Hypnotism is Transference

Hypnotism is Transference

Wo/man worships and fears power; we enthusiastically give our loyalty to our leader. Sapiens are at heart slavish. Therein lay the rub, as Shakespeare might say.

Freud was the first to focus upon the phenomenon of a patient’s inclination to transfer the feelings s/he had toward her parents as a child to the physician. The patient distorts the perception of the physician; s/he enlarges the figure up far out of reason and becomes dependent upon him. In this transference of feeling, which the patient had for his parents, to the physician the grown person displays all the characteristics of the child at heart, a child who distorts reality in order to relieve his helplessness and fears.

Freud saw these transference phenomena as the form of human suggestibility that makes the control over another, as displayed by hypnosis, as being possible. Hypnosis seems mysterious and mystifying to us only because we hide our slavish need for authority from our self. We live the big lie, which lay within this need to submit our self slavishly to another, because we want to think of our self as self-determined and independent in judgment and choice.

The predisposition to hypnosis is identical to that which gives rise to transference and it is characteristic of all sapiens. We could not function as adults if we retained this submissive attitude to our parents, however, this attitude of submissiveness, as noted by Ferenczi, is “The need to be subject to someone remains; only the part of the father is transferred to teachers, superiors, impressive personalities; the submissive loyalty to rulers that is so widespread is also a transference of this sort.”

Freud saw immediately that when caught up in groups wo/man became dependent children once again. They abandoned their individual egos for that of the leader; they identified with their leader and proceeded to function with him as their ideal. Freud identified man, not as a herd animal but as a horde (teeming crowd) animal that is led by a chief. Wo/man has an insatiable need for authority.

People have an insatiable need to be hypnotized by authority; they seek a magical protection as when they were infants protected by their mother. This is the force that acts to hold groups together, intertwined within a mutually constructed but often mindless interdependence. This mindless group think also builds a feeling of potency. The members feel a sense of unity within the grasp of their leadership.

‘Why are groups so blind and stupid?’ Freud asked; and he replied that mankind lived by self delusion. They “constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.” The real world is too frightening to behold; delusion changes this by making sapiens seem important. This explains the terrible sadism we see in group activity.

Questions for discussion

Is there a vital difference between human sciences (such as psychology) and natural sciences (such as physics)?

Is it possible for humans to create a virtual world that is more important than the real world? What is the difference between a virtual world and the real world?

talking about Transference, if you put all of your efforts into the real, wouldn’t you be fake,since what we know to be real is nothing more than denying the truth-belief

were all slaves,would you rather be a slave to a real(another’s beliefs) or a fake(yourself)

give credit where it is due

as for power-which mate do you choose

is it the position of power that we worship, or is it the power demanding worship

we all just forget we exist sometimes,some more than others

as for the virtual world, of course

it’s called money

you can buy virtual money on the internet

we need to stop mixing ideas and start mixing physically

Well, Coburst, I’m glad to have happened on this thread early in the game. Let’s see what answers I can supply to your questions, shall we?

As for the difference between psychology and physics, or human sciences to natural sciences? I can think of one very major difference.

Natural science comes from an application of our minds to the physical phenomena around us. To get to the heart of physics we’ve used mathematics, and in doing so both have been enlarged. We form hypotheses as logically as we can, then test them with the tools of our mind: mathematics and observation. From there we have the scientific method to refine and reconsider what we thought we knew.

The human sciences, psychology and things like that, endeavor to study the mind with the mind. Doing this is kind of like studying a hammer with a hammer - it’s a tool that’s very effective when applied to the physical world, hammering nails and pulling them out, but not so effective when used to study itself, mainly because there’s nothing outside of it to serve as a point of reference. This kind of problem is a great hindrance to understanding because we have no higher tool to use. There’s nothing to imagine for us, and I think it’s this that’s earned psychology the title of “soft science.”

Studying the brain, that is, using the whole of our mind to study only a part, is more effective, and by doing this we’ve managed to learn a lot. Using the hammer metaphor: if the wooden handle wanted to study the metal top, it could make a statement grounded in “hard” fact. It could say, “The top of the hammer differs to us in that it is harder, heavier, and better at conducting electricity.” While we’ve understood parts of the brain, we’re a long way from understanding the mind, which is something altogether more complex.

As for virtual worlds? Yeah, I think it’s possible because I think we already do it. Reality never hits us all at once: we drive while remembering to go food shopping, and we don’t even notice our fridge buzzing all the time. We take walks and have intricate conversations without faltering in either task. In a sense, our filtering mechanisms make the total of reality out there - the stimulation of which would be unbearable - into something smaller and easier to manage because so much is cut out. Our awareness, our recognition of reality, has some pretty high fidelity, but compared to all the stuff out there roaring all at once it can only be said to be virtually real.

I’m not sure you meant “virtual” in this sense, or if you meant more in terms of technology, but the extension seems reasonable. It would seem to only involve cutting even more out of the fabric of reality.

why do people talk to each other on here like everyone else are (nothing),but (a bunch of idiots)


I talk to myself too, I just don’t like to here my own voice