The seemingly heretical ideas I hold regarding the subconscious mind** will continue to meet with resistance and will need further exposure if they are to emerge from relative obscurity and reach the warranted level of debate. In fact, I still read and hear prominent medical, psychological, and hypnotherapy authorities trumpeting the miraculous power of unconscious mind without having any clue where the concept originated or realizing that it is totally devoid of any scientific foundation. This article is intended to continue my conclusions, clarify my original thoughts, and mitigate, at least partially, some of the misgivings of my detractors.

The Western origins of the concept of the subconscious mind appear to have come from two German philosophers, who lived in roughly the same time period. The first, Friedrich von Schiller (1759 – 1805), put forward the notion that humanity has both a formal unit et a sensual impulse. His comments come very close to describing both the popular conscious/subconscious divide and my claim that people can be relatively cognitive versus limbic in orientation. The second was the German idealist Friedrich von Schelling (1775 – 1854), who gave us the idea that there is both a conscious or objective principle and an unconscious or subjective one that, by the way, he often equated with evil. If I’m not mistaken, the latter of the two men is usually credited with coining the term unconscious — although it is often believed that Christopher Riegel, another German philosopher, invented the term unconscious mind. However, the concept is largely a construct of Western philosophical thought, later popularized by Sigmund Freud (1856 – 1939), who used it to explain his theory of psychoanalysis.

The word subconscious it was coined by the French psychologist Pierre Janet (1859 – 1947), who used the term loosely to mean the same thing as Freud’s unconscious, although the latter condemned the use of Janet’s term as he preferred his own. Freud thought the word was “wrong and misleading”. This is one of the few times that I fully agree with the Austrian doctor.

Unfortunately, the word subconscious has effectively crept into medical and psychotherapeutic lexicons and has even become part of New Age and self-help mantras. In some ways, especially to physicians, the term has largely become synonymous with the phrase “all in the mind,” symbolizing a gap in allopathic training. That is, if you cannot understand a pathology, it must be due to the subconscious mind of the patient. On the other hand, psychologists and hypnotherapists (and self-help gurus) have insisted that the subconscious mind is a wonderful, all-knowing inner power that, if left to its own devices, will heal everything that ails us. Unfortunately, those who hold this have no idea that von Schelling warned us about the evils of the subconscious mind.

During my initial training as a clinical hypnotherapist, I was informed that the subconscious mind was a vast storehouse of unlimited capacity. The problems the client presents are said to be due to faulty programming within that mystical ether. My role was to clean up the junk and install new programming. Then there were those who told me that all I had to do was use suggestions and images to produce this miraculous hidden mind and that their innate wisdom would then adjust to a homeostatic state of total well-being. It was his view that I could practice my profession with only a vague and flawed understanding of why my methods worked. Frankly, those who continue to do this will always be challenged to be accepted into the broader arena of health care.

These two views of the subconscious mind, views that are taught to almost all certified hypnotherapists and most psychotherapists, are in direct conflict. The same limitless mind, but below consciousness, that is connected to diseases like schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, smoking and cancer, is the same entity that is supposed to miraculously, when absolutely trusted, solve all our problems. This puzzle is why I often question Erickson’s naturalistic approach to hypnosis.

My efforts to legitimize the clinical applications of hypnosis as a scientifically sound system of (or contribution to) healing started me on the journey that has led me to firmly believe that the current usage of the term is unsupported and does not describe the phenomena to those it refers to. it’s related. My review of thousands of research citations relating to the use of hypnosis for medical or psychological care has led me to the conclusion that it produces favorable results, even when poorly applied, and does so regardless of stated inability to researchers to explain why. Disturbingly, these same researchers continue to throw around the term subconscious mind without any explanation as to its neurological or physiological basis. While I appreciate the results of your efforts, it seems that the underlying premise of these strictly controlled, peer-reviewed scientific studies is little more than unfounded superstition.

Where does this lead us? If the concept of the subconscious mind is inaccurate, and by default that of the unconscious mind is also inaccurate, then how do we explain the experience of conscious phenomena that are not conscious? It is not their existence that is in question. Rather, I question its nature and therefore how we relate to it as individuals and as clinicians. Insightful as the 18th century German philosophers were, our traditional view has been riddled with almost mystical misconceptions and devoid of any scientific methodology.

My conclusions emanate from a wide range of disparate fields. On the one hand, I have been influenced by the German philosophers mentioned above and by many aspects of Buddhist philosophy (for example, Nagarjuna’s Madhyamika Prasangaka school of thought). On the other hand, my exploration of the ideas of mind/body integration along with many of the recent discussions and findings in histology, quantum physics, relativity, epigenetics, and even artificial intelligence have presented me with some rather unique conclusions. From this, I have developed my theories of patterning and transformation, which are the cornerstones of Advanced Neuro-Noetic HypnosisTM.

Fundamental to this is the realization that our neurophysiology is made up of components such as cells, organs, systems, and networks. In turn, these components can be considered patterns or integral parts of patterns. Each of these components and patterns possesses consciousness and reacts to its environment. This infers that they are imbued with a form of intelligence, meaning that they possess the attributes of a mind. Therefore, instead of relying on a simplistic conscious/subconscious bifurcation, the acceptance of a very complex and comprehensive system of collective consciousness presents us with a more rational, scientific and operational approach.

When we look at it this way, we realize that the neurophysiological entity we call the body is actually a collection of intelligences or minds. Everyone has a resistance to change and a tendency to adapt when necessary. The higher level or aggregate consciousness is what we often refer to as our conscious mind. This is largely a factor of our neocortical brain. A great simplification could affirm that there is another classification with respect to the more limbic minds that constitute the greater part of our physiology. However, it is wrong to summarize this as one subconscious entity. Rather, it is a highly complex system of intelligent components and patterns that interact, train, and adapt. It is by accepting and addressing their interdependence and power that the clinician can understand the true nature of pathologies, health, and the potential to cause transformation through the use of selective interventions. To ignore this and adopt the superstitious and popular sophomore point of view is to limit the practitioner’s abilities and cause our clients and patients to never realize their true potentials.