Hynosis for love

[Unregistered]

Can you convince someone to love you, or be attracted to you if you hypnotise them? I like this guy and I would love to just try it, I'll take him out of it after he kisses me, but I'm just curious. Please let me know. If I can, can someone tell me how to hypnotise someone. Or tell me what book I should buy that is very good with the hypnosis instructions.

[Don]

Let me ask you a question. Imagine, for a moment, the ugliest, skankiest, guy you know, sombody with body odor you can smell a block away and breath that could kill an elephant.

How would you like it if he used any technique to convince you to love him or be attracted to him just until you kiss him? Ewwww. What would you think about a person who forced you by some means to kiss him? Could you love such a sleaze in the future? I doubt it.

Now I'm sure you're not a skank at all and, in fact, are quite desirable. But forcing someone to love you or be attracted to you by any means is a self-defeating activity. In the long run he won't like you and will be angry with you and you'll dislike yourself even more.

So what can you do? Find out what he's interested in. Study it a bit yourself. Ask him questions about it. Having something in common is far more likely to get you together than trying to force someone to care about you.

[Frog420]

Hi Unregistered and Don,

Don if I may I'd like to point out that Miss/Mr Unregistered asked

Can you convince someone to love you, or be attracted to you if you hypnotise them? can you?

[Unregistered]

That is true. I never thought of it like that. I mean he is my best friend after all and his friendship is definately worth more than a single kiss. Thank you for helping me see the light.

[The Mentalist]

what about if you want to love someone but don't?

[Unregistered]

what about if you want to love someone but don't?
You can only work with what's already there.

[skip]

I disagree.

We are creators, we can imagine anything, and the unconscious doesnt distinguish between imagination and reality.

[skip]

Yes you can.

The question is do you really want to?

[Frog420]

Playing Cupid could be fun and rewarding for both myself and my friends. but i still doubt it would be possible, love is an emotion and you can't force people to keep one emotion going for long periods of time...

however getting enough intrest to get a date sound perfectly plausable and desirable and not too mind controlly, know what i mean?

[Shlomo_NLP]

No you cannot since mind control is currently only a myth

you can change your own habits and thought patterns to make yourself more likable and have the kind of personality traits that person is attracted to... maybe it will help

[skip]

If you know it cant be done, you would be right.

However, if you know it can be done, you would be right too!

Love, is like any other emotion, and as such is subject to manipulation via NLP techniques.

Everyone has a strategy for falling in love, again subject to NLP techniques.

Whether arrived at accidentaly or deliberately, the 'love' felt, is genuine, and subject thru time, to the same possible outcomes that all love is subject to.

I mean by that, that love is a process not a destination. It doesnt stand still, it either grows stronger or diminished, it is never stagnant.

Those who are smart learn how to nourish it, those who arent leave it up to chance.

skip

[Unregistered]

I disagree.

We are creators, we can imagine anything, and the unconscious doesnt distinguish between imagination and reality.

We accept information through the senses, pcocess it with the reticular activating system and make new and possibly astonishing connections between concepts, but we create nothing. We make connections. It can feel like creation, but it's engineering. This is why you cannot,as you know, hypnotise someone into something contra to what's already there.

A limited view of humanity? No. Just look at what we've achieved with it alone.

[skip]

You are welcome to this belief if you want to keep it.

It is contrary to reality.

And it is contrary to many peoples experience, some of whom are on this list.

Call me deluded if you like, thats your choice, but it doesnt have to be.

AND FYI I have hypnotized/awakened many people to something that wasnt already there. At least for them. As to whether it was already there, and no one knew it, is a hole nother question. :)

What specifically is the extent of what's there, so I can know if I have exceeded it?

[Merlin]

>love is an emotion

Love is a decision. Emotions follow.

[Shlomo_NLP]

Since finding someone's falling inlove strategy is almost impossible if he/she doesn't know you well... it would be hard to make a stranger feel that way toward you unless you work on your own attractive personality traits...

I don't believe one word that "seduction" gurus are selling, since I saw one of their leaders "in action"... if you just met someone, most chances are that they would not be susceptible to your hidden commands.

The best way is to make yourself more desirable, then you can really choose who's right for you and who's not.

[Unregistered]

You are welcome to this belief if you want to keep it.

It is contrary to reality.

And it is contrary to many peoples experience, some of whom are on this list.

Call me deluded if you like, thats your choice, but it doesnt have to be.

AND FYI I have hypnotized/awakened many people to something that wasnt already there. At least for them. As to whether it was already there, and no one knew it, is a hole nother question. :)

What specifically is the extent of what's there, so I can know if I have exceeded it?

I don't doubt you have awoken people to things they didn't know were there but to awaken them to these things they must a) already have been there to be discovered, or b) you acted as a source of new information. Both lead to the synthesis of novel configurations of existing concepts, but not their creation. You can explore the implications of information received but any synthesis is just that: extrapolation of known concepts.

And I don't think you're deluded, Skip. Quite the opposite, but think of a blue elephant and you naturally use concepts already collected to synthesize such an image. Similarly, think of a blue Venusian and you'll also use concepts of aliens and what Venus is like that you've already collected. Such concepts may even lead you to decide that any form of Venusian life cannot exist.

But think of the square root of 2 written down in blue ink and you're lost if you don't already know the square root of 2. You don't know what goes onthe paper so it feels like a bunch of numbers (possibly even "1"). If I tell you it's actually about 1.42 (strange, isn't it?) you can then create the neccessary imagery correctly, but you couldn't create it on your own without reaching for the calculator. The upshot is that you used your existing concept of square roots to imagine a "reasonable" number 0 < n < 2.

[Unregistered]

>love is an emotion

Love is a decision. Emotions follow.
Surely you've experienced falling in love, Merlin?

[skip]

I think I understood your argument the first time. 'We cannot experience, or think of, or imagine, that which we have no basis for.'

And at first blush it seems self evident.

Except that it denys the possibility of new experience, if you are open to it. And believing it, most certainly means that you wont feel around the edges of your limits just to discover if they are real or illusory.

So in my mind, whether true or not, it isnt a very useful belief to have, so I dont. But I dont think it is even true.

Ill say it again, if you are so sure the box is solid, you will never be able to think outside of it.

Ill also offer you proof, self experiential proof, but you will have to 'do the drills to get the skills', and I am reasonably sure you wont do it, because your belief system will prevent you even trying. But we will see.

Read Robert Anton Wilson's "Proemtheus Rising", a short fascinating book, that is an easy read. At the end of each chapter, Robert gives specific drills to allow you to experience what he has taught you intellectually in the chapter. At the end of either chapter one, or two, there is an exercise for mainfesting money. Ill even send you an e-copy of the relevent chapter, if you will promise to purchas Robert's book if the 'proof' pans out.

Do that honestly, and then we can discuss what we know experientially verses what we think we know intellectually.

Is that fair?

skip

[skip]

"Since finding someone's falling inlove strategy is almost impossible if he/she doesn't know you well... it would be hard to make a stranger feel that way toward you unless you work on your own attractive personality traits... "

I am surprised at your opinion Shlomo.

Since strategies are unconscious, all you need to do is ask them about falling in love, and their honest unconscious response will present the strategy.

Very simple, easy, if you know how, and most NLP practioners know how to elicit strategies.

skip

[Unregistered]

I think I understood your argument the first time. 'We cannot experience, or think of, or imagine, that which we have no basis for.'

And at first blush it seems self evident.

Except that it denys the possibility of new experience, if you are open to it. And believing it, most certainly means that you wont feel around the edges of your limits just to discover if they are real or illusory.

So in my mind, whether true or not, it isnt a very useful belief to have, so I dont. But I dont think it is even true.

Ill say it again, if you are so sure the box is solid, you will never be able to think outside of it.

Ill also offer you proof, self experiential proof, but you will have to 'do the drills to get the skills', and I am reasonably sure you wont do it, because your belief system will prevent you even trying. But we will see.

Read Robert Anton Wilson's "Proemtheus Rising", a short fascinating book, that is an easy read. At the end of each chapter, Robert gives specific drills to allow you to experience what he has taught you intellectually in the chapter. At the end of either chapter one, or two, there is an exercise for mainfesting money. Ill even send you an e-copy of the relevent chapter, if you will promise to purchas Robert's book if the 'proof' pans out.

Do that honestly, and then we can discuss what we know experientially verses what we think we know intellectually.

Is that fair?

skip

Already read it, Skip. An interesting read, but it has its detractors.

In the spirit of discovery, take a moment to try to think of a completely new concept, one that bears absolutely no relation to anything else. It quickly becomes apparent that this is impossible, but has quite interesting trance-inducing potential. Everything we can think of has some relation to concepts of which we are already aware. There's good evidence, including fMRI data, to suggest that this is why we cannot imagine infinity.

I suppose I could also, with respect, counter with the argument that what you're doing is thinking inside your own box whilst I'm thinking in mine. The question is, how did I get from your box to mine?

Let's just agree to disagree instead...

[Shlomo_NLP]

Skip, I understand your point, but don't be surprised. Since we learned NLP we know what strategies are and how to elicit them, but there are also social boundaries out there... how long will it take you to elicit a stranger's falling inlove strategy? And will that person be willing to literally go through the experience and trust you during it? How will you explain why you're asking these strange questions?

The point is, that the responsibility for whether or not someone falls in love with you is not completely on your shoulders. In fact, it is mostly about that person rather than about you... that's why people fall in love sometimes with the "wrong" people...

and about strategies - what you learn today about a person's strategy can be completely changed tomorrow. People evolve. Strategies evolve and change. Let's say it's possible to snap your finger and make someone fall in love with you - you will need to keep eliciting their strategy and match it over and over, so they won't "fall out" love...

and as many great trainers and founders said, I might be wrong but I'm on the right... :-)

[Simple Guy]

Shlomo,

"and about strategies - what you learn today about a person's strategy can be completely changed tomorrow. People evolve. Strategies evolve and change. Let's say it's possible to snap your finger and make someone fall in love with you - you will need to keep eliciting their strategy and match it over and over, so they won't "fall out" love... "

The core strategies of most adults are pretty ossified, though. Evolution
for adults is often slow and subject to significant revision only by major
events. The notable exceptions include adults that benefit by transformative
processes of NLP, hypnotherapy, etc. And as for love, I wonder about the
strategy that may have been employed by your namesake Shlomo Ha Melech
(King Solomon), whose wisdom may have eluded him as he secured hundreds
of wives. ;)

[skip]

Shlomo,

I have no problem with love being something that fits with what is within the other person. It is what they require, and if fulfilled, they will respond predictably by falling in love. Takes about 15 seconds on the outside, to learn someones strategy.

Trust in 'allowing ' me to learn it is a rapport issue, a fairly easy skill to master.

AND as I said in my first post, falling in love is one process, staying in love is another.
The smart people who want to keep their partners, learn how to maintain and enhance that 'love process' in the other person, otherwise it is left to chance. Ask any couple who have been together for 20 or so years.

Now you seem to think that love must be something that happens 'accidentally', while your NLP training has shown you countless 'accidental' behaviors that can he elicited, duplicated, and/or altered deliberately, with predictable results. What makes you think love is any different, and why would you think it?

skip

[Terry (existing)]

May a very fortunate gentleman take you all back to square one? Nobody in all those very interesting posts, has taken the time to either question or explain the term "Love", and until you understand the subject, how can you possibly discuss it intelligently? I have heard some comment about being in love, when in fact they were the victim of lust only. I have known parents who claim to love their children, but smother them in an effort to make them the sort of entity who will be a credit to mom and dad, not be themselves when that is who they are supposed to be. I hear people say they love their friends, yet never visit them when they are in hospital and need support. And finally, I have heard people say they believe in God, yet at no time do they show that belief through any action towards God or their neighbour whom they are commanded to love.
In some cases as illustrated, these people truly believe what they say at the time, yet when the feelings fade, they claim that "love died"...In fact, no love ever existed, so it couldn't die....
Make up your mind what YOU mean by love, and then discuss it properly. To me, love is a step process, the first time I met my redhead, we were on a train in Northern Ontario, returning to our residences after camping down south, she with Rangers, and I with Rover scouts. At first glance, I decided she was gorgeous, and I had to get to know her, "lust". After spending an evening sitting together (discussing God only knows what, I don't remember), I decided she was special...It was only after many months of contact that I decided she was the person I wanted to spend my life with, so to me, LOVE is a series of steps, but the important question is, do you agree? Only by coming to common agreement about a subject can a discussion take place that will result in any learning, and surely that is the intent of a discussuon is it not? To me, the original post was dumb, it suggested a desire to control the feelings of another, analogous to my comments about parents who only want their children to reflect well on them,not become whom they choose to be. On the other hand, for them to decide if they asked a dumb question, they must first dwell on their own definition of love, or perhaps understand their own desire to be kissed by someone not in love with them. Or even perhaps wonder at the value of their friendship, and if they truly accept it without the need of being kissed to prove it? If love exists, it will grow in steps without regard or need for intervention by hypnosis or any outside help. If it doesn't exist, in the manner desired by the poster, it may become another form of love, that of friendship. Not a bad deal I suggest, friends are hard to come by, the real ones that is....

[Unregistered]

Well.. my definition of love:
When a person itself becomes such a powerful anchor that the thought of this person gives you extraordinaly good feelings ( new chemicals in the body.. different brainstate.. )
Some go even that far that everything they see this person do is also ok for them since the person is also in the picture when they see the activity..
which sounds pretty dangerous to me.. even if the person loved causes real pain the person in love can sometimes still get the response in their body which they connect with the word love..

hmm.. sounds like the good old pavlovs dog conditioning to me..

dog:
sound--> food...

person in love:
picture--> feeling..
voice--> feeling...
touch--> feeling..
taste--> feeling
smell--> feeling

but then again.. it's a pretty "human" thing to say we're superior to all animals.. since it feels good.. for some.. ;)

[Unregistered]

My God! What part does romance and basic sexual urge play in all this then? Or advantage or protection or a heap of other things? Be brave and dive in. Fall in love with someone freely and with glee. They'll probably love you for something you never even noticed about yourself anyway. The general population doesn't think love's a trick, a "decision" (of all things!), or some abstract meta-programming. There are even a couple of widely celebrated male swans paddling about the river Cam in England that have set up nest together!

A "Definition" of love? what for?

[Merlin]

>Surely you've experienced falling in love, Merlin?

I've experienced infatuation, even lust.
Do you equate such with love?

[Shlomo_NLP]

Simple Guy, I enjoyed your answer, I wouldn't want to be Solomon the kind with his thousand wives though.. too many bills! :-) cheers.

and Skip, you're absolutely right, come to think of it I matched my girlfriend's strategy without even knowing it at the time... I guess what I thought about was not falling in love but actually maintaining a healthy relationship which is the hardest part...

and Terry is right, we haven't even said what love is. It's different for me surely than other people.

However, it will take time till I define it :-) it's a complex emotion, isn't it...

Merlin, I guess the immediate question that comes to mind to you is - lust toward whom? and as much as I can say from my own experience, lust does often becomes more than itself... maybe love?

[Unregistered]

>Surely you've experienced falling in love, Merlin?

I've experienced infatuation, even lust.
Do you equate such with love?
Not really, no.

[Merlin]

> and as much as I can say from my own experience, lust does often becomes more than itself... maybe love?

I think that would be great.
But do you honestly believe all or even most lust grows into love?
Or do people simply move on to the next lust?

[j0hnny#]

To chip in on the love thing.... I think Terry's first post drew out intuitions we all, perhaps, share about love. One essential element must be compassion, a commitment to suffer with the ones we love... no matter what. This takes dedication, devotion, empathy. Perhaps to sustain these, we have to have some kind of fundamental overriding pleasure from their existence, and be willing to do whatever it takes should misfortune fall upon them (sacrifice). Lust could potentially be one such motive, as can pride (proud of, e.g., look, actions, etc.), or an abilitiy to generate laughter (sense of humour), (perhaps the more such factors the more possibility of love) but without it actually motivating the compassionate element the formula will fall short of love. Of course, lust and pride, humoursity, etc. could fail to realise the other's individuality (personhood) and take the object of affection as one only of pleasure. However this is dysfunctional toward any kind of loving relationship - and let's face it for people to be IN love, they must stand in some particular kind of relation to one another. Are they IN love if they do not recognise the personhood of their partner? Doubt it. They might love what they get from their presence, though this will only give an individual an object for their experience... it might as well be an automaton, its use is only functional. To stand in the shoes of another and understand something of their struggle, to realise they exist, to realise they have ends, to realise they can struggle toward those ends the same way any of us can, now that would open up the possibility of compassion (and love), that would humble one before another, so that when they are in pain, we feel our own because of it. It seems to me, love cannot be without great care, and great care for another human being cannot be without the realisation of their personhood. I cannot get 'into another persons shoes', although I have my own shoes. If I reflect on my own case I will be capable of projecting something of what it might be like for another, IF, that is, I realise their existence as a person. The depth of my love for another will be determined in part by the amount of care I have for their ends and how much I surrender to my realisation of their 1st person orientation toward them. The things that open up the possibility of that interest serve a purpose, but you cannot be IN love with something whose sole function is that of a servant, you must also care about what they do and that they are. Also for there to be love between, the sentiments must be reciprocal. This is why Don's initial answer is appropriate, and why SHlomo and Skip's postitions both, to me, have some positive force. I need to change me to be capable of being loved, it will help if I know their strategy, though without the reciprocal great care there will be no loving relationship - just self-centred functional using.

Johnny

[Shlomo_NLP]

with some it is confused with falling in love... I know I had those mixed a few times before...

[Unregistered]

looking at all of your answers,i guess it's true "If you ask 5 hypnotists a question,you will get 5 diffrent answers."

[Experience_and_Smart]

Well really what you are asking is for a spell type thing? If that is the case than no. If a person really loves you it wouldn't take hypnosis. But obvisouly if you are asking that is not the case. You cannot change someones free will by hypnosis.

[rodimus]

Guys and gals

Think about this. What is love and attraction? They are both processes, not things/objects. Every process has a strategy or several strategies to get to an outcome.

WHat is hypnosis? It is simply - persuasion, suggestion and influence.

So a beautiful girl with a hot body in a bikini, and men feel attracted to her, isnt that hypnosis? Or a charming man with good personality or a great smile, it hypnotises people indirectly to like him. Or a man who is a sweet talker.

So u mean if u cant use hypnosis to make someone like u, u are saying that u are not going to do anything at all?

[russ]

Hypnosis is more than suggestion, persuasion , influence. Persuasion does not equate to hypnosis. Hypnosis involves trance. You'll never get this forum to agree on what love is.I believe it is possible to "create" a feeling of strong sexual desire towards a designated person. The feeling would probably wear off over a few months time unless reinforced.

[rodimus]

everything is hypnosis, because everything is belief

[russ]

Main Entry: hyp·no·sis
Pronunciation: hip-'nO-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hyp·no·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: New Latin
1 : a state that resembles sleep but is induced by a person whose suggestions are readily accepted by the subject
2 : any of various conditions that resemble sleep

[Merlin]

>I believe it is possible to "create" a feeling of strong sexual desire towards a designated person...

Or Dog, or horse, or sheep, or fish, or doorknob.
But it isn't love!

[russ]

I agree it isn't Merlin. I think lust is what the original poster had in mind. Speaking of doorknobs, I had a friend in Scotland who swore he met a girl who was aroused by birdhouses.

[Don]

Dictionaries give popular definitions, not necessarily correct ones. Their purpose is to help people communicate. Therefore, they need to give popular, not necessarily actual, definitions of terms. Of course, it is hoped that the popular and correct defintion correspond, but that's not always the case.

"Bad" means not good.
But "bad" as in "That's baaaaad" may mean "that's real good."

The poor quality of it's etymology of the word makes one wonder about the rest of the definition.

[Russ]

I see what you mean Don.

The point I was trying to make was that hypnosis involves trance.

Never mind the fact that many other things involve trance that aren't hypnosis.

This is a good example of the great pitfalls of deductive logic.

[j0hnny#]

This is a good example of the great pitfalls of deductive logic.

seems more a pitfall of equivocating than deductive logic

[Russ]

Isn't equivocating a form of deductive logic?

[Don]

I would think that equivocating is a way around deductive logic by giving false premises (which automatically makes the conclusion of the logical argument false, although the result may still be true).

[j0hnny#]

Isn't equivocating a form of deductive logic?

no

deductive logic follows rules of inference e.g.

if p then q
p
therefore
q

this rule is called modus ponens the conclusion follows from the premises. The argument is valid.
equivocation disables the validity of the argument. For what appears to be p (when equivocating) is not really p (perhaps call it psuedo P).

What you have when you are equivocating p is :

if psuedo p then q
p
therefore
q

the argument is not valid - the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

If you want to call it a pitfall of deductive logic then you will have to call it a pitfall of bad deductive logic - or incorrectly deducing in accordance with rules of inference, poor reasoning, whatever...

[Russ]

Modus Ponens is mode that affirms in latin (I think, correct me If I am wrong).

Equivocating is substituting a word with different meanings in different places in an argument (again, correct me If I am wrong)

I thought equivocation was pseudo deduction. I missed the fact that "pseudo" would invalidate it entirely.

I admit I was wrong *sadness*.I have no future as a nuclear safety inspector like my role model Homer.

[j0hnny#]

Modus Ponens is mode that affirms in latin (I think, correct me If I am wrong).

yes, (from if P then Q) if you affirm the antecedent (P) then you can derive the consequent (Q) - the argument if p then q, p therefore q is valid via modus ponens.


Equivocating is substituting a word with different meanings in different places in an argument (again, correct me If I am wrong) yes, it could be that

I thought equivocation was pseudo deduction. I missed the fact that "pseudo" would invalidate it entirely.
yes, psuedo deduction is not deduction


I admit I was wrong *sadness*.I have no future as a nuclear safety inspector like my role model Homer.

:D well now, that is not a given - you already have given the matter more thought than most.