OK, after so many requests and enquiries, I have decided that I will do it – the Hypnosis Without Trance live workshop!
Before I tell you about it, I’d like to say how much I appreciate all the positive feedback and encouragement I have received by email and by ‘phone as well as here on the blog – I hoped that people would like it but I could never have guessed just how well received it has been. Thank you to everyone who has jumped on board!
The workshop is going to be a little experimental (but very cool!) because it will be the first time I have taught this stuff to a live group, and for this reason I have decided to limit both the number of attendees and the price!
So if you are up for it, and if you move fast enough you are going to get yourself a true bargain – but you need to move fast because it is happening soon:
Saturday 5th December in Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire UK.
Yes, that is a little less than 3 weeks time! If you want to find out more, please visit:
http://www.hypnosiswithouttrance.com/hypnosis_without_trance_training.htm
If you know you want a place already, I recommend that you get in and book ASAP; in the 3 weeks since launching the blog, I have had over 350 sign ups and a ton of people requesting this training and I am only be admitting 20 people!
So do act now if you want one of the places.
http://www.hypnosiswithouttrance.com/hypnosis_without_trance_training.htm
Many thanks once again, and I am looking forward to meeting you!
All the very best
James
http://www.hypnosiswithouttrance.com/hypnosis_without_trance_training.htm
Hypnosis Without Trance 
Good idea James. The content is interesting and the price would fit even my cheap budget. I would sign up but unfortunately I’m based in Costa Rica for the moment, so the price including air fare would be above £1000. Even though it wouldn’t be the same, would you consider taping the workshop?
Regards,
DHC
I may be taping the workshop, but that is something that I will need to sort out.
Regards
James
[…] Now, an English Hypnotist named James Rolph seems to be making this whole “Hypnosis without Trance” his “thing” and I have to say he’s doing a good job of it. He has a blog, a newsletter and now, it seems, a live workshop. […]
James I am a bit confused about some of the terms you are making?
Namely that as far as I can see there is absolutely nothing new in your definitions of hypnosis apart from using the term “no trance” which in itself suggests trance.
Its a very established way of thinking within NLP that trance is where you focus all senses inside and that trance is an everyday occurance. In fact we constantly swap one trance for another its part of how our minds function.
From what I can gather you are equating trance with closed eyes and formal inductions. If you have trained in NLP you will know that, that is not the only way to go into trance.
Apart from that everything you talk about is normal hypnosis.
So is this just an exercise in market differenation?
Im curious please enlighten me.
Hi Brian
Thank you for your interest in the HWT approach.
Firstly, I am sorry that you are unable to see what’s new in my approach (I am assuming here that you have read my report). I did make it clear that I’m no ‘Hypnosis Guru’ and that I am not claiming to have invented a new branch of hypnosis or anything. What I do have is a particular way of approaching hypnosis which, whilst influenced by many others, is unique I believe to me (everyone is unique after all, aren’t they?). At the heart of my way of thinking is my model of the hypnotic loop, which is to my knowledge original (please give me a reference if you have seen it elsewhere).
You point out that “Its a very established way of thinking within NLP that trance is where you focus all senses inside and that trance is an everyday occurance”.
My model is not based on a definition of trance where “you focus all senses inside”, so I am not sure why you have mentioned this. You are correct in saying that I am equating trance with eyes-closed formal inductions, and I have been quite clear that this is how I am using the label. If you have trained in NLP you will know that ‘trance’ is a nominalisation – a noun label for a process. The question is, what is that process? Different people use the label in different ways, and I am being specific about how I am using it and why I am using it that way (to sidestep the connotations that go with it, mainly the notions of ‘depth’ and ‘focussing inside’).
Now if trance is not taken to be ‘eyes-closed, going deep inside’ then what is it? We could make it anything you like, but is that really useful? If we are in a trance all the time (swapping one for another), in what way is it useful to talk about trance at all? Doesn’t it become a redundant concept if it doesn’t denote anything different from our everyday cognitive processes? Now maybe the ‘trance frame’ is useful in some contexts, but HWT is a different approach and for good reason. – As John Grinder has said “when you change how you describe something, you change your options and create new choices.”
And you are right – everything I talk about is ‘normal hypnosis! It’s just a different model for how it works and how to approach it.
I have got this theory – no one knows what ‘trance’ is (though many think they do), and everyone (no meta-modelling please) has a different definition. Yet so many people are in love with the concept because it has ‘sexy’ (metaphorically speaking) connotations – mystery, altered states etc (heady stuff). So when somebody suggests dispensing with the concept and thinking about hypnosis differently (without trance) those with a sentimental attachment to the notion get prickly. Now I’m not saying that this is you, but can you begin to imagine how a different description of hypnosis might give you some new choices? What if it actually made you a better and more flexible hypnotist?
Now, your last comment (I’m curious please enlighten me) seemed a little facitious in tone. I’m not sure what that is about, but I am going to guess that my material has offended or threatened you in some way. Many, many people have found this material to be of value – if this is not so for you, you can choose to ignor it, or you could choose to take down your filters and experiment with it a little (if you are NLP trained, you should know how to do this) – or you could choose to attack it if you feel that it is a threat to you somehow (though you might want to examine why).
I hope that this reply has helped clarify things a little – if you wish to have a long discourse, please do call me on 01462 674411, or skype me (jimrolph).
All the very best
James
Your approach hasn’t offended me I just believe its a bit misleading inaccurate and just marketing and repackaging of hypnosis for marketing puropses.
Of course many will find value in what you do. Hypnosis after all has a lot of value. However just because someone has their eyes open doesn’t mean they aren’t in trance. Runners running through the pain barrier are said to be in wakened trance for example.
My last comments are quite clear I thought. Is this just marketing hype and an attepmt at differentiation?
Seriously apart from yet more new terminology I can’t see anything different from the norm. You are desrcibing the exact same process but using different labels.
Of course this is just my point of view and theories are like glasses they exist for he purpose of trying to see things within a certain context. And should be changed depending upon what you want to achieve if its helpful.
Perhaps your theorise have value.
I don’t believe you can have hypnosis without trance even you have both in your label. Hypnosis is the process of guiding natural trance their is nothing mystical or heady about it.
Advertising, religeon and entertainment, story telling have been doing it for centuries.
Brian
James there are advantages I would guess to present hypnosis as NOT being associated with trance. At least the mystical stereotype associated in the movies.
I agree with this. If you want to skype sometime let me know.
And I am not attacking you. Perhaos this is not the place to discuss this. If I have made you feel like I have attacked you on your blog. I apologise please feel free to remove my posts.
Brian
Thank you Brian and I will not remove your comment.
I do have new terminology, and this reflects my way of thinking about hypnosis. Regarding comparisons to ‘the norm’, the norm seems to be mostly eyes closed, deeper and deeper stuff at the moment. Which isn’t to say that there aren’t others doing things the eye-open way.
You say “just because they have there eyes open doesn’t mean they aren’t in trance” – but that really isn’t any kind of argument at all. I could say “just because you say they are in trance doesn’t mean that they are”.
I would suggest that the onus is on you to prove that they are in ‘trance’ rather than on me to prove that they aren’t, wouldn’t you?
I’m curious about this comment – “runners running through the pain barrier are said to be in wakened trance…” I must ask, “said by whom, specifically”. Exercise releases endorphins, doesn’t it? Is there really any need to resort to notions of trance here?
Of course, all of this solicits the question: “What is trance for you?”
All the very best
James
Well I would’ve thought that you would know what trance IS for me from your NLP background. For me that is the best most useful and eloquent way to think about hypnosis.
Basically we are in trance more or less all the time. NLP model using meta model will pull us out of our current trance and Milton model will design and throw us into another one.
It makes sense to me. Trance is nothing more than an inward focus of senses – unconscious or very unconscious is when all the senses are focused inward or outward. you can still have your eyes open but relive a pleasant weekend with all your senses focused inside. Very conscious is when all our senses are focused outside say for example if we were in extreme danger and lion walked in the door.
The truth is that our senses are crossing over these borders all the time and we project things from past memories onto current events etc.
A hypnotist or the process of hypnosis is where someone “hijacks” the current trance and leads it to where he wants it to go for a particular puropse. Conversational hypnosis and stage both work this way.
From the minute someone buys a ticket to see a show there has been an interput in their thought processes or current “trance” and they start build up expectation “inside”. They are already being led.
Just as you use labels like trance without hypnosis. The trance has already began since expectations and mental rehearsal has already occured in those that respond to your theorie’s
Those that take part are suggestable to the point that their senses are focused inwards and locked around an idea to the point where it is more internal than external even if they have their eyes open.
And as for hypnosis not being a state dependant dosen’t make much sense since we are constantly changing from one state to another in every waking moment. The highly suggestable state commonly thought of hypnosis is just another state.
In my experience doing stage work it is a different state to every day trance. Although all hypnotic phenomena can be produced in “everyday wakened state” in a stage setting it is much more amplified. The big convincer for me is complete amnesia for a two hour show. The majority of volunteers I have worked with and followed up do not recall anything even after weeks have passed by.
To add to the confusion an altered state or what is commonly called hypnosis has both the characteristics of a conditioned reponse and a state.
In other words it must be conditioned but can be terminated immediately which adds to the fact we really don’t know what it is.
One doorway to the unconscious is through the emotion. When someone is excited they are more suggestable. That is also the same as “being plausable” Or having a strong belief that they will be “hypnotised”.
Either way they respond because they are already in trance they are rehearsing what is going to happen. The hypnotist just leads them further in the direction he wants to get them to.