thank you for providing Stripper's strategy outcome no. 3 for keeping the good old NWO trance alive: Ignore contradicting quotes and bash them as „feelgood phrases“. Do not forget to pee some strong verbal odor marks in direction of the dump cattle before you leave.
'Ignore contradicting quotes and bash them as „feelgood phrases“'
Pfft, you're obviously not sufficiently intelligent to even understand what Erickson HIMSELF is saying about hypnosis. It's very simple: I provided Erickson's OWN words, in the introduction of his OWN book, explicitating his OWN vision for the main uses of hypnosis. That you can't deal with this and need to resort to all sorts of desperate ploys just shows how dishonest you are.
Are you really content with absurdly insipid phrases such as: 'there should be only one ruling principle-the patient's welfare.'
WHO INDEED DECIDES what the patient's welfare is? Hmmm?
Milton has stated his priorities, I conveyed them, these priorities are CLEARLY psychopathic, what more is there to say?
Nothing, which is why you're slurring and spinning though I'll add that I feel somewhat sorry for you, and I mean REALLY sorry: you weren't prepared for...
...this, had never had the occasion to actually consider these issues, and you were, in a way, caught off guard. You're not used to communicating with intelligent individuals who are NOT promoting a set of values (trust authority) that have completely taken you over, and you are now posting in a frantic damage-control fashion. Indeed, the real problem here is much deeper, you haven't figured out a number of things about the paradigm you're operating under.
It's unlikely that you ever will, now that you have all your little personal investments in your little schemes and set-ups regulating your daily adaptive life set up.
I'll leave you on this note: if you REALLY want to HELP people using hypnosis, get over yourself first. This is not about YOU. You need to develop some basic respect for the human mind and other human beings before imagining you can help them.
HONESTY! Is that also a laughable notion to you? Hmm? Bye.
q: "anticipating and identifying how you 'think' .. "
Fine. You've done a great job. For - in other words - you're monologizing with your phantasies. Don't worry, up to a normal and reflected extend that's absolutely sane and humane. Some sort of projection. Try out Gregory Bateson to catch at least a glimpse.
@suddenlyitsobvious Wearing strong moral glasses in general works fine for context Strippers lost downdownunder in their muddy everglades, where spooky fogs of control waft over dark blue waters ..
Stripper's strategy outcome, part no.1: This video demonstration is "obviously immoral", because Erickson is hypnotizing a woman.
Tell me: what else Erickson should have done here, IN THIS CONTEXT, with a voluntary person, in order to demonstrate conversational hypnosis?
'Wearing strong moral glasses in general works fine for context Strippers lost downdownunder in their muddy everglades, where spooky fogs of control waft over dark blue waters ..'
And really, what's THIS...?
Wearing strong moral glasses indeed. The entire issue under contention was PRECISELY Erickson's immorality in the first place. That you as a hypnosis-fanatic, no doubt savoring the sense of personal power over deluded victims it confers you, would...
..address the issue of morality in such a frivoulous way, indeed as if it were something belonging in the realm of religious supersitition RATHER THAN BE AN INTEGRAL, ESSENTIAL, CRUCIAL PART OF THE VERY PROCESS & PRACTICE OF HYPNOSIS shows WHY you failed to identify Erickson's blatant immorality You have no business invading minds of others if self-aggrandizing immorality is your ultimate.motivation -& it is.
You'll find a plentiful supply of passive victims though.
And of course, you can both convince yourself that you're doing it for the best of purposes...
Really, if you can't identify an immoral freak, are actually scorning at the very notion of morality while discussing hypnosis, what does this say about you? Aboput your conceptions of the human mind?
You don't have any. You're following techniques that you don't even understand because you can't take an honest look at yourself first.
I illustrated my point WITH HIS OWN WORDS, not some haphazard statement found somewhere and used for my purposes, nooo: a PERFECTLY SIGNIFICANT OUTLAY of what hypnosis SHOULD BE USED FOR according to Erickson himself.
Your bitching about page numbers is beyond pathetic and the level of your 'arguments' is petty, substandard, very unsatisfying intellectually, which is why this exchange is closed. I've provided substance & reasonings, that you can't handle them,...
@suddenlyitsobviousIs it somehow regarded as intellectual dishonest, whereever you are from, to provide the exact booktitle including!!! page numbers of a quote?
I found it meanwhile. It was a proposal of Erickson, indeed. A proposal I do not agree with even though I understand the intent behind.
Reading further you would have noticed, that Erickson initiated a paradigm shift in psychiatry: solely the client himself is the expert, not the therapist (e.g. p1 and 58
Pfft, just dishonesty upon dishonesty. What do you mean, 'A PROPOSAL' and what do you mean, you 'understand the intent behind it'?
He's stating in the first chapter of his book what his PRIORITIES FOR HYPNOSIS are. Full stop. Your bringing in disconnected bits and trivia, such as 'the client being the expert' is just drivel in the light of Erickson's express formulation and what this says about him, namely, exactly as I contended, that he's an immoral manipulator.
@suddenlyitsobvious He's stating in the first chapter of his book what his PRIORITIES FOR HYPNOSIS are.
He did so, indeed.
But already in the first sentence of his foreword .. xxi
"The task of the physician is to heal. It is neither to censure nor to judge but simply to render services that may enable patients to live their lives in a better and more adequate fashion. (..)There should be only one ruling principle—the patient's welfare.
Case closed. Bringing up feelgood phrases from the rest of the book doesn't change one jota from his utterly condemning statement. You're just spinning.
*''you got nothing from me' is an ambiguous statement so I clarify that you haven't managed to pick up any actual accurate information about your interlocutor, exclusively relying as you do on standardized protocols of classifying the validity of information through the supposed nature of its source -authority/non-authority, rather than on processing actual content and progressively establishing who you're even talking to... No surprise you're so interested in hypnosis...
Your further wrote "are easily available on the net"
Easily available for me is just one! blog of a very questionable PhD. Questionable because she obviously has developed a strong identity as a victim. "I am right (plus 48 so called collegues - out of how many ??), the rest of the world is stupid and bad". Revealing such a strong personal concernment towards a subject is not very scientific or trustable.
She's entering in hypnotic shock because she's surrendering to a freak who manipulates her with her consent. If people would use some discernment and mental activity rather than idiotically tipping their hats at any famous figure, they would actually see what an unsavoury indivual this is.
For those who really can't see, Erickson's utterly questionable techniques -including having women undress before him- have been documented and are easily available on the net.
The positive effects of Ericksonian hypnotherapy are scientifically prooved in innumerable studies, which are easily available on the net. For german readers I recommend the site of the Milton Erickson Foundation, Germany. You'll find everything there, your scientific heart desires.
'The positive effects of Ericksonian hypnotherapy are scientifically prooved in innumerable studies'
Pfft, what a substandard comment. All forms of suggestion, including the administration of placebo pills have been shown to generate positive effects so your observation really means little and is completely besides the point.
OF COURSE hypnosis works. The problem I'm pointing out is that its icons in society are immoral snakes and frauds.
@quellimpuls That Erickson was an immoral power-freak is easy to see as far as I'm concerned, but there's little I can say to BELIEVERS, who simply see what they want to see.
Obviously, if you want to check out Erickson, you won't find the bad stuff on the site of his foundation, that you recommend so enthusiastically. You'll need to do some of the most basic homework, Why not start with the wikipedia entry for instance, that mentions this issue that has not yet been...
@suddenlyitsobvious - I like to stay very close to what is visible to everybody. So, what kind of "immoral act" by Erickson do you see, right here in this video?
Wikipedia is a source for believers.
So where else - besides Freudian therapy damaged Vegans, Anti-Cult-Activists, Religious Fundamentalists and Scientologists - I can read a not contex stripped critique of the person Milton Erickson with a scientific correct citation of the source, e.g. title, date, page no.?
@suddenlyitsobvious - No. It's a metastudy with tons of cross references to non-MEG material, realized by the University of Tübingen on behalf of the two big german hypnosis societies, MEG and DGH.
Ah, the well-known mantra; wikipedia is unreliable.
Wiki can be used by intelligent individuals who don't rely on slogans as a source to get a quick idea about anything and since its entries are ESPECIALLY edited by those most conderned by the subject matter, it is indeed quite useful. If you understand anything about society, you'll know that the fact that no legal action has been undertaken against Masson for his contentions regarding
'That guy is a scientologist. Scientologists are looneys. Consequently, what the
scientologist says must be false. Scientology says psychiatry is a criminal, insane
nightmare. Consequently psychiatry must be GOOD.'
You didn't state this but THIS is how you 'think': following authority's protocols, no personal discernment or insight involved whatsoever, NEVER assessing information ON ITS OWN MERIT, otherwise you would already know psychiatry is indeed a...
...complete criminal pseudo-science with a horrendous track-record and no results worth mentioning.
And of course Milton was first and foremost a psychiatrist. What you don't understand from your limited, starry-eyed perspective is that hypnosis is merely a new name for an age-old phenomenon known since AGES.
It has since about 2 centuries been brought under the control of the scientific control
freaks and you are RAVING about a few circus tricks while...
...while completely oblivious to the REAL significance of the hypnotic phenomenon, what it actually is, how it works, why it works, what it says about the human mind and how it is being used merely for the most egotistical purposes of a controlling
system that you are too chicken and/or deluded to identify.
I'd need to do a lot of talking because what's at stake here is an entirely
different 'paradigm', but I'll leave you to ponder on these words from Milton...
...'scientologist' or some 'conspiracy-nut' or 'extremist' for criticizing it? Hmmm?)
Milton:
'However, one of the greatest advantages of hypnosis as applied to psychiatry seems to me to be the possibilities it affords in the development of significant psychological situations permitting definite control and study of personality reactions.
Thus, by hypnotic suggestion one can create definite psychological environments
...personality reactions within those situations and free from
other and disturbing elements. For example, should it be desired to make a study of the
effects of a state of affective depression upon behavior in general, hypnotic subjects can be placed in a state of profound depression which will serve to govern their conduct in any number of ways. At the sametime this depression can be removed and direct contrasts made between depressed behavior and normal behavior.
@quellimpuls Just a last note: it's amazing how you've got NOTHING of substance, nothing personal, nothing indicating ANY kind of personal processing to communicate.
So it's your function in society to adulate established 'truth' and established authority figures. How interesting! It makes you another dumb, passive believer. Note I can actually make a case, and when I do, you ABANDON.
Not to worry though: the intelligent youtubers will get whose mind is FUNCTIONING.
@suddenlyitsobvious Communication needs at least two people on the same eye level. Arguing needs some openess to arguments and at least one argument.
Psychiatry = evil, Psychiatrist = manipulators are no arguments at all.
But a set of generalized fundamental personal beliefs. Your personal glasses through which you look at the world around you. Same quality like "God created the world".
HOW you know, you're right or that you posess THE TRUTH.
'But a set of generalized fundamental personal beliefs'
You're obviously intellectually dishonest and incompetent. I cited Erickson's priorities verbatim, and these priorities are explicit. That you would jump on contextual, peripheral information provided for clarity in order to attempt making a case of religious fundamentalism/belief is substandard.
You're saying NOTHING and can't process anything. I cited Erickson's own words and they confirm, to anyone...
...equipped that is with some kind of PERSONAL standards, what an amoral freak he was, an issue that can be demonstrated in numerous other ways, but I won't spend too much time on this and have already made a sufficiently convincing case. That you can't do your own thinking is YOUR problem. Your position is lazy, uninteresting, unintelligent. You're a religious person. There's no reason for me to exchange arguments with you because you don't have any...
...and you can't process mine. I got your number from the start, anticipating and identifying how you 'think' and you know it. YOU got nothing from me. Your obsessive attempts to categorize me -arrogant, extremist, religious, fundamentalist, believer, rigid etc- are pathetic cop outs of an actual exchange YOU can't handle. Well don't then.
I know where you're coming from, you don't know where I'm coming from, that's the difference between us. You can't even imagine..
...anybody could process anything by himself. The very concept is completely alien to you. At age 45, the chances you'll discover at some point you can actually rely on your own faculties are already pretty reduced. You're gonna be condemned to your 'heroes', that you'll be defending rabidly against the 'infidels'.
Your story is being played out in the minds of MILLIONS of mass men who have (understandabley) caved in to their conditioning.
'Communication needs at least two people on the same eye level. Arguing needs some openess to arguments and at least one argument.'
Do you realize what complete banalities you're voicing?
'HOW you know, you're right or that you posess THE TRUTH.'
An avowal that YOU don't have any. You couldn't recognize truth if you sat on it and it started penetrating you. Which of course is why you need an AUTHORITY. It's all so classic, to common, so boring...
What I noticed most about this video is that he really only got specific results when he used direct instructions. When he was being indirect, she had virtually no response.
*yourselves
*about
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@suddenlyitsobvious - ready? cleaned up all the NWO slobber on your floor?
OK ..
thank you for providing Stripper's strategy outcome no. 3 for keeping the good old NWO trance alive: Ignore contradicting quotes and bash them as „feelgood phrases“. Do not forget to pee some strong verbal odor marks in direction of the dump cattle before you leave.
quellimpuls 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
'Ignore contradicting quotes and bash them as „feelgood phrases“'
Pfft, you're obviously not sufficiently intelligent to even understand what Erickson HIMSELF is saying about hypnosis. It's very simple: I provided Erickson's OWN words, in the introduction of his OWN book, explicitating his OWN vision for the main uses of hypnosis. That you can't deal with this and need to resort to all sorts of desperate ploys just shows how dishonest you are.
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
Are you really content with absurdly insipid phrases such as: 'there should be only one ruling principle-the patient's welfare.'
WHO INDEED DECIDES what the patient's welfare is? Hmmm?
Milton has stated his priorities, I conveyed them, these priorities are CLEARLY psychopathic, what more is there to say?
Nothing, which is why you're slurring and spinning though I'll add that I feel somewhat sorry for you, and I mean REALLY sorry: you weren't prepared for...
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
...this, had never had the occasion to actually consider these issues, and you were, in a way, caught off guard. You're not used to communicating with intelligent individuals who are NOT promoting a set of values (trust authority) that have completely taken you over, and you are now posting in a frantic damage-control fashion. Indeed, the real problem here is much deeper, you haven't figured out a number of things about the paradigm you're operating under.
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
It's unlikely that you ever will, now that you have all your little personal investments in your little schemes and set-ups regulating your daily adaptive life set up.
I'll leave you on this note: if you REALLY want to HELP people using hypnosis, get over yourself first. This is not about YOU. You need to develop some basic respect for the human mind and other human beings before imagining you can help them.
HONESTY! Is that also a laughable notion to you? Hmm? Bye.
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
*so common
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
q: "anticipating and identifying how you 'think' .. "
Fine. You've done a great job. For - in other words - you're monologizing with your phantasies. Don't worry, up to a normal and reflected extend that's absolutely sane and humane. Some sort of projection. Try out Gregory Bateson to catch at least a glimpse.
quellimpuls 2 weeks ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Wearing strong moral glasses in general works fine for context Strippers lost downdownunder in their muddy everglades, where spooky fogs of control waft over dark blue waters ..
Stripper's strategy outcome, part no.1: This video demonstration is "obviously immoral", because Erickson is hypnotizing a woman.
Tell me: what else Erickson should have done here, IN THIS CONTEXT, with a voluntary person, in order to demonstrate conversational hypnosis?
quellimpuls 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
'Wearing strong moral glasses in general works fine for context Strippers lost downdownunder in their muddy everglades, where spooky fogs of control waft over dark blue waters ..'
And really, what's THIS...?
Wearing strong moral glasses indeed. The entire issue under contention was PRECISELY Erickson's immorality in the first place. That you as a hypnosis-fanatic, no doubt savoring the sense of personal power over deluded victims it confers you, would...
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
..address the issue of morality in such a frivoulous way, indeed as if it were something belonging in the realm of religious supersitition RATHER THAN BE AN INTEGRAL, ESSENTIAL, CRUCIAL PART OF THE VERY PROCESS & PRACTICE OF HYPNOSIS shows WHY you failed to identify Erickson's blatant immorality You have no business invading minds of others if self-aggrandizing immorality is your ultimate.motivation -& it is.
You'll find a plentiful supply of passive victims though.
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
And of course, you can both convince yourself that you're doing it for the best of purposes...
Really, if you can't identify an immoral freak, are actually scorning at the very notion of morality while discussing hypnosis, what does this say about you? Aboput your conceptions of the human mind?
You don't have any. You're following techniques that you don't even understand because you can't take an honest look at yourself first.
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@suddenlyitsobvious
Nu? Any good ideas? Maybe doing some dummy small talk about the weather?
Of course already Erickson's first sentence is a trance induction.
Your „discovery“ is trivial.
Besides: daily smalltalk about the weather in the end can turn out to be a great trance induction too. Just bore your „victim“ to hell.
quellimpuls 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
I illustrated my point WITH HIS OWN WORDS, not some haphazard statement found somewhere and used for my purposes, nooo: a PERFECTLY SIGNIFICANT OUTLAY of what hypnosis SHOULD BE USED FOR according to Erickson himself.
Your bitching about page numbers is beyond pathetic and the level of your 'arguments' is petty, substandard, very unsatisfying intellectually, which is why this exchange is closed. I've provided substance & reasonings, that you can't handle them,...
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
...or bring any depth into the exchange makes pursuing this incovenient as far as I'm concerned, so further posts will not be processed.
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@suddenlyitsobviousIs it somehow regarded as intellectual dishonest, whereever you are from, to provide the exact booktitle including!!! page numbers of a quote?
I found it meanwhile. It was a proposal of Erickson, indeed. A proposal I do not agree with even though I understand the intent behind.
Reading further you would have noticed, that Erickson initiated a paradigm shift in psychiatry: solely the client himself is the expert, not the therapist (e.g. p1 and 58
quellimpuls 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quellimpuls
'whereever you are from, to provide the exact booktitle including!!! page numbers of a quote?'
Pfft, confirming not only how intellectually incompetent, but how anal you are.
I specified book and chapter, and provided the entire passage. Don't you know you can GOOGLE TEXT up, idiot?
'I found it meanwhile. It was a proposal of Erickson, indeed. A proposal I do not agree with even though I understand the intent behind.'
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
Pfft, just dishonesty upon dishonesty. What do you mean, 'A PROPOSAL' and what do you mean, you 'understand the intent behind it'?
He's stating in the first chapter of his book what his PRIORITIES FOR HYPNOSIS are. Full stop. Your bringing in disconnected bits and trivia, such as 'the client being the expert' is just drivel in the light of Erickson's express formulation and what this says about him, namely, exactly as I contended, that he's an immoral manipulator.
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@suddenlyitsobvious He's stating in the first chapter of his book what his PRIORITIES FOR HYPNOSIS are.
He did so, indeed.
But already in the first sentence of his foreword .. xxi
"The task of the physician is to heal. It is neither to censure nor to judge but simply to render services that may enable patients to live their lives in a better and more adequate fashion. (..)There should be only one ruling principle—the patient's welfare.
quellimpuls 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
'He did so, indeed.'
Case closed. Bringing up feelgood phrases from the rest of the book doesn't change one jota from his utterly condemning statement. You're just spinning.
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
*''you got nothing from me' is an ambiguous statement so I clarify that you haven't managed to pick up any actual accurate information about your interlocutor, exclusively relying as you do on standardized protocols of classifying the validity of information through the supposed nature of its source -authority/non-authority, rather than on processing actual content and progressively establishing who you're even talking to... No surprise you're so interested in hypnosis...
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@suddenlyitsobvious – Pt.2 -
Your further wrote "are easily available on the net"
Easily available for me is just one! blog of a very questionable PhD. Questionable because she obviously has developed a strong identity as a victim. "I am right (plus 48 so called collegues - out of how many ??), the rest of the world is stupid and bad". Revealing such a strong personal concernment towards a subject is not very scientific or trustable.
quellimpuls 2 weeks ago
@suddenlyitsobvious - Pt.1 -
You wrote: "she's entering in hypnotic shock" ..
I do not see any shock at all. So, what exactly makes you think so?
quellimpuls 2 weeks ago
She's entering in hypnotic shock because she's surrendering to a freak who manipulates her with her consent. If people would use some discernment and mental activity rather than idiotically tipping their hats at any famous figure, they would actually see what an unsavoury indivual this is.
For those who really can't see, Erickson's utterly questionable techniques -including having women undress before him- have been documented and are easily available on the net.
suddenlyitsobvious 3 weeks ago
@suddenlyitsobvious - pt.3 -
The positive effects of Ericksonian hypnotherapy are scientifically prooved in innumerable studies, which are easily available on the net. For german readers I recommend the site of the Milton Erickson Foundation, Germany. You'll find everything there, your scientific heart desires.
quellimpuls 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
'The positive effects of Ericksonian hypnotherapy are scientifically prooved in innumerable studies'
Pfft, what a substandard comment. All forms of suggestion, including the administration of placebo pills have been shown to generate positive effects so your observation really means little and is completely besides the point.
OF COURSE hypnosis works. The problem I'm pointing out is that its icons in society are immoral snakes and frauds.
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls That Erickson was an immoral power-freak is easy to see as far as I'm concerned, but there's little I can say to BELIEVERS, who simply see what they want to see.
Obviously, if you want to check out Erickson, you won't find the bad stuff on the site of his foundation, that you recommend so enthusiastically. You'll need to do some of the most basic homework, Why not start with the wikipedia entry for instance, that mentions this issue that has not yet been...
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@suddenlyitsobvious - I like to stay very close to what is visible to everybody. So, what kind of "immoral act" by Erickson do you see, right here in this video?
Wikipedia is a source for believers.
So where else - besides Freudian therapy damaged Vegans, Anti-Cult-Activists, Religious Fundamentalists and Scientologists - I can read a not contex stripped critique of the person Milton Erickson with a scientific correct citation of the source, e.g. title, date, page no.?
quellimpuls 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
...contested by the Erickson Foundation for what I can see.
And what does this mean:
'...style and content of your comment would not make me wonder, to find the same person behind both'
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@suddenlyitsobvious - No. It's a metastudy with tons of cross references to non-MEG material, realized by the University of Tübingen on behalf of the two big german hypnosis societies, MEG and DGH.
Playing battleships.
quellimpuls 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
(1)
'show in this vid'
Oh come on, it's so obvious how it's all about MANIPULATION. He starts out with
the question:
'Have you ever been in a trance before', which is obviously a way to make her understand and ACKNOWLEDGE that she's gonna get into one right now.
Do you really think this kind of CONTEMPT for people, conceiving of them as
idiotized lab rats is the way to really connect with people in a sound and
beneficial manner?
'Wikipedia is a source for...
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
(2)
...believers.'
Ah, the well-known mantra; wikipedia is unreliable.
Wiki can be used by intelligent individuals who don't rely on slogans as a source to get a quick idea about anything and since its entries are ESPECIALLY edited by those most conderned by the subject matter, it is indeed quite useful. If you understand anything about society, you'll know that the fact that no legal action has been undertaken against Masson for his contentions regarding
Milton's..
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
(3)
...alleged abuse is SIGNIFICANT, as well as the fact that this piece of info
is NOT being contested on wiki.
If you always have to wait for a scientific paper declaring someone's malpractice,
you may be dead and buried before finding it: it's not a priority of scientists to publish on
the malpractice of their peers/forefathers.
'Freudian therapy damaged Vegans, Anti-Cult-Activists, Religious Fundamentalists and Scientologists'
So Jeffrey Masson, cited in...
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
(4)
...the wiki entry, who reported the case about Milton's abuse,
was a vegan. Is THAT your way of 'thinking'? Judging any piece of info by its source/the messenger, never by the actual message?
I knew where you were coming from from your first post: you're the kind tipping
his hat at all the big names, at authority, accepting authoritatively established
categories of deviancy as a classifying scheme allowing you to 'understand'
what is 'true' and what is not.
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
(5)
'That guy is a scientologist. Scientologists are looneys. Consequently, what the
scientologist says must be false. Scientology says psychiatry is a criminal, insane
nightmare. Consequently psychiatry must be GOOD.'
You didn't state this but THIS is how you 'think': following authority's protocols, no personal discernment or insight involved whatsoever, NEVER assessing information ON ITS OWN MERIT, otherwise you would already know psychiatry is indeed a...
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
(6)
...complete criminal pseudo-science with a horrendous track-record and no results worth mentioning.
And of course Milton was first and foremost a psychiatrist. What you don't understand from your limited, starry-eyed perspective is that hypnosis is merely a new name for an age-old phenomenon known since AGES.
It has since about 2 centuries been brought under the control of the scientific control
freaks and you are RAVING about a few circus tricks while...
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
(7)
...while completely oblivious to the REAL significance of the hypnotic phenomenon, what it actually is, how it works, why it works, what it says about the human mind and how it is being used merely for the most egotistical purposes of a controlling
system that you are too chicken and/or deluded to identify.
I'd need to do a lot of talking because what's at stake here is an entirely
different 'paradigm', but I'll leave you to ponder on these words from Milton...
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
(8)
...from his book 'Innovative Hypnotherapy', first chapter:
'The applications of hypnosis to psychiatry.' What I suggest you wonder about is the PERSPECTIVE Milton is explicitly
communicating here about the entire benefits of hypnosis to....psychiatry,
NOT to human understanding, NOT to human wellfare, NOT to truth...no: to
PSYCHIATRY.
(We can have a discussion on psychiatry if you want but I suppose you'll be
content establishing I must be a...
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
(9)
...'scientologist' or some 'conspiracy-nut' or 'extremist' for criticizing it? Hmmm?)
Milton:
'However, one of the greatest advantages of hypnosis as applied to psychiatry seems to me to be the possibilities it affords in the development of significant psychological situations permitting definite control and study of personality reactions.
Thus, by hypnotic suggestion one can create definite psychological environments
permitting an adequate study of...
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
(10)
...personality reactions within those situations and free from
other and disturbing elements. For example, should it be desired to make a study of the
effects of a state of affective depression upon behavior in general, hypnotic subjects can be placed in a state of profound depression which will serve to govern their conduct in any number of ways. At the sametime this depression can be removed and direct contrasts made between depressed behavior and normal behavior.
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
(11)
An account of such experimental work can be found
in the investigations mentioned earlier (Huston et al.,1934; Luria,1932).'
Can you read, really see, what the angle is? Or is it too uncomfortable, putting too much
of your investments in peril?
You haven't thought about what hypnosis is YOURSELF. You can't see what's really going on here, because YOU'RE HYPNOTIZED.
I'm not. I'm simply looking at these guys and seeing what pathetic psychos your heroes are.
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@suddenlyitsobvious - You're not! Aha. You're special. So very special that you're more special than anybody else on this planet ;-))
Great piece of selfhypnosis.
Congratulations!
quellimpuls 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
Aaaah. I guess the 'argument' ends with a quick slogan! No surprise. Bye!
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls Just a last note: it's amazing how you've got NOTHING of substance, nothing personal, nothing indicating ANY kind of personal processing to communicate.
So it's your function in society to adulate established 'truth' and established authority figures. How interesting! It makes you another dumb, passive believer. Note I can actually make a case, and when I do, you ABANDON.
Not to worry though: the intelligent youtubers will get whose mind is FUNCTIONING.
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Communication needs at least two people on the same eye level. Arguing needs some openess to arguments and at least one argument.
Psychiatry = evil, Psychiatrist = manipulators are no arguments at all.
But a set of generalized fundamental personal beliefs. Your personal glasses through which you look at the world around you. Same quality like "God created the world".
HOW you know, you're right or that you posess THE TRUTH.
The absolute true truth ;-))
quellimpuls 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
'But a set of generalized fundamental personal beliefs'
You're obviously intellectually dishonest and incompetent. I cited Erickson's priorities verbatim, and these priorities are explicit. That you would jump on contextual, peripheral information provided for clarity in order to attempt making a case of religious fundamentalism/belief is substandard.
You're saying NOTHING and can't process anything. I cited Erickson's own words and they confirm, to anyone...
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
...equipped that is with some kind of PERSONAL standards, what an amoral freak he was, an issue that can be demonstrated in numerous other ways, but I won't spend too much time on this and have already made a sufficiently convincing case. That you can't do your own thinking is YOUR problem. Your position is lazy, uninteresting, unintelligent. You're a religious person. There's no reason for me to exchange arguments with you because you don't have any...
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
...and you can't process mine. I got your number from the start, anticipating and identifying how you 'think' and you know it. YOU got nothing from me. Your obsessive attempts to categorize me -arrogant, extremist, religious, fundamentalist, believer, rigid etc- are pathetic cop outs of an actual exchange YOU can't handle. Well don't then.
I know where you're coming from, you don't know where I'm coming from, that's the difference between us. You can't even imagine..
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@quellimpuls
...anybody could process anything by himself. The very concept is completely alien to you. At age 45, the chances you'll discover at some point you can actually rely on your own faculties are already pretty reduced. You're gonna be condemned to your 'heroes', that you'll be defending rabidly against the 'infidels'.
Your story is being played out in the minds of MILLIONS of mass men who have (understandabley) caved in to their conditioning.
I won't change you....
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quellimpuls
'Communication needs at least two people on the same eye level. Arguing needs some openess to arguments and at least one argument.'
Do you realize what complete banalities you're voicing?
'HOW you know, you're right or that you posess THE TRUTH.'
An avowal that YOU don't have any. You couldn't recognize truth if you sat on it and it started penetrating you. Which of course is why you need an AUTHORITY. It's all so classic, to common, so boring...
suddenlyitsobvious 2 weeks ago
@suddenlyitsobvious - Pt. 4 -
You wrote: "Erickson's .. techniques .. including having women undress before him" ..
Please provide a serious link to proof your claim. As long as you can't do so, this is nothing more than a modern and very ugly fairy tale.
To be honest, suddenlyitsobvious .. style and content of your comment would not make me wonder, to find the same person behind both.
quellimpuls 2 weeks ago
What I noticed most about this video is that he really only got specific results when he used direct instructions. When he was being indirect, she had virtually no response.
jmaxman777 1 month ago
A really treasure for all who admire Mr Erickson...¡
Thank you AR3ANI
nlpalci 1 month ago