The alleged fraudulent hypnotists are simply fools who do not know how to convince their audiences or handle their subjects. Subjects cannot "fake." When you credit the hypnotist with being able to teach the element that goes on the stage to act their parts, you credit both with having more intelligence than ourbest stage managers and actors, and my experience teaches me that their faces would instantly deny any such credence.
One "authority," in Chicago, concludes his work by doubting hypnosis. Quotations from him show his lack of knowledge of the Law of Suggestion. The following example was the one that shook his faith most: The subject was lying in hypnosis on an operating table, and several spectators were challenged to awaken him. They tried many ways and failed, then asked if they might spit in the subject's face. The "authority" said, "Yes, you may spit in his face if you wish." They did so, and the subject immediately awakened, thus satisfying the "authority" that the subject had not been in hypnosis. Dear reader, need I explain this? If so, throw the book away or go and give yourself to the authorities having charge of a school for imbeciles.
In the "handling" of subjects two tones should be used, one for the inspiration, and one to emphasize (force) minor actions.
In my early days, while giving exhibitions in the South, at the conclusion of an entertainment a Southern gentleman came onto the stage with a friend and said, "Mr. Santanelli, this gentleman does not believe that young man was hypnotized. Will you "hypnotize" that nigger (pointing to one) and prevent him from picking up this one hundred dollar bill? If he picks it up, he can have it." I "hypnotized" the negro, put the one hundred dollar bill at his feet and told him he could not pick it up. The negro immediately became cataleptic, rigid, and failed to move. I wanted him to stoop and put his hand on the bill and attempt to pick it up, knowing that if he could not pick it up he must shove it to the floor, so I said "Oh, yes you can; go ahead, pick it up." The negro failed to respond for a moment, then bent over and took hold of the bill; I saw that he had responded to my last remark as an inspiration, so I immediately called to him that he could not move. Cold chills passed up my back, as I could not afford to lose one hundred dollars; and, of course, would not have allowed my friend to do so provided I had it. Since then I always use two tones, for fear of the subject mistaking or not comprehending (responding to) the difference in the tones, I always finish in this manner: "Go ahead, pick it up. Go on, but you cannot."
There arc no stages in so-called hypnosis. The subject is either hypnotized or awake.
Catalepsy is not a stage of the hypnosis, it is simply an inspired condition. Any subject can be made cataleptic if he knows how to become so. The inspiration I give to produce catalepsy is as follows: "Put your feet together, put your hands to your sides. When I call 'now' you will take a long breath, pull your muscles together and you will be stiff, stiff as iron." It is very rarely that a subject fails to respond to this. Sometimes they will draw their knees and arms up, not knowing how to become rigid in the position I give them. Many operators tell a subject to hold his arm up and then that he cannot take it down, and the spectator, noting the tightening of his muscles when he gets the inspiration that he cannot put his arm down, believes the subject to be "faking."
If the operator will remember that all negations are affirmations against, and would first put the muscles at the tension or in the position he wants them and then deny, there would be no such action. Tell a subject to hold his arm up and close his fist; the muscles are now contracted, and by telling him he cannot put it down, you are really saying to him to keep the muscles in the position they are in. If you wish to produce a condition of the muscles, first put the muscles into the desired position and infer that he cannot release them, because if he cannot, he must hold the position.
Number of methods to induce hypnosis
How many ways are there of inducing hypnosis? Only one.
When I was in Utica last winter, on the second day of my return engagement, a lad called on me and said, "Mr. Santanelli, how many ways do you know how to hypnotize?"
I replied, "But one, my lad."
He looked surprised, saying, "Why that is strange, I know of nineteen ways."
"Good for you, lad. Can you lay them out on the floor as I do?"
"No, sir, that is the funny part of it; I cannot get any of them asleep. You have only one way; I have watched you nightly and so far you only failed to hypnotize two, and three-fourths of them were new ones every night. What is your way?"
"The right way."
"Well, can 'some' of mine be right?"
"No, there is but one way, and that is the right way; that is the reason your nineteen ways are failures, none of them are right."
If hypnosis consists of five attributes, the shortest, quickest method of bringing these five together is the right way. All others are wrong. A Chicago firm pub- lishes fifty ways, or the promise of teaching fifty ways, to induce hypnosis. That is in the line of modern science (?).
"Still, Mr. Santanelli, I have hypnotized many subjects without using any of the attributes you name as necessary to hypnosis; how is that?"
"Very simple, my dear sir. First, you do not hypnotize; you lead another into hypnosis. After a subject has once been taught the way to the post-office, he can go without any guidance on your part.
Twenty-seven per cent of mankind are what is known as "sensitives" – somnambulists, sleep-walkers. Unconsciously knowing the way into hypnosis any method you use is satisfactory. You can tell him to go to the postoffice over the telephone, you can tell him every time he hears the whistle of the factory he will go to the postoffice; there are a hundred suggestions that may cause him to go to the postoffice. So it is with the sensitive, he knows the way; your method is nothing. You can only hypnotize (?) three in ten; with my method I can "hypnotize" one hundred of one hundred, provided they give me their attention."
Auto-suggestion can only exist in the case of a sleep-walker, proven by the fact that he responds to no one's voice. It is spontaneous, and is the nearest to being self.
In my experience, subjects have pre-inspired themselves with the thought of leaving the stage, which each time was successful. The first happened in a little town in Tennessee. My reader must understand this, that a certain portion of my evening entertainments were always the same; that is, I laid the subjects on the floor, produced the catalepsy, built the "log-pile," then caused them to rub their ears, then their knees, and then take a seat on the chairs.
In the instance I have in mind, the young man, who was some twenty-two years of age, although not larger than a lad of twelve, came onto the stage several nights and proved himself to be an extremely clever subject. I think it was on the fifth night when he was laid on the floor, after having been used in the "log-pile," he immediately got up and joined his companions in the orchestra seats. I was greatly surprised. No comment was made, but that night after I went to the hotel I did considerable "thinking," and at last concluded as to how he succeeded in doing so.
I was so successful in the city that I remained over and played the following week, and on Wednesday night this young man and his friends were again in the opera house. I invited him to come onto the stage. He said, "No." I asked him why, and he replied, "You will make it hot for me."
"No, I will not. I would like you to come up and repeat the experiment." He looked at me a moment and said, "This is not a trick?"
"No, I wish to see if you can repeat what you did last Friday. It is a matter of science. You have proven your side of it, and I want to see what I can do with mine."
Where pre-inspiration failed
The young man came onto the stage, took on hypnosis and when I awakened him, some thirty minutes later, and asked him why he hadn't taken his seat, he looked puzzled, and said, "I don't know." I did; do you, dear reader?
The form of pre-inspired thought that this young man took was this: "After I am laid on the floor in the unbuilding of the 'log-pile,' I will awaken." Now, mind, he was to awaken when he was laid on the floor out of the "log-pile." I omitted putting him in the "log-pile," therefore the suggestion that was to awaken him did not occur, hence no awakening. There is no effect without a cause (suggestion).
Last winter, in Erie, three subjects left the stage one night during the "statuary," in the latter part of the second week of my engagement. They had watched the performances all of the first week and had been on the stage several nights, were good subjects, and this night took a pre-inspiration that at the fourth inspiration given in the "statuary" they would awaken. They did so, left the stage, said the whole thing was a "fake," but failed to impress any of the audience.
I immediately caused a subject to do a little more difficult act than that, and one I inspired, instead of the subject taking a pre-inspiration. I told the subject that when he opened his eyes he would find he had a couple of dice and would throw craps, and that at the end of three minutes he would awaken, which he did. Afterwards he pre-inspired himself with the thought that when he opened his eyes he would think of one of the most amusing incidents he ever witnessed, and at the end of a minute and a half would awaken. He did so, the audience holding their watches both times, and both times he awakened to the instant.
Easy to accept a pre-inspiration
Any subject, after he has been in hypnosis four or five times, should very readily go into that condition with a pre-inspiration of awakening upon the occurrence of a certain event, and if the event takes place he will awaken, demonstrating nothing except the subject's ability to accept a pre-inspiration.
All dime museum freaks, such as the human pin-cushions, poison eaters or snake eaters, work under pre-inspiration. In the course of time the merging of the "normal" into the pre-inspiration becomes second nature and can be very rapidly and almost imperceptibly done; still, an expert, understanding the "reflexes," by closely watching the subject can comprehend that he is not in the so-called normal condition and may note the change.
It is this quick merging that has given many of the alleged exposers a standing with superficial newspaper men, who have accepted their word that they were not in "hypnosis" when they reproduced the work that the operator caused them to do on the stage.
The martyr burning at the stake is an example of pre-inspiration, the entire environment forcing and maintaining in the "mind" of the subject or person the thought that he will not suffer and will have no pain. The snake dancing of the Mokis is done under "hypnosis"; also many of the endurance and religious tests of the adepts of the East.
Length of inspiration
How long will an inspiration last? The public fears, forever.
My experience is that great skill is required to force a thought to remain over one minute with a new subject working by himself. Training them to hold a thought (no; training sounds "faky," develop them, sounds better) requires experience on the part of the operator. Lead into hypnosis a new subject, start him brushing a fly, if he continues for one minute you have a good subject. Put two working together, and you may keep them at work for two minutes. Three or more subjects working together will hold out for a long time. To work one subject alone is very hard. Three or more, easy.
To cure a headache
You desire to cure a headache, to let your patient go home. If the patient is a "good" subject (has been in hypnosis often), perhaps it will be an hour until he again feels the headache. Only a nervous headache can be "cured" through hypnosis. In all other cases there is no cure, simply the producing of "no feeling." Might just as well give the patient a dose of morphia.
"But, Mr. Santanelli, I am a doctor; you have taught me of the many ills that can be relieved through hypnosis. My patient is free from pain, yet I wish to force certain changes physically. The patient has never been hypnotized and the holding of the thought for one minute is of no value to me. What is to be done?"
Lengthening the period
Induce hypnosis while the patient is lying on a sofa; return every five minutes and re-inspire by saying, "Stay deep asleep, deep asleep." Keep the patient there for two hours, renewing every fifteen minutes during the last hour. You can rest assured that when the patient leaves he will retain the thought for an hour and a half. After that, the time will lengthen one-third with each inspiration up to twenty-four hours. None will hold an inspiration over twenty-four hours, but can so be trained or developed that a very slight suggestion will continue the inspiration. I am certain that subjects making the long sleeps in the windows, are re-inspired by the suggestion of their environment every twenty-four hours.
If a subject is willing to sleep but twenty-four hours, can I force him to sleep forty-eight? No. The thought (action) is not there to be brought out, and I cannot play ofT from the cylinder what is not on it. Therefore, the operator is always "in the hands" of the subject, and the work is co-operative. Any subject can seemingly refute or destroy the claims of any operator.
As to teaching
Writing of training or developing a subject – what can be "taught" them? Absolutely nothing. We say to a subject, "When you open your eyes, you're alongside a fishing stream; you see beside you bait, lines, hooks, et cetera, now open your eyes." If the subject does not possess the ideas (actions) to be forced by the "ghosts" just mentioned, no action is possible.
If there is no action in the subject, i. e., ideas associated, no ghost to be aroused, then the subject must act (?). His cerebrum is inactive, he is possessed of absolutely no ideas relative to the thought; therefore, if unconscious (cerebrum inactive), he possesses no action, he would not know what to do. "From nothing only nothing can be produced." Again, words mean nothing.
If I put three subjects in a photograph scene; one the photographer, one the dude, the other the girl, they having never been in a photograph gallery, I get no action. I rehearse it – all right. If the words and actions of all three are not perfect the act will fail. Theatrical companies rehearse a play at least six weeks and are on the road at least two months before the performance runs smoothly. In all the smaller cities where hypnosis is popular, local subjects and different ones every night the hypnotist must have, if he expects to make a living. Assuming that in the photograph scene I use two of my "horses" (subjects I carry with me) and one local man, my subjects do not know what he will do or what he will say. My rehearsal would have been useless. But in hypnosis I force them to see a certain environ- ment, and all photograph galleries are so similar that if they have ever been in one, the general environment that is now constantly around them will force them as automatic beings to an ultimate end, which would be impossible if all three did not see the gallery. Seeing the actual environment and each guessing what the others would do, would produce confusion. They all see the same general picture, therefore act in unison.
A hypnotic "horse" is simply a good subject who travels with a hypnotist, generally possesses a good singing voice, the ability to make stump speeches, or with a humorous personality. Never of any use after a year, as he gets so at home in "hypnosis" that the public will no longer accept him as "hypnotized." What I call a good subject the public will not stand for. What the public calls a good subject I have no use for.
One season I had traveling with me a Swede named Carl, whom I used to inspire thus: "When you open your eyes, you will find yourself seated on the stage of the theater in La Crosse, Wis., to give the people a speech, as the boys have decided to run you for mayor, provided you tell them what you will do if elected, and your Swedish dialect is very pronounced." (Note that the inspiration is in one sentence, properly correlated connected with "ands," "buts," et cetera; no possibility of it being made other than one thought.) "Now open your eyes." Carl opened his eyes, made his bow and in the most pronounced dialect gave an illiterate, asinine speech that provoked roars of laughter. Carl could give but two speeches. Nightly the audience demanded a speech. While in Philadelphia, I had a speech written for Carl and had him learn it. Then I was stuck. How could I inspire him to get the speech that was written for him? If I said, "You will deliver the speech you learned," he would have tried; I did, and the effect was worse than bad. He simply did what he would have done had he not been hypnotized. He could not properly deliver it; it lacked personality, individuality and spontaneity. It was simply like a school boy, delivering, parrot-like, a speech of Henry Clay or Daniel Webster, and just as assinine. The only teaching is to allow the subject to watch many subjects in an act that sometime in the future you expect to put him in, that he may "absorb" some of the better actions.
In the cow act, milking a table for a cow, I use a feather duster as the cow's tail to switch the milker in the face. One young man, who was very funny in the act, I nearly always used. After a few months, instead of watching the place for the cow's tail, he watched (?) me and dodged every time he saw the duster coming towards him. He quickly learned (feeling) that he was hit from behind instead of by the tail of the cow, and I could no longer put him in the act. Professional subjects last but a short time, and when discharged, often make exposes (?).
What makes a man steal? Does he choose to steal, or is the stealing forced upon him? If a man's actions are caused or forced on him by his environment, he steals because he responds minus to that environment. Why does he respond minus to this environment when others do not? Because his ideas (actions associated) are positive against, where the so-called normal man is positive for.
Crime in hypnosis
If it takes ten parts to make the whole, and you possess nine, you lack the entirety. Therefore, the criminal steals the moment the ten parts are brought together. Can he be made to steal in hypnosis? No. Why not? First, if the nine parts only were brought together and one was missing, he failed to steal. After we lead him into hypnosis, we are unable to furnish the other part, saying nothing about knowing what attribute to furnish. How about a confirmed criminal? If we tell him when he opens his eyes he will go down and break into a bank, he will say, "Go break into it yourself. Why should I steal for you?"
Man does nothing because he is told to.
What is a confirmed criminal? One who is a perversion, who accepts as good what other people believe to be wrong. I have had a great deal of experience with perversion.
Young men will come onto my stage, be good subjects all the week, and when I leave they will claim they were "faking," failing to comprehend that by claiming they were "faking," they make themselves out most disreputable; that, instead of doing something great and clever, they assisted a traveling mountebank whose business it was to accumulate the money of their friends, that they deliberately went on the stage and assisted in swindling and robbing of their money those among whom they live; off from whom they live; which is the lowest and most contemptible thievery in the world. The traveling operator is naturally accepted as a mountebank; if he proves so, that is what is expected of him, but for a man to be a stool-pigeon or decoy to rob his own people and swindle them for verv little or no compensation, is the lowest of crimes.
Any time a person tells you that he "faked" for some one else, look him in the eye and tell him he is a liar, and if you say it with firmness he will acknowledge the fact every time; the being does not live who can simulate it.
We will assume that a man who has been a subject of mine murders another. He is brought into court and confesses that he murdered the man, saying I hypnotized him and forced him to do so.
No crime ever committed in hypnosis
No crime has ever been committed in hypnosis.
This is the reason: man's thoughts (actions) are made up, organized or correlated only in his "normal" state; to force him to commit murder it would be necessary to give him all the attributes while he was "normal." The moment all the attributes had been associated, this man would that instant commit the murder; his not doing so is proof positive that some of the attributes were missing. The hypnotist, not being able to put anything in his "mind," would be unable to furnish the attributes necessary.
"But, Mr. Santanelli, I have hypnotized a young fellow, a chum of mine, made him go to a friend's house and steal a necktie." O! no; you did not. You hypnotized your chum, and he, to make good an experiment, went and took the necktie. The taking of the necktie by your chum was not an act that would cause an arrest or conviction. In fact, it was not a crime in his "mind." Hypnotize your chum and tell him that at midnight he will go down to the bank and break open the safe, and see if he will do so.
Words mean nothing
Remember, words mean nothing; you tell a man to steal something, that does not necessarily make it out stealing. Or, you tell a man to help himself to something and that may be stealing.
Parlor experiments are very flimsy premises to base a philosophy on. Why, the wonderful (?) acts done by my subjects on the stage during the past few months, knowing as I now do the actions, attributes, et cetera, and comprehending that I am deceiving but one sense, sight, and cannot impress the other senses necessary, to me these so-called wonderful acts are disgusting. The public still wonders and is carried away, because it does not comprehend a natural action.
As to taking advantage of a woman
I have a lady seated alone in a room with me – in a room with the door open. After leading her into hypnosis, I close the door; where is this woman? She went into hypnosis in a room with the door open and in the presence or in the company of a gentleman. With the door closed and locked, there is no advantage to me, inasmuch as she is in the room with the door open. As she will do nothing because I tell her, and as the consciousness of place can be aroused very readily, if I approach her, attempting an assault, the environment that she was last in and the physical force I begin to exert will force from her the same action that would be exerted were she not in hypnosis; she is simply a blind woman. The other senses will respond "normally." There is no environment that I can arouse around her that will cause her to do anything that she would not do under the same environment were she not in hypnosis.
"No feeling" results in contraction
A lady in hypnosis is on the operating table in a doctor's office submitting to an examination. Can the physician rape her? Now, remember, she is on the operating table. Her position – her sensing – holds that environment. If physical force is exerted she will call for help, or she will defend herself. If the physician tells her she has no feeling, the organs will contract, this being the action of the thought of "no feeling." If he tells her she is rigid – that is, cataleptic – there will be the same physical result. Therefore, it is impossible for a physician to take advantage of his patient in hypnosis.
Now, dear reader, as this question of taking advantage is of the greatest importance, as it keeps this art from being put to any practical use by the medical fraternity, inasmuch as husbands, fathers and brothers are afraid to allow their women to be hypnotized; as several persons have been sentenced to the penitentiary and many doctors are being blackmailed, I must illustrate and prove most conclusively that this thought of taking advantage is entirely wrong. We will build a case: Let us assume that one John Smith is a clever amateur hypnotist. He chums with one Bill Jones and his wife, and Bill works in a bank. Smith and Jones and his wife are greatly interested in hypnotism, Smith having hypnotized both Jones and his wife dozens of times. All at once the hellish thought of taking advantage of Jones' wife takes possession of Smith. They meet
one afternoon and Jones says to Smith, "I have got to go to the city this afternoon, and will not be back until late. Go up to the house, dine with my wife and keep her company until I return." Smith does so, that is, he goes to the house, and, after a few minutes' conversation, he says to Mrs. Jones, "By-the-by, I have a little experiment I would like to make. Close your eyes and go to sleep." She does. He then says to her, "When you open your eyes you are alone in your room with your husband. Now, open your eyes."
Two senses must be impressed
Can Smith take advantage of Mrs. Jones, and if not, why not? To put any thought into complete action at least two senses must be affected. The more senses affected the more active the thought (see barber and banjo players). She sees a picture of her husband, the room, et cetera, but there matters end, inasmuch as Smith's touch is not the touch of her husband; Smith's caresses are not the husband's; therefore, although she sees her husband, Smith is unable to supply the necessary suggestion to force her to respond to his desires. The suggestions (minor attributes) he offers forces her to respond positive against the commission of the act. I think it is made plain that no advantage can be taken while she is in hypnosis.
Note. – All crime is committed free from hypnosis. The moment the accused acknowledges the commission of the act, he has confessed himself guilty, because all the attributes were furnished in the normal state and the act immediately committed, otherwise it could not have happened.
Purity in the operator
A very learned (?) writer on hypnotism for one of the New York evening papers claims that to be a hypnotist a man must be pure, that his purity elevates the subject; that a bad (?) hypnotist, a man with impure thoughts, degrades the subject. Bosh! Other than putting them at natural or congenial degrading acts, I fail to see how the morals of the operator affects the subject. We cannot pour out of a measure what is not in it. If the subject be pure, nothing but purity can be reproduced, and vice versa.
Is hypnosis injurious?
Is a constant repetition of hypnosis injurious? If to reuse one's thoughts is detrimental, yes; but if the exercising of one's thoughts is development, then hypnosis is the grandest developer of the "mind" within the use of man. We can only revive thoughts the subject has had.
Much good derived
I know of at least a dozen young men who, when they came onto my stage, were to all intents and purposes practically useless to themselves and the world, could hold no position; but, after being on my stage every night for a week while I was in the city, and afterwards being used by my pupils, they are so far advanced mentally that they are to-day holding good positions and are reputable men in the cities where they reside, and who, had they never met me, by this time would have been in some institution for criminals.
Will power (?)
"But, Mr. Santanelli, does it not destroy one's will power!"
Strength of mind
Now, dear reader, what do you mean by "will power." I have heard that phrase so often, yet fail to comprehend it. I have met "strong-minded" men; in fact, I meet the "strong-minded" man in every town I visit; he is always the same, a slow correlator, his wife makes the living; he is so busy caring for that "strong mind" of his that he fails to find or hold a position. In fact, he devotes his entire time to looking after that "strong mind," and has no time for work.
I suppose we can define what the world calls will power to be lack of correlative ability, density, thick-headedness. From my experience, if what the world calls will power is something admirable to possess, we should make marble statues of the jackass, place them in our rooms and bow before them as the exemplification of the "strongest-minded" of creatures, the possessors of the greatest "will power."
Exemplified in the jackass
A few winters ago I was in Texas, and one afternoon heard a great deal of swearing in the street. Of course, that is not unusual in some parts of Texas. This profanity was very artistic, I should imagine, from a swearer's point of view. I went to the window and, looking out, saw one of those "strong-minded" animals fastened to a cart. They were connected, the "strong-minded" animal having seemingly made up his mind not to move; and he would not, being "strong-minded." They beat him over the head, they swore at him, and I remarked to my secretary, who was standing near, "I am glad I am not 'strong-minded.' If I was in that animal's position, I would have had forced upon me the deduction that if I moved on they would stop beating me, and would move."
Free (?) will
In a little while they built a fire under the animal, and when the heat became intense, the most wonderful thing occurred, this "strong-minded animal," of its own free will, free from any external suggestion (after the fire got hot), changed his mind and moved, and, as far as I know, he is moving yet.
One more illustration: When it becomes cloudy the man having the most ideas associated as to the ill that will come from getting wet, immediately goes under cover; when it sprinkles the man having the next most ideas associated gets under cover, and so until a downpour; if that deluge be hard enough, it will drive all men under cover or they will drown.
The general public believes that if you wish to cure a man of any habit all that is necessary is to hypnotize him and tell him what he will do, and he will do so under any conditions. Foolish, ignorant public.
Sensing is always mistaken for telepathy. If you care to perform the following experiment, choose a slim subject, with a narrow head and big perceptives. When you desire to make mental tests, always choose a subject of a nervous mental disposition. I mean by that the quick mental, the narrow-headed man with big perceptives.
When you want to produce physical tests, choose a "skinny" subject, the physically nervous. For example, to produce three pulsations in the body at one time is very easily performed with a "skinny" subject.
By-the-by, the best cataleptic subject is always a very thin fellow, one who looks as if he would break in two with the weight placed upon him, inasmuch as when his muscles are contracted there is a solid structure; but with the phlegmatic or lymphatic people, there is too much intervening tissue and we cannot get the contraction and solidity that is possible with the other.
Seat your subject at a table; in front of him on the table lay down ten cards in a circle, face up. Have your subject go into hypnosis, and ask the spectators to stand around the table in a large circle, designating to them which card will be one, two, three, et cetera. Turn your back to the company and allow one of them to hold up his fingers, indicating the number of the card to be thought of; during which time the subject can be blindfolded, or any method you desire to use to be certain that he does not and cannot see. The moment they decide on the card have them tell you; you then tell them to very strongly will (?) that the subject shall push that card from out of the circle. Then say to your subject, "When you open your eyes, you will see on the table in front of you ten cards, beginning at your left, slowly pass your hand over all of the cards, and when you feel like pushing a certain card out of the circle, do so. Now, open your eyes."
Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the subject will do this a half dozen times in succession, provided the spectators are anxious for the experiment to succeed and all think intently of the card. If the spectators are in another mood it will be impossible for the experiment to succeed. They will all acknowledge immediately that it is telepathy. It is nothing of the sort. It is what I call sensing, perfectly unconscious to the subject; yet he receives several distinct suggestions, as all, having their "minds" intently set on this card, will to a great degree hold their breath; when the subject comes to the right card they will allow the breath to exhale, which produces a pronounced atmospheric disturbance when the subject arrives at the card.
Acuteness of feeling
Feeling is very definitely acted upon through the atmosphere. In fact, I am satisfied that a fairly sensitive subject – that means one whose nerve-ends are acute – can and does feel all fair sized objects; stoves, doors, book-cases and things of those kinds are perceptibly felt by a subject before he reaches them, thus forcing him to go around them.
Note. – What he really feels is the resistance to the volume of air he is forcing before him when it is obstructed by a large object.
In 1895 I accidently discovered that I could make or produce the following effects, and for want of a better term call it a sixth sense, or minus one.
Lead your subject into hypnosis with his head falling well to the front; then place your thumb and second finger on each side of the wind-pipe; pressing the carotid arteries, and intently will (?) one of the following acts: that he should or will stand up, sit down, raise his right arm, lower it, his left arm the same; his two legs the same; open his eyes, close them, open his mouth, close it, stand up, sit down, evacuate or urinate. This is the limit.
Instead of holding your thumb and finger on his throat, hold well against his neck under his chin a broom handle or a cane, keeping your hand firmly clasped, with your thumb pressing lightly on the cane or handle, and if you are possessed of great concentration, you will invariably succeed; those lacking in concentration will fail. The experiment is only satisfactory to those who personally succeed.
If you will (?) that the right arm be raised and gaze intently at the left, standing where the subject cannot see if he could see, in nearly all cases the arm you are looking at will be raised, the same with the legs. Causing the subject to stand up or sit down, I do not think is fair, because if you are thinking of standing up the unconscious or involuntary action that is the result of the thought is certain to take place; the same with sitting down; I mean you will unconsciously yet very perceptibly lift him, or vice versa – the same as in alleged mind-reading.
The degree of steadiness As in of your thought is exemplified in the moving or raising of the limb. If you think steadily the limb will raise steadily, if you think spasmodically, the movement will be spasmodic, in fact the action will be the exact reproduction of your thought. I have had friends with whom this act was no effort; they could take any subject and produce a quick response. I have had others who could hardly affect them. I can only get a movement in the limbs; the hand will twitch, the fingers will twitch, arm will move a little, but very little, I cannot raise it, inasmuch as I lack the steady concentration.
Cerebrum vs. Abdominal Brain
This demonstration is a case of the operator's cerebrum affecting the subject's Sympathetic System or Abdominal Brain, as his cerebrum is inactive; or, in other words, this is an illustration which I lack the ability to make you comprehend. The cerebrum of a subject does not work. In this case the operator's cerebrum is taking the place of the subject's cerebrum.
Post-hypnotic suggestion (which I call a deferred inspiration) is a misnomer, inasmuch as no inspiration given in hypnosis (so-called), can happen except in hypnosis. We tell a subject that when he opens his eyes he will see and feel a fly on his nose, that produces an instant response, if we do not actually awaken him. We tell him that in five minutes, one hour, one day, six months, after he opens his eyes, a fly will alight on his nose, he will feel it bite, et cetera, it will fail if the time be deferred over two hours. But, if we say to him (and he must be an exceptionally good subject), "When you open your eyes, one week from to-day when the town clock strikes eleven, you will see and feel a fly on your nose, et cetera," you will succeed, for you have really said, "One week from to-day when the clock strikes eleven, you will go into hypnosis; a fly, et cetera." If he be a good subject, one that will hold an inspiration for several hours, and he hears the clock strike, you can see him take on hypnosis, then the inspiration. Remember, no operator other than myself and my pupils ever awakened their subjects. They inspired them with the thought of being awake, the same as with the thought of a fly, and allowed the subjects to slowly pass into a "normal" awakening. If the subject is actually awakened there will be no "post-hypnotic" effect.
Sleeping suggestions in the hands of a clever mother are a most potent factor in guiding the child. Tell the child that when she goes to sleep to-night you are going to her bedside and talk to her; that she must remain asleep. After the child is asleep, go to the bedside and you will find her in an easy position, with inactive mind, upturned eye and closed eye. Now quietly and soothingly speak to the child, call her by name and say, "Bessie, remain asleep." The moment that you have aroused the thought, you will have hypnosis, which your baby has shown by a long, deep sigh, or the movement of some limb. Then say to her, "When you awaken in the morning you will do so and so, you will have a good appetite," or whatever inspiration you desire to give, and then quietly go out of the room. But mind, you cannot raise or force in action any thought which is not there, it must be within the compre- hension of the child, and be something other than antagonistic. This is really the most delightful phase of the entire art of hypnosis.
Now, doctor, if you are at a bedside and desirous of inducing sleep in your patient, the patient not willing to be hypnotized, is it possible to do so? No. Yes; first, you give your patient a sleeping draught (?), then stand at the bedside and watch him go to sleep, only he does not. I stand at the bedside and he does. How is it?
"Oh ! you are full of magnetism."
"There is no magnetism, there is nothing but suggestion."
"But you suggest to your patient to go to sleep."
"How do I suggest to my patient to go to sleep?"
"I do not know."
At the bedside
To induce hypnosis, I must bring together five attributes. (Plate IV.) A shows where you stand at the bedside. In B note the position of the patient and where / stand, and see if the patient is looking in my eyes. Have I the attributes necessary? The picture is the only thing that will describe the method. While the patient is watching you, quietly tell him that the draught just given is becoming effective, that he is getting quiet, sleepy, et cetera.
You will note that I use two words – "inspiration" and "suggestion." I inspire a hypnotized subject. I suggest to him in the so-called normal state. A pupil writes me that Mrs. Jones has been suffering from headaches; he inspired her with the thought of "no headache" and she went away seemingly all right, which immediately informs me that he hypnotized her; but if he writes me that she called and he suggested to her "no headache," I know that he did not hypnotize her. He may have stroked her head, assured her that the headache would pass away; he may have given her a blank pill, or even a drug. He used methods other than hypnosis, but obeyed the law that is demonstrated in hypnosis.
Fakirs of India
It is claimed that the rope trick of the fakirs of India is performed through "hypnosis." No. The first proof is that the spectators remember what they "saw" (?), whereas if they had been hypnotized, there would have been no memory of it after the "hypnosis" had passed off. This trick, if done, is the same as the sleight-of-hand performer makes you accept when he places a dollar with his right hand in his left and then causes it to disappear. He goes through the entire motion of placing it there except the actual doing so; that, he forces you to deduce; and if this rope trick of India is, it is simply the result of a master knowledge of suggestion that forces you to deduce the expected result.
Pain a thought
Pain is a thought; the suggestion or cause exists. I pinch your arm; where do you feel it? In your arm? That is not true, because when you are chloroformed you do not feel it. You feel it in the brain. Oh, yes. In the brain; then it is thought. Baby comes crying to mother – she has hurt her hand; mamma kisses it and the baby goes away smiling; the mother being scientific (?), instead of nursing the pretty thought that a kiss from mamma will remove pain, teaches the child to be afraid, and adds attributes – including the doctor – and by and by the child has associated with the thought of doctor only a man who gives nasty medicine and hurts. Teach the children that pain is something to be laughed at; fail to add attributes to pain – arouse thoughts of "no pain." I would rather spank a child for getting hurt than to console it. If we spank it, it will think of the spanking, and will have a little more pain, perhaps; though not at the seat of the original trouble. I have seen children of ten years, in families of mental scientists, hold their fingers over burning matches until blistered, exhibiting no signs of pain.
A beautiful demonstration
You hypnotize a clever subject and tell him that he has no finger; you can then stick pins in it, burn it, and he will not feel it, because if he has no finger there is nothing to be hurt, a most beautiful demonstration; but, my dear hypnotist, do not try this on a fool, because he will "holler" unless you are smart. Tell him he has no finger, it is gone; then explain to the audience that as he has no finger, it is impossible for him to have pain from it; he cannot avoid responding to your inspiration, the audience thinking you are talking to them, when in truth you are talking to your subject; you can then stick pins in his finger and be safe.
Again, if you inspire the subject with the thought of "no feeling," put a pin into him, and then commence talking to your audience about it, you will find your subject will begin to howl; or if, after you have withdrawn the pin and have a cowardly subject, you draw the audience's attention to the fact that he might have the nerve to stand the putting in of the pin, but he could not control the flow of blood, saying "You will note there is no blood," the moment you utter the word "blood," blood will appear; but if the fellow is unlearned and you use the word hemorrhage, he failing to comprehend, you are safe.
Body controlled by the mind
I could tell you of myriads of experiments which demonstrate beyond all question that the body is entirely controlled by the mind; that pain is a thought, and the thing we are most afraid of is that which our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and friends have done the best to build in our "minds."
Pain is a bugaboo.
Your body is a house and an unwelcome neighbor calls. You try to smile; ofttimes do. You invite him in and treat him with the best you have. So let it be with pain, if he is going to enter the house, instead of running away, meet him and sit down and talk to him. You will forget his unpleasantness, because there is good in all, and if you are looking for good you can find it, but if you are looking for "bad," you can find "bad."
A few years ago I failed to see any good in life, because I overlooked the good and was quick to discover the "bad." To-day I can see much good and can overlook the "bad" and forget it; I feel sorry for it; I know it is a disease, and who, other than a degenerate (sensualist), can enjoy disease.
That the Sympathetic System receives sensations as well as responding, was first impressed upon me when I was giving little cross-road entertainments in the South. I arrived in town with a few handbills, hired a hall, distributed the bills, got a few people interested, hunted up a little negro boy, who, after being promised a quarter, agreed to go on the stage. The little negro would have run if anybody had told him I was going to stick pins in him. I got him on the platform, and, after putting him through a performance of jumping out of hot chairs, and brushing flies off his nose, et cetera, I inspired him with the thought of "no feeling," and, we will say, stuck a hat pin through his left ear, afterward taking him among the audience, allowing the doctors and others to examine him. I removed the pin, put him through more "monkey-shines" and ultimately awakened him.
As he started to leave the hall, the doctor said to him, "Did Mr. Santanelli hurt you when he stuck those pins in you?"
"No, suh; he done stick no pins in me, suh;" and the left hand rubbed the left ear. If I had pierced his right ear, he would always put his hand up to that ear. There was no question but that he was thoroughly unconscious of the pin having been put into him. Why and wherefore, then, was the hand always put to the proper place, if the Sympathetic System does not receive impressions? A hypnotized subject does not use his cerebrum.
In my "Living Statuary," where I inspire the subjects with, "When you open your eyes you will juggle balls in the air; when I call now you will be stiff as iron, stone, you cannot move a muscle; now open your eyes;" they go to juggling, I call, "now," and they are perfectly rigid in whatever position they are in when I speak the word, "now"; their eyes are immovable.
Change of thought
It was here I first learned that the eye blinks every time one gets a different or new thought. I tell the subjects to close their eyes, and their hands drop to their sides and they are limber. If one is not expert the subjects will fall. If a subject, during the "statuary," is put to whistling, and I call, "now," he will stop; when I release him he will complete the whistle.
If he is uttering a word he will stop and when I release him he will complete the word, something that no "normal" being can do; the same with sneezing.
When the subjects are baseball pitchers I stop them in the middle of an action, and when I release them they complete the action. One evening, in Kentucky, the boys were defending themselves from an eagle; one of them had his coat off and started throwing it at the eagle; I produced the catalepsy, and when I released him out of that rigidity the coat passed or was thrown into the gallery of the theater. Where did he get the energy, how did he complete the action? The "mind" will hold but one thought at a time. When they open their eyes they are jugglers going through the actions they have seen jugglers perform. When I call "now" to them they think of rigidity, the action of which thought is catalepsy, when I tell them to close their eyes, they think of relaxation, yet complete the first thought, having a third thought in their "mind," an utterly impossible thing to conceive, other than that action is received and executed by separate brain conditions.
It was through noting these effects that in 1895 I preached an Abdominal Brain. At that time, having no comprehension as to what I was talking about, but being familiar enough with actions of the subjects to note that it was an utter impossibility for all to be done with the brain system as now understood (?).
Now, dear reader, we have covered all the different phases of hypnosis, how and why it is, how to induce it, et cetera. This book answers all questions as to hypnosis if you have the comprehension to pick them out. On the premise here given you, I have yet to fail to give a logical and comprehensive explanation to the thousands of questions asked me by students, doctors, ministers, lawyers and laymen before whom I lecture.
You are satisfied if you comprehend; yet a most important question you have failed to ask me – not you who have not tried, but the amateurs. I lead into hypnosis Mrs. Santanelli and tell her when she opens her eyes she will find in her lap an object which she will describe to me; to open her eyes; she does so, takes up the object and describes it. While she is describing it, I say, "all right" and clap my hands; she awakens, and I ask her what she has been doing and she has no memory whatever.
I have her again take on hypnosis, ask her what she was doing in the last "hypnosis," and she tells me. Why is it the hypnotized subject has no memory of what has taken place in "hypnosis" when he is actually awake, yet while in "hypnosis" has a memory of the previous hypnosis? Why this contradiction, what does it mean? How is it that the subject does not see his present environment, but sees the environment of the picture I arouse for him? Why this contradiction? I will explain it to you.
Memory is the registration of ideas. The subject, having no memory, proves that nothing has been registered cerebrally; again, it is impossible to register through one sense that which the economy of man intended to be registered through another. Therefore, we put nothing in through the cerebrum. When I talk to a subject he does not hear me cerebrally, if he did he would always remember what I said to him. The subject only responds to me.
Consciousness, realization, is cerebral. Sense impressions pass through the cerebrum yet are actually registered in the Sympathetic System. Every cerebral nerve is accompanied by a sympathetic nerve. Many sympathetic nerves are alone. This makes the so-called brain system a two-wire system.
I believe it to be a three-wire system. I say to a hypnotized subject, "You have no feeling in your finger" (touching the finger); the Sympathetic System immediately contracts the tissue over the cerebral nerve and insulates it; yet the Sympathetic System is conscious of any irritation that I make on the designated place, showing that it receives the impression free of the cerebrum. The Sympathetic System can work free and independently of the cerebral, but the cerebrum cannot work free of the sympathetic, because the sympathetic is the actual machinery that does the work, the cerebral brain simply being the realizing brain.
In a hypnotized subject the cerebrum is inactive, as in hypnosis the impulse is received through and responded to by the Sympathetic System. The experiment made by all students of decapitating a frog, irritating a nerve-end and the "normal" action taking place, proves my affirmation. A hypnotized subject is as a decapitated being. Feeling is never eliminated until death. Conscious feeling – yes. If the Abdominal Brain did not know what was taking place it would lose its control over the body, therefore, feeling as to the Sympathetic System cannot be obliterated.
Hudson [xyz] see links below, possible references
Hudson's philosophy of objective and subjective mind will not hold water, inasmuch as it is based on the premise than man is a free agent and can discriminate. Now, this subject is so thoroughly . illustrated in the barber story, the banjo story, the story of crime, that really it is not worthy of discussion, although the entire public has seemingly endorsed a most false theory, manufactured to explain a condition that the alleged "authority" was not capable of explaining.
[xyz Ref. Colin Wilson: "Genius, says Hudson, is simply a perfect balance between the objective and subjective minds..." From The Supernatural: Your Guide Through the Unexplained, the Unearthly and the Unknown. Google books: https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=dGa6F14IXHUC&pg=PT70&lpg=PT70&dq=henry+hudson+objective+and+subjective+mind&source=bl&ots=v6vJ4kr41T&sig=3tRdq3JwilB2omMrCRZezTY-7fA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD8rTbx93ZAhVHd6wKHYvmDAMQ6AEIKTAA ]
[ Quote from Google search page but not in link:
"Colin Wilson - 2013 - Body, Mind & Spirit Genius, says Hudson, is simply a perfect balance between the objective and subjective minds – as if a husband and wife are in such deep sympathy that the wife ... Hudson cites the example of the great political orator Henry Clay, who was once called upon to answer an opponent in the Senate when he was feeling sick and ..." ]
[ Also see Beyond The Occult: Twenty Years' Research into the Paranormal [in Seedbox] https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=0A283oD2KAQC&pg=PT74&lpg=PT74&dq=henry+hudson+objective+and+subjective+mind&source=bl&ots=q6n54YsXNr&sig=1-KjI3ReTGGPuYd_f9HRO1I_PPU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD8rTbx93ZAhVHd6wKHYvmDAMQ6AEILDAB ]https://books.google.com.mx/books?isbn=1780286945
[ Quote from Google search page but not in link:
Colin Wilson - 2013 - Body, Mind & Spirit Hudson was convinced that the subjective mind is somehow independent of the senses. He knew of ... Moreover the subjective mind seems to be capable of drawing upon a power and energy far greater than the subject could exercise by conscious effort. A Danish hypnotist ... The objective mind is the person you call 'you'. ]
[ The Mammoth Encyclopedia of the Unsolved by Colin Wilson
Little, Brown Book Group, Mar 1, 2012 - Body, Mind & Spirit - 160 pages
Quote from Google search page but not in link:
Colin Wilson - 2012 - Body, Mind & Spirit Then the subjective mind could operate freely. In other words, the objective mind serves as a kind of anchor, or ballandchain, on the subjective mind. But men of great genius, Hudson concluded, have an odd faculty for allowing the two to work in harmony – like children. He cited the case of an American orator, Henry Clay, ... ]
We have but one mind; we are entirely creatures of our environment; our every action, our every thought, is simply the transforming into other action, of suggestion. The ability to discriminate is impossible.
Ofttimes men say that the ability to perform a mathematical problem is an example that man is a free agent and capable of thinking. Can a Fiji Islander, having no knowledge of figures, solve a mathematical problem? Can the son of the most brilliant mathematician do so until he has gone to school and had the ideas associated on his "cylinder?" Those who have the ideas properly registered will respond to the problem; they will all work it out in the same way, getting identically the same result, proving that the problem was simply a suggestion that forced into action ideas (actions) already associated.