Hypnotism constitutes no exception to the axiom that the successful study and practice of any science depends, primarily, upon the student's mastery of its fundamental principles. This sounds like - and it is - a truism. And yet no axiom of science is so persistently disregarded as this is by the average student and practitioner of hypnotism.

"Without stopping to illustrate my meaning by the citation of examples, I propose to state what I regard as the essential fundaments of the science, without an understanding of which hypnotism can neither be mastered as a science nor practiced with safety. The first of these pertains to the classification of hypnotism as a science; the second relates to the interpretation of its phenomena, and the third to the conditions of safe and successful practice.

Classification

(1.) Of the first, little need be said beyond a statement that hypnotism, as a science, belongs primarily to the domain of psychology. That is to say, the phenomena of hypnotism are psychological effects due to psychological causes. To the majority of modern scientific investigators this will appear to be a self-evident proposition; and it might be dismissed as such were it not for the fact that many of the materialistic school of scientists still persist in a vain search for a physiological cause of the phenomena. It is, therefore, of the first importance for the student to realize that he is dealing with phenomena that are induced by mental conditions; and that accompanying physiological phenomena are effects - not causes. Otherwise he will seek in vain for a working hypothesis capable of correlating all the facts with which he will come in contact.

Interpretation

(2.) It is in the interpretation of phenomena that a knowledge of fundamental principles becomes absolutely indispensable. Until within a very few years, students of the science of hypnotism have been handicapped by the lack of such knowledge. Many were in doubt whether it was a psychological or physiological science. The law of suggestion had not been discovered. The law of duality of mind had not been formulated. The discovery of the law of suggestion by European scientists at once settled the question of classification, and afforded an explanation of much that was mysterious in the phenomena. Indeed, so far as hypnotism, per se, was concerned, nothing further seemed to be required to constitute a valid, working hypothesis. But it was soon found that there were thousands of cognate phenomena which the law of suggestion, as at first formulated, could not adequately explain. In other words, it was obvious that the law was of far wider application than to persons in the hypnotic condition. Another term was, therefore, necessary to constitute a valid, working hypothesis, applicable alike to hypnotism and to all other psychic phenomena. That term was found in the theory of duality of mind.

Formally stated, the hypothesis is as follows:

1. Man is endowed with two minds, - objective and subjective.

2. The subjective mind is constantly amenable to control by suggestion, either by the objective mind of the individual, (autosuggestion) or by another person, as in the practice of hypnotism.

These two propositions, properly understood, constitute a never-failing working hypothesis applicable alike to the phenomena of hypnotism and to all other psychic phenomena.

In the space allotted to this article it is impossible adequately to differentiate the two minds; and the reader must be referred to the author's published works * for a full explanation. In the meantime, however, it will be sufficient for the purposes of thi3 article to say that the objective mind is the mind of ordinary waking consciousness. The subjective mind is the source of that intelligence which is manifested when the objective mind is asleep or is otherwise inhibited, as in dreams or in hypnotism.

* "The Law of Psychic Phenomena;" "A Scientific Demonstration of the Future Life;" and "The Divine Pedigree of Man." - New York State Pub. Co., Rochester, N. Y.

As an illustration of the capacity of this hypothesis to explain psychic phenomena, mental therapeutics or mind cure may be cited as an example. The chaotic condition of that science, in times past, is too well known to require comment. An indefinite number of conflicting theories was invoked to account for the well recognized fact that a vast number of diseases could be cured by mental proccesses. The only thing common to the theories was their unscientific character. But this was offset by the fact that the ability to cure disease was common to all systems. Thus it was that so-called "Christian Science" and other cognate forms of fetichism, up to voodoism, including the placebo of the medical practitioner, were for many years enshrouded in the same veil of mystery. Even hypnotism, in its early history, was prolific of theories of causation, some of them reaching into the realms of superstition; and of those who were least inclined to superstitious notions, many regarded the hypnotic sleep as being in itself, the curative agency. The discovery of the law of suggestion, however, served to dispel the latter idea; but it was not until the general hypothesis had been- formulated that a rational theory applicable to mental therapeutics was rendered possible.

That is to say, when the law of duality of mind was discovered, it became evident that the law of suggestion pertained exclusively to the subjective mind. From this it was but a step to the obvious conclusion that in the subjective mind resides the potential energy that controls the functions, sensations and conditions of the body. And thus it was that, by adding the latter proposition as a subsidiary term to the original theory, a perfect working hypothesis for mental healing was evolved. Its terms are as follows:

1. Man is endowed with two minds, - objective and subjective.

2. The subjective mind is constantly amenable to control by suggestion.

3. The subjective mind controls the functions, sensations and conditions of the body.

It is self-evident that, if these three propositions are true, they constitute a working hypothesis which explains all of the phenomena of mental healing, (by whatever name the various systems may be designated) suggests in a general way the method of successful practice, and removes the whole subject-mattei from the realms of mysticism and superstition. That each proposition is true cannot be successfully refuted. To say the very least, everything happens exactly as though they were true; and that is all that any scientist pretends to demand in a working hypothesis. In this respect it is as well sustained as is the atomic theory, or the Newtonian hypothesis of gravitation.

It will thus be seen how perfectly the hypothesis of duality of mind, coupled with the law of suggestion, explains all that is mysterious, and harmonizes all that seems contradictory, in the vast congeries of systems of mental therapeutics. And the student is assured that he can rely upon the same hypothesis as an instrument of logic and science equally efficacious in the explication of all other psychic phenomena.

Practice

I have purposely selected mental therapeutics as an illustration of the efficacy of the dual mind hypothesis as a means of correctly interpreting the phenomena of hypnotism, for the reason that it is in therapeutics that hypnotism finds its most useful employment. In saying this I am not unmindful of its potential value as an agent of moral reform, or of the fact that it may be made extremely useful in promoting the education of the young. Nor do I underestimate its importance or usefulness in the field of experimental psychology; for it is to hypnotism that credit is due for the elevation of psychology into the domain of the inductive sciences. Nevertheless, the great majority of those who are interested in the science, are so because of its value as a therapeutic agent.

The value of truth is universally recognized in a general way; but there are few who seem to be aware of its transcendent importance when dealing with a hypnotic subject. Any deviation from the truth in making suggestions to a hypnotized sub-ject works an injury to his nervous system exactly proportioned to the character and importance of the deviation. A very simple experiment will demonstrate the truth of this proposition. After a subject has been hypnotized, let another hypnotist be introduced and placed in communication with the subject. Then let a strong, vigorous suggestion be made to the subject by one of the hypnotists and immediately denied by the other. In other words, let two antagonistic suggestions be enforced upon the subject at the same time. By the law of his being, he is compelled to accept the suggestions imparted to him. But here are two antagonistic suggestions, equally, we must suppose, entitled to acceptance, and each clamoring for recognition. The result is that the subject is thrown into a state of mental distress and nervousness that is simply indescribable; and it usually ends by the awakening of the subject with a painful nervous shock.

It goes without saving that a persistence in such experiments would soon wreck the strongest nervous organism.

I have supposed an extreme case; but it is obvious that any two opposing suggestions to a hypnotized subject must produce a like effect, differing only in degree, and proportioned to the importance of the subject-matter.

Now, be it remembered that an auto-suggestion, or a suggestion arising from the experience or the training of the individual, is just as potent as the suggestions of a hypnotist. Whatever, therefore, is recognized as truth by the subject in his normal experience, constitutes an auto-suggestion to his subjective mind. It follows that a false suggestion made by a hypnotist violently antagonizes the auto-suggestions of the normal experience of the subject; and the result is precisely the same as in the experimental cases we have supposed, - proportioned, of course, to its importance to the hypnotized subject. That is to say, in matters of indifference he may, and often does, accept a false suggestion with seeming alacrity; whereas, in matters of some importance to himself, he will offer a stronger resistance before accepting it; and in matters of supreme importance, as in criminal suggestion, or those violative of the conscientious scruples of the subject, especially where a criminal suggestion is sought to be carried into immediate execution, the same violent shock to the nervou3 organism, - the same awakening to normal consciousness is ex perienced - as in the experimental case mentioned.

It is, in short, a universal law that (1) antagonistic suggestions imparted to a hypnotized subject invariably shock his nervous organism to a greater or less degree. (2) A known.truth and a suggested falsehood constitute antagonistic suggestions in the mind of a hypnotized subject. It follows that false suggestions cannot be indulged in with safety to the hypnotic subject', and persistence in the vicious practice will invariably wreck his nervous organism and reduce him to a state of imbecility.

It is evident, therefore, that the danger line in hypnotism is coincident with that which divides truth from error. On error's side lies constant danger in the psycho-physical as in the moral world. Safety is on the side of truth.