Does the mind process negatives?

[Guest]

I've seen, around various places, several references to an idea that the mind does not process negatives.  Each time I see this case being presented I wonder to myself  Where did this idea come from?  Who decided this?  Why do some of us believe it to be true?   I know it doesn't ring true for me. I process negatives, my children do as well.  And I can think of countless examples in my life where negatives have been presented and my mind has no problem processing them.
Do NOT cross the road.
No Parking
I do NOT Love you.
Don't touch the flame. etc.

A conversation in chat to try to determine the origin of this concept prompted me to do some research on my own, since nobody I asked  was really sure where this came from or how the idea came to be perpetuated.    Apparently, this idea is very common in Hypnotherapy and Neuro-Linguistic Programming, but in normal day-to-day communicating doesn't seem to have much bearing. 
What I am arguing is that it is overly simplistic to teach that the
unconscious mind does not accept negatives, especially when there are
obviously many cases where this is seen to be untrue. The unconscious
mind is far greater than we can imagine, and while the use of negatives may not be effective in some forms of hypnotism,  even in hypnosis, the mind is open to
suggestion.
If we use powerful
words, draw verbal pictures, speak with a clear intent the mind will "hear" what
is being INTENDED - even if it is sometimes expressed with less elegant,
and sometimes so called "negative" words.

Below, some of my findings:

[Guest]

Does the Unconscious Mind Hear Negatives?
Irene Colville
July 2003
Hypnotherapists are told not to use negatives in their hypnotic
suggestions, because, we are told, "the subconscious mind doesn't "hear"
negatives". The theory is (and remember it is only a theory) that we
are not to say "don't" or "will not" or "no longer" or any other
negative form of suggestion when we are talking to clients with the
intent of helping them make positive changes in their lives. This, we
are told, is because the subconscious mind does not hear the negative
and therefore any negative suggestion will be heard in the positive; it
will be heard, by the client's subconscious mind, as the therapist
giving the client permission to carry on doing whatever they said they
wanted to change! Students are taught this, they take it as "a given"
(factual). And, so, it is perpetuated without question.
I find this
whole concept rather strange (to say the least). In fact, I believe that
only hypnotherapists believe the subconscious mind cannot hear
negatives! Who said that that this is so? How do they know this? I find
it quite extraordinary - how many people are so sure of what goes on in
the subconscious mind. I am amazed by such people, because - whatever is
in MY subconscious is usually out of my conscious awareness! Isn't that
the definition of the sub/unconscious mind - whatever is in it is out
of our conscious awareness? So how can anyone be so sure what the
unconscious mind hears - or doesn't hear?
It is my understanding
that the conscious mind is the analytical, critical, judgmental,
thinking mind, and the subconscious mind accepts what is put into it
WITHOUT QUESTION because it is the non-analytical, non-critical,
non-judgmental, non-thinking mind. This is what I was taught in various
modes of study, and this is what is repeatedly said in many books, and
this is what is taught in hypnotherapy schools. Surely, therefore, this
points out the contradiction in believing the subconscious mind does not
hear or accept negative language? For the subconscious mind to negate
negative language, it must first of all hear the negativity, and then it
must have some process of understanding it to be negative, and of
negating it. This would imply that the subconscious mind hears the
negative, then thinks about, judges or analyzes it, and decides to
ignore it, and strengthen the material it was aimed at changing! Unless,
of course, the idea is that the subconscious mind is aware of the
subject matter being dealt with and simply "absorbs" the energy of
anything remotely connected to that subject thereby increasing the
strength of the material the person is trying to change? If this is so,
how does that relate to the concept that my un/subconscious mind is
wise, and smart, and its role is to protect me? If this latter concept
is true, why would it ignore something I want, something I know is for
my "highest good", something that will have positive consequences on my
life - just because the suggestions were given in the so called
"negative"? We simply cannot say both concepts are true. The unconscious
mind either is non-thinking and accepts whatever is put into it - no
matter how it is presented, or it is there for my benefit, and it's role
is to do what it needs to do for my "highest good" - which means it has
the capacity to "think, judge, analyze, decide".
Whilst I
personally prefer to put my suggestions to clients into the positive
form, there are times when I cannot think of how to say something (the
reverse of the negative) when I need it. I have therefore been known to
give so-called "negative" suggestions to clients - and guess what? They
worked - they had a positive effect! The client changed the behaviour,
despite hearing me (at some level) saying "don't" or "no longer" or
"will not". I also know other hypnotherapists who report the same
phenomena. So, how can this be accounted for in the light of what we are
taught is not possible?
Unlike trained hypnotherapists, most of
my clients have never heard of the concept (and that's all it is) that
the subconscious mind cannot hear a negative. The clients (and their
subconscious minds) therefore accept my suggestions - even when they are
occasionally presented in a negative format. I personally believe that
people make changes to the level of their own "Intent". They come to me
because they have decided they need help to achieve a specific goal, and
if they are fully committed to the Intent to Change, then they will
accept that help - however it is verbalized to them. The subconscious
mind may need to be reminded of the need to change, and the positive
reasons for the desired change, but once that is achieved, the
suggestions - whether presented in the so called "positive" or
"negative" format - will be accepted - because they are perceived (and
received) as being aimed at helping the person to achieve that positive
change.
I think we do the unconscious mind a gross disservice by
limiting its manner of understanding and knowing to the words it hears. I
believe that building rapport with the client is a priority, and that
when that is achieved the energy of the client's unconscious mind joins
with the energy of the therapist in relation to the changes being
discussed or worked on. When rapport is established the client knows,
and trusts, both consciously and unconsciously, that the therapist's
"Intent" is to assist in achieving the positive change required. That's
what rapport is! It's at this higher energetic level that the
unconscious mind accepts suggestions given, whether they are expressed
in "positive" or in "negative" ways - because it accepts they are aimed
at positive change. In this sense, to speak of "negative" or "positive"
words is nonsense - the unconscious mind takes - I believe - the INTENT
of the therapist. It absorbs not only the words, but the overall MEANING
of the sentences TOGETHER WITH the energetic INTENT within the
verbalized suggestions.

[Guest]

The notion that unconscious mind only understands and follows positive
suggestions minus the negation makes very good sense when talking about
"sensory" related suggestions such as, "don't think of a purple
elephant", "don't get scared", "don't pay attention to the noises",
etc... The person will probably see, feel, hear those things if they're
actually processing those suggestions.  But how about suggestions that are more behavior and planning oriented, or more abstract?
Such as: 1. Don't forget to clean your room.

2. You don't need to fill out the paperwork right now.

3. X does not mean y.

4. You can't succeed.
See what I am saying?  The concept works in some instances, but not in others.  It depends more on how the idea is presented, the words that are used, combined with the intent of the speaker, with the intent being the major factor, if the speaker has much personal power.
So for the purpose of manipulation, certainly we can choose our words such that, the listener hears the opposite of what we say, but that is not a real strong argument that the mind does not process negatives.  It processes the negative, then sees it is irrelevant.  And moves beyond it. 



Would these suggestions be commands to the unconscious to "forget to
clean", "fill out the paperwork", "equate x to y", "be able to succeed"

[Guest]

Positive and negative as used in NLP, which appears to be where this idea that the mind cannot process negatives comes from, interestingly.
The term positive is generally used to mean "desirable" or "beneficial", and negative is generally used to mean "undesirable" or "bad". However, in neuro-linguistic programming they have a specific meanings in the phrases positive intent and stated in the positive, and negative intent and stated in the negative.
In this sense, the term is used to mean linguistically stated in the affirmatory. In other words, a goal or intent is said to be positively stated if it is stated by reference to a state or thing one desires, and it is said to be negatively stated by reference to a state or thing one wishes to avoid.

The following statements are all positive intent or stated in the
positive, regardless of whether they are beneficial or damaging wishes:

Stated in the positive
I want a car with a 6 litre engine.I'm hoping to retire in 5 years.I'd like to steal/harm/take something or someone (stated in the
positive in the technical linguistic and NLP senses, and would
constitute a "positive intention", though negative in an everyday sense).
The following statements are all negative intent or stated in the
negative, regardless of whether they are beneficial or damaging wishes:

Stated in the negative:
I don't like this office.I hate it.I want them to stop picking on me.When I retire I won't have to work.If I had money I wouldn't have to steal (stated in the negative
in the linguistic and NLP senses; it does not constitute a positive
intention, though it is a positive wish in an everyday sense. To turn it
into a positive, one might ask questions such as, "What would you like
to be doing if you were not stealing?")

The significance of this comes from the psychological phenomenon
claimed by some, that the mind does not always process
neuro-linguistically negatives well.   For example, when one focuses on
what he or she does not want, the mind may, at some level, imagine the
object to be avoided more than the relational word "not." For example,
the common quote, "Don't think of a white bear!" may cause one to have difficulty not thinking of a white bear.  However, does not prevent the mind from processing the negative.  We still intake the idea and spin it around in our minds, thus processing it. 


In cognitive terms, therefore, "not wanting to steal" is not the same
as "being honest," and tends to keep the negative idea at the forefront
of the mind.  It also subjectively suggests a single dead-end rather
than a general direction to go. This is why, whilst a wish to avoid can
motivate, it is generally not seen by NLP as being as useful as a
positive intention. 


A person's intention
in performing an action is his or her specific purpose in doing so, the
end or goal at which he or she aims or intends to accomplish. Whether
an action is successful or unsuccessful depends at least on whether the
intended result was brought about. The aphorism in NLP is that all human action fulfils a positive intent at some level.


Iin NLP it is generally seen as more beneficial to
focus on the opportunities a person has, other than those he or she
wants to be gone.
Which makes a lot of sense, certainly, however, still does not support the claim that the mind won't process negatives, but affirms that it is more beneficial to think and speak in positives, especially if you are attempting to affect a desired outcome!  So, seems like something that is used by some people in NLP circles has somehow ended up in Toltec and nagualist forums and spread around as truth.  While it is true, it is better to speak with intent and voice our selves positively, the notion that our minds are not able to process negatives is nothing more than a myth, based on some concepts used in NLP and applied to a broader scope for which they were not intended.

[Guest]

So I believe that an accurate statement would be that  the mind does not always process
neuro-linguistically negatives well and for the purposes of hypnotherapy, positive statements produce better results.
I can agree with that.

[alien]

Good topic, Enchantra!  You mentioned in your initial post that the mind is capable of hearing what is INTENDED if one speaks clearly, which is why it's so important for warrior's to be impeccable with their word.  This became a major issue over at The Sorcerer's World awhile back, so much so that some people ended up getting banned for refusing to hear the intent of the speaker, but insisting on dabbling in petty games of semantics.  It has also been an issue with other seekers I've known & worked with in the past - so it seems appropriate to post something that was gleaned from my double, through gnosis/silent-knowing, back in 1997. 
_________

[NOTE: The following counseling was done in response to a seeker who had asked, "Why am I not progressing on my own path? What is holding me back?" This came at a time when this seeker would literally argue every point Orlando attempted to make. If he said, "The sky is blue," a debate would ensue. "The sky isn't really blue. It only appears that way because of atmospheric gases." What follows is Orlando's response to the idea of knowing the intent of the speaker. Although this was originally gleaned in 1997, it clearly has relevance still.]
*****
You have come to a point in your journey when it is necessary to know the difference between words, and the intent behind the words. If I say to you, "Our journey together is not a matter of the destination so much as it is an exeprience of mind, body and spirit along the way," I have communicated to you a concept which is larger than the words themselves, yes? What is hoped is that you will know the intent of the speaker, rather than attempting to vivisect the words themselves.
You could say to me in return, "Ah, but what do you mean by mind, body and spirit? You imply there is a destination, but where would that be and how would I get there?"
All of these questions would only indicate to me that you have missed the point entirely, and that you are attempting to use words to obfuscate meaning, semantics to distract from the intent of the speaker. And while this is to be expected from those new to the path, it is nothing less than disrespectful to yourself when it becomes a habit of a more advanced seeker. It is the chatter of your self-importance, operating on behalf of your ego.
If you know the intent behind the speaker's statement, yet you choose to engage in wordplay, then what you are really doing is diverting attention away from the subject at hand. There are many reasons to do so, but the most common is a laziness of mind. It is always easier to argue at the level of words than to engage openly at the level of intent and spirit. The second most common reason to divert attention in this manner is - quite simply - one's own self-importance. Playing with words and being thought of as clever holds more value for some than an actual exploration of the speaker's original intent.
It will always be possible to split words and divide particles, for energy is infinite, even its smallness. And yet, is there anything to be gained by doing so, or would far greater value be found through hearing and *seeing* what the speaker intended, rather than immediately allowing the internal dialogue to begin looking for ways to dispute it? If you are still at the core and examine what is intended, you will often discover that - in fact - you don't really 'disagree' at all. It is merely a habit to do so, rooted in some program still operating in the consensus.
It is not a matter of whether you agree with me or not. That is altogether irrelevant. And yet, if the disagreement resides wholly in a dispute of words or terminology, the point is lost and the status quo of the consensus is maintained and all is right with the world.
...or is it?
So it is time to choose and to make a commitment of awareness to yourself and your journey. Do you want to discuss ideas and concepts of the infinite and eternal, or do you want to infinitely and eternally debate the fallacies of language until all that remains is the psychobabble of language itself?
Make the impeccable choice.
_____________
Orlando - April, 1997

[Guest]

Thanks for shring this bit of Orlando's wisdom. 
Here's a part that stood out for me, which really illustrates that the mind can and does process negatives, if you are open to seeing intent, you can hear and see much, even what is not being spoken with words. 
If you know the intent behind the
speaker's statement, yet you choose to engage in wordplay, then what you
are really doing is diverting attention away from the subject at hand.
There are many reasons to do so, but the most common is a laziness of
mind. It is always easier to argue at the level of words than to engage
openly at the level of intent and spirit. The second most common reason
to divert attention in this manner is - quite simply - one's own
self-importance. Playing with words and being thought of as clever holds
more value for some than an actual exploration of the speaker's
original intent.

[Nu Lang]

Nice thread En, and love your post Alien.



"Our journey together is not a matter of the destination so much as it is an exeprience of mind, body and spirit along the way,"



This is a good reflection on getting the mind to s l o w d o w n and focus.

[Guest]

This is the first time I've heard of such a thing...the mind not processing negatives.
I have to say that I can't see any true validity in the idea because it is the binary nature, or duality, of the mind that allows it to process EVERYTHING it encounters...either something is or it is not...we only recognize a glass of milk by knowing that it is not an empty glass...we learn what love is by experiencing what it is not and we are learning the truth of Spirit by being in subjection to the delusion (deception or "deluge on man" aka the flood of Noah) that materiality is rooted in itself and holds some sort of dominion over souls and soulish-stuff.
That's what I perceive on the levels underneath...and on the surface my observations tell me that certainly the mind processes negatives quite proficiently evidenced by the overwhelming shadows of doubt, fear, and uncertainty that hang over most of humanity like ominously gray super-cell clouds.
I can see what the premise is, though, from the hypnotherapy angle...thoughts are things (there I go with my campaign!) and it is futile to try to cease one's thoughts about any certain subject by repeatedly telling one's self to "forget about (whatever it is)" because every time (whatever it is) is mentioned...it becomes a little more attached to the mind on the lower levels that for most remain undetected and unsupervised...this is the how neuroses and hang-ups start out as seedlings!
The concept of negative as the juxtaposition of the positive that is necessary for the balance and strength of our existence is a far different one than that which is negativity springing forth from an unhealthy mind.
Enchantra, you said:










So I believe that an accurate statement would be that  the mind does not always process
neuro-linguistically negatives well and for the purposes of hypnotherapy, positive statements produce better results.
I can agree with that. 




I can, too. It is easy to see how a little "no" or "non" or "not" becomes insignificant to the mind in comparison to the main idea or thought it is attached to. It is the subject and predicate that the mind works with or against...as mentioned in some of that posted already in this thread.
What I think they are missing in all this can be metaphorically expressed in a familiar phrase of (frequently) maternal advice:
If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
If one desires to remove something, a thought or action or whatever, from their life...the only way to do so, imo, is to literally just quit thinking about it.
I tell my mom this because she has a detrimental propensity toward worrying over every little possibility because of her inner dialogue's influence. She always says "I can't help it." But I tell her, "Mom, that is actually the ONLY thing you can help!"
I have often talked to her about things like if a thought comes that has been declared as no longer welcome...just QUIT thinking it. Make your mind go to something else. Don't justify it or attempt to defeat it or anything else that engages and traps...just turn away! I hear so many people say that they cannot control their thoughts...as if it is a fact that we all must give in to and allow ourselves to be overpowered by our misconceptions of  powerlessness...it is absolutely not true and it isn't a productive idea to put faith in.
And when one believes they have no control over their thoughts and mind, not only do they give free run to the FI's, they further seek to satisfy the resulting lack by trying to control others in varying degrees and through an infinite assortment of methods...I think that must be one way that petty tyrants come into being...I don't know...that thought just came as I am writing..and I've written enough for now!

[Guest]