.;)

Jack

(My eldest son has just said he might move to Vancouver, so it must be catching!)

[Poodle]

Braid wrote the first book on hypnosis entitled Neurypnology and tried to rename hypnosis monoideaism which worked no better than neurypology. The reason I am told in the USA that we use the word hypnotist is because Milton Erickson referred to himself as a hypnotist which is supposed to make us feel proud. Unfortunately, it doesn't make me feel proud as I do what I call "therapy" with it; otherwise I could just put on a stage show. Hypno comes from the Greek god of sleep so weze all in trouble here. IMHO Mesmerism would be worse so anyone got any better ideas?

We have some of the greatest minds in the world on this subject so please state your opinions. We really do need to get together before someone does it for us and in the case of the government here, it would be a real disaster for sure.

Terry is correct. We can teach someone how to produce a hypnotic trance but then what?? This is where the real learning curve comes in. I really don't go through medical journals for fun!

[Terry (existing)]

You are right Jack, as is Skip who says the same thing. I am indeed locked into therapy because I see it as the true value of the art of hypnosis, and without it there is nothing to be proud of, or to use in the commission of helping others. I have long claimed that producing trance is nothing, but using that trance for healing requires a great deal of study, and the use of a well developed imagination, in order to study, and develop suggestions that will give the required results. In fairness, Mesmerism, and later hypnosis, were always used for healing from the time of their inception, so it is perhaps reasonable for me to relate the word to the healing process and see them as one and the same.

[Merlin]

In many places, the word 'therapy' requires a state license, and a minimum of a psych degree.

'Hypnotist' does not require a psych degree.

[tdiamond]

I have used my hammer for more than nails.. that's for sure :)

[Poodle]

Black magic woman = woman who practices black magic. It does not say magic black woman. Are we showing our age here Don or what??? Pood

[Merlin]

I have used my hammer for more than nails.. that's for sure

I use a emery board for my nails ;)

[tdiamond]

HA HA HA HA .. most excellent....:D