--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy, > > Erickon's work extended its effectiveness into the group usually > thought to be resistant to hypnosis. I don't know what version you > tried, but I think being human means that you have access to these > states. I don't know if anyone is resistant to the states themselves. > Inducing them is up to the skill of the hypnotist. Being resistant to > induction is just another category in Erickson's system. Many people > who are resistant to verbal hypnotic techniques find that physical > techniques like massage put them into a hypnotic state. If you have > ever had a massage that the floaty state that makes the time fly by is > a version of a hypnotic state.
Yeah, I just don't tend to get into "floaty states." Massage certainly doesn't do it. I have beeen in states where the time flies by, but as it happens, they're states of intense, active concentration and focus. The only thing that produces "floaty states" for me is chemicals (grass, years ago; heavy-duty pain medication; nitrous oxide at the dentist). For me, TM is neither a "floaty state" nor, of course, one involving active concentration. It's a very *transparent* state, not something I get lost in. > Although I agree with your caution about being overly broad in the > definition of hypnosis, I am not sure that is not the same as with the > definitions of the development of consciousness in traditional > systems. I have no idea what you mean by that. In my understanding of hypnosis, which is very influenced by > Grinder and Bandler's view, our "usual" state of awareness can be > summed up as the percentage of attention we pay to the various sensory > input, combined with our internal awareness of mental pictures,talking > to ourselves, and kinesthetic awareness of our bodies. We have habits > of how we spend our awareness on each of these because there is a > limit to how much we can pay attention to at one time. But the > activity continues outside our conscious mind, so we are still getting > sensory input while ignoring it consciously, as well as phrases and > images that can run internally without our being conscious of them. > > With that long winded intro, I come to my understanding of what a > hypnotic state is: Any time we disrupt the ordinary percentages of > what we pay attention to, and shift if from outward to inward, > hypnotic conditions are present. We become aware of input we were > ignoring and begin to pay attention to the mind's subjective ability > to generate detailed experience. Then you go into a hypnotic state every time you close your eyes, or even start daydreaming with your eyes open. This is exactly what I mean by an overly broad definition. To say that meditative states are really hypnotic states no longer means anything, because you've defined hypnosis in such a way as to *include* meditative states. > I know this is not definitive. But is it useful to me. If you have > ever looked both ways in driving and not seen a car that was right in > front of you because you were internally directed, that negative > hallucination is a symptom of trance. To imagine and plan our > futures or be creative, we utilize these states every day. Right, we use them every day. So we've got "floaty" states, and intense-focus states, and planning what you're going to do tomorrow, and meditation, and daydreaming, and closing the eyes, and just about any state in which we're paying attention to some things without paying attention to other things, which is ultimately *only* state we can be in anyway, since we can never be paying attention to everything all at once. You've just defined away any kind of distinctions between these states. They're all "hypnotic." We're all going around in hypnotic states all the time. But > knowing their limits and uses seems important. There are also ways to > enhance the state and I would propose that meditation is one of them. > There are various depths of trance that can be achieved. I don't > mean "trance" as a pejorative although I understand that people with a > traditional model of understanding consciousness might see it that way. > > > After all that your point is well taken. The physiological approach > of differentiating states is still in its infancy, but may help in the > future. Till then I think was are ALL winging it, combining our words > with our experiences. I am enjoying the ride. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
