*Warning* I think this post is pretty long. Sorry.

Chris said:

quote:

---

Anyone who’s done a Lazaris meditation a handful of times or even many times in an erratic manner has nothing to worry about. Even the most suggestible individuals will find that their old patterns of belief and behavior return quickly if the effort to change them wasn’t concerted enough or for a long enough period of time.

---

In Chris's defense I'm taking a Psychology course over the summer and we literally just finished studying hypnosis. I'm going to tell you what the book says:

quote:

---

Hypnosis: A state of heightened susceptibility to the suggestions of others.

---

quote:

---

People under hypnosis are in a state of heightened susceptibily to the suggestions of others. In some respects, it appears that they are asleep. Yet other aspects of their behavior contradict this notion, for people are attentive to the hypnotist's suggestions and may carry out bizarre or silly suggestions.
Despite their compliance when hypnotized, people do not lose all will of their own. They will not perform antisocial behaviors, and they will not carry out self-destructive acts. People will not reveal hidden truths about themselves, and they are capable of lying. Moreover, people cannot be hypnotized against their will--despite popular misconceptions.

---

So basicly, what I'm saying is that Chris wasn't stating an opinion about what he said. He was making a statement about something that is being taught in colleges across the country.

What this book says about daydreaming on page 157 is:

quote:

---

Daydreams: Fantasies that people construct while awake.

---

It goes on to say that:

quote:

---

Daydreams are a typical part of waking consciousness, although our awareness of the environment around us declines. People vary considerably in the amount of daydreaming they do. For example, around 2 to 4 percent of the population spend at least half their free time fantasizing.

---

Since the Psychology book gives this definition for meditation on page 164:

quote:

---

Meditation: A learned technique for refocusing attention that brings about an altered state of consciousness.

---

Further down on page 164 it says:

quote:

---

Regardless of the nature of the particular initial stimulus, in most forms of meditation the key to the procedure is concentrating on it so thoroughly that the meditator becomes unaware of any outside stimulation and reaches a different state of consciousness.

---

This indicates to me that the professional psychologists believe that daydreams are a form of meditation.

I just want to say that it's none of my business how people feel about each other on the boards. I personally like everyone--as you all probably know -- but I honestly believe that Chris is not coming from a place where he's trying to hurt anyone or be totally obnoxious about the subject. He SHOULD know what the heck he's saying if this is what he does for a living! My Gods! If we want to be like that--then maybe people shouldn't listen to TedV when he talks about computers! (Just an example to show how strongly I believe this) And I don't believe that he's trying to set up a business by talking about it here on this site. Yes, he's stated in the Lazaris and Hypnosis thread on p.1, that:

quote:

---

Recently I closed shop (and continue to work with the mentally ill and mentally retarded part time as it takes less time) so I can dedicate myself to my newest business venture which is going to be via direct mail and the internet.

---

So anyway, that's my opinion about this so far.

Vicki

I'm glad you like all of us I like you too.

Since Chris' quote has been reposted several times recently, I'd like to comment on it:

If hypnosis cannot have any long-term effect, then what long-term benefit would we get from doing the Lazaris "meditations", if they are in fact hypnosis? The same argument has been made about herbs - that they can't hurt you, but they can help you significantly. Anything that has a significant effect can have an effect that is significantly advantageous or deliterious. Many are now re-thinking their views about herbs as well.

I don't think it's for scientists to define meditation, other than to report on the measurable changes in brainwave frequency. That is only one aspect of meditation. That it may be similar to the brainwave state of day-dreaming, or anything, does not make the experience the same. Meditation implies a much greater focus, for example. Then there is the effect that meditation has on prana, the life-force.

I have heard and read that a person cannot be forced to commit certain actions because they are hypnotized, and I tend to believe that. That's why a cultified person is still responsible for their actions. If hypnosis made us completely under the spell of others, none of us would ever escape a cult that practices hypnosis.

But it doesn't mean that it ain't f**cked up to hypnotize someone against their will. "Against one's will" is another sticky area. No doubt, if someone is bound and determined to not be hypnotized and had their guard up, they couldn't be put under. So, yes, certainly all of us who were hypnotized allowed it on some level. We didn't have our guard up, because we were told that we would not be hypnotized and that Lazaris is from the Higher Realms. An abused spouse allows the spouse to abuse them, but it doesn't excuse the abusive spouse.

Thanks for the post with the pages on hypnosis,, a bit of a tough subject for MEEEEE..

A story comes to mind, that I'd wanted to post b-4 but the arena was so dominated by Chris( I don't like him) so I never told this story... but I will now....

When I was about 17,,, I went to one of those typical hollywood fantastic hypnotist "shows"
others may have seen them in Vegas,,,

Anyway, this hypnotist did amazing things with peepull who just volunteered outta the audience, normal peepull.who would go up on stage...
ok, so he gets different ones to do different things,.

THEN he goes on to say that if there are a few peepull in the audience that are easy targets (if you will) for hypnosis, then he is gonna do this thing and it should happen to random persons,,,,
so my buddies DAD who took us to this show is put under by this event!!! way cool... he puts his hand on the chair in front of him, and he cannot let go..
his hand won't budge, (that was the hypnosis thing we are laughing, and we tell him to get serious, he says he is serious, he can't move his hand, it is stuck,
then the hypnotist "releases" them, and then they wake up or some such thing.
Afterwards in the car he can't remember that he fell under, he swears hs did not have his hand stuck to a chair, how stupid...refuses to believe us...

This long story was to illustrate that I think peepull can be hypnotized at a distance, in an auditorium, and even with the full knowledge, and even in a room where everyone was "awake" AND not remember it either..

I think hypnosis is a very dodgey issue, that is it is able to change, and be altered to suit the arena, the venue, the persons involved etc. and I full well believe that I was put in a hypnotic state (chris verified that via posts of course)
I did not give my consent to L. subliminally or otherwise....And I do not know if I have been told stuff that I don't want to have in my head, and who the hell knows if it will ever go away.

When you said:

quote:

---

I don't think it's for scientists to define meditation, other than to report on the measurable changes in brainwave frequency. That is only one aspect of meditation. That it may be similar to the brainwave state of day-dreaming, or anything, does not make the experience the same. Meditation implies a much greater focus, for example. Then there is the effect that meditation has on prana, the life-force.

---

I know what you're saying. The reason that I posted the stuff in my book is just for the clinical definitions that are being taught to people and I think that this is where Chris is coming from. There are a couple of pages on this and I just don't want to type it all out. That's why I posted the link--so that hopefully--(like I said, I haven't been to the site yet )--you can read it all there.

I also think that you have a point when you say:

quote:

---

But it doesn't mean that it ain't f**cked up to hypnotize someone against their will. "Against one's will" is another sticky area. No doubt, if someone is bound and determined to not be hypnotized and had their guard up, they couldn't be put under. So, yes, certainly all of us who were hypnotized allowed it on some level. We didn't have our guard up, because we were told that we would not be hypnotized and that Lazaris is from the Higher Realms. An abused spouse allows the spouse to abuse them, but it doesn't excuse the abusive spouse.

---

I personally was not defending Lazaris for this--I think it was wrong of them to say that they wouldn't "hypnotize" people and then do it. I also have to say though--that I don't know what the definition of hypnosis was when CS started doing the workshops and the guided meditations--that was almost 30 years ago, right?--and they could have used the definition for hypnosis that was used at that time. Believe me, I don't think that it's right, but maybe there's a reason. I do know that my teacher said that there have been many changes and discoveries in Psychology over the years so maybe that's one of them. Again--I agree--if they KNEW that what they were doing was hypnosis then it was wrong of them to say it wasn't and to still do it.

Okay, I have to go. I'll see you all later.

We were posting at the same time.

Here's what the book says about what might have happened with your friends father, (p. 163). (They're talking about how some theorists reject the notion that hypnosis is a significantly different state of consciousness from normal waking consciousness.)

quote:

---

If hypnosis does not represent a state of consciousness distinct from normal waking consciousness, then why do people appear {appear is italicized in the book} to be in an altered state? To Theodore Sarbin and colleagues, hynotized people are in a heightened state of suggestibility, role-playing the state of hypnosis as they understand it. They are not "pretending" to be hypnotized. Instead, they believe they are hypnotized and simply follow the suggestions of the hypnotist in the same way they follow suggestions of employers, bosses, and other persons of authority (Sarbin, 1991, 1993).

---

Hmmm. I think that's kind of interesting.

Later.

Thanks for your input on hypnosis.

Chris will agree, and has stated here that there is no agreed upon definition of hypnosis. On the commercial site Chris supports, which promotes hypnosis the author and hypnosis teacher disputes the Webster dictionary definition.

I do agree with Chris that even this self-serving site has much to offer in the way of insight into hypnosis and it's potential for abuse.

The thing is that even United States Supreme Court Justices have written opinions (with the help of huge research resources) which agree that hypnosis is capable of implanting false memories and beliefs.

Every hypnotist whose writing I have read agrees that because humans are so suggestible no hypnotist should ever make any suggestions, or provide their own thoughts, beliefs, or versions of events to their clients at any time prior, during, or after a session. It is universally considered to be unethical for a hypnotist to do that.

I have posted here at least twice the quote from Chris's favorite hypnosis promoter in which he states that if your hypnotist claims a belief in past lives you should head for the hills.

All of the above are examples of exactly what Jachzaris does on tapes and in seminars.

He provides us with hours of suggestions and then proceeds to hypnotize us with our heads and notebooks all full of them.

Chris can argue all night and day that he is a hypnotist, fine. But he cannot argue that the hypnosis community would endorse Jachzaris' techniques, because they would not and do not.

I have provided quotes and links ad tedium on all of the above topics, yet Chris has succeeded in turning this conversation into an alleged attack on him personally, with obvious success. You have evidently fallen for it and so have others. I don't fault you for that, it is the inevitable consequence of providing minds with endless suggestions, substantiated or otherwise.

The source of conflict in this conversation on my part is about statements of authority.

Chris claims to be an authority, you accept him as such, based on no information beyond his statements here as to his training. He admits that he has no credentials, having failed to follow up on the requirements to achieve them. (If I recall correctly).

I must admit Vicki, it is of concern to me that you or anyone are willing to accept Chris's authority on this topic simply based on the fact that you read the words of a complete stranger on an internet message board.

It is also of concern to me that you seem to have followed Chris's endless statements that I am attacking HIM, when in fact, I am attacking the tactics he uses to get his point across. They are the same tactics used by Jach and Con:Sin.

See how easily we are led down the garden path by someone?

As a trained hypnotist, Chris should know better than anyone about the power of suggestion. He certainly uses it freely here, with some evident success, I might add.

The bottom line of this argument for me is whether or not hypnosis is actually anything beyond a relaxed state in which we are not in any way in danger of having our minds tweaked or not.

If we are not, then why would anyone pay a hypnotist like Chris? Why would hypnosis be used as a part of therapy? If watching TV is a state of hypnosis, or reading a book, looking at a plant, then why is there such a thing as a hypnotist?

If hypnotism can be used to change the habits of a lifetime like smoking, overeating, or to overcome fears and phobias, then how can it be claimed that it can't be used to implant false imageries and beliefs?

From where I sit, based on Chris's argument that there is no way that anyone could be hurt by hypnosis, he is also therefore saying that no one can be helped by it either.

Or, is he saying that hypnosis is a magical art which can only be used to help, and never to hurt, that just by right of being a hypnotist, a person can have no negative intentions, no hidden agendas, no desire to control and manipulate?

Of course, Chris will say that in asking these questions I am launching a personal attack against him because he believes in Lazaris, and I am a paranoid in fear of everyone who does.

I leave it to you to decide if the questions I've raised have any merit, and whether or not in asking them I have raised a paranoid and vicious attack against Chris.

There are a lot of links in the hypnosis threads, if you are interested in pursuing this information further, I'm sure you'll find plenty of reading.

I continue to hold that this is a very important topic for all of us who have been under the ether of "Lazaris" to explore.

Understanding and pondering the potential for hypnosis to implant thoughts and memories can provide a clue to all of us as to why there is such a profound and passionate defense mechanism within Lazaris followers, and such a weakened ability to sort sense from non-sense.

Vicki, an understanding of hypnosis MAY provide you with some clues to your otherwise intelligent, strong, and ethical sister to continues to remain among the firm and true.

I say it MAY do that, Chris says it is impossible, and I continue to dispute Chris's claims and to object to his positioning himself as the worlds final authority on all things involved with hypnosis.

I don't like Chris, and have no problem stating that, but my dislike for him has nothing whatsoever to do with his belief in Lazaris or some mental instablility on my part. It doesn't have much to do with hypnosis either. It's really about his behavior toward me and others posting here.

Katie

You wrote:

quote:

---

Yo Chris,
So I guess you are signing off on ever responding to my post..
Sniffle , sniffle, I feel oh ..so...left out in the cold...
I guess I'm just not as interesting and fetching as Katie, damn her, she gets all the guys.
Audrey

---

Yes, by far you are as interesting and indeed may I say as fetching as Katie, but if you'll read all the posts I wrote today, I have indeed responded fully to your thoughts.

Don't worry, I'm not ignoring you.

Love and Peace,

I have to go so right now I really can't answer your post. But I'm a little upset by it.

I'm not an IDIOT who believes everything that I read posted by people on a message board--I am an intelligent person who is capable of making up my own mind and my own decisions. The stuff that I posted is not only my opinion--but the facts that are being taught to college students across the country. Therefore, I think that there is some merit to it. Also, I want to say that I am not only basing my opinions on what is in my Psychology book--(I used that so that you would all have a viable place to go to and see where I was coming from.)--I have always been interested in hypnosis and I've read a lot of stuff on it over the years and it usually says the same stuff.

I didn't once say anything about how you and Chris are both acting towards each other. Did I? It's none of my business if you two get along or not. I posted that stuff because I honestly do not believe that Chris is coming from a place to hurt OR sway people. Not for nothing--I honestly get the impression from him that he's trying to make people feel a little less scared about the prospect of being "hypnotized" without their permission--AND that is why I am defending him. I don't think that there is anything wrong with him trying to help.

Geez, Katie--isn't that part of what you're trying to do to? With this site I mean? Don't you want the people who come here to feel relieved and happy and hopeful that they aren't the only one's who doubt the legitimacy of Lazaris?-- or even if they still believe in Lazaris-- that they have doubts about how CS runs it's business? My mother has told me and I've read numerous posts here that talk about how much you care about people and I totally believe it, because you and Ted have made a site where people can come and hopefully start to heal from whatever they've gone through at CS and the forum.

I am personally under the opinion that you and Chris are coming at this whole subject from 2 different places--but at the same time from the same exact place.

Are you feeling a little confused? LOL. Okay--from what I see, Chris is trying to make people not doubt themselves. I think that the scariest thing thing in everyone's mind is that someone else has control over them--and Chris is trying to tell them the scientific facts that he knows in an attempt to make them feel better. That's good--because what he's saying will help some of the people. I also think that part of the reason he doesn't think that they (CS, Jach, Lazaris--whoever) could or would do anything so underhanded and rotten is because he wouldn't dream of doing something like that himself. He's probably an ethical person. That's the way I'm reading him anyway.

And Katie, unfortunately, you KNOW that people are sometimes A**HOLES and that sometimes they aren't out for the greater good. I think that this pisses you off royally--(I think that you're a romantic and they always get hurt the worst)--and it hurts you in your soul that there are--or might be-- people being taken advantage of. So in a way, I think that Chris is right. You are coming from a place of hurt. And that's okay because as you know, they say what doesn't kill you can only make you stronger. But the point I'm trying to make is that you seem to be coming from a place of knowledge is power. If people know there's a possibility of wrong doing then they can protect themselves.

Now, like I said, I don't care if you like each other or not--not my business--but I wanted to post that stuff because it made a lot of sense to me. You both are good people who want to help others. And because you look at things differently you're clashing. Like I said--that's fine with me.

I do want to say that I recently went to a hypnotist to try to lose weight. ( it hasn't worked)I talked to my professor about it and he told me to ask myself one question: Who's in control? And that seems to be what I needed to hear. I don't think that ANYONE can plant anything in your mind if you don't want them to. We are in control of our lives and our minds. Damn, I've rambled on more than I should have and I'm late. I'll come back later and try to finish up.

Wow, I don't know what to say.

I've already addressed the reason's I have problems with Chris's comforting manner regarding hypnosis here already so many times that I think it would border on abuse of posters to state them yet again.

Of course Chris is encouraging people not to doubt themselves about Lazaris. He thinks all things Lazaris are quite fine and dandy.
He's encouraging us not to think or doubt, but to just take his expert word on that.

I think the opposite, that the more we allow ourselves to doubt,the faster we will get to the truth of the issues we have with Lazaris.
Doubting is a good and healthy thing, coupled with some clear and honest thought, it should lead us right to the truth.

Why shouldn't we doubt?

Also, Vicki, is it a crime to be hurt? I keep hearing this bit about how hurt I am as though it's a fact, and then as though it has anything to do with anything at all.

Well, isn't that up to me to know and decide?

Also, assuming I am hurting, does that mean that I can't think, evaluate or react?

I just don't get this "hurt" business.

That's been a big tactic of the Lazaris supporters, and it is a common cult tactic, to just write off people who are thinking for themselves as being somehow weak, stupid, or mentally unstable. Hitler was known to use the same tactic, and filled mental hospitals with his critics.

And NO!!! I'm not accusing you of being cultlike or a Hitler. I'm making the same point about how effective it is when someone claims to speak from authority and the proceeds to assign motives to others.

Anyway, no, of course I don't think your an IDIOT.

If you are referring to my statements about how easily Chris is able to create himself to be an authority for some people just by stating that he is, that isn't an issue of intelligence, it's an issue of how easy it is to create a belief and an image in a human mind. That's my whole point here.

So, no, I don't think you're an idiot, but for the sake of argument, what evidence or knowledge do you have of Chris that makes you so sure he is an expert as he says?

I'm not asking that to be contentious, but to make a point. What does it take for someone to create a belief in another?

That is what this site is about for me, thinking, evaluating, looking beyond the surface of any information that is provided.

And, I know Vicki, that I don't have to tell you that, you've written plenty of posts that let us know that you can and do look beyond the surface.

So, what is my crime in looking beyond the surface of Chris's authoritarian statements and what does it have to do with whether I'm hurt or not?

I know you say that you've done a lot of reading on hypnosis and have formed your beliefs based on that. I have also read quite extensively on the topic, and it didn't take too long before I saw that the Lazaris "meditations" are not only hypnosis sessions, but that they are unethical ones as well.

I have provided enormous documentation from the hypnosis, therapy, and legal communities
which supports me in saying that.

There is a HUGE debate going on now between the cult awareness community and the law enforcement agencies about whether or not psycholigical coersion is a crime. The frequent use of hypnosis is very much deemed to be a tactic used to impose such coercion. It is considered by many to be a clear violation of our basic civil rights. It seems that the Scientologists have succeeded in tying up the courts and judges on this issue, but it is only a matter of time until there is a higher court decision which will begin to allow for more successful prosecutions.

None of this information has anything to do with my frame of mind, and I'm sure you'll agree that is so.

I am seeking an understanding of how so many people, including myself and Ted, invested so many years in following a belief system that now makes no sense to me, and never did live up to even a shadow of it's promise. I'm also wanting to understand why I allowed myself to be manipulated and abused for so long, why I participated in doing that myself, and why I was even led to doubt my own husband.

I think it's a very bad thing to judge being hurt in a negative way. That causes us to not want to admit it when we are hurt, because we think it will make us seem weak or stupid. It's especially dangerous to allege that someone who is hurting is incapable of thinking clearly.

Talk to you when you get back.

Katie

quote:

---

We have to accept a basic foundation premise that of course hypnosis can be abused and there are of course unethical practitioners. Such is the case in all things, not only hypnosis. I have never stated that hypnosis can't do harm if misused; only that it is very, rare. I stated this in a previous post.

That being said, I have personally never seen said abuse, though I have heard of cases. They are extremely, extremely rare.

---

For the sake of science, could you provide us with statistics so that we can decide for ourselves what the meaning of rare is? Are there published and documented studies to support this statement, or is it your opinion?

quote:

---

for one do not consider past life regression an abuse of hypnosis because it falls under the catagory of a subjective spiritual experience. Those who come to a hypnotherapist seeking past life regression already have some level of belief or there wouldn't ask for this type of esoteric therapy.

---

I've already posted the quotes here about this from your source several times over, so I won't do it again. What is at issue is not the regression itself, but whether or not the hypnotist has provided any information at all which might serve to implant suggestions in the clients and therefore "create" the experience for the client rather than allow for the client to have their own subjective experience.

This is my issue with the Lazaris materials. Anyone who has listened to one Lazaris tape knows that prior to the "meditation" Jachzaris fills the mind with much information and imagery.
That is an unethical abuse of hypnosis, rare or not. I'm really not concerned with how many times it's happened to anyone else, only with how many times it's happened to me.
And the answer is that I have personally been subjected to unethical, abusive uses of hypnosis at the hands of one singular abusive unethical hypnotist.

When the testimony of previously hypnotized patients is brought into a court of law the number 1 question that has to be satisfied is whether or not the hypnotist provided anything which could possibly be construed as a suggestion. If it is found that they have, the testimony is routinely ruled out, because the courts tend to discount any testimony based on memories or beliefs which MAY have been even inadvertantly implanted.

There is no MAY at all about the suggestions implanted by Lazaris prior to hypnosis. They are not offered as suggestions, but as facts from an impeccable authority.

quote:

---

hypnosis is the practice of consciously applying suggestions and visualizations to either oneself or another. Whether or not the sugestion is direct or indirect is irrelevant, the intention is to place yourself or another into an altered atate for the purpose of reprogramming the subconscious. Intention and technique are key.

---

Right. Do the Jachzaris "meditations" meet that criteria or not?

Katie

Hey, I would also be very interested to find **my own** statistics on the "Rarity" of hypnotists taking advantage of clients or whatever...

Come on, I am either way-way too cynical, or I have too much access to statistics,,,,but I'm tellin' ya ( and I know you KNOW this too) the statistics for hypnotists then would have to run counter to absolutly EVERY other type of practitioner of mental, AND physical health (in this country)

SO OK HERE ARE SOME:
From the US DEPT. of Health and Human Services;
number of physicians in the US aprox. 700,000.
Number of "accidental" deaths in the US caused by physician "error" 120,000 PER YEAR.
NUmber of deaths then, per doctor: aprox. 0.171 per year...

I REST MY CASE....

Oh, I know, Dreamspring will go on and on about how those deaths are caused by DRUGS, or incorrect invasive surgeries, etc etc...
But that will only stregthen my message...

even if it would be mostly true..BECAUSE..it boils down to the fact WE KNOW, peepull get into the "HEALER"
***BIZZNESS** for LOTSA reasons don't we,....
**** HELPIN*** peepull ain't always one of 'em... in fact I think helpin' is more and more RARE, as time goes on.....

heh...heh...I'm thinkin' my posts are startin to sound-look like Steve's

but this sorta bullshit is so frustrating, as I think the hypnotist arena would be FILLED to capacity with shady people...

Call me a cynic...go ahead... I'm happy to be one that's for SURE...

I am sorry Vicki if you are considering going into the bizness of hypnotist/healer,BUT I would certainly hope that you will be one of the few GOOD ones, and I think that would get you lots of bizz through the years...

I do wonder WHY that hypnotist didn't work on you, perhaps it was YOU...perhaps it was Hypnotist... lemme ask you this .... Can you get your $$$ back??? or is it YOUR fault therefore no refund ?????

BTW, I have a good weight loss "secret"...
SPIRULINA!!!! it's good fur ya, and it helps to stop sugar cravings !! HONEST.!!! I'm not messin' with ya.. It's mean bein' green......

Cheers,
Audrey

I agree that the statistics used by Audrey don't prove anything. So what? Neither does your statement that corruption among hypnotherists is extremely rare. For one thing, you provided no backup for that statement.

But even if your statement is accurate, it's irrelevant. We're not discussing general corruption in the field. We're discussing specific corruption as it may be practiced by Jach/Lazaris. If the tendency for corruption in this field is indeed very low, it simply increases the contrast between ethical practitioners and J/L.

The idea that Lazaris has their own definition of hypnosis, and hence was not lying is similar to the teenager who doesn't wash the silverware or pots when asked to wash the dishes. After all, they're not technically dishes. I would expect a higher degree of responsibility from a Grand Orb, especially one who uses the "R" word so often.

As for "tacit permission" - I've already stated that there ain't no such thing. I think you have already stated that you do get a signed agreement from your clients. If procuring the services of someone who calls himself a hypnotherapist doesn't provide ample tacit permission to be hypnotized, I don't know what would. It would appear that the law is on my side of this argument.

Speaking of calling yourself a hypnotherapist - what does that mean? If hypnosis can mean all the things you say it can mean, then the term "hypnotherapst" has no meaning. You may as well refer to yourself as "some dude". If I went to you for therapy, can I expect that you will facilitate a trance state in which I become more suggestible than normal? Or will you tell me to day-dream? Or chant Nom-myoho-renge-kyo?

You explained where you got your hynosis training. What about the therapy part? Surely the ability to put someone in trance does not mean that one has any greater-than-normal ability to provide therapy. Do the Lazaris tapes represent your therapy training?

I agree that you cannot prove that hypnosis cannot do any harm. Why then do you state it with such authority? Either hypnosis is powerful or it is not. If it is, then it can be powerfully good or powerfully bad. If it's not, why would you build your career around it?

Cheers, Ted

Man, you do know how to circle dance.

You are the one who introduced the topic of statistics by stating that cases of abuse by hypnotism are extremely rare.

Making such a statement must mean that you have access to some manner of measuring that, and that would be some kind of evaluative data, or statistics.

Otherwise, where did you get the information that you state with such authority and upon what is it based?

quote:

---

Well, if that’s it, I might as well take my toys and go home. I can’t see any possible way to get my brain around such an erudite use of statistical misinformation.

---

Well, if it's too erudite for you that some of us would like to understand the sources and studies which provide you with the data you provide, then I do wish you would take your toys and go home.

You continue to want to come here, make any kind of statement that fits your purpose, and then when asked to back it up, divert the topic by insulting the questioner. Beyond that, in doing so, you almost invariably end up doing a complete 360 on your original premise.

This is what I call Intellectual Boogaloo.

So, would you stop boogalooing and answer the questions your posts raise and stop insulting people for asking, assigning them motives, backpeddling on your original argument, and driving some of us to the brink of distraction?

I'm asking you again, let's see if you are willing on any level to be responsible for your words here. Upon what information do you base your STATEMENT that abuses of hypnosis are EXTREMELY RARE?

We keep hearing that you are an authority on hypnosis, so please provide an illustration which goes beyond making vague and general statements.

That's all I'm asking, please confine your response to that question.

Before you take it upon yourself to assign it, I'll tell you my motive for asking.

I want to know, and I think it's only fair for you to back up your authoritarian statements rather than just demand that they be accepted because YOU say so. Call me paranoid. I'm so paranoid that I'm waiting with baited breath to see what method of diversion you use this time to avoid answering a direct and simple question.

Katie

The argument that I am taking statistics from one area of healing modalities, and applying my thoughts on that to an alternative mode is somewhat valid, but only if you take it out of context.

As we all well know,....the issues with statistics are always hotly debated, even when those statistics specifically pertain to the issue in question.

I happened to have had those statistics in my database, so they were readily available, and therfore I used those, not that I will not be able to find some on hypnosis.
If there are industry regulators compiling them...
I probably could find them, and may if I have the time, and want to spend the effort, but I don't think it matters so much.

I do think you would be able to come up with some pretty quickly, belonging to your practitioner organizations, you do I would hope, belong to some industry organizations??

then it would be easier for myself or others to Validate what you report......

But the main reason why it doesn't matter much, because I have nothing to prove.

I was using those statistics because I am certain(my opinion) that one can generally categorize persons who feel a calling towards the healing modalities..

(not my opinion): It is by no means RARE to find negligance, and all manner of fraud, and mal-practice amongst those with much more academia on their sides.(traditional madical doctors)

Those that choose to enter into alternative modes are still driven by the very same set of "drives", and I used to believe that those in the alternative path were driven to help empower the patient, more than those who chose to join the ranks of traditional practitioners.
I have changed my opinion on that...

As in the traditional modes, there are other reasons that people turn to alternatice modes of healing too, GREED, POWER over others well-being,..dependence upon them... are some of them,FRONT and CENTER those are some of them...(my opinion)

I have over the years, come to an understanding from direct contact, from working in the natural products industry, and therfore having knowledge of what goes on in the minds of a wide variety of alternative practitioners such as Dr. Andrew Weil. etc.

I am a cynic regarding healers of all kinds now.

That is not at all SAD as you state!!!!!it is HAPPY..... it comes from being discriminating with information, and it has come from choosing to look at the truth, about what goes on, and the RESULTS of said healing modalities...

What is Sad is to see persons such as yourself without the wherewithall to discern the reality of a cult, the mind control double-speak that goes on...that is truly SAD...
One who cannot look at RESULTS....that is sad..

Now, look at what Vickie said, she's just gone to a hypnotist, and it didn't work...
I wonder why, guess what...then someone told her it was HER fault( she's in charge) sounds like she's toblame to me,...oh she doesn't DEEP down waht to be thin,,give me a break....
makes me wanna hurl..kinda sounds like what one is told when L. techniques don't work eh?
""OH, well, you need to do that OTHER neg. ego tape first,(or) you obviously haven't healed your inner child yet""(dummy) "martyr"...etc etc ad nauseum..

To go back to your post: I was not patting myself on the back about finding the statistics mentioned above, on how bad the state of affairs in this country are regarding health care. I think it's despicable.

I am willing to put out the info I have, to those who don't have ready access to it, that is not statistical info I compiled, if it were THEN I'd surely pat myself on the back for that!!!!!

AND,...I'd never return to a chiropractor for anything at all!!!

One day I thought in depth about it: how could a person alter the way a bone is just because they are going to press on it , or work the muscles around those bones, or wedge it around using the different metods.. No-one can alter the way bones are positioned short of cutting them up, or breaking them.
And I asked my chiro to show me x-rays which proved their point, they would not...

Sure, many have enjoyed certain benefit from chiros, but it is not at all because the bones are in the correct, or a better position for good, which IS the premis of chiros.
All this can be argued over and over can't it.

Well, on another thread I put some info about the amazing healing benefits of PLACEBOS, you may want to read that.

Perhaps this is becoming your modus operandai???? or did I send you off on another red herring fishing expedition??????

because like Katie mentions:

You choose not to address the **CENTRAL issue that was brought up, as you have not addressed the OTHER CENTRAL issue, from a long past post now...

this is geting tedious,is this your point???

You take it on yourself to defend Hypnosis, that's all well and good, but you need to validate your statements..It was a very broad statement, and THAT WAS One of my points in bringing up those statistics you detested so much...

If indeed you are going to be the voice for the valdidity of hypnosis, then just throwing an opinion out isn't doing it justice is it???

Those of you who don't like statistics can argue all you want about how invalid they are, then you shouldn't go stating anything at all which would make for an argument using numbers. such as the rarity of persons having bad experiences with hypnosis....rare in comparison to WHAT?? aroma-therapists??? what????

I promise that the day will come when you fully realize that Lazaris is not what they say they are!!! I can guarantee that without a doubt....
ANDDDD... I will not pat myself on the back when /if I find out about your enlightenment!

Chow,
Audrey

While lurking through the pages over the past month, I came across several of your posts. This last one is an improvement, but for the life of me I still don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Do you have a problem with the written word? Maybe you are going into trance and trying to write. I thought I would ask before I began assuming that you've just come off some high-power meds, or had part of your brain removed.

I'm new to this forum too, but Jesus Christ, you sound like Son-of-Sam! Get a grip! I'd like to read what you have to say.

Let's try this again.

Upon what besides YOUR feelings are you expressing your STATEMENTS?

If you were only expressing your own private and personal opinions here, we would not be having this conversation, BTW.

Lava and Peas,

All I can say is "Ditto".

BTW, This Servant of ours has posted here under at least two other names, one of the is Naelon, or something like that and I think the other one is crystalsomethingorother.

I know this because they use an ISP which gives a geographic identifier, and it's somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

Gracias,

Why don't we forget about statistics? I'll take your word for it that no one was ever harmed by your practice of hypnosis. I'll even take your word for it that harm caused by hypnosis is very rare.

Rare and non-existant are not the same. This discussion is about whether the hypnosis practiced by "Lazaris" is or could be harmful. This is not an indictment of hypnosis in general. Can we agree that it's possible to be harmed by hypnosis? Either through malice or incompetence?

That's the main issue. That, and is it ethical to hypnotize without explicit permission, even if the results of the hypnosis are not harmful? I think you've answered the part about needing explicit permission. On that we'll just have to disagree. Vehemently, from my perspective.

Okay, I'm vouching for the coming-off-the-meds theory. IMO, stay on them unless you are driving!

To the rest of the folks here—I’m sorry I nibbled at The Servant’s post. The thread was going so well until then.

I'll post again on Monday. That way I can talk to the folks here about hypnosis, and check in with Dog to see if Sam has told him to do anything. Stay away from the hydrants.

Divert divert divert.

You are one of those Dungeon and Dragons guys aren't you?

This is the real world.

You made a statistical statment about the relative dangers of hypnosis, albeit a vague and unsubstantiated one.

Please provide clarity and substantiation as I'm quite sure you were required to do during your long and diligent hours of hypnosis training. Two hundred and fifty did you say? Was that in class time, or postal delivery time?

Lava and peas,

So, now you qualify your statements. They are not statements at all, but opinions based on the same criteria the rest of us use to form our opinions, and therefore no more right or wrong than anyone elses.

You state as fact that which is simply your opinion. Do I have that right?

Please save us all the problem of eeking clarification out of you the next time by just stating that you are providing an opinion, not making a statement of authority based on your still unpresented credentials.

Thank you.

Lava and Peas,

quote:

---

Hell, I'd be happy to hear even anecdotal evidence from either your vast study of hypnosis or your experience with it. But of course that won't be forthcoming as neither exist. You cannot even cogently speak to the posts I've already made and yet you insist on calling me diversionary in my dialogue.

---

Jesus Christ! I now think you're the most dense asshole I've ever met in my life, and I ain't young, and I've met a lot of dense assholes.

You now win the prize hands down.

No Lava and peas for you.

Katie