This is S02E14 the Myth of Conscious-Subconscious. 

This is the second in a mini series entitled Conscious Self Persuasion – Beyond Hypnosis and the Waking Sleep. 

So our goal in this mini series is to investigate and clarify our understanding of hypnosis in its various forms and to be able to differentiate it from the practical application of what we will call conscious self persuasion. 

In the last episode I described various categories of evidence with regard to hypnosis. So what I want to do now is summarize and elaborate just a bit on that information before we carry on to our main topic, which is to try to answer the question bringing Neville's worldview into the picture. 

Last time we first gave descriptions of mass hypnosis primarily from what we call the esoteric perspective. That is quoting from GI Gurdjieff and his one time student, Rolf Alexander. What does esoteric mean? It has the connotation of exclusive, but it doesn't really mean that. It means simply coming from a source that is outside the normal mainstream. The idea implies the reality of a higher level of mental development. In any case, both G. and Alexander they had studied in the near East and returned to the West to try to bring their system of thought to explain to the culture there. They characterized humanity's general psychological condition as one of hypnotic sleep.

Neville, for his part, referred to the condition of Man whereby the creative source, God himself, had taken a deliberate decision to die within the psyche of Man, giving Man the possibility of awakening to his true being. 

We also discussed the disastrous consequences of mass hypnotic sleep. And I referred to Chomsky's study of the manufacture of consent by those who control the political and social engineering narratives. I also cited the Academy of Ideas entry on mass psychosis. Now here's an expanded quote from that very important post: 

‘During a mass psychosis, madness becomes the norm in a society and delusional beliefs spread like a contagion. But as delusions can take many forms and as madness can manifest in countless ways, the specific manner in which a mass psychosis unfolds will differ based on the historical and cultural context of the infected society. In the past, mass psychosis has led to witch hunts, genocides and even dancing manias. But in the modern era it is the mass psychosis of totalitarianism that is the greatest threat.’

Another category of evidence that we looked at was individual hypnosis, specifically hetero-hypnosis in clinical practice. So, I checked out a study that I didn't mention last time, a meta analysis, that is a review of prior research. The best randomized and controlled studies were selected and what they determined was that there is indeed at least a moderate level of effectiveness of hypnosis that was reported across all of these studies.

Similarly, we acknowledged individual auto hypnosis, self hypnosis and I spoke about the popular literature there. And in another meta analysis they again determined that across a range of high quality studies they determined that there was a medium to large effect. And we looked at other evidence, the stage hypnosis and also demonstrations of paranormal phenomena connected with what were understood to be altered states or hypnotic states, whether imposed by someone else or by the subjects themselves. In this connection, I'll give you a quote from yet another meta analysis that was published in the Journal of Parapsychology. 

‘In this type of research, statistically unlikely outcomes in parapsychological experiments indicate that events have occurred that do not appear to be explicable by known mechanisms and are unlikely to be coincidence. But the research does not give information about how or why the events occurred.’ 

So the effect of the whole phenomenon is indeed acknowledged by the scientific community. So there's a summary of some interesting evidence. But this evidence is undeniable and to me it's just extraordinary. It shows something really miraculous and it's not sufficient that we would just play with it and hope for the best. I think we need to understand it. And if we can really get a hold of it, then we can apply it to ourselves with just that much more efficacy. 

Now if you search for explanations of hypnosis, there is no authoritative definition and its exact mechanism, how it actually works, is not understood. In one article, for example, that claims to outline four causes of hypnosis, the authors say explicitly that the description they give merely names, but it does not explain the phenomenon. One attempt was made by a Dr. Esther Bartlett back in 1968. The article is called, ‘A Proposed Definition of Hypnosis’ and she defines it as control of sensory inputs, which seems almost like a circular definition to me. But in any case, I wanted to quote something that she mentions in the article. She says:

‘Possibly the reason there is no universally accepted definition of hypnosis is because to define anything is to be bound by the limits of that definition and known phenomena of hypnosis are so varied and extensive as to appear limitless.’ 

I found it kind of striking that the researcher would make that admission. The ironic thing is that Neville fully concurs. He says that he does not know the limits, if any, of the human imagination. But of course, he's talking from his perspective. So let's try to break this down and understand hypnosis in a new light. 

As I suggested in the last episode, we need to consider new standpoints. And yet again, the precepts of Neville Goddard's implied system of metaphysics, how he sees reality and his explanation of our own nature and identity, they have extraordinary explanatory power. 

It's time now to talk about the false dichotomy between conscious and subconscious that I had mentioned at the very beginning of this mini series in the last episode. It is no exaggeration to say that the authors in auto hypnosis, the ones that I had mentioned, as well as the eminent authority CG Jung, perpetuate the popular notion of consciousness, the waking state, or at best, knowing that you have a thought or knowing that you have an emotion, in other words, a perception. The researchers who are trying to explain hypnosis suffer from exactly the same affliction. Everyone has the plain old popular notion of consciousness as though it were the normal waking state. So in doing so, they malign and abuse the real idea and practice of consciousness, which is what we studied back in season one, episode one, and they completely misconstrue the nature and content of the habitual waking state, which is fragmentation and multiple identities. 

Gurdjieff once said that scientists are trying to define consciousness where it does not exist. The corollary to that is that the hypnosis researchers are trying to define hypnosis while being immersed in it. 

So, just to review, did we not already established back in season one, episode one, that following Gurdjieff's advice, it would be absurd to characterize as conscious the mental state in which millions of men slaughter each other? 

Did we forget that everyone, including ourselves, researchers, patients and doctors, everyone is complying, sheep-like, with the manufactured narratives and mass propaganda campaigns of the day? 

Well, Neville Goddard, writing back in 1951, was already out in front of this problem. While discussing in practical terms the interaction with what he agrees, at least provisionally, to call the subconscious, he states that in fact, there are no clear demarcations. Now, here's a quote: 

‘Consciousness [and in parentheses, when he says consciousness in this context, he means the mind]is really one and undivided, but for creation's sake it appears to be divided into two.’ 

Alright, that's from Feeling is the Secret. So we can't say that Neville went too deeply into the problem. But at least he identified the crucial point that the mind is all one, and the way we experience it is really in one mode. 

If the popular distinction between conscious and subconscious doesn't actually exist, it follows that the normal waking state of the hypnosis patient, just as well as everyone, lacks the self remembering consciousness and so is essentially subconscious. The subject's mind easily runs like watercolours into adjacent subconscious states of induction or fantasy or guided memory recall or whatever it happens to be. 

One of the studies determined that in six prior research projects they had sought the correlation between what is called suggestibility to hypnosis. The result was a zero correlation. You don't need to be what science considers to be suggestible in order to be hypnotized. 

What is colloquially accepted as the waking state is scarcely distinguishable from its many variants exhibited under so called ‘trance’. They are all patchy and ephemeral. They're all subconscious in character. There is no need to create another discrete and special category artificially called the hypnotic state. Now one psychologist who published back in 2014 intuited this. Here's a quote from this article: 

‘We do not need to postulate the existence of some special hypnotic process or altered state in addition to other ordinary psychological variables such as motivation, relaxation, imagination, absorption, expectancies, attitudes, beliefs, concentrations, suggestibility, placebo effects, selective attention, role enactment, compliance with instructions’ etc. There we go – a perfect picture of the fragmentation of the human mind in its normal state! 

This is from a researcher whose name is Graham Wagstaff. Now he invented a curious circular definition of hypnosis. Hypnosis is the acceptance of the suggestion, or belief in the suggestion, that one is in an altered state. So in other words, you're hypnotized if you think you are. That’s an improvement, although we would prefer to say,  ‘You’re hypnotized, even though you don't realize you are.’ 
He did not acknowledge the reality of a distinct state called hypnosis. Thus the psyche of the subject moves into a state of acceptance or belief in something that is vague or pretended. In other words, it is self delusion. 

Along the same line of thought, another psychologist rejects the popular picture of hypnosis, and proposes what he calls a ‘social psychological interpretation of hypnotic behaviour.’ Now why did he do that? Because he identified a voluntary response by the subject to meet perceived implicit demands of the operator. 

No matter which way you slice it, you can see that the normal waking state is nothing but an unending, ever-shifting kaleidoscope of subconscious mental content. 

Well, at this point, let's now draw into the argument to other pertinent factors as conceived by Neville: mental state and belief. 

The role of mental state. 

Neville explains that there are, in creation, that is, in potential, infinite states. Only a subset of these is experienced at any given time in the minds of individuals. Now, mental state is not just a passing mood or an emotion. It is a complex of ideas, emotions, thoughts, attitudes. Each state is permanent and complete unto itself. It compels action and has eventual consequences.

Wealth, success, loving relationship, or any number of beneficial or even detrimental or neutral belief patterns, such as ‘I am a student’, ‘I am a businessman’...  These are all states through which people pass or into which they fall, perhaps unwittingly. 

What Neville crucially reveals is that the state has a causal function. It is the author of its associated events and typical circumstances. 

The role of belief. 

Claude Bristol, the author, had discovered after extensive study of many different systems, that belief that is deep seated (not mere whimsy) was the chief determinant of success of affirmations. 

The authors in the literature of auto hypnosis that I had mentioned echoed Bristol's findings. They said as long as the patient believes he is a good subject, believes the operator is knowledgeable, and believes in the efficacy of the process, then the technique turns out to be a success. 

Belief is the catalyzing force that calls one or another state or mental power from mere potential to the condition of a living reality. This is exactly the instruction from Neville regarding the third term in the creative formula that he, explains (Jod He Vau He). If belief is absent, the state or power in question cannot manifest. It remains merely a possibility. This realization destroys the popular connotation of belief as a light, airy nothingness. Rather, it is a distinct agent of creation. And we would do well clearly to understand belief and study how to inwardly apprehend it. 

So what we accomplished today in the second of the miniseries entitled the Myth of Conscious Subconscious was, first of all, to review the evidence from clinical hypnosis, to autosuggestion, to the paranormal and demonstration effects. And we showed that scientifically, all of this is accepted as a phenomenon, but it is not understood. The researchers are really in a quandary to try to define the exact mechanism of suggestion. 

It is only by introducing the esoteric element, that is, the viewpoint of someone like Neville Goddard or Gurdjieff that we can explain that the normal waking state is simply another variant of a vast morass of subconscious activity in the mind. 

We then discussed the mental state and the role of belief and how they crucially are responsible for creating reality. 

It remains for us in the next episode of this mini series, the final one, to explain exactly how Conscious Self Persuasion is differentiated from this whole misunderstanding about hypnosis – how we can actually apply something real to our own benefit.