talkmagic.co.uk

Well, I shall leave discussion of what Hypnotism actually *is* to people more learned than I.

All I wanted to add is that I have been hypnotised. I don't consider myself a hugely suggestable person, and often magic tricks involving suggestion don't work on me at all. However, I have been hypnotised a few times and it seems to have been a sucess each time. I managed to remember things that I would never be able to remember through my own efforts, my short term memory isn't fantastic. But most importantly I really enjoyed it. It was a bizarre and oddly comforting experience to have someone else in control.

So if (as I believe the OP was, it was a long time ago I read it-see short memory above lol) someone is thinking about doing this, I say go for it. I find it really enjoyable, and think it's interesting *however* it's done.

byron0512 wrote:But they had discovered that using lights and music together they could create a drug induced state without the drugs.

Byron, I have accomplished this "without drugs" on a totaly anti drug person, and had to play music and adjust the lights as to bring the said person back to reality! it is very easy if you learn the techniques, but that said, it is not a nice thing to do to anyone who is unaware of what you are doing!

Hence the fact I stopped playing that type of control music - it is also used in cult houses/camps. I tried it as an experiment, and found it to have scary results, in the wrong hands with the wrong sort of person controling the atmosphere the results are not good.

what a scary world we live in!

byron0512 wrote:what a scary world we live in!

It's only the people who are scary. The rest of it seems okay.

I've gone through all this thread but lightly... especially given His Holiness Mark Lewis' typical ploy of claiming expert status on something he merely dabbles in from time to time vs. working in full time (the only full-time job Mark has is that of being a Hustler... the proverbial man behind the curtain in the land of Oz, et al)... Mark is what Jonathan Royal hopes to grow up to become

Now, don't get me wrong, I do admire the good reverend Lewis. He really does know quite a bit but like some people I know ( ) He has an opinion on things and holds to it muck as a rusted steel trap would retain one's leg. So please, take what you hear at times with the essence of a small Ukranian Salt Mine... dig into the archieves of life that deal with the topic in question and study either side of the issue. Somewhere in between the extremes you will find the truth... well, your version of the truth at least, as it pertains to the subject in question.

As to Hypnosis... I am presently reading a book entitled The Bush Factor and though it is filled with classic expressions of personal ego given forth by the author, it is likewise filled with some very interesting points of view that come from a 30+ year career working as an Erickson based hypnotherapist and stage performer (a full-time position vs. part-time "this is the in thing to do right now" interest).

Before Richard asked me to review the book he warned me that it was thick (very heady material) and required one to take their time... this was an understatement! The book deals with simple "known" concepts such as the finger vice, hand-clamp, glued eyelids, etc. but brings you away from the classic domination position so often exploited by the entertainer and lends to you what Richard refers to as being a "Hypnotic Relationship"... the end results are pure beauty along side a sort of intrigue on the part of your participant(s) that goes beyond typical "mentalism" or "suggestion styled" performance.

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR EVERYONE and it most certainly is not for the novice or curious. Though it has effects in it, it isn't filled with tricks (if you know what I mean). This is the follow-up text to Richard's DESTINY RESPONSE should you be familiar with it.

I bring this up, not so much as to plug Richard's book as to point out that there are many different ways of approaching the whole hypnosis thing and quite frankly, most everyone that's ever done such an act on stage has done so in a horrible manner that is insulting to their participants as well as our craft. For no other reason I recommend more than on-going FORMAL study in this field but likewise a call or "challenge" to all interested in this work, to step outside the mold that's defined the stage hypnotist since the time of Mesmer himself.

One of the most brilliant demonstrations I've ever read and actually used is Orville Meyer's TELEPATHY IN ACTION, it is something I highly recommend everyone interested in this kind of thing to study, recognizing of course that one must have balls of steel to actually step onto a stage and execute such a classic. But damn is it ever a great act and it goes so far beyond the typical hyp show.

Take your time and LEARN your craft, then define your programs to fit who you are vs. what the current buzz is or what the image has been for over a hundred years... GROW!

I can assure Craig that I do not "dabble". I am a jack of all trades and master of them all. While he is merely yapping about hypnotism and reading a book about it I am out performing it. As a matter of fact I am about to embark on a theatre tour in Ontario on Friday doing it for disreputable sums of money.

To be compared to that horrible urchin Jonathon Royal is the ultimate insult. The child had the audacity to say that his hypnotism course was better than mine. I informed him that I have been a professional entertainer when he was breastfeeding and that he was most impertinent in his assumption that his awful course could be compared to mine.

However I also note that Jonathon also agrees with me that hypnosis does not exist. As does Dr Graham Wagstaff of Liverpool University and as does various other notables including master showman the Amazing Kreskin.

If it is good enough for Kreskin to say hypnosis is bunk then it is good enough for me. Furthermore if it is good enough for one of the greatest hypnotic showmen of the twentieth century (not Kreskin this time) to tell me that he had been number one for 35 years and during that period he had never actually "hypnotised" anyone then it is good enough for me.

I do not do hypnotism from "time to time". I do it frequently and apart from trade show magic it is my biggest earner. On my website there are genuine testimonial letters from people who have confirmed the entertainment value of my show. Some of those letters came unsolicited.

Furthermore I have put out a course on stage hypnosis that everyone except that old misery Ford Kross said was wonderful. A mere $150 plus postage incidentally.

I do hold strong opinions but they are based on wisdom and long experience. Furthermore they are based on the fact that I am MARK LEWIS and naturally my word is gospel.

As for being a "hustler" I do have to eat you know...........

OK, I said I'd stay out of this but I just wanted to say one thing...remember Mark, for every professional who doesn't believe in hypnosis, there are just as many who do. What's more there is evidence, scientific evidence supporting hypnosis...I really do urge you to check out that book I mentioned earlier Mark, it sheds a new light on the whole thing. I will certainly be checking out the Baker book to see what evidence he has to counter hypnosis and prove his standpoint - always worthwhile to learn about other people's stances in such things.

Before we all get carted off to the funny farm, I'd just like to add a few words.

Stances are interesting, but ultimately, they're just assertions. Evidence, on the other hand, is far more useful. fMRI scanning of subjects under hypnosis shows marked differences in brain activity. Even the old EEG traces show far more alpha activity.

A major problem I have with discussions about what hypnosis is revolves around the paradox that, though hypnotic trance is fairly easy to induce in a willing subject, it doesn't require the operator to know much about how they induce it. I mean, you can read McGill or download public domain induction scripts from places like hypnosis.com, including the famous Ellman script. Say the words in a dreamy voice and at least someone in the audience will go under to some degree without the operator ever knowing why or where they go when they do.

So, a lot of people who regularly induce the state don't actually understand how it works (they don't need to - they're users not developers) and so come up with daft theories about it which they stick to like glue. Which is why I don't think coversations based around the topic "what is hypnosis" or even "does hypnosis exist" are at all productive.

Ah, but Hypnosis and Trance States explains it all perfectly .

I am fully prepared to admit that more people believe in hypnosis than don't. In fact I used to be one of them until I discovered that many experts in the field who were well respected and even considered legends quietly didn't believe in it either but couldn't really say so.

As for "evidence" of brain wave scanning and Alpha Activity I don't accept it. Faulty evidence is merely faulty evidence. As soon as scientists start yapping in big words I know that the odds are they are talking c*** (not the best).

Anyway I am quite happy with my stance. I am not interested in the slightest in being "open minded". It would affect my effectiveness. If I start believing in the c*** (not the best) I will start to panic when people do daft things on stage. I have the situation under control simply because I know the whole thing is bunkum.

I will certainly agree that some of the subjects consider themselves to be hypnotised but they aren't. They have merely conned themselves that they are. If you wish to argue semantics and say that this self delusion is hypnosis in itself then you may be right.

The evidence I prefer is the Royal Commission set up on hypnosis that said it was a load of c*** (not the best). Some of the most brilliant minds of the day decided that it was merely "an excitement of the imagination"

I will admit that this commission was set up rather a long time ago. In the eighteenth century and was headed by Benjamin Franklin. However it seems that they had more sense then than they do now.

I have read many of the state theory books. I have no desire to read another one. I can see with my own eyes what is going on. It is simply people kidding themselves very effectively. No change in brain wave activity. No altered state of conciousness. Just a lot of daft people conning themselves in the same way that lots of daft people con themselves that newspaper horoscopes are genuine.

They aren't. I know. I used to write them.

Cardza wrote:Ah, but Hypnosis and Trance States explains it all perfectly .

It sounds intresting. Does it describe the Esdaile state, by any chance? That's a really interesting one. It's the state, first described by army surgeon John Esdaile, of extremely deep, catatonic hypnosis where all sensory input is ignored by the subject. It's still used today in place of general anaesthetic in rare cases where the patient is receptive but the general would kill them.

No, it doesn't - it's a short monograph that details new findings to do with the trance state and how it ties in to another aspect of our lives. It looks at how trances can be induced (though only the basics - no real details) and explains away just how and why that old watch swinging hypnosis stereotype works!

Something which I think is quite relevant to the arguments in this thread is written in the description of what the series of "Organising Ideas" scientific monographs is:

"When a field of study is confused about something, it usually needs an organising idea" because "An organising idea plays an active role in shaping our perception, thinking and research and is always larger than earlier ideas because it has to explain the anomalies that previously caused confusion.".

It offers the most logical and sensible explanation of hypnosis that I have read, and for the price it really is a must if you are interested in hypnosis. It is available from Amazon amongst other bookshops.

The link for it is: here .

The writers, Joe Griffin and Ivan Tyrrell, really do know what they are talking about and have also written Human Givens (which I have yet to read) and Dreaming Reality, a book which explains why we dream and the biology behind it all.

Comments on their Human Givens book are availble here: http://www.hgpractice.org/datafile.htm.

Hope this helps and is of some use, even if it did get a bit off-topic I suppose!

Other then our very own demi-god Mark Lewis here at TalkMagic, ive come across one or two other who seem to believe hypnotism is a load of cobblers. Ive done far too little research on the subject to comment myself, but I just wondered (and this is directed at the those who share this opinion) why is it they do the things they do? Are the participants simply going along with the show through suggestion? Why do they do this? A

ultimatecreate wrote:Other then our very own demi-god Mark Lewis here at TalkMagic, ive come across one or two other who seem to believe hypnotism is a load of cobblers. Ive done far too little research on the subject to comment myself, but I just wondered (and this is directed at the those who share this opinion) why is it they do the things they do? Are the participants simply going along with the show through suggestion? Why do they do this? A

Generally, the induction convinces the subject that what's happening is real by gradually progressing from a very tiny acceptance of an observed change to more profound ones while at the same time emphasizing relaxation. Brown covers this nicely for the layman in Tricks of the Mind (pacing and leading). That's all it is.

The operator paces the subject's state and gradually leads them ever deeper into a relaxed state of acceptance that what he says is demonstrably true. Eventually, the critical faculty relaxes sufficiently to lose its grip on analysing what's being suggested for any kind of sense. Subjectively, you get to a point where your mind is completely still and quiet and open, and feels like it's accepting everything said to it by the operator, even completely absurd suggestions.

So, when you tell someone that they will associate the word "sleep" with this state and be pulled back down into it immediately when you next say so, they will accept the idea on a subconscious level, even though they may consciously try to fight it. Of course, if you're no good at inducing hypnosis, but your subjects still obey commands, it's probably just because they want it to be true. There's no line; it's a spectrum of belief.