A Practical Guide to Self-Hypnosis | Page 8

medical practice is direct symptom removal, as
only a little thought makes apparent.
"Another dictum generally followed is that the unconscious background
of symptom-complexes must necessarily be made conscious to effect a
cure. Reasonable and thoughtful consideration of the extensive role of
the unconscious in daily living and functioning renders this dictum
much less creditable."
I should like to discuss both of these statements in some detail as they
invariably arise in the mind of the individual seeking help through
hypnosis.
The first thought that comes to mind is that all the religious healings

cited in the Bible involve direct symptom removal. The cures that are
effected by religious devotees traveling to sacred shrines are also in the
realm of direct symptom removal. I have yet to hear a criticism of this
type of treatment directed at religious leaders or condemnation of the
religious shrines. These cures are accepted as evidence of the power of
faith or attributed to the super-natural. In these cases, nothing is ever
done to make the person cured understand the nature of the
unconscious mechanisms which contributed to his problem.
Religious healing cannot be dismissed by merely saying, "It isn't
scientific." A methodology is only scientific when it works. It is of no
value if it doesn't help the individual seeking help. We must face the
fact that not all people can be helped by the same psychological
treatment. We can readily see this in the following extreme example:
An aborigine suffering from a psychological problem certainly
wouldn't be a candidate for psychoanalysis as we know it. He could, no
doubt, be helped much more readily by a witch doctor. It also stands to
reason that the sophisticated Westerner would not be influenced by the
incantations of a tribal medicine man.
Going further, we find there are many schools of psychotherapy and
many approaches to solving man's emotional problems. The cure rate
for all of them, however, is approximately the same. I think we must
accept the fact that there is no one sound, logical, scientific approach. I
believe that so long as the end result is achieved, the methodology was
scientific for that individual's needs. The goal of all therapies is to help
the patient free himself from whatever emotional problems beset him.
This approach, to some readers, may seem an oversimplification of a
very complex problem, but I think it's time that we had a simple,
workable formula devoid of technical jargon. Too often, complex
technical terms and theories have been glibly used to explain away
failures. I believe we need more and more emphasis on measures to
make the patient feel better rather than spending most of the time trying
to find out why he doesn't feel well. This, of course, is symptom
removal again.
I should like to point out an interesting fact pertaining to Biblical

healers. So long as the fame of the healer preceded his arrival in any
country, he was able to heal the sick. However, where his fame as a
healer was either unknown or discredited, he found no faith and
subsequently no cure. The earliest reference to hypnosis is in the Bible,
Genesis ii, 21. "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon
Adam, and he slept ..."
Dr. William Malamud, 86th president of the American Psychiatric
Association, in an address delivered at the annual meeting in 1960,
stated the following in a paper called "Psychiatric Research: Setting
and Motivation":
"During the last few years we have witnessed a growing trend of
overemphasizing the value of 'exact' methodology and uniformity of
standards. This trend, which could be characterized as a 'cult of
objectivity,' has already had an important influence on psychiatric
research. It is true that in its emphasis on critical judgment and valid
criteria, it has helped to curb unrestrained flights of imagination and
sloppy methodology. But the overglorification of objectivity and the
insistence on rigidly single standards of acceptable methods have
resulted in a concentration on certain phases of the science of human
behavior at the expense of other very important ones."
I believe that most individuals have a fairly good understanding of how
they came to have the problem that they have. I have yet to encounter
the person who protests he has no idea why he doesn't function as he
would like to in a certain area. From a practical standpoint, not many
have the time nor money required to delve into the unconscious
background of the problem. The high cost of treatment is a very real
objection and cannot be discounted lightly. People suffering from
emotional problems usually suffer financial reverses as well. Who is to
help these people? There are very few places in the country where they
can receive competent psychiatric help at a reasonable fee. Is there