When I say hypnotism, I'm speaking broadly... it could be an actual hypnotist, but it could also be a boss or a news anchor whose words sometimes have a hypnotic effect. I think all of these things have a common reason.For instance, when someone tells you to do something, you imagine a person in your mind saying these words. I think you become hypnotized when you follow this voice unquestioningly, but why would you do that?- Would it be lack of care?- Lack of will?- Is it a misidentification problem, where you accidentally identify with whatever your brain is simulating? I think this might be the root cause of hypnotism is the identification with a figment of imagination. - Is it linguistic? Does language control the mind, so by controlling language, you control the entire frame with which they can think?- Is it the control of all five senses? What you can see, hear, think... If you only control one, the spell is broken. If you are on a stage and allowing yourself to be hypnotized, you're probably shutting down attention on all senses besides auditory, to focus on the voice.I'm looking for specific answers as well as very broad answers because it seems like the answer to this question is the key to understanding magic, psyops, the power of media, and many other things.
>>42160645>Janet (late 19th century, and significantly underrated relative to Freud) developed the first rigorous theory of what he called dissociation. His model: consciousness is normally a synthesis — multiple streams of mental activity are held together under a unified personal will (volonté). Hypnosis occurs when this synthesis weakens and a sub-system becomes autonomous, responsive to the hypnotist rather than to the synthesizing will.>Janet's key term was psychological automatism — mental and behavioral routines that operate without conscious integration. His claim was that everyone has these automatisms running constantly, and that what distinguishes waking consciousness from hypnosis is whether the synthesizing will is active enough to supervise them. When it isn't — through fatigue, dissociation, narrowed attention, or the specific induction procedure — an automatism can be activated by an external operator and run without the subject's meta-awareness that it is running.Hmmm... Working with this idea, could we then say that the control mechanism is influencing the degree of disassociation?By the way, I also think that whatever the process is that causes hypnotism, it's not a process that is completely bad or inferior. It's more like a hijacked system. I think disassociation is good and powerful in some cases, but it's bad in others. So, if we went with this theory, it wouldn't just be that people are controlled by encouraging disassociation, but that they are encouraged to disassociate when they should associate, and they are encouraged to associate when they should disassociate.A bit one I think a lot about is why some people get hypnotized by lyrics. I do distance myself from vocal music partly because I can feel this pull. But on the other hand, I can listen to a woman with a beautiful Irish traditional singing voice, and I don't feel a hit of a need to associate or pretend her voice is my voice.
>Hilgard (mid-20th century, Stanford) is the most rigorous modern experimentalist. His most important contribution was the hidden observer phenomenon. Under deep hypnosis, when subjects reported feeling no pain (the hand submerged in ice water), Hilgard found he could, by using a specific instruction ("if some part of you is aware of the actual sensation, signal"), access a secondary system that was registering the pain accurately — and could report it coherently — while the hypnotized subject remained unaware of it.>This suggests that in hypnosis, consciousness genuinely splits into parallel streams — one stream that follows the hypnotist's frame, and another that continues to process reality accurately but is not in executive control and not accessible to the primary stream unless specifically called.>This is directly relevant to your question. The hidden observer is still you — it is aware, accurate, observing. What hypnosis does is not eliminate awareness but redistribute executive access. The simulation — the hypnotist's induced frame — gets executive control while the accurate observer is demoted to a background process.>Why would this happen? Hilgard's answer was that hypnotic susceptibility varies enormously across individuals (measurable on the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale) and correlates with a specific cognitive trait: absorption — the tendency to become fully immersed in mental representations, to lose the boundary between the representation and reality. High absorbers read a novel and forget they're reading. They watch a film and flinch at fictional danger. They are better at imagination but more susceptible to exactly the misidentification you're describing.This makes sense and fits with what I'm saying, but what is missing is a theory for explaining how absorption may be changing in the populace, how different institutions take advantage, or how you can modulate it yourself.Is "being in the zone" the same as absorption?
>>42160670>Is "being in the zone" the same as absorption?The problem is, I don't think most people are good at getting into the zone, but can they still be high absorbers? Is there a distinction that can make you one but not the other?>Your question — why would you do that — Metzinger answers structurally: because transparency is the default. The PSM is normally transparent. Meta-representation — the capacity to see the model as a model — is the exception, fragile, effortful, and requires active maintenance. Most cognitive functioning runs on transparent representations because it is metabolically cheaper and faster. Hypnosis works by suppressing the meta-representational capacity that would make the inserted content opaque (visible as external) rather than transparent (experienced as self).(Pic rel for full text.)This is the most compelling option because I can put more hooks into it. It really does feel like effort and a skill to maintain meta-representational capacity, particularly during an onslaught. I don't think Freud's ego concept adequately describes this. He might be pointing to the same structural thing, but he's analyzing it from the perspective of development and mental illness, and his ideas are pretty dumb in a number of cases.So, would you suppress the population's ability to maintain a meta-representational self that isn't fully crafted from the outside?We'd probably have to look no further than the Abrahamic religions to see it in action in the ancient world. _However_, there is also the argument that gnostic teachings are more like waking you up out of your somnablistic (sleep waking) state that is completely 100% natural.
>>42160700> Hypnosis works by suppressing the meta-representational capacity that would make the inserted content opaque (visible as external) rather than transparent (experienced as self).I wonder how the media applies this.
>The Irish singer distinction you're drawing is important and I think it points at the role of identification pressure. Pop lyrics — and really most commercial vocal music — are written in the first person, in a voice calibrated to be universally relatable, about experiences designed to resonate across the widest demographic. They are specifically engineered to make the listener identify with the singer's subjectivity. The voice is a vehicle for a subject position the listener is being invited to inhabit.>Traditional singing — Irish or otherwise — doesn't do this in the same way. The voice is a craft object, clearly belonging to a specific person, tradition, and context. You are listening to her sing, not being invited to be her. The aesthetic frame maintains the distinction between self and source. There is no identification pressure, so there is no pull to collapse the boundary. You can absorb into the beauty of it without absorbing the content as self.Interesting.
>>42160645Get a load of this guy who believes hypnosis isn't larping.Nobody tell him.
>>42160716>The exoteric Abrahamic structure — particularly in its institutional forms — operates precisely as you describe. The believer is constructed from outside: sin is defined externally, the authoritative voice is external (scripture, clergy, God's command), self-examination is directed toward conformity with an externally-specified template rather than toward perception of one's own cognitive structure. The PSM is given its content by the institution. Metzinger would say the transparency is weaponized — the institutional self-model becomes phenomenally transparent, experienced as the real self rather than as an externally constructed frame.>The Gnostic inversion is almost point-for-point the opposite. Gnosis is specifically *direct experiential knowledge* — not belief in an external authority but perception of one's own cognitive structure. The Gnostic traditions uniformly identify the Demiurge (the false god, the institutional authority, the external voice) as the mechanism of sleep, and liberation as the recognition that you are not your constructed identity. The Valentinian "pneumatic" who has achieved gnosis has not adopted a better belief system — they have developed the meta-representational capacity to see any belief system as a belief system, including the one they inhabit.>This is somnambulism as the baseline, and waking as the achievement — which is exactly what the paper is arguing and what the convergent wisdom traditions agree on. The disagreement between traditions is not about this structure. It is about what waking up *for* — the Gnostic is waking up to escape the Demiurge's world; the paper's sovereign is waking up to operate more effectively within it.This too.
>>42160717You only say that because the hypnotist identifies themselves as the hypnotist. Your logic is basically "why would anyone allow themselves to be fooled?" Well, some people are willing to act stupid in order to get attention. Hypnotists bring them on the stage, and they stay on the stage if they play the game. And if they actually commit to it, it kinda works."But that's not real hypnotism because the participant had to try". Ok, now imagine a different scenario where someone like a hypnotist is in your ear or line of sight for several hours a day. How well would you or others resist them then?
>>42160645Idk but my friend got hypnotized at a school carnival and she said it was not like being mind controlled or confused, she just felt relaxed and suggestible enough to play along.
>>42160727>Morpheus is the Greek god of dreams, specifically the son of Hypnos (Sleep), responsible for appearing in dreams in human form, according to Ovid's Metamorphoses. He is known for mimicking human speech, gait, and clothing, often delivering divine messages. He leads the Oneiroi and is distinct from his brothers who mimic animals (Phobetor) and inanimate objects (Phantasos).This is kind of interesting. The Demiurge would be the Architect in the Matrix and the "mechanism" of dreams according to this (although technically I think the guy who is the "trainman" in the Matrix, or the "boatman" in Greek Styx mythology, is the immediate force of said dreams), but Morpheus would be the ruler of the dream who is actually there maybe to kind of help you. Maybe he's just there to take all forms, so the principle isn't that he has much of a valence. Maybe the presumed valences are demiurge bad and morpheus _slightly_ good, just because we are born unconscious and slowly, some of us become conscious.
>>42160734Yes, I totally get that, but that is the actual description of how you DO start to make those big mistakes in identification. If someone truly got hypnotized, then why do you think they would remember being confused? Hypnotized people don't look confused, and confusion would suggest awareness of an incongruency.
Ok, let's try something....Every word is a frame. Every collection of words is also a frame. So, there are sizes or chunks of input that we could identify either as a single frame or fragments of a larger frame, depending on the context we are talking in. We could also formalize our language to say it is only one or the other, but I think this metaphor works recursively and thus demonstrates frames as a _continuum_ of input, defined as over time and space and delivered via any sense — or perhaps in a more experiential and anthropological sense, delivered from anywhere outside of the body or self.Note that I have not explicitly described words as text or audio — or images even. And would it be best to describe music as _sounds_ (as in vibrations through the air) or as vibrations in the body, producing sensation? Thus, dancing is the truest (or most athletic?) representation of music. I would argue that sports are merely an advanced form of dance, which is true both in the sense that dancing and competition are expressions of the sexual instinct and in the sense that team play mimics synchronized dancing moves, and even 1 on 1 or martial art action can represent something similar to partner dancing. Note that I am also not saying that the will to fight or to fuck originate from dancing. Rather, I am saying that dancing is simply the most lucid word to describe what is going on here with words.
Through words, frames are asserted clearly by the person with information that brings alignment to those around them. In other words, anyone who says something that is not refuted becomes the default frame for everyone. Experiments show that people may overwhelming fall pray to the opinion of consensus, but I also don't believe this is exactly a "bad" thing or a sign of lack of intelligence. Rather, I think this is a sign of a default lack of frame awareness which means that those who understand frames can speak in words to each other and to the masses, without anyone being the wiser."First, there was the logos" — this phrase comes to mind, and I use this translation specifically because it didn't just say "the word", and I don't think the more germanic "word" has a common etymology with "logos". I think "logos" is communicating something more. it's describing structure. what was "logic" to Greeks?>The history of logic deals with the study of the development of the science of valid inference (logic).Inference = structure. Structure of what? Structure of thought. Logic = structure of thought.Logos -> Gnostic.First, there was the Gnostic Logos.Now, let's return to what I said about words and dancing... If dancing is the truest, most abstract expression of music, and it thrives on the sexual instinct (you do it because you need it, not because you know why you are doing it... something about it just feels "right", or maybe honorable), and this sexual instinct is somehow more generally at the root of logical expression because communication in every sense is best argued sexually.
I say that because the sexual act is the greatest act of dominance on earth. Why do you think prisoners act much gayer in prison than in the real world? Because gay behavior is contagious in any area of highly competitive men. It's a successful strategy and thus spreads. I think it's only "effective" when it is actively shunned though, so paradoxically the traditionally open communities didn't suffer from tons of wackos simply because there was less social leverage over the employment of this tactic. But in any case, the sexual influence it wields cannot be discounted. In any case, I think homosexuality is a defect, but I think we already understand that a man putting his penis into a woman is basically dominating the fuck out of her in that moment. There's even a natural revulsion that women have to men, which the red pill people have kind of discovered, so in order for relationships to work, it seems like either the man has to hypnotize her, or he has to suck up to her every need and personality quirk. I think that women are feminist by nature _because_ sex is such a power move over them. Because women are feminist, they are kinda fundamentally anti-sex (because sex is power) and therefore anti-men and anti-civilization. It all comes together in this rage we identify on the modern left (which is entirely the personification of women's personality weaknesses), and we should understand the fertility rate collapse as a fundamental result of this exact female natural instinct, which modern media, culture, and changing occupational structure all affect. I think we could then look at the modern right as the abstract masculine sexual instinct, with all of its strengths and weaknesses. Actually no, mostly weaknesses these days.
What about hypnosis like this?
My point is: is this sexual instinct the essence of frame control and manipulation? In other words, is the sexual instinct merely the most lucid description of sensation, of imagination? Being the strongest sensation (most people would rate few pure things better than great sex), it captures the essence of the point, which is that frame is sensation, and your frames are changed by your own sensations and the sensations received from others and other things, and you may change their frames through sensation by the same means. The real hypnotic element is simply developing a form of media that the audience doesn't interpret the structure of. If they can keep the same story, they can develop an underlying structure from story to story that influences the minds of those who are not in the top 20%, if we want to invoke another Pareto concept in terms of those who really challenge themselves intellectually in life.I think sensation is the real story here. A sensation can be a combination of any of the five senses, which are the primary forms of input for one's frame. In other words, from sensation to thought. Arguably, a "frame" captures both that sensation and a logical belief structure as a concept because the frame is what the self possesses. The state of self is the frame, and this self consists of thoughts and sensations, synthesized as the earlier quoted theory mentioned.I am also saying "belief" and logic are the same thing. Most people just distinguish belief as "inferior logic", which I totally see in this world, but I see a lot of disbelief on some very common sense things too, so belief and logic are bedfellows to me. You could say that good logic is impassioned belief combined with a great deal of discretion over what one believes. That is why religion and intellectual history have been strange bedfellows.
>>42160854The left/right desynchronization is probably meant to cause bicameral desync, which I think causes some fundamental loss of identity. I need to look up the hemispherical experiments.
>>42160874There’s an aspect of unwillingness that happens before they become hypnotized. Like a blissful state where they’re completely submissive.
>>42160874>Visual Field Testing (Tachistoscope): Researchers presented images to only one visual field (and therefore one hemisphere) at a time. Information in the right visual field goes to the left brain, while the left visual field goes to the right brain.This is probably because vision is a very complex calculation in the brain, and so the stimulation of vision in the brain might be far from the light origin (the eye). This is a place of imagination.In other words, each hemisphere is always imagining the output of the other. Of course, I don't think all brain function boils down to left/right. My point is that many bits of brain function are complementary, and we can either centralize our focus on the sensation side of this continuum (immediate input and contact with the outside world), or we can focus on the artistic linguistic. Together, these are the word.Anyways, to my point about hypnotism... I'm essentially saying that clever wordsmanship is much like a sexual-intellectual dance with the participants.I think the real essence of this sexual metaphor is primarily one of ultimate power and ultimate submission. You could also characterize these are the highest and lowest worlds. You might say that ultimate high is heaven, but it is reachable during life if you do not fear death, and implying you believe good karma comes back to you or is at least worth pursuing anyways. So, there's something very religious about sexuality (or sexual about religion?).The concept of ultimate power is the ultimate god. Abstracted, it is absolute truth, and it makes up the absolute physical universe. We look back in time to see how the world came to be as it is how, and we start with concepts before working our way to plants, animals, mountains, and some important political leaders. That is how one describes one's worldview, or frame, in the ancient past. It's hard to say if they thought less abstractly or simply expressed the abstractness differently.
>>42160878Yes. Hypnotism is submission.Asking "why would someone get hypnotized" is like asking why someone would be submissive.
>>42160897But what makes it erotic is that they go under hypnosis unwillingly and still end up happy and blissful to obey. The doms truth becomes the subs truth
>>42160901Yes, unwilling submission. There's a tension there in the sub, who either grows to love the tension or tries to grow out of it. I'm guessing the male sexual instinct is more more or less "to become a dom", and if you're a man and you actually don't enjoy that shit, there is actually something wrong with you. And no, I don't mean the fetish clubs. I just mean masculinity gets off on submissive wives. And as you eloquently mentioned, a submissiveness that is fought over and won. That is what feels erotic.
>>42160907Hypothetical what if:The average masculinity has been decreasing for as long as feminism has been growing. They occur at the same time, and many of us like to blame this as women causing men to act a certain way, but what if feminism arises in part when the average man has a weak sexual instinct? Or perhaps, when the _woman_ has a weak sexual instinct? Either way, when we see a decline in sexuality, and thus in relationships, and thus in families and children, we see an increase in both feminist (essentially just misandrist) and misogynistic sentiment. With the global collapse in birth rate, we can thus see a global collapse in sexuality and a rapid increase in hatred. Culturally, we've essentially diverted the energy of those with transmutable sexual passions from something positive and loving to something that feels like slavery, if not submission. In other words, civilization isn't necessarily one big slave compound, but it is a form of submission if you choose to live in it. I think that's the point about law and the social contract — submitting to common good, which we agree will be allotted fairly.Therefore, "law" is the power of moral allotment, much like bankers have the power of currency allotment. There really is something to this idea that law sits above culture. I would like to find more patterns that confirm that relationship in history.
>>42160645Bump 4 interesting topic
>>42164761What else would you add?
>>42160717>Hypnosis is a larp.Fed narrative thoroughly refuted by this book.
>>42160645>How does hypnotism actually workthis is my hypothesis (I'm a little drunk right now so bear with me), it occurred to me last year after a few months of dabbling in self hypnosis, but also following decades of experience in accidental manifestation, and the placeco and nocebo effects, and observing the same in other people near to me#1: basically, all external reality, the physical world, is a production of the subconscious, and occultists were always telling the truth about that2: the subconscious is, or is akin to, "the void" in occultism, representing the well of pure potential, but it is impotent by itself3: the conscious mind is a separate entity, and represents agency, but is also useless by itself, which is why we can't do magick while in a normal state of consciousness ...say, beta wave brain levels, but require altered states of mind4: how hypnosis effects external (or internal) changes is by the joining of agency (the conscious mind) with potential (the subconscious), and the closer to the subconscious the better, which is why suggestion or auto-suggestion is always stronger when you're in a theta wave state versus alpha wave, or let's say in the astral versus theta wave stateI could be wrong about all this. I'm open to correction.
>>42160645Hypnosis is a concept of method, it identifies all psychological techniques aimed at inducing trance in a subject or group of subjects. Trance is a state of mind whereas hypnosis is the process used to deliberately induce it. Trance is defined as a mental state of non-lucidity. Whenever you're in a non-lucid dream you're in a trance.>But hypnosis isn't sleep.You're right, it isn't. And I wasn't claiming that it was. The trance is the non-lucidity of the dream, not the dream itself.>But some people who've been hypnotized say they felt very lucid.And while you're in a non-lucid dream you feel awake, doesn't mean that you are.
>>42165369>#1: basically, all external reality, the physical world, is a production of the subconscious, and occultists were always telling the truth about thatAll EXPERIENCE of external reality....Experience is the "closest" we get to reality in the sense that there are the least amount of layers between us and it, but it is also quite far from reality because experience is only anecdotal and thus doesn't necessarily convey the larger structure with accuracy. >2: the subconscious is, or is akin to, "the void" in occultism, representing the well of pure potential, but it is impotent by itselfRelated to the dianoia trap. Thought without action.>3: the conscious mind is a separate entity, and represents agency, but is also useless by itself, which is why we can't do magick while in a normal state of consciousness ...say, beta wave brain levels, but require altered states of mindI think there could be a specific organ in the brain that is sort of a tuning fork that may select between thoughts. That would be about the closest thing to a physical origin for agency. I don't think agency is the doing (and thus, it doesn't have to be very big or actually do very much). It's the choosing.>4: how hypnosis effects external (or internal) changes is by the joining of agency (the conscious mind) with potential (the subconscious), and the closer to the subconscious the better, which is why suggestion or auto-suggestion is always stronger when you're in a theta wave state versus alpha wave, or let's say in the astral versus theta wave stateThe brainwave state is somewhat interesting, but I would otherwise point to the theories I mentioned earlier. For instance, Hilgard and Janet.
>>42165356That book is a load of horseshit and anybody that believes it is retarded. The real fed narrative regarding hypnosis is to try and make people scared, gathering loosh and making people afraid is the only thing the elites care about.
>>42160645The mind is always taking suggestions, but hypnosis is a formulaic application of suggestions with can easily unlock, basically, full on MK.This is done through an induction which allows the hypnotizer to gain direct control over a persons conscious reality by language suggestions, where there is no pushback or critical processing by the hypnosis victim. Every human that knows language can be induced. Every person that smugly says that can't be hypnotized are often already, or will be.Hypnotists around the world are getting so much secret pussy and doing so many fetishes with MKed girls, and they never even had a chance. Most hypno slaves that are properly programmed will never know admit or let on if they did, that they are under MK
Why does anyone think stage for school children and high school grads are so popular?>its a cunny free for all for every one of those creep hypnotizers....these parents and teachers are so stupid and clueless, thinking its all and jokes but while induced, one simple phrase delivered into the victims ear can change EVERYTHING
>>42166105*stage hypnosis
>>42166040
>>42165356>>42166040>>42166155frenshypnosis is a larpif it worked we wouldn't need medsThis isn't Office Spacehttps://youtu.be/AfZpEe7KIJ8
>>42167202>hypnosis is a larpRight, but the social phenomenon is real. I'm asking how it actually works, as though the primary explanation is bullshit.
>>42167202>if it worked we wouldn't need medsHypnosis requires skill to perform. Most clinicians aren't skilled enough.>Why don't they train some then?Intelligence agencies are notoriously cagey about their tradecraft. If actual reliable hypnosis techniques were public knowledge, the glowies would no longer have a power differential.
>>42169530I will tell you a secret.
