freaked out

#30

Postby cathB » Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:11 pm

i guess a better way of stating it would be that your unconscious mind is in total control but you are not in control of your unconscious mind so are therefore are being controlled indirectly through it. either way, it seems to be a very disturbing state of affairs imo and not at all an entertaining or positive one as it has been depicted to be.


Ahimsa this is the last thing I am going to say.... What I said earlier about intelligence imagination etc is what Stage hypnotists say. it's not necessarily true. Hypnosis is in everything as I have said in the Post -Hypnotism topic.

How can I reassure you that. Your subconscious mind is your friend? it protects you it is all seeing. Have you ever, for example woken up in the night and said I wonder what time it is? then said it's about 3 am. Looked at your clock and it's just gone after 3 am. that's the best way I can think of to describe that you subconscious is "all seeing". it looks out for you. You'll never do anything against your own morals or values. We have said this already. I am sorry if I haven't been all that clear.

We are demystifying hypnosis which takes out most of the fun and fantasy from it all. What is it that you want to get out of this topic? All I can say in regards to "Therapy" they act as an aid and a tool to enable people to move on with their lives. to be happy and content. Again Hypnosis is everywhere..... we are all hypnotists even if we don't know it. we influence each other all the time with language etc. The End! :)
cathB
Junior Member
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:52 pm
Likes Received: 2


#31

Postby moonlightress » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:09 am

ahimsa42 wrote:… the only thing i could accept (but most definitely not relate to) is that perhaps because the subject agrees to be put into such a state they are willingly tricking themselves into forgetting their name or how to count. perhaps moontress or someone else who has experienced it can comment on this. the question is then, what is the difference between agreeing to play along and being forced and unable to resist doing so?

This is why I joined the conversation, not to say "I don't see any problem with it", which would not have been much of a contribution. I think your concern is a very valid one – it *is* disturbing that someone could come along and hypnotise you without your consent, and that you would then follow instructions you wouldn’t otherwise want to follow. I don’t believe hypnosis is 100% harmless and I am cautious about what I allow into my own subconscious on anything other than a temporary basis.

In the example I gave, "willingly tricking myself" is accurate; what I did in that situation was to deliberately step into the hypnotist's frame and allow what he said to become my reality. So when he told me (in trance) to erase the number 4 from a blackboard, to imagine that the 3 and the 5 shifted towards each other to close the gap and then suggested that what I had erased had ceased to exist, I accepted this suggestion as my reality. What was so funny and interesting to me, after I emerged from the trance, was I knew perfectly well it was a trick and yet it worked, the number had gone. I found it fun but I didn’t really do this primarily for entertainment, I did it to experience it, as I found the fact that my mind could work in that way, fascinating. Yes, I willingly let myself be tricked. I’m not a big control freak, I’m curious. I gave my explicit consent to this though; which is relevant to your concern.

(Personally, I’d never volunteer for a stage show. I’m suggestible and would certainly go into hypnosis, but since I am very introvert and not exhibitionistic, I’d be a boring, passive subject of no entertainment value, and get sent back to my seat.)

But on the topic of being able to resist hypnosis, interestingly I’ve recently had someone try to hypnotise me covertly, without first obtaining my consent. I’ve been in formal trance upwards of 500 times in the past year, so I’m conditioned, I know the feeling of going into hypnosis well and do so with ease. I resisted this attempt quite easily, and upon reflection, I can think of two possible reasons, both *because* of my trance experience.

The hypnotherapist I mentioned earlier gave me some trigger words for self-hypnosis (and for subsequent sessions with her) which, when I say or even just think them, with the intention of going into trance, will take me there. They’re ordinary words, one is “deep”, which I have spoken about in another thread here in the sub-forum. Significantly, she qualified them with “when it is safe and appropriate”. If I were to stand in a long supermarket queue and think “I’d rather be deep in trance right now”, or someone said that to me, nothing would happen; it’s neither safe nor appropriate. This “assessment” phrase (even without the triggers) has become so embedded in my mind, that even though I can enter trance easily when I choose to do so, I’m extra discerning about *when* it is 'safe and appropriate'. With this guy’s attempt, it was neither, so with or without triggers, just that phrase in my mind seemed to help “guard the door”, so to speak.

But I think there’s another reason why I was able to resist it. There’s a collection of tapes I listen to, where the hypnotist uses the phrase “feel the tug – and follow it down”. That “tug” is the feeling of being “pulled” into trance (some call it ‘going under’ which term I don’t much like; I think you ‘go into’, not ‘under’). While this guy was talking to me, even though I forget now what wording he used, I felt that tug come up in me. Because I’d felt and followed it down so many times, I was able to identify it the instant I felt it and become aware that the guy was attempting to hypnotise me. It was a fun and interesting conversation we were having (about hypnosis), and I was listening openly but even though the attempt wasn’t sinister, I *didn’t want* to go into hypnosis then and didn’t like the sneakiness of it, as I didn’t know him well. The moment I felt the tug, I called him on it, saying “you’re trying to hypnotise me now, stop”. He denied it, but in a subsequent conversation, admitted to it. We ended up having several long, fascinating hypnosis discussions after I’d made it clear we weren’t going there. In this case, it was the ability to feel that tug immediately, that alerted me and made me able to resist it.

(All the above said, if a skilled hypnotist like Anthony Jacquin approached me and used a rapid or instant/shock induction, I’d likely drop into trance right away, as he follows the diversion of attention with an virtually simultaneous deepener (rocking), which you see in his videos. What I can do, would be no match for that.)

As an aside, I don’t know what kind of meditation you have done, but back when I did it, our teacher, (from the Tibetan Buddhist tradition) taught us to develop “observer consciousness”. I don’t know if a well-developed observer consciousness in an experienced meditator, might “watch out” for one? If that consciousness is the same or different from conscious awareness? Just throwing that in the mix, perhaps you, Jimmy can comment on that?

ahimsa42 wrote:to me, being in control of my own faculties at all times is far more desirable than having an interesting experience and not being in control. i guess this is one of the big reasons i never drank alcohol or took drugs.[...]

[...] just as i cannot see why people would want to get drunk and act silly, i can't see why anyone would find it entertaining to be put into an incapacitated state where they cannot think or reason for themselves.

Hopefully that has been answered. Some would, some wouldn’t. I cannot, for the life of me, relate to why on earth anyone would voluntarily eat jalapeno peppers that burn their mouths to the point of pain and streaming eyes, and then again in the other end, I'm told. And pay good money for it! ;)

ahimsa42 wrote:good question. i would most certainly feel very foolish & ashamed if that were the case but not sure what i could do, if anything, with the information gained from such an experience.

I’m also curious about this question Jimmy posed and your answer that you wouldn’t know what to do with the information. You say you’d feel foolish and ashamed and find it most disturbing that you could lose your autonomy in this way. Yes, it would shock and shake you to find this within yourself. But, if anything, holding on to control too tightly, makes you more vulnerable. A person is stronger for knowing where their weaknesses lie. If you read what all the wisest people throughout history have written or said, they admit that control and autonomy are illusions.

Jimmy's already said it:
jimmyh wrote: Worldview changes usually aren't *comfortable*, but they can be exciting and leave you with more capabilities on the other side. In this case, you'd be looking for things like "improved control and meta-control in situations where your control might not have been as good as you'd thought" as well as "ability to lean on others and allow them to influence you when it is beneficial to do so".

I think you (Jimmy) have also written that a mindset which leaves some room for possible failure, is a more stable one? In your blog, iirc? It stuck in my mind. That's a form of control.

And I really would love to hear your comments on all of this, ahimsa. :)
moonlightress
Full Member
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:03 am
Likes Received: 11

#32

Postby cathB » Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:28 pm

Well Said Moonlightress,
You have explained it very well I wholeheartedly agree.
Thank you for clearing all that up. Next time I'll just leave it to you and Jimmyh. The Experts ;)
CB
cathB
Junior Member
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:52 pm
Likes Received: 2

#33

Postby jimmyh » Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:56 am

I don't have the time to do even read let alone respond to all of this right now, but some thoughts..

I don't think you think moonlighttress or Richard Feynman are fools for being willing and able to experience that. This makes "I would feel very foolish and ashamed" less a statement of "one *ought* to feel ashamed of this because it *is* foolish!" and more a statement of "I don't know how to see it any other way". And indeed, you said you don't really know how to take it if you were to find a hypnotist able to hypnotize you in such a way. These things, combined with your continued interest here (rather than simply marking it "foolish" and moving on) suggests that you would actually *like* the option of being able to see it in this other way. Not so that you can do it, necessarily, but so that can understand what you're missing. Does this feel right?

The short answer, as has been touched on earlier, is that it's not actually a loss of control in the sense that matters. Sure, when you're in the passenger seat you're not in *direct* control of the vehicle, but when you get in an uber and tell them where to go, they tend to do it. The ability to be comfortable with less *direct* control not only allows you to take ubers and travel on airlines, it also allows you to have more freedom to move intellectually, and to learn from others. For example, when all of the smart and scientifically minded people you know agree that vaccines don't cause autism, you can probably accept that as true instead of doing a literature review of your own. Theoretically they could manipulate your beliefs simply by lying, and unless you fact check everything you're going to end up taking many things on "faith". However, if you're careful to make sure people earn the trust you place on them, this tends to work out and get you to where you need to go.

This probably doesn't feel like a satisfying answer though, and that's because things don't automatically connect. While it might make sense why you can take an uber somewhere, it doesn't *feel* like the same thing as allowing someone to guide you into forgetting the number 3 or whatever. And in some ways it isn't, obviously. The question is whether the differences actually change things as it applies here, and if so, "why?".

The reason I ask what you'd do with that information if someone were to succeed in forgetting your name or something is that it highlights the fact that things are still fuzzy and only in a "felt sense", so to speak. I don't have time to lay it out in any detail, but focusing on this (in the Gendlin sense) will help bring some clarity to what exactly your aversion has to say, and when such an aversion would make sense.
jimmyh
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:17 pm
Likes Received: 22

#34

Postby ahimsa42 » Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:21 am

jimmyh wrote:I don't have the time to do even read let alone respond to all of this right now, but some thoughts..

I don't think you think moonlighttress or Richard Feynman are fools for being willing and able to experience that. This makes "I would feel very foolish and ashamed" less a statement of "one *ought* to feel ashamed of this because it *is* foolish!" and more a statement of "I don't know how to see it any other way". And indeed, you said you don't really know how to take it if you were to find a hypnotist able to hypnotize you in such a way. These things, combined with your continued interest here (rather than simply marking it "foolish" and moving on) suggests that you would actually *like* the option of being able to see it in this other way. Not so that you can do it, necessarily, but so that can understand what you're missing. Does this feel right?


i would not agree with your assessment Jimmy. i would not like to experience it personally and probably should not speak for others on how they should or should not feel about it. i most definitely do not in any way feel that by refusing to be put in such a state i am in any way missing out on anything what so ever. as i said previously, i consider such susceptibility to suggestion to be a major flaw and weakness and have not changed my views when it comes to this point as i would most certainly feel lesser about myself if i were to succumb to it.

The short answer, as has been touched on earlier, is that it's not actually a loss of control in the sense that matters. Sure, when you're in the passenger seat you're not in *direct* control of the vehicle, but when you get in an uber and tell them where to go, they tend to do it. The ability to be comfortable with less *direct* control not only allows you to take ubers and travel on airlines, it also allows you to have more freedom to move intellectually, and to learn from others. For example, when all of the smart and scientifically minded people you know agree that vaccines don't cause autism, you can probably accept that as true instead of doing a literature review of your own. Theoretically they could manipulate your beliefs simply by lying, and unless you fact check everything you're going to end up taking many things on "faith". However, if you're careful to make sure people earn the trust you place on them, this tends to work out and get you to where you need to go.


i would consider any loss of direct control of my direct actions to greatly matter. there is a huge difference between being a passenger in an uber and being passenger in your own body & mind. i would also consider many of the hypnotic suggestions we have been discussing as lying but it only becomes an issue if the subject buys into them. for example, if someone were to be walking down the street and a stranger walked up and told them to start behaving in illogical and irrational ways and they complied to do so, the person performing the acts would be considered an extremely gullible and foolish person. how is this any different from what we are talking about (and, in fact, from what i have discovered recently it IS NOT any different but more about that in the next section).

This probably doesn't feel like a satisfying answer though, and that's because things don't automatically connect. While it might make sense why you can take an uber somewhere, it doesn't *feel* like the same thing as allowing someone to guide you into forgetting the number 3 or whatever. And in some ways it isn't, obviously. The question is whether the differences actually change things as it applies here, and if so, "why?".

The reason I ask what you'd do with that information if someone were to succeed in forgetting your name or something is that it highlights the fact that things are still fuzzy and only in a "felt sense", so to speak. I don't have time to lay it out in any detail, but focusing on this (in the Gendlin sense) will help bring some clarity to what exactly your aversion has to say, and when such an aversion would make sense.


i have also continued to research it online and have found several very enlightening sources. i would post the direct links but apparently my account is too new to be allowed to be able to do so.

the first is a older video on youtube called "Science of Hypnosis BBC Documentary". in it, a reporter investigates the subject from many sides and eventually gets hypnotized herself. her attitude was very much like mine as she was also a control freak and worried about losing her autonomy. it turned out that she was easily able to reject the suggestions given to her. her discussion with the hypnotist afterwards indicated that there are just some people who are much more suggestible and the hypnotist himself admitted that he was not either but wishes that he were. at the end she says she was disappointed that she is not more hypnotizable and would try and "play along" more the next time. to me, this very strongly indicates that it is a voluntary state for many people and that resistance to suggestion when hypnotized is easily done as long s it's genuine.

the second is a research paper published in 1990 in the Psychological Review called "Hypnotic Involuntariness: A Social Cognitive Analysis". although being a scientific journal it is not an easy read, i found it extremely informative in regards to the question of voluntary & involuntary when it comes to hypnosis. it also concludes something very similar to the BBC documentary in that the involuntary aspect is a mere delusion created by the subject who is willingly to experience it even if they feel that this is not the case.

i will very likely at some point test this myself and then will have a firm answer. i will also have the opposite reaction to the BBC reporter and instead will be quite satisfied about not being able to be manipulated & confused when i choose to do so rather than regretting that i cannot experience it fully.
ahimsa42
Junior Member
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:36 pm
Likes Received: 0

#35

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:02 pm

ahimsa42 wrote: i most definitely do not in any way feel that by refusing to be put in such a state i am in any way missing out on anything what so ever.


Technically, they are missing out and you are too. That is the catch 22 of life. We make choices and whatever path we take, we miss out on the other path. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with not going down one path instead of another.

It is very normal to justify and become very comfortable with our own path. It is comfortable to rationalize that the path we are taking is positive or justified, regardless of behavior. If we failed to justify our actions it could be traumatic.

A person is anti-drug, but then one night they give a puff or swallow a pill. The next step is to then justify that decision. Eventually, they have taken the pill 200 times over the last year and they believe it is the best thing. You think the mind altering substance marijuana is bad? Of course it is not bad at all. It is medicinal and is nature’s gift to us all.

It is a perfectly fine perspective, but just recognize that the perspective is skewed as a form of mental protection. If a person has allowed themselves to repeatedly do “stupid” things, then of course they will say it is liberating, creative, a sign of strength rather than weakness. And maybe they are correct. What does it matter to you?

An extreme example, but in war people do some pretty atrocious acts. The first kill is difficult, but kill 100 is just another day at the office. People must rationalize in order to deal with and rationalize their own actions in a positive light. That includes you, me, and everyone else in this forum.

Another extreme example is eating human flesh. The first time it certainly is hard to stomach, no pun intended, but the second, third, fourth...hundredth time, it becomes rationalized as a demonstration of strength. I’m talking about both in survival case studies in western culture as well as the normalization of such practices in certain cultures.

You cannot expect cath or jimmy or moonlightress to present hypnosis as anything other than this positive, liberating, creative demonstration of strength. I would do the same if I had gone down the hypnosis path. And so would you after the first few times you gave it a try. It is normal.

My main point is that very quickly it is human nature to rationalize our behaviors in the most positive light. If we allow ourselves to bark like a dog, for some people this displays strength and creativity...for them anyway.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10195
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1028

#36

Postby jimmyh » Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:26 pm

i most definitely do not in any way feel that by refusing to be put in such a state i am in any way missing out on anything what so ever. as i said previously, i consider such susceptibility to suggestion to be a major flaw and weakness and have not changed my views when it comes to this point


I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Of course you don't feel like you're missing out, of course it still seems like a major flaw and weakness. Of course you haven't changed your views.

My point is that you were motivated to come here and ask. From your perspective, it's not "*Of course* Richard Feynman and all these others would be easily hypnotized. They're all fools!". If it were such an "of course!", there would be nothing to be curious about. If it were such an "of course", you'd simply have all your answers already, and know that you're not susceptible because you're not a fool.

However, you're here. And you feel that it's necessary to test.

It's usually impolite to tell others how they should feel, but it plays an important role here, and I can guarantee that moonlightress can handle it if you say you think she's a fool. Your views seem to imply that these people must be fools who should feel ashamed, yet I don't think it's only politeness that keeps you from saying it.

I may be wrong, of course, but can you really say "Despite the fact that Richard Feynman was a f***ing brilliant physicist, there is absolutely no chance that he saw something I don't. It's not that I'm missing the perspective that allows one to have increased mental flexibility without being vulnerable and foolish, it's that he misses the fact that it's impossible. He clearly can't see the seemingly common sense thing that *I* can see, which is that if you can succeed in tricking your brain to believe illogical things, you are a fool and should feel ashamed"?

How you handle that question is the interesting part, because that's where the two sides ("Richard Feynman was clearly brilliant and hyper-competant" and "if you're capable of being hypnotized, even on purpose, you're a fool") seem to clash.

it turned out that she was easily able to reject the suggestions given to her.[...]this very strongly indicates that it is a voluntary state for many people and that resistance to suggestion when hypnotized is easily done as long s it's genuine.
[...]
i will very likely at some point test this myself and then will have a firm answer. i will also have the opposite reaction to the BBC reporter and instead will be quite satisfied about not being able to be manipulated & confused when i choose to do so rather than regretting that i cannot experience it fully.


That's kinda like hiring a penetration tester to test your security, but then only allowing them to use the front door, only during the appointment time so that you can know to be hyper-vigilant, only if they show up in uniform that says "penetration tester", and with the only target within your system being something you pre-specify and can watch like a hawk. If all you want to do is go find an average hypnotist and show them that you can decline to accept the suggestions they give, then you can save your money because I guarantee you will succeed. There's simply nothing to learn there. The hypnotists with even half a clue won't even try.

Having good mental security is far *far* harder than this. Being fooled doesn't feel like "believing illogical things". It feels like believing *the truth*. The only signals which distinguish between believing the truth vs believing illogical things and are available from the *inside* are far more subtle than that.
jimmyh
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:17 pm
Likes Received: 22

#37

Postby jimmyh » Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:23 pm

People must rationalize in order to deal with and rationalize their own actions in a positive light.


While it is true that people usually have at least some need to put reasons to the things they do, and while it is common for people to not care much whether their reasons are actually good, it does not follow that this is solely an exercise of justifying what one already does/wishes to do regardless of the truth.

If you aim to actually do the right things, it is necessary to 1) have some idea why you're doing what you're doing, and 2) have those reasons be good enough that you can actually believe the conclusion is correct -- otherwise you're knowingly doing the wrong things and cannot change. "Rationalizing", in the strict sense of "putting to rational reasons the drives and motivations I have", is required for proper reasoning and behavior.

People who are doing the wrong thing [by your estimation] are still likely to justify their actions with reasoning that they are convinced by. This alone does not mean they are "rationalizing" in the sense of "averting their gaze from reasons to think they're wrong". It's still possible that they simply disagree because they see things you don't and/or because they don't see things that you do.

In order to make that distinction, you have to look to see whether they're capable of saying "here is why I did that" and follow with "and here's why it was the wrong thing to do. I will not do that again". It's certainly something [some] people are capable of doing, and definitely worth aspiring to.

You cannot expect cath or jimmy or moonlightress to present hypnosis as anything other than this positive, liberating, creative demonstration of strength. I would do the same if I had gone down the hypnosis path. And so would you after the first few times you gave it a try. It is normal.



Of course you can. I've transcended that kind of thing, remember? :P

That's why my take on hypnosis isn't *at all* "nothing but this positive liberating creative demonstration of strength". Heck, just in this thread I've portrayed hypnosis as this scary thing that one needs to be very cautious with because it can often have very bad results if gone about incautiously.

Ahimsa is *not wrong* to have a strong aversion to being hypnotized to forget his own name/etc. In fact, I have that aversion myself so *of course* I'd say that, right? ;)
jimmyh
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:17 pm
Likes Received: 22

#38

Postby ahimsa42 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:58 am

[
jimmyh wrote:( I may be wrong, of course, but can you really say "Despite the fact that Richard Feynman was a f***ing brilliant physicist, there is absolutely no chance that he saw something I don't. It's not that I'm missing the perspective that allows one to have increased mental flexibility without being vulnerable and foolish, it's that he misses the fact that it's impossible. He clearly can't see the seemingly common sense thing that *I* can see, which is that if you can succeed in tricking your brain to believe illogical things, you are a fool and should feel ashamed"?

How you handle that question is the interesting part, because that's where the two sides ("Richard Feynman was clearly brilliant and hyper-competant" and "if you're capable of being hypnotized, even on purpose, you're a fool") seem to clash.


this is where i would strongly disagree on both counts. how is the fact that he was unable to walk back to his seat any indication of mental flexibility? it would seem to me instead to be a lack of discipline and will power. how was accepting the suggestion when he decided not to not an indication of vulnerability? i guess the label of foolishness would be a personal thing based on how i would feel if i allowed myself to be mentally manipulated in such a manner.

That's kinda like hiring a penetration tester to test your security, but then only allowing them to use the front door, only during the appointment time so that you can know to be hyper-vigilant, only if they show up in uniform that says "penetration tester", and with the only target within your system being something you pre-specify and can watch like a hawk. If all you want to do is go find an average hypnotist and show them that you can decline to accept the suggestions they give, then you can save your money because I guarantee you will succeed. There's simply nothing to learn there. The hypnotists with even half a clue won't even try.


i don't understand what being an average hypnotist have to do with it? how would being tested by someone considered to be a supurbe hypnotist be any different? it seems to only work if the subject is completely willingly to play along and fool themselves. that was pretty much the conclusion of the paper i sited.

hypnosis is almost always presented as a method for "bypassing" the critical mind and being placed in a highly suggestible state but if it only works if the subject believes it does then to me it loses much if not all of it's reported power & mystique.

why would you say that a hypnotist with even half a clue would not try? do they only work with subjects who are willing to buy into it to avoid possible failure & embarrassment? the hypnotist in the BBC documentary i watched seemed to say that it is only the very highly suggestible subjects who are so susceptible and that for those who are not, it is quite trivial to resist suggestions as the reporter herself did.

Having good mental security is far *far* harder than this. Being fooled doesn't feel like "believing illogical things". It feels like believing *the truth*. The only signals which distinguish between believing the truth vs believing illogical things and are available from the *inside* are far more subtle than that.


i'm not sure what you mean by good mental security but even if you would not consider it as having "good" mental security, it is without a doubt far superior to resist suggestions than to just buy into them and go along. if the "truth" that is believed is illogical and irrational, that would make those who believe it foolish, would it not? would you consider people who believe the earth is flat to be foolish & irrational? to me, this is no different to buying into illogical suggestions by talking into a shoe or giving away your coat to a stranger or forgetting your name when under hypnosis.

without one's critical faculty it would be impossible to navigate in this world so willingly losing the ability to use it, even temporarily, is a sign of weakness & vulnerability. you may be able to use it for positive reasons such as pain control but it could then also be equally used for extremely negative purposes so to me the potential bad far outweighs any possible good which may be gained by willingly entering such a state.
ahimsa42
Junior Member
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:36 pm
Likes Received: 0

#39

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:45 am

jimmyh wrote:While it is true that people usually have at least some need to put reasons to the things they do, and while it is common for people to not care much whether their reasons are actually good, it does not follow that this is solely an exercise of justifying what one already does/wishes to do regardless of the truth.


I agree. It is possible that in seeking truth, what a person wishes to believes as true is actually true. To what extent a particular truth can be known however, is not always clear.

If you walk into a butchers shop, you know what the butcher ultimately believes as true. No matter what story the butcher tells you about all the pros and cons of being a meat eater, you know the butcher is going to sell you meat. People that believe eating meat is unhealthy, if that is their truth, don’t become butchers.

A hypnotist will see talking into a shoe as empowering, liberating, creative and a display of strength. It doesn’t make it true. It doesn’t make it untrue. It makes it what a hypnotist wants to believe is truth.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10195
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1028

#40

Postby ahimsa42 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:54 am

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:
jimmyh wrote:While it is true that people usually have at least some need to put reasons to the things they do, and while it is common for people to not care much whether their reasons are actually good, it does not follow that this is solely an exercise of justifying what one already does/wishes to do regardless of the truth.


I agree. It is possible that in seeking truth, what a person wishes to believes as true is actually true. To what extent a particular truth can be known however, is not always clear.

If you walk into a butchers shop, you know what the butcher ultimately believes as true. No matter what story the butcher tells you about all the pros and cons of being a meat eater, you know the butcher is going to sell you meat. People that believe eating meat is unhealthy, if that is their truth, don’t become butchers.

A hypnotist will see talking into a shoe as empowering, liberating, creative and a display of strength. It doesn’t make it true. It doesn’t make it untrue. It makes it what a hypnotist wants to believe is truth.


the problem with your butcher example is that it ignores the viewpoint of the victims who's bodies they are selling and who most definitely did not want to suffer and die. it is the same as when human's are exploited & killed-the killers must always discount the perspective of their human victims in order to justify carrying out the acts of violence.

pedophiles are a good example of this-they deem that the pleasure which they obtain is more important than the suffer which they inflict on their unwilling victims and may actually convince themselves that the children enjoyed & wanted it to happen.

btw, the consumption of flesh & other products taken from animals has been proven to not only be extremely unhealthy killing both millions of humans each year and Billions of animals but animal agriculture also is by far the largest negative impact on the environment so these are established scientific facts and not mere personal opinions.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-03-22-veg ... al-warming

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 78631.html
ahimsa42
Junior Member
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:36 pm
Likes Received: 0

#41

Postby ahimsa42 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:05 am

btw, since i can now post links, for those interested here are the 2 i referenced previously:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/932d/f ... 88adbd.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhFG3pZyu50
ahimsa42
Junior Member
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:36 pm
Likes Received: 0

#42

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:58 am

ahimsa42 wrote:...the problem with your butcher example is that it ignores the viewpoint of the victims who's bodies they are selling and who most definitely did not want to suffer and die.


That is the point ahimsa42. The butcher, in order to protect their sanity, must rationalize and justify that eating meat is healthy, creative, liberating, not silly at all. They are a butcher! They have eaten meat 200 times this year alone. And the more they kill, the stronger the belief that it is okay to kill, that it is okay to eat meat. That it is not cruel or silly is reinforced each time they slaughter another animal. The degree to which science is counter to the belief of the butcher becomes irrelevant. The butcher must find error in the science, because mentally it is too difficult, to painful to acknowledge the truth about eating meat.

Now, apply the butcher to the hypnotist. It’s an analogy. Put yourself into the shoes of the people heavily invested in hypnosis. Like the butcher, they have spent years if not decades reinforcing certain beliefs about hypnosis. You find barking like a dog or talking into a shoe silly. They don’t, because that would go against the very core of what they believe. That is the point.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10195
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1028

#43

Postby cathB » Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:29 pm

Thank you for the Links.. this is turning out to be a very interesting discussion. Ahimsa2. As I said at the top of this page not all Hypnotists are reputable hypnotists. I agree with Richard the point/reference to the Butcher. analogy. (nod)
cathB
Junior Member
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:52 pm
Likes Received: 2

#44

Postby ahimsa42 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 4:48 pm

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:
ahimsa42 wrote:...the problem with your butcher example is that it ignores the viewpoint of the victims who's bodies they are selling and who most definitely did not want to suffer and die.


That is the point ahimsa42. The butcher, in order to protect their sanity, must rationalize and justify that eating meat is healthy, creative, liberating, not silly at all. They are a butcher! They have eaten meat 200 times this year alone. And the more they kill, the stronger the belief that it is okay to kill, that it is okay to eat meat. That it is not cruel or silly is reinforced each time they slaughter another animal. The degree to which science is counter to the belief of the butcher becomes irrelevant. The butcher must find error in the science, because mentally it is too difficult, to painful to acknowledge the truth about eating meat.

Now, apply the butcher to the hypnotist. It’s an analogy. Put yourself into the shoes of the people heavily invested in hypnosis. Like the butcher, they have spent years if not decades reinforcing certain beliefs about hypnosis. You find barking like a dog or talking into a shoe silly. They don’t, because that would go against the very core of what they believe. That is the point.


i would agree with your assessment Richard and this ability to cling to beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is a critical flaw and weakness in the human psyche. another example would be guards at nazi death camps who spent their days torturing and murdering jewish men, women and children and then went home and were caring to their own wives & children. or how about the fact that so many people love dogs and cats yet buy the flesh, milk and eggs of tortured & brutally murdered cows, pigs and chickens who are in reality no different than the animals who they love & respect so much?

i would see the condition that people willingly are put into in hypnosis in a similar way but of course on a much different level than the other examples i gave. ignoring reality based on facts & evidence (my phone is not a shoe and i can count to 10 and remember my own name) is again, to me, not entertaining at all but instead quite embarrassing and a condition of weakness and vulnerability. of course a hypnotist who personally profits off such acts (similar to the butcher who makes money off the suffering and death of animals) would see things in a different light but my point is that not all points of view are equal. again, i don't blame the hypnotist but the idea that a person would willingly subject themselves to such a state of mindlessness and irrationality will always be be beyond my understanding.
ahimsa42
Junior Member
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:36 pm
Likes Received: 0


PreviousNext

Return to Hypnosis