As to science
Since man began assembling, some few have spent their lives in trying to comprehend the most incomprehensible of all beings, – man. The net result of all their work and discoveries has resulted in nothing but theory, and that not worth the candle. With all of our alleged knowledge, the few truths we have are of but little value. The myriads of theories are so impracticable that I often wonder why and how the "authorities" obtain their titles. The authorities of a hundred years ago are the laughing stock of to-day.
Up to fifty years ago man was bled as a cure for every disease; to-day they claim he is full of bugs that require slaughtering and try to make of him a bacilli abattoir [slaughterhouse]. They write tomes of books on "mind," yet nowhere can I find it comprehensively defined. Everyone prides himself on his will power, yet I must own that such a thing which is so ambiguously defined is incomprehensible to me. Volumes are written as to hearing, seeing, smelling, feeling and tasting, and yet no one seems to be able to grasp the true significance of these terms.
Crime is punished, yet more penitentiaries are yearly required. Our alienists, truly foreigners to their subjects, know all (?) about the brain and with the greatest assurance pronounce upon man's sanity, yet offer us no cure, and our institutions for the insane are too small for the ever increasing demands upon them. We know the effect, need no experts, why does not some one demonstrate the cause?
As to expert testimony
In all sensational murder trials our most learned (?) and wise doctors (?) go on the stand as many experts (?) – whatever that may mean – swearing directly opposite to one another, and still maintain their standing in their profession and the community. If they know anything, how is it possible for the truth to be in both of two contradictory assertions. They study in the same schools, from the same books and from the same "authorities," yet one says "yes," the other "no." Verily, gentlemen, you must lack a true premise.
Effect, man comprehends fairly well, but as to cause our most learned scientists seem to have no conception. Now, dear reader, if you would know a bit of truth follow me. I am a graduate of no great college; am professor in no great institution; have been exposed (?) many times, yet truth is, was, and always will be, and year after year my following increases.
If you will follow through the ensuing pages, unsophisticated as I am, I will try to teach you something about man – a mere machine; his every thought and action forced, possessing no will power, and in no way responsible for his actions. For twelve years I have studied nightly from ten to twenty-five hypnotized subjects and have found that they are ruled by the same general law as the non-hypnotized man. In other words, a hypnotized subject is a slowed-down machine which one knowing how, can watch each and every movement of, and thereby comprehend cause and effect. Through a hypnotized subject we can learn how "normal" man is forced to act. Consequently, we can thoroughly analyze the whys and wherefores of every act performed by a subject while in hypnosis, during which time I believe the cerebrum to be entirely inactive.
All action automatic
The cerebrum is like the receiving or correlating mechanism of the phonograph; after the thought is registered in the ganglion of the Abdominal Brain it is then purely automatic and free from the cerebrum, which is the realizing brain. Everything we do and say is purely automatic – an effect. The babe at birth fails to withdraw its foot when tickled. After that action is associated with the peculiar sensation, the action always takes place when the sensation is produced, it being purely automatic, otherwise, a result or transformation of the cause. After the babe has learned to speak the word "papa," whenever the environment forces the desire for father, automatically the word is said without any predetermination.
One thing an impossibility
Everything in life is a combination of attributes; i. e., one thing an impossibility.
The attributes of which any object is composed, are of interest to us only as they affect our senses. The word "tree," if disassociated with our sense impressions, would mean nothing, but when its form (sight) and use (feeling) are associated with its name (sound), we for the first time have a comprehension of what in the English language is known as a tree. A foreigner, unable to understand our language, coming to this country and being asked for a match would have no conception of what we were talking about; after we have associated in his "mind" its form (sight), its use (feeling) and its name (sound), he would for the first time understand what was meant by the word "match."
All matter to be conceived must affect two senses; to be comprehended it must affect three or more. A cigar cannot be thoroughly comprehended with less than five. It has form, equaling sight; use, equaling feeling; a name, equaling sound; taste and smell. It is not necessary for man to comprehend the material of which it is made, or the skill that made it. The last two are inconsequential to him, other than in producing the desired effect on the senses.
Definition of thought and idea
Therefore, all matter equals in comprehension the degree to which it affects man's different senses, and if man can only comprehend through the effect on his senses, that comprehension which is called a thought, must likewise be a combination; hence, I will define a thought to be one or more associated ideas, an idea being a percept through any of the senses. The more ideas associated, the more comprehensive the alleged thought.
Matter and form
Matter is comprehensible only in the degree to which it affects the senses; to be conceived it must affect two, to be comprehended, three. Form is comprehensible (when acquired) only when it affects sight and feeling, and a child must not only hear the word "round" but also feel of the object. The same with "straight," "square," et cetera. The round object through sight must transform itself into a feeling memory. Form is the outline of matter, and as nothing but matter is appreciable by man, the form of it conveys no impression except of the matter (feeling) within its boundary.
Nothing but matter is comprehensible to man.
Conception and thinking
The five senses to be impressed must be stimulated, and nothing but matter will produce the excitation necessary. Energy can move only through matter by disturbing matter; or, in other words, "nothing" is impossible and incomprehensible. Therefore, there is nothing appreciable but matter. Man can conceive of nothing that he has not experienced, and as all so-called thinking is but the correlation or passing through one's mind the experiences associated, and as they have necessarily been the product of matter, nothing else is comprehensible. Consequently, man can conceive of nothing greater nor less than his individual experiences. It is impossible to lift him to your comprehension, you must drop to his.
Law of Nature (?)
If I speak to you of the "Law of Nature," what sense-experience have you a memory of, to be aroused by the utterance of the phrase "Law of Nature"? None. But if I tell you that the farmer ploughed the ground, sowed the seed, the Heavens gave forth rain; he then hoed around the seed, a sprout came up, and by more cultivation the sprout matured into a stalk of corn, the corn was then harvested; you would say "Ah, well, the farmer did all that. I fail to see what the 'Law of Nature' did," because you can comprehend nothing that does not affect your senses.
Proper sense memories
While lecturing in New York City two years ago, a very estimable lady, whose children were reared in a nursery and lacked many of the usual experiences of children of middle-class families, came to me and said:
"Mr. Santanelli, can you cure my boy of a very vicious habit?"
"Madam, what is the habit?"
"He enjoys putting the cat on the hot stove to see it dance."
"How long will it take you?"
"One-quarter of a minute."
My good reader, can you tell me what was done; if so, why? What ideas were associated in this lad's mind as to the stove and cat? The different actions of the cat and nothing else. The stove being the force (suggestion) and the dancing of the cat the result, thereby arousing only a sight memory.
Lacked a memory
The lad lacked a memory. The moment there was given him a feeling memory, he no longer cared to see the cat dance on the stove. His finger was held on the stove until it was blistered, which associated in his "mind" through the proper sense that heat produced pain, and substituted a memory of pain for the memory of the pleasure of seeing the cat dance.
While in New York City, on Sunday mornings I attended an independent church, whose minister or lecturer is beyond all question one of the cleverest logicians of the day. On one Sunday in particular he preached a sermon claiming that the right religion has yet to be offered man; that the foundation of all doctrines so far offered us has been based upon a material premise; that the right founder will offer us one built entirely upon a spiritual basis.
The spiritual impossible
Such a thing is an impossibility, inasmuch as the spiritual is incomprehensible. The moment that one begins speaking of the spiritual he is using mere idle words, inasmuch as the spiritual has never affected any of his senses, hence he has no memory of its action; therefore, no ideas are properly associated, and the word possesses no meaning – his utterances are purely conjectural.
Building a thought
I speak to you of a "thingamagig," which is mere sound, arousing no thought in your "mind." I show it to you and thereby associate sound – thingamagig – with sight – its form. I then teach you its use – feeling – and you comprehend it. The two ideas will give you a conception, but it requires the third to get a comprehension.
I touch you. Can you help thinking of it? I show you my watch, and you think of it. You hear a sound, you think of it; you smell or taste something, and think of it; you have no control nor in any manner can you prevent the consciousness or the realization of the senses so affected.
Man does not "think," he realizes. Thinking is the transforming of energy (suggestion). I pinch you; it has happened and is registered irrespective of your "will power," and when registered, you realize it. You see my hand move towards you; you see on my face an expression which arouses the thought (associated ideas) of being pinched, the alleged pain and the avoidance of it through the action of withdrawing your limb, which is but the transforming of the energy (suggestion) taken in through the eye and voiced in your action, all being done before you realize it, the transforming being instantaneous and must be registered before you are conscious of (realize) it.
The "mind" is the realizing intelligence, and the actual mind is like the transformer of electricity in the main power station that receives one kind of electric current and sends out another. Into what action the received current will be transformed, depends on the ideas (currents) previously associated. The degree of action and its rapidity depends on the number of senses affected and the degree of force. Therefore, your thoughts are forced on you by your environment, and are the transformation of the suggestion; hence, man is a creature of his environment. Now, as I have defined a suggestion to be anything that arouses an action, anything that affects any of your five senses must be a suggestion; therefore, man is ruled by suggestion.
Man is like a phonograph
Man is like a phonograph; each thought a wax cylinder; the ideas associated the indentations thereon (memory). One sense puts the cylinder in position, the second sense drops the pin into place on the cylinder where the tune is begun. No thought can be put into action unless two senses are affected. When a series of ideas are associated into a thought, and the thought is forced into action, each idea in its proper place is certain to appear and it is beyond the power of man to resist it.
I speak to you of a horse, immediately its form (sight), use (feeling), et cetera, appear to you, unconsciously.
Words mean nothing
A word of itself arouses no action. In conversation, the environment, the expression on the speaker's face, and the tone are the attributes that force the thought into action.
If one should go into the kitchen and tell Bridget, who is not afraid of losing her position, to remove the teakettle, she would ask, "Why?" Were it boiling over she would remove it, not because you told her, for you simply forced her to look at it; when she did so, seeing it boiling over, the removal of it was due to the conditions forcing themselves upon her through the eye. Had she no ideas associated as to a kettle boiling over, that its removal would stop it, there would have been no action.
I say to you, "Jump out of your chair," and you remain seated. I ask you what was said, and you will reply that I said, "Jump out of your chair." I deny saying any such thing. I said just what you did, because a thought is simply the transforming of energy. Thus an energetic wave affects the eye which is immediately transformed into the action associated with the expression perceived, or in this case, sound. If you had thought to jump out of your chair, the action would have taken place and you could not have avoided it.
When I spoke the words, "Jump out of your chair," the tone conveyed the opposite action; the expression on my face conveyed the opposite action, and the two senses affected put into action the thought of remaining in your seat. But, if with an expression of fear on my face and a tone of fear in my voice, I called to you "Jump!" you would have been out of the chair instantly, then looking at the chair and seeing no reason for jumping, you would have asked why I told you to jump.
Everything in life is positive. Your hand is not "not up," but is down. A man who is seated is not "not standing up." If I say to you, "You cannot take your hand from your face," I am really making the affirmation that you will keep it there. I start a party of hypnotized subjects at spinning their hands, and then tell them that they cannot stop. What do they do? They spin the faster, because if they cannot stop they must go faster. There is where I learned it. Every statement must necessarily convey and can only convey an affirmation.
If everything in life is a combination of attributes, sleep also must be a combination, but can man artificially induce sleep? No. Man never went to sleep, but sleep gathers round him. No two things in the world are the same, many things are similar. There are two matches on the table. Are these matches the same? They have the same form (?), the same name, the same use, but the material of which they are made is not the same. If it was, they would be one match.
Attributes of sleep
Therefore, real sleep can only be produced in one way; that way I do not know. What is called sleep I can pick apart, and find: First, that under ordinary circumstances, a person to be asleep must be in what is to them an easy position. Next, I find that in sleep "mind" is inactive. Next, the eye is either rolled up or converged, and then the eye is closed. The bringing together of these four attributes will result in what? If a thing is made up of four parts, and we bring the four proper parts together, we will have the whole. If we bring but three together we will accomplish but three-fourths.
An inactive "mind" I want; therefore, I must have a very "small" thought, and as thought is all action, if I can pre-supply the action of the thought and have the subject maintain it, I then will have an inactive thought. As all of the attributes of a thought are certain to take place, and I am trying to induce a condition similar to sleep, the thought of sleep is the thought required. Consequently, if I could lock in the "mind" the thought of sleep, I would be able to accomplish my purpose.
Note. – I call the thought of sleep and the thought that pain has ceased, blank thoughts, as they give forth no perceptible action.
Thought is action
If I tell you to sit up, the thought of sitting up is active to the extent of "sitting up," after which the only action is that of holding or retaining the muscles in their present tension, which action is imperceptible.
As to inducing hypnosis
The dimmer a sound grows to the ear, the dimmer will be the thought of it. The dimmer an object grows to the sight, the dimmer will be the thought of it. Therefore, if I place my subject in an easy position and hold an object for him to look at in such a location that his eyes are either turned up or take the proper converged position, I will have two attributes of sleep.
If I hold the object in such a way as to tire the nerves of accommodation, and not the eye (because I would then be losing the easy position), the thought of his environment would pass out of his "mind" through his eye as the nerves of accommodation failed to perceive the object gazed at. While that thought is fading away through the eye, if I would supplant it through the ear with the thought of sleep, the moment that I have succeeded in doing so, and have brought together an easy position, upturned eye, closed eye, the thought of sleep, we will have a simulated sleep, differing from real sleep only in this: In real sleep there is no thought; in hypnosis there is the thought of sleep, which nothing but the operator's voice can change.
Difference between sleep and hypnosis
To show the mental difference between hypnosis and sleep, I have drawn a wheel (See Fig. I) to represent the "mind," each spoke representing a thought, which is made up of ideas (actions associated). When you are doing one thing you cannot do the second until you stop the first, otherwise you would continue doing the first all your life. The moment you stop the first, just before beginning the second, your muscles are positively inactive. This point in mechanics is known as the "dead center."
As to motion
The eye can distinguish (comprehend) no object in motion. There must be a point of rest, or the eye must move with the object which relatively produces a point of rest. This is demonstrated by the moving picture machine.
Our scientists tell us that a wheel never stops in making a revolution. I always have and do still maintain that one-half of the wheel must stop going down before it can go up, and vice versa. If we will take a sixteen foot fly-wheel and lay off on it a square, we can see it stop. The piston of the engine that moves it stops, and I maintain that when we can see the spokes of a bicycle wheel as it revolves slowly, is when the eye can measure the stoppage, but when the stoppage is so brief that the eye fails to perceive it, we fail to see the spokes. When you are thinking of one thing you must stop thinking of that before you can think of the second, for no man can do or think of two things at the same time.
Difference between hypnosis and sleep
By referring to the wheels [Figure 1] you can see there is a blank on either side of every thought. When a person is asleep the "mind" is empty, the thought having faded away and the two blank spaces having merged into one, and the "mind" is free of thought. Assuming that in sleep the two merged blanks on either side of the thought will occupy a space of six inches, in hypnosis we have a blank space on either side of the thought, occupying two inches each, and an inactive thought occupying two inches, making up the six inches required; but in three parts – a blank, an inactive thought, and a blank.
Mental condition of hypnotized person
The subject is in this mental condition: First, the inactive condition of being awake – he has a thought; second, this thought being inactive (but of sleep), he has seemingly all of the attributes making up the condition of sleep, with the exception that the "mind" holds the thought; hence we can readily see that all action must necessarily be part of a thought, and will define hypnosis to be a simulated sleep, yet the subject has the most important attribute of being awake, he can accept and hold a thought.
His condition is actually this: He cannot receive impressions but can respond with those already possessed. Thought will not respond to its environment and by my method thoughts can only be made responsive through the operator's voice. If he were actually asleep and we attempted to arouse a thought, he would awaken. In hypnosis we can force the thought to remain at pleasure, therefore are enabled to deliberately study it and to find what attributes are necessary to force an action.
To recapitulate: In hypnosis there is the dummy thought of sleep, holding the space of an active thought; the key – the operator's voice. The subject is free from his environment, therefore no shifting of thought, thus illustrating my previous statement that man does not choose his thoughts (action), but has them forced on him by environment (suggestion).
One is not asleep when dreaming, there being a thought in the mind; one is rarely over half asleep. A dream is the passing through the conscious mind (cerebrum) of a thought usually without the action taking place in the Sympathetic System – the cylinder of a phonograph going "zip" instead of running at the usual speed.
I might state here to the amateurs that if the subjects take on hypnosis through the suggestion of so-called magnetic passes, the operator's touch will force into play certain actions if previously comprehended (associated) by the subject.
Law of suggestion
Suggestion means anything that arouses an action. This is the law: Surround a man with every suggestion or attribute of sleep and he will be asleep; surround him with every suggestion of virtue and he cannot help being pure, and no credit is due him. Surround him with every suggestion of vice and crime and he will be a criminal, and in no manner should he be held responsible.
Remember, though, that every suggestion has two positives, one for and one against, and the body is the closest environment (suggestion).
The subject holding the thought of sleep, and that thought being made up of a series of attributes, all of which I do not know, has every appearance of being asleep. First, he is relaxed. Why relaxed? Is the contraction of the muscles a voluntary unconscious or an involuntary unconscious act? The babe must learn to draw up its limbs, to sit, to crawl, to stand, to walk. Therefore, it must be acquired, and is the result of a feeling suggestion. Is man conscious of it? You suddenly pull a chair from under him, he seems to be very conscious that the chair is going. Therefore it is an enforced, acquired action, unconsciously done in response to the suggestion of the environment.
Is the waking state hypnosis?
But a sleeping man is of little value to us. So we tell him that when he opens his eyes he will see a fly on the end of his nose, he will feel it biting, cannot brush it away, and to open his eyes. Is the man now in hypnosis? If hypnosis consists of an easy position, the thought of sleep, an upturned eye, a closed eye, he is not. As the subject has none of these attributes now, he cannot possibly be in hypnosis.
He is now in a condition that I call "inspired," meaning that the condition he is in was forced on him through the operator's voice, instead of the natural suggestion of his environment. The man believes there is a fly on his nose; he sees it and is trying to brush it away. Perfectly rational, perfectly consistent.
In fact, does he differ from the so-called normal – a word I cannot understand? If there was a fly on his nose and he felt it biting, he surely would think of it and try to brush it away. That is what he is doing now. Wherein does the subject differ from the ordinary? If the fly really alighted on his nose, the sense of feeling and sight would arouse the thought.
Through hypnosis, that old thought is aroused through my voice; and, as his senses fail to arouse a thought, there is nothing to contradict my affirmation. The result thoroughly consistent, the man being in identically the same condition as when he held that thought, aroused and put into action through the proper senses.
The subject always normal
Therefore, it can be readily seen that the hypnotized subject is in a perfectly "normal" condition; save that he has had a thought aroused through hearing and emphasized through hearing which his environment would have aroused and put into action through sight and feeling.
Memory is the registration of ideas. A hypnotized subject retains no memory of what has taken place in hypnosis; we have only turned off from the cylinder what was already there, and that conditionally.
Impossible to implant a new thought
Why is it impossible to put any thought in the "mind" of a hypnotized subject? Because it is impossible to register through one sense that which the economy of man is made to receive through another.
As to sense impressions
It is impossible to describe color to a man born blind; or sound to one born deaf. The comprehension of the girl, Helen Keller, in Boston, to me is quite an interesting problem. I unhesitatingly state that the girl is a mere automaton; she has no ideas, no thoughts in any manner, shape or form similar to those of her teachers. We associate color with a stimulation of the nerve-ends of the eye and sound with a stimulation of the nerve-ends of the ear. Therefore, anyone lacking the ability to receive these two sensations can have no conception similar to the one who does.
As to sight
Sight is the least trained of all our senses. A child or even an adult has to learn to read a picture. To one never having seen a picture, it is simply a blur of colors.
As to pictures
A missionary in South Africa, showed the photograph of a cow to one of the native chiefs, who was the owner of vast herds; he looked at it and saw nothing. It took the missionary three days to make him comprehend. When he did, a smile illumined the chief's face and he sent for other chiefs, showed it to them, and because they could not comprehend at once what he failed to, he wanted to behead them, a proof positive that he was becoming civilized.
A man born blind and suddenly given his sight has no perspective. Perspective must be learned. The use (correlating) of the senses is acquired – must be learned.
No man does anything because he is told to. He must always have a reason, which I call a force. Nothing that we tell him to do can mean anything to him unless there are two ideas associated to give him conception, three to give him comprehension. The soldier whose officer commands to "shoulder" or "present arms" does so not because he is told, but because he knows that if he refuses or fails to do so, he will be punished; or he hopes for a reward. These are the incentives that force the action, the mere telling him to do a thing would not cause him to act.
The general public believes that all that is necessary to get a hypnotized subject to do something is to say to him, "Jump out of your chair," and he will do so; but he will not. If his cerebrum was active, he would ask you why he should jump. But if we put the force there he will respond instantly. Therefore, if we say to him, "When you open your eyes, you will find the chair you are sitting on is red hot," believing it to be hot, the action of getting away will take place at once, and he will jump out of the chair, not because we told him to, but because of the natural action to do so, forced by the suggested environment. In hypnosis the senses fail to convey ideas, therefore they do not contradict the statement that the chair is hot.
Mental condition of hypnotized subject
Let us now look at the mental condition of the subject: First, in his so-called normal condition he sits on a hot chair; through the sense of feeling he has the thought forced on him, and he jumps because of his first associated action. The thought of heat is transformed into the action of getting away from it. If he had no previous experience with heat, the action would not have been there to be forced into play. I now hypnotize him, and tell him that when he opens his eyes he will discover that he is sitting on a hot chair; to open his eyes, he does so, he jumps and repeats everything he did when he actually sat on the hot chair.
In what way does the man differ from the so-called normal? Normally, there was a chair, heat, the man, a thought and its action. In hypnosis we have the chair, the man, the thought of the coming into contact with the heat, and its action. What is wrong? The man or the environment? It is the environment. The difference is this: There is no hot chair. Therefore, nothing to force the thought of such and accentuate the action of jumping. As I have forced such a thought through the ear and that not being the proper channel, it makes no registration and consequently can only be a thought re-used, and hence no memory.
I maintain a man is perfectly normal in body and mind, and will only do what he would have been forced to do had he received the thought through feeling, the result being identical with "normal."
Like a camera
The automatic action of man is registered on the cylinder of the phonograph regulated by the picture taken. Man is also like a camera taking a photograph of his surroundings, which forces the cylinder of the phonograph into operation.
As a stereopticon
In hypnosis the process is reversed and he becomes like a stereopticon, throwing out registered pictures. As it is impossible to light up a plate which is not there, we have another proof that nothing new can be introduced into the mind of a hypnotized subject. I can light up any plate upon which an impression has been recorded, but in no way can I change the detail. (Plate I.)
I shall next endeavor to show how one is ruled by environment (suggestion).
We will assume that there are present three ladies of the following turn of mind: one who never overlooks an opportunity to dance, to attend a ball, a party; number two, who was of the same disposition at a former time, but who now has the thought that it is a sin, and number three who has no conception of what a ball or party is like. We ask number one, while normal, to please get up and dance; she refuses (?). No, we have failed to force her. Being ruled by her surroundings she says, "This is no place for dancing." She is here to listen to a lecture and she refuses (?). We hypnotize her and tell her that when she opens her eyes she will get up and dance. Will she? No, she will repeat the first answer, she refuses because, as yet, she has the same surroundings. She does not refuse, but responds to her environment which has all the suggestions positive against dancing. We can make her dance. How? By taking her to a ballroom.
When she is in hypnosis, the process can be reversed, bringing a ballroom to her. Normally the thought should be aroused through the eye and accentuated through the other senses. We will revive the thought through the ear by telling her "when she opens her eyes she will find herself in a ballroom, will see her friends dancing, will hear the music and will see her partner standing beside her."
Normal subservient to picture
When she opens her eyes, she throws out a picture of a ballroom on her present surroundings and is perfectly normal, subservient to the picture thrown out. She seemingly sees, hears, smells, feels and tastes normally as to all things that pertain to the ballroom she has pictured. She has a ballroom thought placed there through her ear in lieu of through the eye, no other could she have were she in a ballroom. Seeing a partner by her side she accepts his arm and dances.
All action is "reflex"
If she should dance against a chair she would not see it, as it is not part of the picture, but through the sense of feeling she would respond to the suggestion which would force an action of apology as though she had bumped into another couple. (This completely exemplifies the action of man.) She is perfectly capable of carrying on a conversation and no one could tell she were not normal as to her inspired environment. She will do or say only what she would, were she in an actual ballroom. Every idea that is engraven on the cylinder will respond if forced. When no action is recorded there is no reflex (?) to respond and the action is omitted.
As to detailed suggestion
We will assume that this young lady is dancing in a certain ballroom where a young man stepped on the train of her dress; she turned and slapped him. If we call to her, "Your dress has been stepped on and torn," will she turn and slap an imaginary man behind her? No. We will get no more action than a frown on her face, as we have failed to put the thought in action; the thought of her dress being torn was made up of the feeling of the pull, the hearing it tear, and perhaps the seeing of it (perhaps it was torn); three senses being affected.
To make a thought active
As we can deceive only the sight of a hypnotized subject, we can cause her to throw out a picture of a torn place in her dress, but as we failed to make her feel it tear, or to hear it tear, we have failed to put the thought in action by failing to affect two senses.
Cannot deceive sense memories
To further illustrate that a subject is "normal," subservient to his picture and that the operator causes only the eye to be deceived, we will assume that there are on the stage a barber and a very fastidious young man, who takes a great interest in his shaving. We desire to put on a shaving act, that is, one man to sit in a chair, the other to put on him a barber's apron, using a one pound paint brush and a large soup bowl full of lather to lather the customer's face, and then to shave him with a wooden razor that weighs at least a pound and a half. Now, dear reader, which would you choose for the barber and which for the customer? No doubt, you would say, "Make the barber the barber and the fastidious young man the customer." That would never do, for if you were giving an exhibition before a public audience, within two minutes many of the spectators would swear that the barber was "faking."
The sense highest cultivated in a barber is that of feeling. He sees the picture, well and good, but when he tries to tip back the chair it fails to tip, therefore feeling contradicts his sight; when he picks up the paint brush, feeling again contradicts sight; in fact, everything he does, every feeling memory that is actually associated and pronounced in him, is being contradicted (Hudson's subjective (?) mind), and a smile will appear on the face of the actual barber. But if we reverse them and cause the fastidious young man who knows all the detail through his eye, and not through the sense of feeling, he will, seemingly, most perfectly go through the entire process of shaving, as there is no memory of feeling to be contradicted by the actual contact with the tools furnished.
Again referring to the young ladies and the ballroom. Number two, although given the same inspiration, will wonder how she happened to attend, and is likely to ask for her wraps and desire to be taken home. What will be the appearance of number three when she opens her eyes? Her face will be a blank and her eye without expression, as we have failed to inspire her with a thought.
Expression is thought
Hence, we learn that all expression is the result (part) of thought. Having a thought of mirth, it is impossible to look sad, to speak firmly, or to give any action seriously.
Another point here; simulation is impossible. No person can simulate closely enough to force conviction, as it is impossible to furnish all the attributes without having the actual thought. Tune a dozen violins to G, draw the bow over one and the others will respond; if one is not tuned to the note, there will be no response. Normal man, far more sensitive than the finest tuned instrument, cannot be deceived (made to respond). Let twenty subjects be inspired with laughter and among them one attempting to simulate, the audience will not laugh, that one discord will prevent a response. The indescribable tone must be there to force a result and this can only be when it is the result of a mirthful thought.
Without the thought there can be no expression, therefore no person can simulate the inspiration. You read much about subjects who claim that they have deceived the public and the operator by pretending, or to use a common expression, they "faked." Let me assure you that those persons deliberately lie. The man does not live who can so overcome and defy such a positive law. I have led into hypnosis over one hundred thousand persons and have yet to meet the one who could deceive a ten year old lad. The subject, to make you think he believes a fly on his nose through the particular contraction of the muscles of his face, the look in his eyes, and the gesture of brushing it away, must have that thought in his "mind." The method of putting it there is what I call hypnosis. Call it whatever you wish, we hypnotists are the only ones who do this; and, furthermore, the only ones able to find these fellows who claim they are able to "fake." The ordinary layman does not find them; we find them. We call it hypnotism.
Fallacy of a dual "mind"
To illustrate that a subject is normal, subservient to his picture, and that the claim made by Hudson that we have two minds, objective and subjective, which discriminate (an impossibility), is incorrect: In the ridiculous side of this art, the operator strives to emphasize and make use of daydreams. We will assume that there are twenty subjects on the platform, all strangers to me. I desire to have some of them play on brooms for banjos. I carefully look them over and choose those whose appearance would suggest that they were accustomed to attending parties, dances, et cetera, who have full foreheads and other signs of being musically inclined. I am not looking for those who play, as you will comprehend later, but for those who have envied some player, for those who have mentally taken the place of a player. If I should say to them, "When you open your eyes, you will find a banjo in your lap, and you will play for us," and they open their eyes they would refuse, saying, "We do not know how to play."
Avoid positives against
Yet, if I build around them a positive picture, being careful to avoid any positive against their playing, I can force them to respond, if at any time they have had a desire to be a player. So I tell them that "When you open your eyes you will find yourself on the stage, there is a banjo in your lap. you are a member of a banjo quartette; the curtain is up and it is your turn to move your chairs down the stage, to tune up and in turn play and sing your best song to entertain the ladies and children."
There being no positive against their playing, the day-dream will be reproduced. Of course, the result will be ridiculous, but that is what we desire. As to the mental condition of the players, each is his own thought of a banjo player; they respond to the audience, the applause. They could be allowed to go home as they are, yet if some one on the way should ask them to play they would be likely to do so. When they arrived home, they would carefully put away the supposed banjo, and the next morning would ask how that broom happened to be where it was. The subject is perfectly "normal," subservient to his picture, it being, if he could tell it, "I am a banjo player. I am wide awake; my conduct must be consistent with what I believe a banjo player to be."
Right here I will state that I lack the ability to properly describe the state of a subject; his cerebrum is not active, he simply responds, yet the explanation is not correct, but would be if the subject was using his cerebrum. For the ordinary reader the present explanation is the more comprehensible. In other words, a banjo player is a normal being, and although his clothes may not fit the subject, yet the subject will try his best to adapt himself to them. If one of the subjects should be a banjo player, a puzzled look will appear on his face the moment he tries to tune the instrument, and he will hand me the broom saying "I cannot play it; it has no strings." The others would not attempt to play it if it had strings. Why? The moment the subject opens his eyes he is normal, subservient to his picture, and the first associated action of the player is to tune the instrument. The capable player has a very decided memory of the feeling of the strings, his touch is normal; he can find no strings with his fingers although he can see them, but as he plays with his fingers they cannot be deceived, the force (cause, suggestion) is lacking, and his touch not being affected, no action is forced.
Cannot furnish emphasizing attributes
Those who do not know how to play have no feeling memory; they see the strings and indiscriminately finger them; and, as there is no suggestion to inform them that they are not players, they continue. If there were strings on the broom, the moment they touched them the idea that they could not play would be forced into action and they would refuse. Thus we can see that although the operator may be able to bring up the mental picture, he lacks the ability to furnish or make good the emphasizing attributes of the other senses that are necessary to force the completion of any act that is not extremely congenial to the subject, and no "abnormal" act is congenial.
Words without tone
I place a hypnotized subject at a table, a non-hypnotized man opposite to him, giving them a pack of cards, and they begin playing. The man opposite the subject undertakes to abuse him very severely. I stand behind the hypnotized subject and urge him on, till we get a quarrel. I hand him a pasteboard dagger and he stabs the man he is playing with. If he is given a steel dagger, he fails to close his hand on it. Why? First, there is no quarrel. His opponent lacks the tone; words without tone are ineffectual and put no thought in action. Therefore, the picture we have is one of a simulated quarrel; and the pasteboard dagger, as it carries with it no ideas contrary to the picture, is readily used; but the moment we introduce the steel dagger, we introduce an attribute foreign to the picture, therefore inactive, there being no action for the transforming, through touch, of the suggestion of the dagger.
Place the subject
One more illustration: We desire to have the subjects go through the act of fishing. If I simply say to them "that when they open their eyes they will go fishing," then tell them to open their eyes, they will not respond, as they are still on the stage, and there is no place thereon to fish. If I tell them that when they open their eyes they will find themselves alongside of a fishing stream, they will not respond even then; for, though man be alongside of a stream, he cannot fish without the proper attributes.
Consequently, I must furnish each one with bait, hooks, lines and rods. These attributes, although ghosts, will force him to fish, provided he knows how. The subject sees no audience, neither can he hear one, for it is foreign to his picture. If a person from the audience should step up and take hold of the pole that is held by the inspired fisherman, he would not be seen; but, through feeling, the fisherman would have the idea that a big fish or a tree or a log had caught his hook and conduct himself accordingly. He sees the other fishermen, and will talk to them. I am only another fisherman, nothing more to him. If I were, the ideas associated would carry a picture of the stage. I can allow him to go home; he may show a string of fish that he does not possess, and might scold if they were not cooked as ordered. Otherwise, he is perfectly rational, such as any fisherman; he is his thought of a fisherman, which is that of a rational being.
Picture of ghosts
In all these scenes the subject is working in a picture (environment) of ghosts, furnished by himself and aroused in his mind through the voice of the operator. The thought cannot be changed by other than the operator; the senses are free only in relation to the thought, which, in most cases, makes the subject seemingly super-sensitive.
Man is a piano keyboard
Man is as a piano keyboard, played on by his environment. When we touch "a", "g" does not refuse to respond, but we fail to force it. To the degree that we strike a note, is to the degree that there is a response. Man responds according to the degree of the force (suggestion) on two or more senses.
A hypnotist is merely a guide – a leader – who teaches a subject how to hypnotize himself, and all sane persons can be taught to take on this condition. An operator stands in about this position: If I should go to a city a stranger, and, standing on the street corner, meet the brightest citizen and ask him to show me the way to the postoffice, he naturally would reply, "Certainly, follow me."
Cannot be hypnotized
I reply, "I will not walk, neither will I ride." Why, the man would look at me in disgust and ask how I expected to reach the postoffice. So it is with many who sit down to be hypnotized. They will not give the operator their attention, yet expect the operator to lead them where they will not follow.
Still standing on the street corner, I meet a half-witted lad, whom it has taken ten years to teach the way to the postoffice. I ask him to show me the way. He replies, "Certainly; follow me." If I were insane, drunken, or half-witted, I would not be able to do so. I follow him and reach the postoffice, not because the half-witted lad has a stronger mind than the brightest citizen or myself, but he knows the way, is willing to lead me, and I, being capable of following do so, and consequently reach the postoffice. On the way, I noted the surroundings; the next time I can go there slowly without a guide, and after half a dozen trips can go as quickly as anyone in the town.
So it is with the subject. I teach him how to take on hypnosis, and in a very short time he will require no prompting from the operator. It matters not whether you place the thought of sleep with your voice or by making passes over the subject, for the passes are feeling suggestion and will induce the same condition.
As to hypnotizing at a distance
You read of this wonderful "power" being exerted over the telephone. It is very simple. You have an office boy to whom you have taught the way to the postoffice. Being down town, it occurs to you that there may be some mail for you at the postoffice. You go to the telephone and ring up your office, tell the boy to go and get your mail. If the lad is so disposed, he will; otherwise, he will not, and you cannot force him. The same condition may be induced by writing to a subject, that when he "finishes reading this letter, he will go to sleep." As hypnosis is self-induced, he can do so if so disposed.
Attributes necessary to a hypnotist
If you lack a firm voice and assurance, you lack the two most important attributes necessary to a hypnotist, and you should refrain from attempting to hypnotize. Your tone will fail to carry any suggestion other than a positive against you, and will contradict the words you utter. If you have assurance and a firm voice, know what hypnosis is, that words of themselves put no thought in action, that it is impossible to bring out of the mind of a person what is not there, or to arouse any thought unless two senses are affected, you are prepared to learn how to teach a subject to take on what is known as "Hypnosis."