Is the link you provided a good start along that topic?
It’s not bad. I linked to a page that can be read from the top, to give a good intro to the idea of “suggestion” vs. “autosuggestion”, but really most of the book is quite good. Although it was written almost 100 years ago, Coue’s book has some pretty stunning insights into what actually works. There are just a few points that I would add to what he says in the book.
First, he doesn’t address the distinctions between verbal and sensory imagination, commanding and questioning. Second, he doesn’t say much to address the issue of dealing with existing beliefs and responses.
The first omission results in people mindlessly repeating phrases or “affirmations” and thinking they are doing autosuggestion—they are not. Imagination must be used, and by imagination, I mean not intentional visualization (which would be counterproductively invoking what he calls the “will”), but rather the passive contemplation or musing on an idea, like “what would it be like if...?” Or “how good will it be when...?” (These are leading questions, of course, but then, that’s the point: to lead your imagination to respond on its own.)
The second omission is that when you attempt to imagine what something is like, your internal response may be a feeling or idea that it is impossible, impractical, nonsensical, a bad idea, that you can’t do it, or some other form of interference.
At this point, it’s really only necessary to wonder what it would be like if the desired thing were already had, anyway. In other words, one acknowledges the response, but does not treat it as if it were true. You then repeat the attempt at inquiry. This is how you bypass the shields, as it were.
Is disabling anti-persuasion shields similar to disabling other mental programs?
Yes and no. It used to be that I spent all my time (and encouraged others to spend theirs) on modifying the memories that induced the kind of critical responses and negative predictions that stopped them from doing things. What I have begun wondering only today, is whether it might not be simpler just to bypass such blocks and not give them any credence to start with.
In other words, it has occurred to me that maybe it is not the initial negative response that’s an issue for people being blocked; maybe it’s just their response to that response. In other words, person A gets a negative response to the idea of doing something, and then responds to that by giving up or feeling like it’s useless. Whereas person B might get the same initial negative response, and then respond to it by imagining how good the result is going to be. Paradoxically, the more negative responses person B gets, the greater their motivation will become.
So, I’m currently self-experimenting with that idea—of focusing on the 2nd order responses to blocks instead of the 1st order blocks themselves. If it works, it should be a big increase in efficiency, since the 2nd-order responses are more likely to be system-global, meaning fewer program changes needed to effect system-wide change.
But that’s still to be tested. Right now, I’ve just noticed that bypassing blocks by simply ignoring the 1st-order response is quite possible. I’ve done it with various things today and it has worked quite well so far.
I would like to learn more about disabling anti-persuasion shields as related to running (or not running) mental “programs”.
To disable your own shields, you just refrain from internal critique and stay focused on whatever process of autosuggestion you’re undertaking. Suspend disbelief, in other words.
Think of autosuggestion as requiring a sterile internal environment. If you think something like “I don’t know how to do this” while trying to imagine something, you will be priming yourself with “not knowing how to do it”!
Remember, just seeing words to do with “old” made people walk more slowly… if you pipe stronger messages into your own head, you will get stronger results.
What makes it work is not “belief” but experience without disbelief. After all, priming can occur without conscious notice—if it were consciously noticed, the person might choose to disregard it.
But since you don’t choose to disregard your own beliefs about what is possible or what you can do, you (as Coue says) “imagine that you cannot, and of course you cannot”.
However, if you do disbelieve your interrupting beliefs, and allow yourself to contemplate the thing you want to believe or do without disbelief, then you will successfully “autosuggest” something.
(See also Coue on imagination vs. will—if you think of the will as conscious/verbal/directed thought, and the imagination as subconscious/sensory/wondering thought, then what he says will make sense.)
It’s not bad. I linked to a page that can be read from the top, to give a good intro to the idea of “suggestion” vs. “autosuggestion”, but really most of the book is quite good.
Thanks. I will probably respond after processing the information in your post and your book, so head’s up for a reply in the deep future. :)
It’s not bad. I linked to a page that can be read from the top, to give a good intro to the idea of “suggestion” vs. “autosuggestion”, but really most of the book is quite good. Although it was written almost 100 years ago, Coue’s book has some pretty stunning insights into what actually works. There are just a few points that I would add to what he says in the book.
First, he doesn’t address the distinctions between verbal and sensory imagination, commanding and questioning. Second, he doesn’t say much to address the issue of dealing with existing beliefs and responses.
The first omission results in people mindlessly repeating phrases or “affirmations” and thinking they are doing autosuggestion—they are not. Imagination must be used, and by imagination, I mean not intentional visualization (which would be counterproductively invoking what he calls the “will”), but rather the passive contemplation or musing on an idea, like “what would it be like if...?” Or “how good will it be when...?” (These are leading questions, of course, but then, that’s the point: to lead your imagination to respond on its own.)
The second omission is that when you attempt to imagine what something is like, your internal response may be a feeling or idea that it is impossible, impractical, nonsensical, a bad idea, that you can’t do it, or some other form of interference.
At this point, it’s really only necessary to wonder what it would be like if the desired thing were already had, anyway. In other words, one acknowledges the response, but does not treat it as if it were true. You then repeat the attempt at inquiry. This is how you bypass the shields, as it were.
Yes and no. It used to be that I spent all my time (and encouraged others to spend theirs) on modifying the memories that induced the kind of critical responses and negative predictions that stopped them from doing things. What I have begun wondering only today, is whether it might not be simpler just to bypass such blocks and not give them any credence to start with.
In other words, it has occurred to me that maybe it is not the initial negative response that’s an issue for people being blocked; maybe it’s just their response to that response. In other words, person A gets a negative response to the idea of doing something, and then responds to that by giving up or feeling like it’s useless. Whereas person B might get the same initial negative response, and then respond to it by imagining how good the result is going to be. Paradoxically, the more negative responses person B gets, the greater their motivation will become.
So, I’m currently self-experimenting with that idea—of focusing on the 2nd order responses to blocks instead of the 1st order blocks themselves. If it works, it should be a big increase in efficiency, since the 2nd-order responses are more likely to be system-global, meaning fewer program changes needed to effect system-wide change.
But that’s still to be tested. Right now, I’ve just noticed that bypassing blocks by simply ignoring the 1st-order response is quite possible. I’ve done it with various things today and it has worked quite well so far.
To disable your own shields, you just refrain from internal critique and stay focused on whatever process of autosuggestion you’re undertaking. Suspend disbelief, in other words.
Think of autosuggestion as requiring a sterile internal environment. If you think something like “I don’t know how to do this” while trying to imagine something, you will be priming yourself with “not knowing how to do it”!
Remember, just seeing words to do with “old” made people walk more slowly… if you pipe stronger messages into your own head, you will get stronger results.
What makes it work is not “belief” but experience without disbelief. After all, priming can occur without conscious notice—if it were consciously noticed, the person might choose to disregard it.
But since you don’t choose to disregard your own beliefs about what is possible or what you can do, you (as Coue says) “imagine that you cannot, and of course you cannot”.
However, if you do disbelieve your interrupting beliefs, and allow yourself to contemplate the thing you want to believe or do without disbelief, then you will successfully “autosuggest” something.
(See also Coue on imagination vs. will—if you think of the will as conscious/verbal/directed thought, and the imagination as subconscious/sensory/wondering thought, then what he says will make sense.)
Thanks. I will probably respond after processing the information in your post and your book, so head’s up for a reply in the deep future. :)