My hope is that there are hundreds of information–passing channels between human beings which lie outside of our recognized five senses and which I don't yet know anything about. I don't know. I do know that I now see and hear and tactilely feel things that I would have considered in the realm of psychic phenomena a few years ago.
I would be delighted if I could discover extra channels. One of my programs for discovering whether there are other such channels is first to refine my sensory channels as much as I can, and then model people who can do "psychic" phenomena. If I am getting the maximum amount of information I believe I can get out of the normally recognized channels, and I am getting other information as well, then I've got some evidence that there might be other channels.
Go find someone outside to try this exercise with, and find out how accurate you can be using just nonverbal feedback. Take about ten minutes.
*****
How did you do?
Woman: I made a mistake at the beginning. My partner got right into it. His head was starting to go down toward the crystal ball. I said the person was a woman, and his head jerked back up and he said "I see a man."
How did you respond to that?
Woman: I said "Oh, yes. I see now it is a man out there." OK, good. Calling something a "mistake" instead of an "outcome" or a "response" is an unnecessary judgement on the part of your how good you want to be in doing these kinds of things in order to motivate yourself to become increasingly more adept, I respect that. Do recognize, however, that what may seem like a "mistake" to you, may be totally unrecognizeable as such to the other person. You know what steps you are planning to go through. If for some reason you don't carry out that plan, that may or may not be apparent to other people. I recommend confidently utilizing whatever extra pieces of information they give you as you go along. "Of course you see a man, and examine carefully the expression on his face."
Woman: Your partner may be testing you to find out "Is this person going to be flexible and allow me to do what I want to do?" So it could be an opportunity to establish rapport.
Exactly. Erickson talks a lot about idiosyncratic needs that particular people have when going into altered states. It's possible that no matter what you propose, they have a polarity response to the first thing you say. Whatever their response is, you utilize it to go where you want to go.
Ann: I found it difficult to do this. When I started thinking about it and first took off, I started to go into the state that I go into to get psychic information.
Right. I thought that might happen.
Ann: Telling the other person I'm going to do crystal ball gazing immediately puts me into that state. When I do psychic readings, I close my eyes and get images on the inside, so I kept my eyes open to make this different. Even with my eyes open, it was difficult to stay out of the state where I receive that information, and just stay with the binary choices.
Right. Let me say several things in response to that. You have the ability to go to a special state in which you either have access to channels of communication I don't know about yet, or you have a really fine sensitivity to minimal cues so that you don't have to use the binary method. Whichever it is, is not important for me at this moment. You already have a well–developed strategy which you can use in order to get the same kinds of information that you can get using this step–by–step model of binary choices.
The question is "Is it worthwhile for you to add to your repertoire another way of doing it, independently of the special state you've learned to use effectively for yourself?" Ifyou are interested in that, then before you engage in activities like crystal ball gazing, palmistry, or anything else we do that's associated with the special skill you've already developed, you can reframe internally to make sure that your special state and all the skills connected with it are kept specially protected, separated from your learning a whole new way of getting information. If you do this, then you won't have the interference of constantly sliding into that special state.
It may turn out that the programs for reading a person may be the same in both states. I don't know. The point is, in order to protect the special skill you've already developed and to add a new way of approaching the same subject matter to your repertoire, I think it would be useful for you to dissociate one from the other initially. Spend some time and energy, if you are interested, in developing another way of doing something you already do well. You will then have two ways to proceed and you can exercise more choice.
Self–Hypnosis
This afternoon we'd like to give you two methods of self–induction, and then a very elegant method of utilizing self–hypnosis. These methods can be useful to you personally, as well as in your work with clients. If you instruct your clients in self–hypnosis, you can then have them put themselves in altered states in your office. All you will need to do is utilize those trances. You can have your clients practice entering altered states at home, and when they come back in, have them access those trance states by asking them to recount in detail what they did. You say "Now, tell me in detail, which of the ways that you tried secured the deepest trance?" They'll say "Well, this one's pretty good," and they will begin to go back into a trance as they describe what happened. You will essentially be accessing a previous trance.
The first self–induction method I want to describe is Betty Erickson's technique. Betty is Milton's wife, and she is extremely sophisticated in putting herself into various altered states. She can jump in and out of many different states very quickly. The technique that she developed presupposes representational systems, Erickson, by the way, is the only person other than us who had an explicit understanding of representational systems; he knew that there are three major ones, and that there are predicates which identify them.
Betty uses representational systems in this induction. She seats herself in a comfortable place and finds something that's easy to look at. I would probably choose some place where the light is reflecting, such as some of the cut glass that is hanging from that chandelier. I fix my gaze on that, and then I say three sentences to myself about my visual experience. "I see the light glittering on the various pieces of cut glass; I sec the movement of somebody's bare arm; I see that somebody just looked up at the chandelier."
Now I switch to auditory, and make three statements about that portion of my experience. "I hear the sound of the ventilation system; I hear the sound of paper being rustled as people are making notes; I hear the sound of somebody clearing her throat."
Then I make three statements about my kinesthetic experience. "I can feel where the soles of my feet are making solid contact with the platform I'm standing on; I can feel the weight of my jacket as it lies across my shoulders; I can feel the warmth where my fingers are interlaced as I stand here." I've made three statements about my ongoing visual experience, three about my auditory, and three about my kinesthetic.
Then, maintaining the same position and the same direction of gaze, I recycle through each sensory channel, making two statements for each. I pick out two additional visual, auditory, and kinesthetic parts of my experience. Then I recycle through the three channels again, picking out one of each. Typically, even for beginners, about the time you get half way through the cycle of two sentences for each system, your eyes start to get drowsy, and you get tunnel vision. If your eyes get drowsy, you just allow them to close and substitute internal visualization for external. You can still use external experience for auditory and kinesthetic statements.