States of Consciousness
Charles T. Tart
14. The Depth Dimension of a State of Consciousness
I indicated earlier that we can define a d-SoC as a clustering
of psychological functioning in a (multidimensional) region of
experiential space. Nevertheless, there may be movement of variation
within that particular cluster, a quantitative variation
in aspects of experience and psychological functioning. Although
the overall system pattern maintains it identity, variations occur
within it, and these variations are related to what we call the
depth or intensity of a state of consciousness. For example,
we talk about the ordinary d-SoC as being more or less clear;
we speak of someone as being lightly or deeply hypnotized, slightly
or very drunk, somewhat or very stoned on marijuana.
While any d-SoC can vary in many ways within its cluster, often
one way predominates. We call this principal dimension the depth
dimension. Information about variation along this dimension tells
us a lot about variations along related dimensions.
The concept of depth is much like the concept of a d-SoC. It can
simply be a convenient way of describing orderly change in the
relationships within a d-SoC, or, developed further, it can be
a theoretical explanation of changes in the underlying subsystems'
action in the d-SoC, a hypothesis that enables predictions concept
of depth or level of alcohol intoxication may, on a descriptive
level, be simply an observational statement that increasing intensity
of intoxication is associated with increasing numbers of errors
in some kind of performance task. On a theoretical level, however,
depth of intoxication can be understood as changes in some fundamental
brain structures, changes that have widespread effects on a variety
of experiences and behaviors.
In terms of the systems approach, changes in the depth of a d-SoC
result from quantitative changes in the operation of structures/subsystems
within the particular pattern of subsystem operation that makes
up the d-SoC. I emphasize quantitative because these are
"more or less" changes, not changes of kind. Earlier
investigators have sometimes used the term depth to include
qualitative changes, changes in kinds of experiences. In the systems
approach only minor qualitative changes are included as part of
depth changes, changes small enough to not alter the major pattern
of consciousness.
This is a good place to repeat that both d-SoCs and depth are
concepts whose function is to help us understand experience;
they are not ultimate realities. A d-SoC consists of radical,
qualitative changes in patterning; depth consists of quantitative
or minor qualitative changes within a discrete pattern.
Someday we may reach a stage of knowledge where the exact boundary
between the two concepts become indistinct, but we have not yet
arrived there. The major d-SoCs we know much about today differ
from one another the way boats, cars, trains, and planes differ;
depths are more like the miles per hour measurements within each
of these modes of transportation.
Relation of Depth to Intensity
Assuming that we have some convenient and valid way to measure
a person's location of the depth dimension for a given d-SoC,
how might different kinds of effects and their intensity relate
to depth? Figures 14-1 through 14-5 illustrate some of the possible
relations between depth and the intensity of various experiences
or observable effects. The intensity of each effect is plotted
on the vertical scale; the horizontal scale represents the depth
dimension. The effects might be intensities of experiences, behaviors,
or physiological indices.
An effect of type A (Figure 14-1) is present in the ordinary d-SoC
at a low or zero level and as the d-ASC deepens, at some threshold
the effect starts to become more intense. Then it reaches some
maximum level of intensity and stays there, even though depth
increases. This rise-and-plateau effect is often found with marijuana
intoxication. The feeling that time is slowing down, for example,
does not become manifest until a moderately great depth of intoxication
is reached; then it starts to manifest itself, steadily get stronger
(time seems to slow even more), and finally plateaus at a maximum
level, even if the person feels more intoxicated later {105}.
An effect of type B (Figure 14-2) does not become manifest until
a certain threshold depth is reached; then it manifests itself
and increases in intensity with increasing depth, as does type
A. But, after stabilizing at some maximum value for a while, the
effect begins to decrease and finally disappears with further
increases in depth. This rise-and-plateau-and-fall effect occurs,
for example, during marijuana intoxication. When a person is mildly
intoxicated, he begins to find reading easier than usual. The
feeling increases for a while, but as medium levels of intoxication
are reached, the feeling of finding it easier to read lessens
and finally disappears, to be replaced with a feeling of finding
it difficult to read {105}.
An effect of type C (Figure 14-3) does not become manifest until
a certain depth is reached in the d-SoC. Then it manifests itself
completely over a certain range, without variation in its own
intensity and disappears beyond that range. This step-rise-and-fall
effect is the extreme case of the rise-plateau-and-fall effect.
It can easily be missed in studying a d-SoC if the subject does
not remain at that depth for a while. Indeed, some d-SoCs may
consist entirely of type C effects. Most ordinary dreaming, for
example, is seldom considered to have a depth dimension. Type
C effects may actually be rare or may simply not have been noticed.
An example of one is given later in this chapter, in connection
with the case of William.
An effect of type D (Figure 14-4) begins to manifest itself mildly
at the lowest depth level, as soon as the d-ASC is entered, and
increases steadily in intensity all through the depth dimension.
This linear increase effect is commonly (but probably erroneously)
assumed to be typical of most d-ASCs. Examples of type D effects
from marijuana intoxication are the feeling that sensations become
more vivid and take on new qualities, the feeling of becoming
more tolerant of contradictions, the difficulty in playing ordinary
social games. All these begin to become manifest as soon as the
subject starts to feel stoned and increase in intensity the more
stoned he gets {105}.
Various curvilinear variations of this effect can occur.
An effect of type E (Figure 14-5) is manifested strongly in the
ordinary d-SoC and is not changed up to a certain depth in the
d-ASC. But then it begins to decrease in intensity with increasing
depth or, as shown in this example, returns more or less intensely
at a greater depth, perhaps in a step-rise-and-plateau effect.
An example is the feeling that one can describe one's experiences
while in a d-ASC: description is easy at first, gradually becomes
less adequate, finally is quite inadequate but at greater depth
becomes adequate again. As an example, Erickson {25} describes
a stuporous state occurring in some of his very deeply hypnotized
subjects, but as hypnosis becomes even deeper they are able to
function again.
There are, of course, may more complex ways that various experiences
in d-ASCs can relate to depth, but the above are sufficient to
illustrate the more common types.
The depth-intensity relationships depicted in Figures 14-1 through
14-5 are based on some assumed a priori measure of depth. The
concept of depth, however, can be utilized without assuming a
prior measure. To do this, we begin empirically from scratch by
arbitrarily defining any one varying effect we can conveniently
measure as the depth dimension. We then let it vary throughout
its range in the d-SoC, measure every other effect over this range
of variation, and plot them against our arbitrarily defined depth
dimension. For marijuana intoxication, for example, we might take
a subject's ratings of how unusually intense his sensory experience
is, and for a given rating of this, measure and/or have him rate
a variety of other effects. Then we change the intensity to which
his sensory experience is altered (by drugs or by psychological
means), remeasure the other effects, etc. The map or graphical
plot obtained of how the different effects relate to each other
is the depth dimension. We need no longer define one particular
effect as "depth." We have arrived at a good descriptive
concept of depth by empirical mapping without having had to know
what it was before we could start.
In doing this, we are lucky if we happen to start with an effect
of type D as the initial index of depth. Since we are used to
thinking in linear ways, plotting everything against an effect
that changes linearly will produce a map we can understand fairly
easily.
Depth obtained in the above way is a purely descriptive concept.
It helps us summarize and relate our observations, but it will
probably not allow us to predict things we have not yet observed.
If, however, we view the effects and their changes as manifestations
or alterations in the subsystems and structures that make up the
d-SoC, depth becomes a scientific hypothesis. We should then be
able to predict things other than those we have measured and test
these predictions.[1]
Self-Reports of Depth
The feeling of varying depth is one often described as directly
experienced in a d-ASC. A person often has an immediate feel for
how intense the d-ASC is. He may remark, for example, that the
marijuana he smoked must have been awfully potent because he feels
intensely stoned or that his meditative state is more profound
than usual.
Even if a person does not spontaneously comment about the depth
of his d-ASC, if asked he often gives an extremely useful estimate—"extremely
useful" in the sense that the estimate can be an excellent
predictor of other aspects of the experience or of his behavior.
The fact that people do estimate the depths of their d-ASCs prompted
me to do extensive investigations of self-report scales of depth,
and I have found such scales very useful for measuring the intensity
of the hypnotic state {114} and of marijuana intoxication {105,
139}. Charles Honorton has found that similar state reports relate
well to the degree of alpha rhythm and muscle tension subjects
show in learning to control their brain waves {28}, and to the
amount of extrasensory perception they show {27,29}. This material
is somewhat technical for the general reader and I shall not detail
it here; I refer my colleagues to the above sources, for this
research has convinced me that self-reporting of the depth of
a d-ASC is probably the best measure of depth currently available,
certainly better than such parameters as drug dose.
A detailed example of self-report scaling of the depth of hypnosis
is presented below. It illustrates the idea of depth and the way
a common language is established between experiencer and investigator
and provides some information about deep hypnosis and its possible
transition into another d-ASC entirely.[2]
The Extended North Carolina Scale
The Extended North Carolina Scale has been used in a large number
of experiments in my laboratory, primarily where experienced hypnotic
subjects are used repeatedly in various experiments. It is similar
to the North Carolina Scale {61, 63, 80} with the addition that
subjects are told that there is really no "top" to the
scale, that it is possible for them to go considerably deeply
into hypnosis than the defined points. The exact instructions
for the scale are:
We are interested in the ways in which the intensity or depth
of your hypnotic state may vary from time to time. It has been
our experience that we can get quite accurate reports of hypnotic
depth or intensity by teaching you a way of scaling it and getting
your first impressions whenever we ask you about your hypnotic
state.
Basically, whenever I ask, "State?" a number will flash
into your mind, and I want you to call it out to me right away.
This number will represent the depth of your hypnotic state at
the time. This number will flash into your mind and you'll call
it out automatically, without any effort on your part. You won't
have to think about what this number should be, or try to reason
it out; you'll just call out the first number that comes to mind
whenever I ask, "State?" If, of course, you then think
the number is very inaccurate for some reason, I'd like you to
tell me so, but people rarely feel the number is not accurate,
even though they are sometimes surprised by it.
Getting these depth numbers is very important, because every person
is unique in his reactions while hypnotized. Some people react
at different speeds than others; some react to a particular hypnotic
experience by going deeper into hypnosis, others sometimes find
the depth of their hypnotic state decreased by the same experience.
Thus by getting these state reports from you every so often I
can tell whether to go a little faster or slower, where to put
emphasis in the suggestions I use to guide you, etc. These depth
reports are not always what I expect, but it's more important
for me to know where you really are than just assume you're there
because I've been talking that way!
Now here is the numerical scale you are to use. I'll give you
various highlights that identify different degrees of hypnosis
on the scale, but report any point on the scale when asked for
your state.
Zero is your normal, waking state.
From 1 to 12 is a state in which you feel relaxed
and detached, more so as the numbers increase toward 12; in this
range you can experience such hypnotic phenomena as your arm rising
up or feeling heavy or moved by a force.
When you reach a depth of 20 or greater you feel very definitely
hypnotized, and you can experience great changes in your feeling
of your body, such as your hand getting numb if I suggest it.
By the time you reach a depth of 25 or greater you can
have strong inner experiences such as dreams or dreamlike experiences.
At a depth of 30 or greater you can temporarily forget
everything that happened in the hypnosis if I suggest it. Many
other experiences are possible at this depth and greater, such
as regressing into the past and reliving some experience, experiencing
tastes and smells I might suggest, or not experiencing real stimuli
if I tell you not to sense them. There are hardly any hypnotic
phenomena you can't experience at least fairly well, and most
extremely well, at this depth. At 30 and beyond your mind
is very quiet and still when I'm not directing your attention
to something, and you probably don't hear anything except my voice
or other sounds I might direct your attention to.
You have reached at least 30 in earlier sessions, and it
is a sufficient depth to be able to learn all the skills needed
in this experiment, but it is very likely that you will go deeper
than 30 in these studies.
By the time you have reached a depth of 40 or greater you
have reached a very deep hypnotic state in which your mind is
perfectly still and at peace if I'm not directing your attention
to something. Whatever I do suggest to you at this depth and beyond
is perfectly real, a total, real, all-absorbing experience
at the time, as real as anything in life. You can experience anything
I suggest at 40 and beyond.
I'm not going to define the depths beyond this, for little is
known about them; if you go deeper than 40, and I hope
you do, I'll ask you about the experiences that go with these
greater depths so we may learn more about deep hypnosis.[3]
Remember now that increasing numbers up from zero indicate an
increasing degree of hypnotic depth, from the starting point of
ordinary wakefulness up to a state in which you can experience
anything in hypnosis with complete realism. Your quick answers
whenever I ask, "State?" will be my guide to the depth
of your hypnotic state, and help me guide you more effectively.
Always call out the first number that pops into your mind
loudly and clearly. Whenever I ask, "State?" a number
on the scale will instantly come into mind and you call it out.
These instructions for the scale are usually read to the subject
after he is hypnotized, and he is asked whether he comprehends
them. Also, the instructions are briefly reread to the subject
every half-dozen hypnotic sessions or so to refresh his memory
of them.
The overall attitude in working with subjects in my laboratory
on a prolonged basis is to treat them as explorers or colleagues
working with the investigators, rather than as subjects who are
being manipulated for purposes alien to them.
William: Deep Hypnosis and Beyond
William, a twenty-year old male college student, is extremely
intelligent, academically successful, and well adjusted. His only
previous experience with hypnosis was some brief work with a psychiatrist
cousin to teach him how to relax. In a screening session with
the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, he scored
11 out of a possible 12. On a questionnaire he reported that he
almost always recalled dreaming, that such dreaming was vivid
and elaborate, and that he had kept a dream diary at times in
the past. William reported that he had sleeptalked rather frequently
as a child but did so only occasionally now. He had never sleepwalked.
On individual testing with the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility
Scale {145}, he scored 12 out a possible 12. He then had two training
sessions, described elsewhere {136}, designed to explore and maximize
his hypnotic responsiveness in various areas. In the first of
these special training sessions, he was taught the Extended North
Carolina Scale. He then took Forms I and II of the Stanford Profile
Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility {146} and scored 26 and 27 on
Forms I and II, respectively, out of a possible maximum of 27
on each.
Over the course of the next eight months, William participated
in a variety of experiments in my laboratory, which served to
further increase his hypnotic experience and make him well adapted
to functioning the laboratory setting; he had ten sessions of
training for operant control of the EEG alpha rhythm {94}, four
experimental sessions in various aspects of hypnosis, and eight
evening sessions in which he was hypnotized and given posthypnotic
suggestions to carry out in his subsequent sleep in the laboratory,
such as dreaming about a suggested topic {136}, incorporating
auditory stimuli into his dreams, and talking during his sleep.
Thus, by the time William participated in the deep hypnosis experiment
described here, he was familiar with the lab and had been hypnotized
there 18 times. The deepest depth report given in any of these
sessions was 60, and he usually gave reports between 40 and 50.
In the experimental session reported below, I explained to William
that the purpose of the session was to find out what hypnosis
meant to him personally. Specifically, he was informally interviewed
for about an hour to determine what he usually experienced under
hypnosis, other than his reactions to specifically suggested phenomena,
and, if possible, what depth level, according to the Extended
North Carolina Scale, he was at when he experienced these particular
things. I then hypnotized him and at each 10-point interval on
a depth continuum I asked William to remain at that depth and
describe whatever it was he was experiencing. No particular probing
was done except for phenomena already mentioned by William; the
emphasis was on his individual hypnotic experience. William also
agreed to attempt to go much deeper than he ever had gone before.
The session was quite rewarding. Although William had never gone
beyond 60 before, he went to 90, reporting at the 10-point intervals
on the Extended North Carolina Scale, and also briefly went from
90 to 130. These values beyond 40 had not, of course, been defined
by me: they were the result of his own definition. Or, according
to William's report, they were simply numbers that came to his
mind when he was asked for his state. Despite repeated questioning
by me and despite the fact that the subject was quite verbal and
extremely good at describing his experiences, his only comment
on how he measured his hypnotic depth was that when I asked him
for a state report a number popped into his mind, he said it,
and that was it. He had no idea how these numbers were generated,
nor did he "understand" them, but he assumed they meant
something since he had been told in the original Extended North
Carolina Scale instructions that they would.
The results of both his preinduction interview about his general
experience of hypnosis and the particular hypnotic session have
been condensed into the graph shown in Figure 14-6 (Reprinted
from C. Tart, J. Transpersonal Psychology., 1970, 2,
27-40, by the permission of the American Transpersonal Association).
William felt that his particular experience during this exploration
was typical of his general experience with hypnosis. Various phenomena
was plotted, each with its own ordinate of intensity. Circles
indicate reports obtained during this particular hypnotic session,
triangles are reports obtained during the interview preceding
this session about all his hypnotic experiences to date. Not every
phenomenon was assessed on every 10-point interval on the depth
scale, so curves are shown as dotted where data points are missing.
The following discussion indicates some of the phenomena of extremely
deep hypnotic states and illustrates some of the theoretically
possible relationships of effects to hypnotic depth discusses
earlier.
The first effect, "physical relaxation," is not plotted
beyond 20. According to William his relaxation increases markedly
as he is hypnotized and quickly reaches a value of extremely relaxed.
However, he reports that after a depth of 50 it does not make
sense to ask him about physical relaxation because he is no longer
identified with his body; his body is "just a thing, something
I've left behind." One does not rate the relaxation of things.
The second experiential effect is of a "blackness" of
the visual field. The visual field becomes quite black and formless
as he goes into hypnosis. Nevertheless, it continues to become
somehow blacker[4] in
a roughly linear increase up to about 60. At this point he says
the field continues to become blacker as he goes deeper, but it
is in some sense "filled," there is a sense that there
is some kind of form(s) filling his visual field even though he
is not perceiving any particular forms. Beyond 60 he is not particular
aware of any visual sensation unless his attention is drawn to
it by the experimenter.
The third effect, a feeling of "peacefulness," also
increases from the beginning of the hypnotic state through approximately
60. William reports that he is extremely peaceful at this point.
Beyond 60, he says, that peacefulness is not a meaningful concept,
as was the case with physical relaxation. As described later in
connection with the plots of William's identity, there is no longer
a self to be peaceful or not peaceful beyond this point.
The fourth plotted effect is William's degree of "awareness
of his environment," primarily the small sounds in the experimental
room and the temperature and air currents in it. His awareness
of the environment falls off rapidly and roughly linearly, and
at about 50 reaches a point where he reports that he is not at
all aware of the environment (with the exception of the hypnotist's
voice). His awareness of the environment then stays at zero throughout
the rest of the plotted continuum.
The fifth effect, labeled "sense of identity," is a
little more complex. In the light stages of hypnosis William is
fully aware of his ordinary identity and body image, but as he
reaches a depth of about 30 he reports that his identity is "more
center in his head," is dominated by feelings of his head
and his mind. This feeling continues to increase, plotted as a
decrease of his ordinary identity, and then his ordinary identity
continues to decrease until around 80 or 90 he feels that his
ordinary identity is completely in abeyance: "William no
longer exists. On the other hand, starting from about 50 he begins
to sense another identity, and this continually increased up through
about 80, the last point plotted for this phenomenon. This identity
is one of potential—he doesn't feel identified as any
specific person or thing but only as the steadily increasing potential
to be anything or anyone.
The sixth phenomenon, labeled "awareness of the joke,"
is even more difficult to explain. This phenomenon manifests at
about 50, reaches a maximum at about 70, then fades in intensity
and is completely gone at 90. The "joke" is that William
should engage in strange activities like deep hypnosis, meditation,
or taking drugs in order to alter his d-SoC; some "higher"
aspect of his self is amused by all this activity, and William
himself becomes aware of this amusement. Most people who have
had several psychedelic drug sessions will recognize this as an
effect that often occurs as the drug is beginning to take hold.
The next effect, labeled "sense of potentiality," starts
off at a zero level but at around 50 first manifests itself as
an awareness of some sort of chant or humming sound identified
with the feeling that more and more experience is potentially
available.[5] The specific
form of the chant is lost but this sense of potentiality increases
linearly from this point, until around 80 William feels that an
infinite range of experience is potentially available, so this
phenomenon levels off.
The eighth effect, "experimenter's identity," at first
increases as the subject goes down to about 30 in hypnosis; that
is, he becomes more and more aware of the experimenter. The experimenter
then seems to become more an more distant and remote, and finally
the experimenter possesses no identity, he is just a voice, and
at the very deep levels he is "just an amusing, tiny ripple
at the far fringes of an infinite sea of consciousness."
There is slight discrepancy at 50 between William's actual experience
and his estimate of what he generally experienced.
The ninth effect, "rate of time passage," indicates
that William feels time passing more and more slowly in a linear
fashion as he goes down to about 40. This effect is no longer
plotted, for as the next effect, "being in time," shows,
William feels that time suddenly ceases to be a meaningful concept
for him: at 50 he is no longer in time, his experiences are somehow
timeless, they do not have a duration or a place, an order in
the scheme of things.[6]
The next effect, labeled "feeling of oneness," increases
linearly throughout the depth range plotted. Here William reports
feeling more and more at one with the universe, although he does
not ordinarily feel this. The effect is plotted as being very
low in his ordinary waking state.
The next effect is "spontaneously mental activity,"
how much conscious mental activity that is not related to specific
suggestions by the hypnotist to do something or to experience
something. In the ordinary waking state this is quite high: recall
the Hindu metaphor that describes the ordinary mind as being lie
a sexually aroused and drunken monkey, constantly hopping about
and chattering. This spontaneous mental activity goes steadily
down until it reaches an essentially zero level at about 90 and
stays here through the rest of the depth range plotted. I have
discussed such a decrease in spontaneous mental activity for hypnosis
elsewhere {78}.
The final effect plotted is William's "awareness of his own
breathing." He feels that his breathing tends to become steadily
deeper as he becomes more deeply hypnotized, but a 50 there is
a sudden change in his perceived breathing: it becomes extremely
shallow, almost imperceptible, and stays that way through the
rest of the hypnotic state. It is not known whether an objective
measure of respiration would show any changes at this point; William
did not actually stop breathing.
Considering the above phenomena as a report of a well-trained
observer, we can make a number of comments. First it should be
clear that William has an exceptional ability for hypnosis; he
appears to have gone far deeper than the usual range of phenomena
conventionally labeled "deep hypnosis." As the Extended
North Carolina Scale was defined for him, 30 was the level ordinarily
defined as deep hypnosis (amnesia, positive and negative hallucinations
as defining phenomena), and 40 would have be the approximate limit
reported by many of the highly hypnotizable subjects I have worked
with in the laboratory. Yet William reported a maximum depth of
130 which, if one assumes reasonable validity and linearity for
the scale, may be one of the deepest hypnotic states on record.
This ability to go so deep may partially stem from his previous
experience with meditation and psychedelic drugs. Further, William
is exceptionally verbal and able to describe his experiences well.
In the past, Erickson's {33, pp. 70-112} exceptionally good subjects
have reached a "stuporous" state, which may have reflected
an inability to conceptualize and verbalize their experiences.
Thus William's hypnotic experiences are illustrative of a potential
range of hypnotic phenomena, but are not typical.
Second, the expected nonlinearity and noncontinuity of possible
effects (and subsystem operation, insofar as effects may be taken
as indicators of subsystem operation) are apparent in William's
data. In the ordinary range of light to deep hypnosis (roughly
0-40), most effects are linear, but "experimenter's identity"
is curvilinear, and "physical relaxation" is noncontinuous,
and becomes a meaningless variable halfway through this range.
Considering the entire depth range plotted, some effects show
step functions ("awareness of breathing," "being
in time"), rapid increases and decreases from zero ("awareness
of the joke"), plateauing after an initial linear increase
of decrease ("experimenter's identity," "sense
of potentiality," "awareness of the environment,"
"visual blackness"), or disappearance by becoming meaningless
("peacefulness," "physical relaxation"). If,
in the course of investigation, one used the intensity of one
phenomenon as an index of hypnotic depth, confusing results
would be obtained if it were not linear and continuous. The value
of a multiphenomenal approach is apparent.
Third, the large number of step changes or fairly rapid changes
in the 50-70 range raises the question, in view of the definition
of d-SoCs, of whether we are still dealing with "deep hypnosis"
beyond the depth of approximately 70. These rapid changes may
represent a transition from the gestalt configuration we call
hypnosis to a new configuration, a new d-SoC.
This research with William is a prototype of the research strategy
recommended in Chapter 13 for working with d-SoCs—detailed mapping
of a single individual's experiential space to see if certain
clusterings emerge that constitute d-SoCs. This particular example
is an imperfect prototype, however, because the systems approach
was not clear in my mind when I did this research with William.
I was expecting continuity of experience in one state, the hypnotic
state, so I did not sample enough data points to determine whether
there was a clear discontinuity showing William transiting from
one d-SoC to another. Thus the changes plotted in Figure 14-6
are a rough sort of plot, consistent with the systems approach,
but not done precisely enough.
Note also that there is little mapping of the very light region
of hypnosis and consequently no data on the transition from the
ordinary d-SoC to hypnosis.
At its maximum level (assuming that the 70-130 range represents
depth continuum for the new d-SoC), the state has the following
phenomenological characteristics: (1) no awareness of the physical
body; (2) no awareness of any discrete "thing" or sensation,
but only awareness of a flux of potentiality; (3) no awareness
of the real world environment, with the one exception of the (depersonalized)
voice of the experimenter as "an amusing tiny ripple at the
far fringes of an infinite sea of consciousness"; (4) a sense
of being beyond, outside of time; and (5) a sense of the identity
"William" being totally in abeyance, and identity being
simply potentiality.
States of this type have not been dealt with in Western scientific
literature to any great extent, but sound similar to Eastern descriptions
of consciousness of the Void, a d-SoC in which time, space, and
ego are supposedly transcended, leaving pure awareness of the
primal nothingness from which all manifested creation comes {22,
51}. Writers who have described in words, so the above description
and comparison with William's experience is rough, to say the
least. Thus William's data are not only of interest in terms of
hypnotic depth and the transition from one d-SoC to another, but
raise the possibility of using hypnotic states to induce and/or
model mystical states.[7]
The resemblance between William's description of his state and
classic descriptions of Void consciousness suggests the question,
Who is reporting to me, the experimenter? If William's personality
is in abeyance, if he has not awareness of his physical body,
who is talking?
The concept of dissociation may supply an answer. Some structures/subsystems
may form a (semi-) independent entity from the rest of the system,
so that more than one d-SoC can exist simultaneously in one individual.
Thus, some aspects of William are structured into a d-SoC I loosely
call Void consciousness; other aspects are structured/patterned
into a kind of consciousness that can (at least partially) observe
what the Void consciousness part is doing, can understand my questions,
and can reply to me. Is this Observer discussed in Chapter 11,
or a dissociated series of subsystems forming a d-SoC, or what?
Grappling with this sort of question forces confrontation with
some basic issues about the nature of consciousness.
William's data illustrate some of the practical aspects of studying
the depth of a d-SoC, particularly hypnosis. Using the individual
subject as a unit, a set of interrelationships of various phenomena
with respect to hypnotic depth has been found; self-reported depth
has ordered observed phenomena in a useful and theoretically important
manner. Further research will study this same sort of procedure
in other subjects, repeat sessions with some subjects to study
consistency, and make initial intersubject comparisons to determine
which depth-phenomenology relationships are general and which
represent idiosyncratic qualities of subjects. General relationships
of phenomena with depth may be found and/or several classes of
subjects may be fond and/or several d-SoCs may be identified that
have in the past all been indiscriminately termed "hypnosis."
Finally, it should be stressed that the case of William is presented
to illustrate the potential of self-reporting of hypnotic
depth. The effects of subtle factors in my laboratory, demand
characteristics, and William's uniqueness must be assessed in
the course of replication and extension of this work by others
to establish how much of this potential holds up and becomes practically
and theoretically useful.
Footnotes
[1] The researcher planning work with self-report
depth scales should note some other precautions outlined in my
chapter in Fromm and Shor's book {114}. (back)
[2] Much of the following account is drawn
from my chapter in Fromm and Shor {114}. (back)
[3] In some of my earlier work with the North
Carolina Scale, 50 was defined as a state so profound that
the subject's mind became sluggish, but this definition was dropped
here. (back)
[4] William insists that this progression
is not going from gray to darker gray to black because his visual
field is black to begin with, even though it gets "blacker."
He recognizes the paradox of this statement, but considers it
the best description he can give. (back)
[5] The chant William reported may be related
to the Hindu concept of the sacred syllable Om, supposedly
a basic sound of the universe that a man can "hear"
as mind becomes more universally attuned {13}. (back)
[6] Priestley {53} discusses such experiences
of being in and out of time quite extensively. (back)
[7] Aaronson {1} has reported direct hypnotic
induction of the Void experience through specific suggestion.
(back)
