There are many other interesting and unique devices and aids you can use for inducing hypnosis. Rather than present them all in this book, I have fully described them and their technique of operation in a 144-page illustrated catalog. This catalog not only contains a list of hypnotic aids, but a description and listing of over 450 hypnotism and self-help books. Upon request, I shall be pleased to send it to you. Write to: Melvin Powers, 12015 Sherman Road, No. Hollywood, California 91605 and ask for Hypnotic Catalog No. 7. Should you have any questions on self-hypnosis or hetero-hypnosis, I shall be pleased to answer you.
Chapter 12
The Nature of Hypnosis
Although the nature and phenomena of hypnosis are still incompletely understood, there are a multitude of theories which attempt to explain its mechanism and results. The most that can be done at this time is to explore various views which are held by leading authorities at present. It can be said, however, that a majority of authorities agree that hypnosis ensues as a result of natural laws which have been incorporated in the human organism since the beginning of man as he is today.
The older theories show almost as much disparity as today, but for the purposes of history it is probably necessary to enumerate only the "animal magnetism" of Frederick Anton Mesmer, and a mention of the "hysteria syndrome" of Jean Martin Charcot. Both names loom large in the history of hypnosis. Mesmer, an 18th century physician, believed that hypnosis occurred as a result of "vital fluids" drawn from a magnet or lodestone and which drew their unique qualities from the sun, moon and stars. Charcot, as well as Pierre Janet and others, was convinced that hypnosis was a form of hysteria and that only hysterics could be hypnotized. The former (Mesmer) thought further that metal became imbued by the solar qualities, and his system is also known as metalogy by which he meant the proper application of metals. Naturally, these theories have been largely abandoned today, although there are still a few who think that hypnosis is a form of hysteria.
Some pioneers, notably Dr. William S. Kroger, a psychiatrically-oriented obstetrician and gynecologist who limits his practice to hypnotherapy, believe hypnosis is a conviction phenomenon which produces results that parallel the phenomena produced at Lourdes and other religious healing shrines. His formula is that faith, hope, belief and expectation, all catalyzed by the imagination, lead inevitably to hypnosis. He, like Emile Coué before him, is convinced that you cannot "will" yourself to be hypnotized, and that whenever the will and the imagination come into conflict, the imagination wins out. This fits in perfectly, of course, with the author's already discussed visual-imagery technique which requires a high degree of imagination. Dr. Kroger, like a few others, has proved to his own satisfaction that all hypnotic phenomena can be produced at a non-hypnotic level.
A large number of hypnotists, including the author, has come to believe that hypnosis is a semantic problem in which words are the building blocks to success. Not just any words, but words which "ring a bell" or tap the experiential background of the subject. This is why "sleep" continues to be in the lexicon of the hypnotist even though hypnosis is the antithesis of sleep. The word is used because hypnosis superficially resembles sleep inasmuch as the eyes usually are closed, the body in a posture of complete relaxation. Actually, the mind is hyperacute. Pavlov, however, believed that there was an analogy between sleep and hypnosis in that each involved cerebral inhibition. Words, of course, would be of little use without the added effect of his conditioned reflexology.
Probably the most widely held theory is that hypnosis is a transference phenomenon in which the prestige of the hypnotist and his relationship to the subject plays an important role. This theory is bolstered by the fact that all schools of psychotherapy yield approximately the same results even though the methods differ. This would logically indicate that the relationship between the therapist and the subject was the determining factor. The only trouble with this theory is that it does not explain self-hypnosis. On the other hand, we know that a strong interpersonal relationship is necessary for hypnosis.