Paper published in

The Journal of Hypnotism

February 2001

 

The Language of Hypnosis, Part III

by

Dennis K. Chong and Jennifer K. Smith Chong ©

 

 

 

 

(In this paper, the male pronoun will apply to either gender. Where the plural pronoun is used it will apply to both authors. Where the nominal pronoun is used t will apply to the first author.)

 

 

 

 

 

We dedicate this paper to our teacher and friend

Dr. Edgar Barnett

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Abstract

Given the infinite possibility of how words can be strung together to form sentences, the question is whether there is a way to select the words that fit a given subject to determine a trance state and from that point on to secure hypnotherapeutic change. This paper continues to examine such a possibility. It hopes to map out the way to do it well.

The alternative is either to fly by luck or by the instincts of experience. Whilst the former has nothing to speak for it, the latter is open to the risk of error. Neither is, therefore, satisfactory.

 

 

 

In Part I of this paper, we cited our experiences with Reveen the Impossibilist. From them we conclude  that the trance state is not only one of absolute and total focus on the hypnotic operator. It is also the absolute and total wanting to do whatever is put to the subject by the hypnotist.

This means that the subject will assume the form and way of being indexed by the operator. He will not leave it to his own ontological engine to determine how he is to be. His ontological engine is his Hierarchy of Paradigms (HOPs). His HOPs are his life blueprints that he uses to understand himself, others and the world that he lives in. As a set, the HOPs are comprised of the General, Specific and the Meta Paradigms. The General Paradigms1 consist of Race, Language, Religion, Lore and Myths, Culture, Science, Politics, Social System and the Criminal Justice System. The Specific Paradigms are those blueprints that are unique only to the given individual. The Meta Paradigm is the governing paradigm and it is either Causality or Relativity (ref. Don’t Ask WHY?! and Power and Elegance in Communication.)

In introducing the concept of the HOPs, we are proposing an epistemological basis by which a human being is able to get his sense and meaning of himself, others and the world he lives in. Reality is not given. It is a construction, ours. And each of us it in his own unique way. This is so because our HOPs are unique to us. In the jargon of the age, it is the software that runs the hardware - those two lumps of gray matter sitting inside our skulls, a.k.a. the Left Brain, the Right Brain and the Limbic System:

 

 

This wanting to do whatever the operator wishes means that the subject will override any counter arguments or counter persuasions that may arise in his mind not to. In that this last component is true to our experience, it witnesses the relationship between the hypnotic operator and the subject is not between a hypnotist and a zombie. That one will override a counter argument or counter persuasion can only mean that the relationship between the operator and the subject is a sentient cybernetic one. The feedback of the loop in this instance is the counterargument or counter persuasion:

 

In Part II of this paper we delineated two things:

1.                    the concept of the meta function (m(f)). We identified it with Critical Factor (CF).

2.                    the concept of the metalanguage and the distinction between the first metalanguage, the Meta Model and its successor the Watzlawick-Weakland-Fisch-metalanguage (WWF-ML).

 

In Part II we indexed that even for the practiced and tested professional, there is still the problem of defining a trance? We do not intend to offer a definition here, but from our experience with Reveen, we say now  that a trance state has the following features:

1.         an internal focus (or fixation) on the hypnotic operator and his communication

2.         a wanting to be in such a focus (or fixation) of the way of BEING predicated by the hypnotist in spite of all possible transient counter arguments or counter persuasions that may intrude into the subject’s awareness. It is quite clear that if these counter-arguments-in-awareness should prevail, a subject would not submit to the ridiculous suggestions such as to conduct a non-existent 150 piece symphony orchestra on a stage before an audience of some 3000 people! It is insane to swim in a pool of non-existent water in front of an audience of 3000 people. It is this critical feature of the discounting of any counter arguments that might intrude into a person’s awareness that is a critical hallmark of what a trance state is.

I.                     a wanting and determination to carry out the instruction required by the hypnotist, in spite of everything. I knew that I just wanted to and a I was determined to conduct the symphony orchestra. It is for this that when a hypnotist says, “You will feel an “OUCH” on your bum, a subject’s bum will.

 

What we know is that in Hypnotherapy it is not possible to get a client to follow the injunctions of the hypnotherapist even when the instructions are concordant with the wishes of the client follow the hypnotherapy session. This has been a most irksome mystery. We propose to understand this phenomenon in this way. In trance, stage or therapeutic, the meta function (m(f)) or Critical Factor (CF) is stayed in its operation. When this happens, as powerful stage hypnotists have demonstrated “anything is possible.” This is only true because of the existence of the trance state. However, once the stage performance is over, trance is over. This is true also for a Hypnotherapy session. When it is over trance is over. The m(f) or CF is back in situ. And as they say in England, “Bob’s your uncle,” you are back as you were, smoking, nail biting, cheek chewing, hair pulling, boozing and everything else. When the trance state of the hypnosis session is over, logically there is no basis or prospect that the subject’s compliance will overlap into his normal condition. In his normal state his HOPs will be fully operational. However, the seeming exception are those rare case examples where a stage subject continues in an ontology such as having an itch after the performance is over. Such conditions will not continue indefinitely and are easily remitted. They will lapse when the m(f) or CF is back in situ.

           

We understand the difference diagrammatically in this way:

 

 

 

We have circumscribed the second diagram with a black border to emphasize that when the m(f) is functionally stayed in its operation that a singularly unique ontological state has been evinced. In this condition, even the diagram suggests that it is the hypnotist that has now supplanted the subjects ontological engine. However, the diagram itself suggests that if the hypnotist was called away, the ontological engine of the HOPs will sooner or later reassert its normal ascendency and function. The person will not remain in a trance state indefinitely.

 

In passing, it is quite clear that the problem in Hypnotherapy is how to secure the outcome  for the positive suggestions in trance (when the operations of the m(f) is stayed) to translate into the conditions of continuing and sustained compliance when the m(f) is operational.

The concept of Milton Model is one of the undoubted high contributions to Hypnosis and is a tribute to the genius of Richard Bandler and John Grinder:

 

The Meta Model is a set of precise forms with which a psychotherapist can directly challenge impoverishing representations. Hypnosis, on the other hand, does not challenge those processes of representations but rather turns them into the very vehicle that enables a client to achieve both the trance state and its goals.   . . .   What could be called in hypnosis as an anti- or inverse Meta Model (our underline) is used to pace and distract, utilizing the modelling processes of the client to achieve trance and the goals of the hypnotic endeavour. This inverse Meta Model we have lovingly named the “Milton Model.”

 

Richard Bandler & John Grinder: Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson M.D. Volume 1   Meta Publications 1975   page 146.

 

This critical proposition “What could be called in hypnosis as an anti- or inverse Meta Model (our underline) is used to pace and distract, utilizing the modelling processes of the client to achieve trance and the goals of the hypnotic endeavour” indexes the central position of the Metal Model and its relationship with the Milton Model. Now, the Meta Model was so named because it is a meta model of language and hence a METALANGUAGE. Therefore

 

The Milton Model at its core is about the inversion of the linguistic formats of a metalanguage.

 

We are now in 2001, and over two a half decades have passed, since this proposition was asserted. In this time three significant things have happened.

The first is the realization that the Meta Model is flawed because it was constructed within the constraints of Causal Modelling (Cause and Effect or the Blame Frame). There is no question that because of this that the Meta Model is, therefore, semantically ill-formed:

 

We have generalized the notion of semantic ill-formedness to include sentences such as:

My husband makes me mad.

           

The therapist can identify this sentence as having the form:

Some person causes some person to have some emotion.

 

When the first person, the one doing the causing, is different from the person experiencing the anger, the sentence is said to be semantically ill-formed and unacceptable. The semantic ill-formedness of sentences of this type arises because, it, literally, is not possible for one human being to create an emotion in another human being - thus, we reject sentences of this form. Sentences of this type, in fact, identify situations in which one person does some act and a second person responds by feeling a certain way. The point here is that, although the two events occur one after the another, there is no necessary connection between the act of one person and the response of the other. Therefore, sentences of this type identify a model in which the client assigns responsibility for his emotion; rather, the emotion is a response generated from the model in which the client takes no responsibility for experiences which he could control.

 

Richard Bandler & John Grinder: The Structure of Magic  Science Behaviour Books Inc.  1975 pages 51 - 52.

 

It was, therefore, urgent to extract the Meta Model out of Causal Modelling (Cause and Effect or the Blame Frame) and to reconfigure it within the parameters of Functional Modelling (the Non-Aristotelian System of Alfred Korzybski or the No-Y-ian Frame of Neuro-Semantic Programming). This task was completed in the work Power and Elegance in Communication.

The second was the realization that the Meta Model had deficiencies and deficits to it. We are quite sure that, if the creators of the Meta Model had the time to revisit and review the Meta Model, (such as you would revisit and review an essay or letter that you had written), they would have arrived at and determined the augmentations we were to give it.

Thus, we cite one example here of an augmentation (the abbreviation M.M. stands for Meta Model and M.M.M. stands for Modified Meta Model):

                       

There are two classes of modal operators. The above belong to the class known as the modal operators of necessity. Implicitly and semantically, they index actions under special conditions. They are executed under duress and urgency. Below are some examples -

            You should see to it that the children are on time.

                        I must see to my mother.

                        He has to go and see his lawyer.

                        It is mandatory that he appears before the court.

                        It is imperative that we get the information.

            She always finds it necessary to be sweet to people.

 

The M.M. recognizes a deletion corollary. The procedure for retrieval for the deletion corollary is to ask;

                        Or what will happen?

                        What will happen if you failed to . . .

 

The M.M.M. agrees that implicit to the modal operator is a deletion corollary. This deletion corollary is that something will result if the action is not carried out. The result is not just any repercussion. It is a consequence that, in the speaker’s mind, is either a worst or best case scenario. In recognition of this, the procedure, the procedure to retrieve is to ask:

                        What is the worst case scenario if X is NOT carried out?

                        What is the best case scenario if X is carried out.

page 160 - 161 Power and Elegance in Communication

 

 In this way the original Meta Model had a series of crucial and exigent augmentations to it. As a function of this, its gathering information power for high accuracy was indubitably enhanced. As a function of the body of augmentations, the appropriate thing was to name the augmented form of the Meta Model as the Modified Meta Model. Therefore, the Milton Model, at one level, is about the inversion of the linguistic formats of the Modified Meta Model.

The third significant thing was the realization that neither the Meta Model nor the Modified Meta Model were the definitive metalanguage that was first proposed by Paul Watzlawick, John Weakland and Richard Fisch in their seminal work CHANGE.

           

Eventually we realized that this state of affairs was directly linked to the hierarchical structure of all language, communication, learning, etc. As we pointed out in Chapter 1, to express or explain something requires a shift to one logical level above what is to be expressed or explained (our underline). No explaining can be accomplished on the same level; a metalanguage has to be used (our underline), but this  metalanguage is not necessarily available (our underline). To effect change is one thing; to communicate about this change is something else: above all, a problem of correct logical typing and of creating an adequate metalanguage. In psychotherapeutic research, it is very common to find that  particularly gifted and intuitive therapists think they know why they are doing what they are doing, but their explanations simply do not hold water. Conversely, many gifted writers are astounded and even annoyed at the deeper meanings that others read into their works. Thus, while the former believe they know, but apparently do not, the latter seem to know more than they are willing to acknowledge - which brings us back to Laing: “If I don’t know I don’t know, I think I know; if I don’t know I know, I think I don’t know.”

Paul Watzlawick, John Weakland and Richard Fisch: CHANGE Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution W. W. Norton & Company Inc.   1974   p79.

 

From our explorations from 1975, it became very clear that:

1.             the Korzybskian proposition of a Non-Aristotelian system ref Science and Sanity, is necessarily about a distinct language system. This language system would intrinsically be one that would be in total contradistinction to the current universal language system that is contingent to Cause and Effect or the Aristotelian System. This entire world lives in the medium of Cause and Effect. As a result, few are really aware of the consequences of thinking and living by Causality. The complete formats of the Non-Aristotelian System are to be found in the No-Y-ian Model of language - ref Power and Elegance in Communication.

2.             informal logicians discovered a more accurate-to-fact and more true-to-fact way to understand day to day logic and thinking of ordinary people. Their discoveries are embodied in the linguistic formats of Informal Logic. This was in total contradistinction to the formats of Formal Logic. The latter enjoyed zero utilitarian properties. The language system of Informal Logic is a significant component of the metalanguage.

In one sense, we endorse the claim that the original Meta Model was THE METALANGUAGE - of its time. It was so because it was the only one. However, this claim is not tenable today.

 

What, therefore, has become very clear is that the verbal components of the metalanguage of Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch (which we abbreviate to the WWF-metalanguage) comprise the following:

                                    1. The Modified Meta Model

                                    2. The No-Y-ian Model of Language

                                    3. Informal Logic.

 

The Milton Model, therefore, concerns the inversion of the linguistic formats of the above components of the metalanguage.

           

The number of available words that exist in the English Language is the basis of an infinite number of sentences. Therefore, the inverted linguistic formats of the metalanguage are also the basis of an infinite number of sentences. The question is whether there is a blueprint or model that a hypnotherapist may have by which to manipulate this infinite number of sentences in a well-formed and coherent manner.

 

This blueprint exists and it is a composite component. On one hand, it is about the indices delineated in the work Therapeutic Metaphors by David Gordon. On the other hand it is about the indices delineated in the work The Knife Without Pain.

 

We are therefore left to conclude that the definitive language of Hypnosis is a composite of the following:

                        1. The Modified Meta Model

                        2. The No-Y-ian Model of Language

                        3. Informal Logic

and

                        4. the indices delineated in the work Therapeutic Metaphors

                        5. the indices delineated in the work The Knife Without Pain

 

It has been proposed to us that given our expansions, that we create a new name to what we have collated here. We have resisted this because of our continuing regard for the people who proposed the initial protocols that have brought us to this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Endnotes:

1. General Paradigms

To those that we have listed, we now know that we have to add the Folklore, Traditions and Customs of a given people.

 

 

 

 

 

References:

Dennis K. Chong and Jennifer K. Smith Chong: Cancer and The Possibility to Reverse It, Part I and II - paper to the Canadian National Assembly of Canadian Federation of Societies of Clinical Hypnosis, Vancouver, British Columbia, October 2000

Dennis K. Chong & Jennifer K. Smith Chong: Critical Equivalence (CEq) - An Upgraded View Anchor Point Vol. 11, No.7 July 1997

Dennis K. Chong and Jennifer K. Smith Chong: Don’t Ask WHY?!  C-Jade Publications Inc. 1991

Dennis K. Chong & Jennifer K. Smith Chong: HYPNOSIS, The Science and The Art, Volume 1 & II C-Jade Publications Inc. (manuscripts, forthcoming publication)

Dennis K. Chong and Jennifer K. Smith Chong: Language and Body Language in Hypnosis  paper to the 10th Annual Conference of the International Medical and Dental Hypnotherapy Association, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A., 1996

Dennis K. Chong and Jennifer K. Smith Chong: Non-Dominant Hemispheric Access and Chronic Pain - paper to 41st Scientific Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A., 1999

Dennis K. Chong & Jennifer K. Smith Chong: People, Paradigms and the Sphexishness of Human Nature Neuro-Semantic Programming, Psychotherapy and Change (Manuscript in Preparation)

Dennis K. Chong and Jennifer K. Smith Chong: Pain Control in Surgery by Hypnosis - paper to the III Annual Conference of Canadian Societies of Clinical Hypnosis, University of Br. Columbia, Vancouver 1992

Dennis K. Chong & Jennifer K. Smith Chong: Power and Elegance in Communication C-Jade Publications Inc. 1993

Dennis K. Chong and Jennifer K. Smith Chong: Speech Acts and Hypnotic Protocols - paper to 14th International Hypnosis Conference, San Diego, U.S.A. 1997

Dennis K. Chong & Jennifer K. Smith Chong: The Knife Without Pain C-Jade Publications Inc. 1994

Dennis K. Chong and Jennifer K. Smith Chong: The Milton Model - a Revisit - paper to the 3rd European Congress on Ericksonian Hypnosis and Psychotherapy, Venice, Italy 1998

Dennis K. Chong and Jennifer K. Smith Chong: The Ontology of Malignancy and the Possibility to Turn It - paper to the 8th Canadian NLP Conference, Toronto, Canada 1996

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THIS ARTICLE IS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND IT CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND HAS EXEMPTION FROM EXPOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW.