RogerE wrote:In a previous thread, we had a question on the relationship between hypnosis and meditation.
Hi everybody,
My knowledge of both meditation and hypnosis is mostly "theoretical" but it seems to me that there is a bit of a difference.
At least theoretical defintions of hypnosis speak of a narrow focus of attention, whereas in meditation the focus of attention can be quite wide - even much wider than the normal waking attention.
And then there is of course the question with defining hypnosis and meditation before comparing them.
For example, we can say that hypnosis is characterized by a narrow field of attention and the generalized reality-orientation (GRO) stepping into the background. Then there is a question: what mechanisms become more apparent when the GRO
stays in the background?
One of them is obvious, and it has something to do with undoing old conditioned responses and establishing new ones. This has obvious therapeutic value, and it is also mentioned in books on meditation.
However, it seems that at least some people meditate with a second goal as well and it has to do with another mechanism, which is somehow related to creativity. Perhaps this is what is called in some religious/philosophical systems "innermost being".
Besides, some systems, e.g. eight limbs of yoga, speak of a sequence consisting of concentration, meditation and contemplation; and there is a hint that, without contemplation, meditation may have only medical or short-term benefits.
So that suggests the following theory: during the concentration stage the narrow field of attention forces GRO to step into the background (because it disrupts the normal scanning mechanism). Then comes the meditation stage when the (conjectural) "innermost being" comes into foreground, and the field of attention may actually become wide again. The final contemplation stage loads the "innermost being" with some useful work (without which it stays undeveloped).
I know that a theory is just a theory - but is there anything obviously wrong with it? If not, one could DEFINE hypnosis as the first stage of the above sequence and meditation as the process of "bringing out" the "innermost being". In some cases this additional process would not be necessary, while in other cases it would amount to some extra effort. If such definition is accepted, the "extra effort" would make a difference between hypnosis and meditation.
I understand that other people may insist on other defintions which would make hypnosis and meditation identical - but why waste a word "meditation" if it can be loaded with a useful function?
Perhaps this has something to do with Erickson's distinction between "clinically satisfactory hypnosis" and "experimentally satisfactory hypnosis" (somewhere in the 4 volumes of his works) - but who knows...
I would be grateful for your comments.
Best,
Vladimir