4 Answers

  1. There are fundamental differences between hypnosis and trance.

    HYPNOSIS is always more about dissociation, looking from the outside. The Eastern counterpart is meditation (a way to achieve disidentification with the mind and body, “I am not the mind, I am not the body, I am…” and forward to enlightenment).

    A drunk man brings a friend to his home at night. Everyone is asleep. It shows the apartment:

    – This is my living room, this is my bedroom, this is our bed. Here is my wife sleeping, and this is me next to her…

    Not for nothing, the classical scheme of hypnotization is based on dissociation, catalepsy, inspired hallucinations from the same series.

    In 2013, on the basis of the First Honey, he performed two operations under hypnosis, what did he inspire? What is the secret of hypnoanesthesia? Of course, to separate the mind from the body in order to temporarily forget about the pain.

    Synonyms of hypnosis hypnosis – dissociation, suggestibility, detachment, meditation.


    TRANCE is always more of an experience associated with the perception of ” I feel, I move.”

    Drunk man falls from the third floor. A policeman approaches him and asks::

    – What happened?”

    – How do I know?” he answers, brushing himself off. – I just got here myself.

    Memory works by association.. Hypnability is more about trance, being hypnotic is beneficial!

    To quote Gustave Le Bon, ” Leaders are not usually thinkers – they are men of action. They have no discernment, for discernment usually leads to doubt and inaction. Most often, the leaders are mentally unstable people, half-mad, who are on the border of insanity.”

    In psychotherapy without trance techniques anywhere, there will be no response. Because for catharsis, you need to get into the role and lose excess emotions.

    Synonyms of trance-association, hypnability, automatism, altered state of consciousness.

  2. Your question is very complex and prone to various errors, I will try to formulate a few, in my opinion, the clearest (but quite flawed) answers

    1. Move the conversation to the property. The word “entity” can mean 1) the entire set of objects E that have the property C (i.e., an entity is a set of objects with a certain property). A property is usually expressed by the verb “exist”. Hence, of course, the question arises: what does it mean to exist?

    There are also many options here

    a) To exist means to have a causal force, i.e. to somehow affect other objects.

    b) To exist means to be perceived, i.e. what no one perceives does not exist; (there is an opinion that this is just a refinement of the necessary form of the causal relation from 1)

    c) To exist means to be the value of a bound variable;

    d) To exist means to be at a certain time in a certain place, no matter in which and when (another option is that there is only what is now, no matter in which particular place).

    1. To separate being and being, thus limiting the scope of the concept of “being” (often the limitation of volume is identified with the definition). Being is everything that exists, but being itself is not being, i.e. a particular chair, table, or any other existing object is not being, moreover, they cannot simply constitute being taken together. For an explanation, you can also refer to the language: in the sentence ” Who are you?” The question is addressed to an entity, a specific person, but “is” is being, which makes the question possible, but itself cannot get an answer by pointing to some entity. If the question is, ” Who are you?” We will get the answer, for example, “Vasya”, it will refer to a specific object-Vasya, but not to its being. In this regard, a distinction is made between “ontological” – related to being, and “ontic” – to being. So we get something like: What is existence? “Being is all that is, but not' is ' itself.

    2. Being is an extremely general concept, because its scope includes everything in general, and therefore it cannot be defined in terms of any other concepts.

    3. Being does not exist at all, because this word does not correspond to any object in the world. It's like “rpoafpa”.

  3. According to the philosophy of the Upanishads, all things are divided into five irreducible, that is, not reducible to each other, categories: 1) unconscious matter, 2) conscious living entity (soul, or jiva in Sanskrit), 3) time, 4) karma – the resultant activity of the living entity in its interaction with matter, flowing in time, and 5) Ishvara – God, Who controls all things. The first four categories of beings are accessible to our perception, the fifth-God, is currently inaccessible to perception. God can be known only through revelation, as evidenced by the experience of mystics in all spiritual traditions of the world, but the necessity of His existence is not difficult to deduce logically – without a single conscious governing force in the universe, chaos would reign. To understand all things in their entirety is to understand these five categories in their relationship to each other.

    Four of these five categories are eternal, meaning they have no beginning or end. These are matter, soul, time, and God. Karma has no beginning in time, but it has an end. The cessation of the chain of karma, the activity of a living entity seeking to exploit matter, is called salvation or liberation in all religions. Matter, time, and karma are all unconscious, meaning they have no will, no capacity for thought, and no emotions. But the living entity and God have consciousness, that is, in addition to existence (being), they also have knowledge. The highest manifestation of consciousness is bliss, or love, and this is true for both God and the living entity.

    God, being Absolute consciousness, is Absolute (complete, perfect) knowledge and Absolute bliss. Beauty, harmony, and mercy are all different manifestations of God's blissful nature. Living beings who are co-natural with God, by virtue of their relativity, are constantly seeking long life, knowledge, and happiness, but they can only attain them by fully restoring their relationship with God.

    The first four categories are relative, that is, they depend for their existence on the fifth, absolute category – God, so if we briefly answer your question, taking into account only the independent category of being-God – then existence is basically Absolute being, Absolute (co) knowledge and Absolute bliss (beauty or love).

  4. This question implies one of the most important distinctions in the “arsenal” of the Western philosophical tradition: the distinction between” being “and”being”. They should be defined together as two sides of the same opposition. We can say, for example, that “things” are all possible things of our world, including those that we observe (for example, objects in a room), and those that we can only imagine (for example, microparticles); “Being” is a certain mandatory condition that must be fulfilled in order for them to be. There is no non-existence. There is something “is”, knowing that we are dealing with “being”, but not directly with it. All things “are” or at least can “be”, therefore this “all” must have some place, be “somewhere”. And when a person answers the question of where this “everything” is located, we must assume that there is some whole that is inaccessible to our perception. All that we intelligent human beings can perceive is “being”; and it is included in something more, because it is ” somewhere. And this “something” is common to all subjects. All of them are there in one way or another. This obligatory condition of “being” is “being”.

    So, being is what is “in being” and because of “being”.

    But one can reject this ancient and key distinction for European philosophy, considering it superfluous – after all, “being” is still inaccessible to perception. Then why talk about it at all? It is enough to discuss what we can somehow perceive or mentally imagine. Then it is enough to talk about the existence or non-existence of objects, and “existing” in this case is simply a synonym for”existing”.

Leave a Reply