It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hypnotism vs. Posession

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 02:44 PM
First off, I'm not even sure if anyone truly has a truly clear idea of what either word means.

Just going to the wiki page for hypnosis is full of conflict--even when the statements have linked-in documentation that you can follow up on:

Hypnosis has been defined as "...a special psychological state with certain physiological attributes, resembling sleep only superficially and marked by a functioning of the individual at a level of awareness other than the ordinary conscious state."[1] This definition captures our common understanding of hypnosis; however, research has not only revealed that hypnosis is a much more complicated thing, but it has also given rise to a number of definitions. One suggestion is that hypnosis is a mental state, while another links it to imaginative role-enactment.[2][3][4]
Persons under hypnosis are said to have heightened focus and concentration with the ability to concentrate intensely on a specific thought or memory, while blocking out sources of distraction.[5] Hypnosis is usually induced by a procedure known as a hypnotic induction involving a series of preliminary instructions and suggestions.[6] The hypnotic suggestions may be delivered by a hypnotist in the presence of the subject, or may be self-administered ("self-suggestion" or "autosuggestion"). The use of hypnotism for therapeutic purposes is referred to as "hypnotherapy", while its use as a form of entertainment for an audience is known as "stage hypnosis".
The term "hypnosis" comes from the Greek word hypnos which means sleep. The words "hypnosis" and "hypnotism" both derive from the term "neuro-hypnotism" (nervous sleep) coined by the Scottish surgeon James Braid around 1841. Braid based his practice on that developed by Franz Mesmer and his followers ("Mesmerism" or "animal magnetism"), but differed in his theory as to how the procedure worked.
There is a belief that hypnosis is a form of unconsciousness resembling sleep, but contemporary research suggests that hypnotic subjects are fully awake and are focusing attention, with a corresponding decrease in their peripheral awareness.[7] Subjects also show an increased response to suggestions.[8] In the first book on the subject, Neurypnology (1843), Braid described "hypnotism" as a state of physical relaxation accompanied and induced by mental concentration ("abstraction").[9]

Posession is treated just about as ambiguously:

Spirit possession is a term for the belief that animas, demons, extraterrestrials, gods, or spirits can take control of a human body. The concept of spirit possession exists in many religions, including Christianity,[1] Buddhism, Haitian Vodou, Wicca, and Southeast Asian and African traditions. Depending on the cultural context in which it is found, possession may be considered voluntary or involuntary and may be considered to have beneficial or detrimental effects to host. Within possession cults, the belief that one is possessed by spirits is more common among women than men.[2][3]

Demonic possession is held by many belief systems to be the spirit possession of an individual by a malevolent preternatural being. Descriptions of demonic possessions often include erased memories or personalities, convulsions, “fits” and fainting as if one were dying.[1] Other descriptions include access to hidden knowledge (gnosis) and foreign languages (xenoglossia), drastic changes in vocal intonation and facial structure, the sudden appearance of injuries (scratches, bite marks) or lesions, and superhuman strength. Unlike in channeling, the subject has no control over the possessing entity and so it will persist until forced to leave the victim, usually through a form of exorcism.

The thing is that if one is fact, how is the other fiction?

I mean, personally, I think the extent of the use of hypnotism as a means of controlling another person has got to be more minimal than what a ghost/demon/spiritual entity would do. This is due to the fact that a human eventually has to quit messing with another person's head just to sleep, to eat, to show off his or her skills to other people. A non-corporal entity wouldn't be bound by these things.

All in the theoretical, mind you. I tend to doubt every single thing that people claim comes from ghosts or from people messing with other people's minds, out of the principle of the matter.

But I would certainly love to hear from those of us who are certain of one of them, but thinks the other is purely b.s. I want to see people's reasoning on why these things are so different. If they can back it up with documentation, fine. If it's merely personal opinion, fine.

But I personally suspect that the 2 are quite related.

posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:54 PM
I've been doing a lot of experimenting with self-hypnosis lately, and at no time have I lost control over the mental state I was experiencing. Like the description states, you're very much aware of what's happening. That said, you do appear (I would imagine that I do, when I'm in a trance) to be either groggy or downright asleep (depending on the level of induction). It's very odd, but you know that you're physically affected, even as your mind is crystal clear as to what it is that you're focused on. It's an altered state, but not the same as something debilitating, like a psychotic break or similar.

As far as spirit possession (I refuse to accept that demons exist) is concerned, the "possessed" have no control over what is happening to them. The hypnotized cannot be affected by a hypnotist unless they want to be affected, and are agreeable to being hypnotized.

That's a significant difference. Kind of like the difference between making love and being raped. Yeah, probably a good analogy, actually.

posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 09:40 PM
reply to post by NorEaster

Fairly valid reasoning, I suspect.

But form things I've seen some talk about during possession is that the person possessed may often be in collusion with the "controlling entity". Hence why it takes more than 1 time to get rid of the demon.

Heck, I think it would be kind of seductive to be offered abnormal powers to "share my body with something other than me.

*shakes head*

posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:01 AM

reply to post by NorEaster

Fairly valid reasoning, I suspect.

But form things I've seen some talk about during possession is that the person possessed may often be in collusion with the "controlling entity". Hence why it takes more than 1 time to get rid of the demon.

Heck, I think it would be kind of seductive to be offered abnormal powers to "share my body with something other than me.

*shakes head*

I'm pretty suspicious when it comes to most claims of possession. The physics just doesn't add up in the way that the classic "The Exorcist" type demon possession is depicted. I believe that the mind of a person can be co-opted, and that discarnate entities do exist that can (and will if they can) take command of the mind of a person, but there's no actual "inside the body" for one of those entities to slip inside of. It's mind control - just like the mesmerizing process of hypnosis (but definitely to a more aggressive extent). I still think that the possessed has to embrace the assault as being possible, in the same way that a hypnotized person has to embrace the experience of hypnosis.

You are always in full command of what happens to your mind (short of mental illness brought on by structural damage and/or disease of your brain, of course). Western culture - mostly Abrahamic theologically based western culture - has worked hard to convince its people that their minds are not their own, and that they have to hand them over to one god or the other, or risk their minds being snatched up by malevolent forces. That's a false choice, and a trap that is designed to program a person for easy management once they've passed over into the realm of fully developed, fully viable human beings. The strategy is to convince each of us that the afterlife is actually ruled by one god or another (you're free to choose, since it won't matter in the end) so that we'll each be easily received and led off to our personal version of heaven or hell or paradise or whatever it was that we each embraced as truth while alive and maturing as a corporeal manifestation.

The old adage "You are what you eat" is more like "You are what you believe" for the eternally existent human being. After death, reality is going to literally be whatever you firmly believe it to be. And religious/spiritual organizations are based on prepping your belief system for that transition from this material realm. After all, the only thing that has intrinsic value is human devotion (humans assign value, and are the only things that do assign abstract value, so...) and in a realm bereft of physical need, what else can possibly be desirable for those in a position of relative power? Precedence is literally measured by numbers of human beings focused in fear or devotion. Relative significance is power. The reason for the concepts of heaven, hell, gods, demons, and angels becomes pretty obvious when you understand what passes for currency within the eternal realm.

The high drama of demon possession is probably the most potent of Roman Catholic marketing tools, and it works as good today as it did during the Dark Ages. Church attendance (but only Catholic Church attendance) spiked when "The Exorcist" was in the theaters, and I wouldn't be surprised if a spectacularly notorious case of demon possession had the same effect on people now days.

And yes, the same principles are marketed negatively as well. Atheists equate the existence of an afterlife with God, so how hard could it be to convince a staunch atheist that God does exist once he (or she) has suddenly realized that he (or she) did not cease to exist after their brain and body died? Not hard. In fact, pretty easy once you've "forgiven" them for being "so wrong" about the existence of God. Some might even be eternally appreciative when you wink and tell them that God's always liked them and wasn't going to send them to hell over a misunderstanding. I mean, the former atheist is now pretty damn sure that God must exist, since he (or she) has always equated a human afterlife with the existence of God, and he (or she) does still exist after death.

Being a human being is simple, in that you'll survive and continue to exist regardless of what you do or don't do. It's pretty complicated, though, in that there are billions of other human on this side of the divide, and a hell of a lot more on that side, and every person has their own reality view and their own view of what's right for themselves and everyone else. And then, there are the ones who've been able to acquire positions of power (on this side and on that side). The complications simply pile up from there, and never stop piling up.

edit on 1/30/2014 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 01:13 PM
reply to post by NorEaster

The great irony to "abrahamic cultures" insisting that God or the Devil MADE them do it is that it flies against what the scriptures teach, so often.

Things like:
1. A man who looks at a woman in lust commits adultery.
This implies that you're to control your inner thoughts.

2. It's not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of a man--that's his inner being.
This again implies that you're to control your inner thoughts.

3. If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless.
This is another one about self-control.

The whole of the Bible, whether either OT or NT, is constantly calling for self control, or giving examples of failure to use self control. There is not such thing as anything other than YOU making you do things--or at the very least YOU choosing to not take control, and letting life live you. (Which is something humanity has a talent for, I swear.)

How in the world did so many faiths get so far away from their origins on this?


So, what of Demon possession?

If it is possible to have a co-pilot in or with your body, you're giving over part of your ability to potentially be in control of yourself to another person. Hypnotism or Possession, don't care which way it's looked at.

Something that is strange about trust (or faith, they actually mean about the same), is that when you trust your spouse, you're giving some control of your external variables to them. You're also entrusting them with your feelings, ect., giving them some power over your internal control as well.

The assumption with either of these things (hypnotism, possession) is that you're trusting this person/entity to share in some control of your behavior. One that trust is established, how hard is it to break away from? From what I've seen with hypnotism, it's fairly easy to break that bond, but harder for possession. I don't think that this is the actual case, just the way it's portrayed.

top topics

log in