Yume Desu: Trance & Giggles

✦ᛉume✦she/her/they✦ Exploring shadows… but with blush, giggles, and soft whispers. ✦ 40+ | Minors/ageless DNI.✦

[yumedesutrance]

This is the Workshop

🖤About the Author

I’m Yume (40 · she/her/they), an apprentice hypnotist.

This is a side blog — a loose, uncurated space. A place for overflow.

Here you’ll find reblogs, stray thoughts, technical notes, and fragments that don’t belong in my main archive. Some are reflective. Some are half-formed. Some are just things I didn’t want to lose.

This is not a polished space. It’s not a statement. It’s not a thesis.

It was never meant to be complete.

✦ — — — — — — — — — — ✦

🔞 DNI / INTERACTION RULES

MINORS / AGELESS BLOGS DNI BOT BLOGS / SPAM ACCOUNTS / GHOST BLOGS (no original content) DNI UNSOLICITED PICS / PROMO REQUESTS DNI

• This is an 18+ space exploring hypnosis, the mind, consent, and philosophy. Not suitable for minors.

✦ — — — — — — — — — — ✦

My spaces

• Yume Arcana — the curated gallery the finished work

• Umbral Marquis — the narrative chamber a villain’s fiction

• Nothing Omitted Hypnosis — the internal archive consolidated posts, intact and unfragmented

•External archive- link

✦ — — — — — — — — — — ✦

If my writing helped or intrigued you, you can support me here.

https://ko-fi.com/yumearcana

✦ — — — — — — — — — — ✦

✦ᛉumeᛋᛇ✦

[solarsthoughts]

i have no idea what i’m doing with this whole writing thing but i’m having fun doing it so i must be doing something right

[yumedesutrance]

Unexpectedly Academic Hypnokink

I was reading a rather intriguing post from a fellow hypnotist about how to make a trigger stay with someone. Or, what science would call operant conditioning.

The post explained several concepts in an extremely scientific way. Graphs included. You know the kind: axes, slopes, arrows.

And some people may not be entirely used to reading things like that. If you haven’t touched a mathematical slope since high school, seeing hypnosis explained through line graphs can feel… peculiar.

Basically, the question was: how do we make a trigger effective? How do we make it persist?

I’m not talking about teaching it. That’s a different discussion.

I’m talking about how something stops feeling like a conscious action and starts feeling automatic.

And that is where behaviorism enters the picture. Most people remember Pavlov. But this leans more toward Skinner and operant conditioning.

Pure training. Almost as though we were little dogs.

So while hypnosis does not always enjoy being reduced to behaviorism, some of these ideas can still help explain certain mechanisms.

Science, even for those of us surrounded by it, is difficult to explain. To understand something, you search for constants and variables. Science tries to quantify things, even when some things are difficult to quantify, such as the soul.

In this case, the constant would be the hypnosis or the trigger. That is the thing I do not want to change.

And the variables? The things that help maintain it. The things that fluctuate. Ratio and interval.

Fixed Interval: giving reinforcement at a fixed amount of time. It does not matter how many times the behavior happened in between; the reward arrives anyway.

So the subject has their scheduled hypnosis session. No matter what happens, it occurs.

Fixed Ratio: giving reinforcement after a certain number of correct responses. We only reward the subject once they have done what we asked several times.

The problem with fixed systems is that the mind learns the pattern. And when something becomes too predictable, it loses part of its magic.

Novelty disappears. Surprise erodes. Analytical minds stop responding in quite the same way.

When the subject already knows exactly when the reinforcement is coming, part of the absorption becomes administrative. Almost bureaucratic. “Oh yes, this is the part where the reward happens.”

But real hypnosis rarely functions like a laboratory lever.

Reinforcement is not always simply a reward. Sometimes it is attention. Sometimes it is absorption. Sometimes it is connection. Sometimes it is the momentary dissolution of the critical response.

And humans are far too complex to obey graphs perfectly.

There is always the exception. The standard deviation. The unexpected emotion.

It also matters how much the subject participates in the process. A person who knows they are being conditioned begins to metacognitively observe what is happening. And that conscious observation changes the experience itself.

Still, the post contained an interesting idea:

If you want a behavior to become automatic and persistent, variable systems tend to be more effective than completely predictable ones.

Though perhaps the most common mistake is not reinforcing too much.

But rather trying to move too quickly from constant connection to intermittent reinforcement before the response truly exists.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

[yumedesutrance]

Better models don’t always mean better explanations

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

Continuing with mnemonics — because apparently we can't resist the temptation to reduce everything to acronyms — another one appears:

CREAM.

Attributed to Wordweaver. A somewhat… fuzzy figure. Blog, Reddit, traces. Five years later, another idea. As if the model itself had mutated.

What does CREAM stand for?

C = Context R = Rapport E = Expectancy A = Absorption M = Motivation

At first glance, it's an improvement.

Where TEAM was human, CREAM starts to become operational. It introduces context. It introduces absorption. It begins to get dangerously close to something that looks like a mechanism.

Absorption

Here's the interesting piece.

It's not "imagine." It's not "think about something."

It's entering.

It's holding onto an experience until the peripheral stops mattering. Until the rest of the world becomes noise.

Psychology had already named this long before, with Auke Tellegen. But CREAM takes it and places it at the center of the process.

And that's no small thing.

What CREAM does well

Unlike TEAM, this is no longer just "the person wants to."

Now there are conditions:

a context that supports

an expectancy that guides

an absorption that deepens

This is starting to look like a system.

But only in appearance.

The problem

CREAM still has the same elegant flaw as many well-designed models:

it works… but it doesn't explain.

It says:

if you put C + R + E + A + M together → something happens

But it doesn't say how it happens.

No dynamics. No direction. No process.

It's a well-presented black box model.

The cracks start to show

Does absorption appear first, or is it a consequence of expectancy? Does context create rapport, or does rapport redefine context? Does motivation drive the process, or does it merely allow it?

The model doesn't answer.

Because it wasn't designed to answer.

It was designed to summarize.

And there lies the limit

CREAM is better than TEAM. But it's still a list.

A more sophisticated list. Closer to the phenomenon. But a list nonetheless.

So, what do we do with CREAM?

The same thing as before.

We don't discard it.

We push it a little further.

CREAM-X C = Context R = Rapport E = Expectancy A = Absorption M = Motivation X = eXecution

That last element is not decorative.

It's the attempt to answer the question that CREAM avoids:

at what point does something stop being intention… and start executing itself?

Because without that, every model of hypnosis remains incomplete.

And it begins to look more like a recipe than a process.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

© 2026 Yume.

[yumedesutrance]

Nothing here is simple — and pretending it is makes it worse

✦Note:Read at your own pace.If you’re tired or emotionally open, your mind may drift further than intended.Return gently.✦

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

There is nothing black or white here.

It’s never “all hypnotist.” It’s never “all subject.”

It always takes at least two to tango. Sometimes more.

This is not about blame.

If harm happened, harm happened. Learning later does not erase it. Responsibility after the fact does not rewrite the past.

The other person is other. You can’t change them. You can’t undo what they did.

What you can work with is what belongs to you.

That isn’t guilt. That’s agency — reclaimed, not denied.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

[yumedesutrance]

Hypnosis isn’t unscientific — it’s just not unified

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

Earlier I mentioned that I found it strange that I couldn't find scientists studying hypnosis, and finally I discovered that they did exist, but they weren't using the word itself. I still wonder if it's because it gained a bad reputation from Freud — he used it, then abandoned it for psychoanalysis, leaving it seen as something minor or dangerous — or perhaps it was from earlier. The point is that the phenomena that can occur in hypnosis are studied as separate things. So we have something very interesting.

Many people say hypnosis isn't scientific, that it's a feeling, a vibe, an art, like juggling passed down from generation to generation as oral tradition. And others of us have realized that while there is oral tradition — as there is even in medicine — there's a scientific part that some choose to ignore. Some people dismiss it entirely without distinguishing between serious uses and charlatanism. There's also tension between those who just want to use it (pragmatists like Erickson) and those who want to explain it (scientists).

There are two types of people, or maybe more, but let's simplify. Those who see the sky as blue and those who wonder why it's that color. Many hypnotists and subjects are looking at the sky but not asking why it's that color. What happens with hypnosis, unlike just contemplating or understanding the color of the sky, is that it involves phenomena that can change an individual's psyche. And so just looking at it falls a bit short. Which model would you marry?

There's an issue with science: there's no single unified idea about hypnosis. Basically there are three major schools of thought in hypnosis. And most humans, including scientists, choose a model that convinces us and inhabit it, discarding the others and defending our school of thought. Basically, we can't be orphans and have no ideas.

1- We don't know what it is but it works Except for our dear and respected Erickson. Don't get me wrong, Erickson is one of my favorite authors, I greatly respect him and wish I had even a third of his skill in working with hypnosis. But he never bothered to investigate what hypnosis was. Very pragmatic, a doctor. If it works, it works. Someone will discover how it works or not. It's like the soccer saying: winning team, unchanged team.

2- Hypnosis is dissociation This comes from the Ernest Hilgard school. It explains several hypnotic phenomena quite well. It's a complex and elegant theory. But it doesn't explain everything and falls apart when we ask what is normal, meaning what happens outside of dissociation.

3- Hypnosis is social interaction It talks about people, context, expectations. But it falls short. In its most reductionist sense, it equates everything to performance and role-play.

Spanos, who at times seemed to have a vendetta against Hilgard. His academic drive was to try to destroy what Hilgard had achieved at Stanford. 

4- I lied, there weren't three. Neuroscience It appeared more recently. It talks about brain networks, resonances, and functional studies, but doesn't fully explain everything.

Spiegel vs the rest ( fun fact he is from Stanford as well).

And you, which model do you go with? Or do you prefer, like me for now, to look at the sky without stopping to ask why it's blue?

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

[fellshish]

The devastating difference between how much time it takes to write something vs how fast people read it lol

[yumedesutrance]

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

Hours of writing. Seconds of reading.

[yumedesutrance]

Levels

There are different levels of call-out/response:

1. Conscious/played response The person hears the trigger and chooses to follow it as part of the experience. “Ok, they said the word, I’m going into it.” Here there is explicit cooperation.

2. Light conditioned response The word or stimulus genuinely facilitates a state. Like when someone hears: rain, ASMR, specific music, a therapist’s voice, and automatically slows down.

It’s not “mind control.” It’s learned association.

3. Strong automatic response Here you get that strange sensation of: “I responded before deciding.”

This can occur with: fractionation, repetition, frequent trance, high imaginative absorption, emotional charge, strong interpersonal bond.

The response can feel bodily: eyelid drop, exhalation, relaxation, blank mind, posture change, contextual obedience, reduced critical filtering.

4. Identity/symbolic response This level is the rarest and most interesting.

The trigger does not call an action. It calls a “mode of being.”

Example: a word activates “the hypnotic version,” a voice activates a relational dynamic, a nickname activates a mental character, a tone activates vulnerability, a symbol activates trance.

Here we enter: context-dependent states, self-state theory, functional parts, cognitive masks, personal egregores, psychological ritualization.

And honestly, this happens ALL THE TIME outside hypnosis.

Humans are full of call-outs: a boss’s tone, a hospital notification, the smell of a clinic, putting on scrubs, entering an operating room, hearing a specific song, reading a specific name.

Each one invokes a different mental configuration.

Hypnosis simply makes the mechanism visible and deliberate.

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

[yumedesutrance]

The worst part of modern research is that the authors are still alive

✦Wait… He’s Alive? A brief academic crisis ✦

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

I come from science.

So when someone cites an authority, my brain follows a very normal academic process.

Step 1: Who is this person?

Step 2: When did he die?

This is not disrespect.

This is standard procedure.

For example in medicine, most names attached to theories are… well.

Dead.

Pasteur. Alzheimer. Parkinson.

You see the name. You check the years. You check the discovery.

Maybe the Nobel Prize. Maybe the syndrome named after them.

Very normal.

So imagine my situation when I started reading modern hypnosis discussions.

Someone writes:

“According to James Tripp…”

My brain goes:

Wait.

Who?

Did I miss something?

How did I spend months reading about hypnosis and somehow skip a major figure?

So I do the responsible academic thing.

I look him up.

And then I discover something deeply inconvenient.

He’s alive.

Not “recently deceased.”

Not “historical figure.”

Alive.

Currently alive.

Possibly online.

Possibly reading Tumblr.

This creates a new and unexpected research problem.

Because criticizing dead scholars is easy.

They cannot appear in your notifications.

But criticizing living hypnotists?

Now that requires diplomacy.

Strategy.

Possibly disguise.

So for the moment, I will return to the safe territory.

Mesmer (dead). Braid (dead). Erickson (dead).

Very respectable gentlemen.

Very historically stable.

And if someone new appears in the literature…

I will simply follow the traditional academic protocol.

Step one:

Check if they are dead.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

[yumedesutrance]

Hypnosis models are shortcuts — not explanations

✦ Before you continue: This space is for observation, not operation. We are studying the architecture of the hypnotist✦

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

Hypnosis has been explained in many ways.

Some speak of dissociation. Others of social construction.

If you want to name names, you can invoke Ernest Hilgard or Theodore Barber.

But in clinical practice, something simpler happens:

all of that gets compressed.

It becomes acronyms. It becomes mnemonics. It becomes something that fits on a single slide.

Because in the end, no one teaches full theories when they have to induce a trance in real time. They teach shortcuts.

And that’s when the uncomfortable word appears:

heuristic.

A heuristic is not the truth. It’s what works well enough that you don’t have to stop and think too much.

It’s a quick map. A cropping. An “if I do this, that will probably happen.”

It’s not elegant. But it’s useful.

And that’s why so many exist.

TEAM. CREAM. EPIC. 3E. SEAM. C(REI) → C(S).

A little zoo of acronyms trying to domesticate something that clearly doesn’t want to be domesticated.

TEAM

Attributed to Daniel Araoz.

T = Trust E = Expectation A = Attitude M = Motivation

Simple. Clean. Functional.

TEAM survived because it does something very important: it pulls hypnosis out of the authoritarian space and places it on human ground.

Trust. Motivation. Relationship.

That’s no small thing.

Araoz organizes it, but the structure was already there, floating in the work of Milton Erickson. He already worked with the patient’s attitude, their readiness, their way of entering the experience.

TEAM doesn’t invent the content. It packages it.

And sometimes, that’s enough.

The problem

TEAM works… until you try to understand what’s really happening.

Because then the cracks appear.

“Attitude” is not a mechanism. It’s a label.

Trust… does it come before expectation, or does it produce it? Motivation… does it help if the person isn’t truly engaged? Who pushes whom within the model?

TEAM describes. But it doesn’t explain.

It’s soft.

Not in the sense of useless. In the sense that it offers no resistance when you start to press on it.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

© 2026 Yume.

[yumedesutrance]

Trust is not a safety system

✦Note:Read at your own pace.If you’re tired or emotionally open, your mind may drift further than intended.Return gently.✦

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

I want to respond to a circulating post about agency, consent, and hypnotic abuse — not to dismiss it, but to clarify a point where I fundamentally diverge.

Yes, abuse exists. Yes, hypnosis can be used coercively. Yes, telling survivors “you had agency” can slide into victim-blaming.

We agree there.

Where I pause is at the conclusion that what ultimately protects you is trust — and that hypnosis should therefore always be framed as consensual non-consent.

Here’s the uncomfortable question I can’t ignore:

Can you really trust someone enough to replace your own agency?

Sometimes, yes. Often, no. And the problem is that you usually only find out after something goes wrong.

Trust is not fake. But trust is not a safety system.

I want to be clear: I am not arguing against trust. I am arguing against treating trust as something that can safely replace your own mind.

Because the hard truth is this: you never fully know someone.

People divorce after decades of marriage. People act in ways they never imagined under stress, exhaustion, grief, fear, or sudden power. People cross lines in moments of emotional collapse, violence, desperation, or entitlement — sometimes to their own surprise.

This doesn’t mean everyone is secretly dangerous. It means humans are not static, predictable systems.

And this is where I become cautious about placing safety primarily in trust — especially when what is being entrusted is someone’s mind.

Many people discover too late that trust failed them: not because they were naïve, not because they “should have known better,” but because the moment that mattered revealed something no amount of prior intimacy had shown.

When agency has already been violated — through grooming, coercion, manipulation, or assault — the damage is not theoretical. It leaves people frozen at the point of “this wasn’t what I wanted — now what?”

In those moments, safety cannot depend on having trusted the right person. It has to depend on structures that still function when trust breaks.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

[yumedesutrance]

There’s no correct way to write when people already decided not to listen

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

The double standard problem. Some will say this is very reactive and that I'm a frustrated person, maybe. But look at the trap we've fallen into. Let's say I consider myself a content creator. I write about hypnosis and related things. I've created an ecosystem with different authorial voices. Ideas don't appear in a vacuum. They're built upon others: readings, conversations, influences, styles. You cite to acknowledge that. But also because you know you're never completely original. And then come the daggers, the criticisms.

If you write too little, you don't provide foundation.

If you write too much, they don't read it.

If you write like a scientist, it's boring and it's AI.

If you write in normal language, you lack rigor.

If you write in airy or induction-style language, you're trying to hypnotize us against our will.

If you cite, it looks like AI.

If you don't cite, it's plagiarism.

There's no winning. The problem isn't how you write. The problem is that the other person has already decided they're not going to listen. The reaction isn't just ignorance or bad practice. It's fear. Fear that:

the difference won't be noticeable

effort will stop being visible

identity will no longer be anchored to "doing"

Maybe the problem isn't plagiarism. Or AI. Or citations. It's that we no longer know how to recognize what is human.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

[yumedesutrance]

Responsibility is not the same as guilt

✦Note:Read at your own pace.If you’re tired or emotionally open, your mind may drift further than intended.Return gently.✦

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

This is not victim blaming.

Learning to protect yourself does not mean you caused the harm.

Responsibility is not fault. Responsibility is what you can change going forward.

If you are a hypnotist: learn. Refine your technique. Pay attention. Notice freezing, compliance, dissociation. Be responsible with the power you hold.

If you are a subject: learn. Know what affects you. Know your limits. Learn to care for and defend your mind the way some people care for their body — through awareness, training, and practice.

None of this guarantees safety. Nothing does.

But refusing to learn helps no one.

You can’t control what others do. You can control how prepared you are.

Both paths lead to the same verb:

learn.

Not because you were wrong. Not because you deserved harm. But because your mind is yours — and it’s worth protecting.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

[yumedesutrance]

Calling something “AI” is the fastest way to stop thinking about it

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

I'm going to be honest. I see a lot of anti-AI campaigning. It's like "use AI, burn them at the stake, unfollow we hate you." And I started thinking: to what extent do we value those who put in effort, and to what extent is it just maladjustment or rejection of the medium? Let me share my experience, and this gives away my age. My first computer was a Pentium II with Windows 95. Let's just say blue screens existed. We went from the first encyclopedia being Encarta on a DVD with not that much information. We went from looking at Wikipedia with suspicion to saying "what do you mean you didn't check Wikipedia? That's basic." I suppose the same happened when calculators started being used. First it was "how dare you use that? heresy" to "how can you not use that?" Mind you: the calculator won't give you the answer if you don't know what question to ask. And if it was set to radians and you needed degrees, everything went wrong.

You read articles claiming that works by Shakespeare, Mary Shelley, or Borges have been run through detectors and come back as 100 percent AI writing. The complaint is: "Didn't I see you do it?" Lazy. No one saw da Vinci draw the Vitruvian Man and we're sure he did it (I double-checked that he actually did it). But here on Tumblr, where we're not in an academic format, why does it make people so angry? I understand that high school and college students have problems because they're assigned written work so the student can learn or demonstrate their knowledge, and if an AI did it, well, they wouldn't be demonstrating anything. But isn't it that the system hasn't adapted? Why not ask them to expand on it, to do an oral presentation, a multiple-choice exam? There are several ways to know if someone writes well or if they're getting help.

If a student uses AI to avoid thinking. Yes, dishonest use exists. I don't deny it. But if they use it to expand their thinking (like using a calculator to solve a more complex problem), then the problem is with the assessment design. But no one criticizes checking sources on the internet, when back in the day, if you only searched online and didn't go to a library, you were considered lazy. It was a whole ritual. Leaving your house, spending hours searching through books to find a paragraph, maybe a page if you were lucky, and photocopying because you couldn't be bothered to write it out. Doesn't all of this invite a review of the method? Because if you see a well-written text with more than one verb tense or bullet points and say "that's AI," well... how do you think AI learned? AI learned from human texts. Written hypnosis has a particular quality, a musicality, a word choice, what we call pacing. So if it's written like that, did the current AI do it?

Let's go back to the beginning. Why does the accusation (whether unfounded or not) that your text or image is AI make you so angry on Tumblr? Because on Tumblr, text or image is identity, style is authentic and says "this is me." This is my nindo, my way. So if you're accused of having an AI do it, they're invalidating your identity. That's pretty harsh, to say the least.

I leave you with this reflection: Doesn't criticizing AI distance us from what's important? Don't we need to discuss ideas? If someone presents you with a text and your comment is "AI," communication stops, you never discuss what that text says. And so something valuable might be lost.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

[yumedesutrance]

Call-out

The concept of call-out/response in hypnosis is interesting because it sits right on the borderline between “conditioned response,” “automatism,” “role-play,” “light dissociation,” and “ritualized language.”

And it changes a lot depending on context: clinical hypnosis, recreational hypnosis, erotic hypnosis, street hypnosis, stage hypnosis, Tumblr brainrot hypnosis at 3 AM™, etc.

The basic idea would be something like this:

A call-out is a verbal signal, gesture, phrase, tone, or stimulus that “calls up” a specific previously associated response.

And the response is the automatic, semi-automatic, or impulsive execution of that association.

Simple example: “Sleep.”, a snap, “Good girl,” “Deep,” a countdown, an emoji, a song, a specific voice.

The interesting part is NOT the word itself. It’s: context, repetition, expectation, attentional state, emotional charge, and associative learning.

It’s basically: “when X appears → your mind enters Y.”

Very Pavlovian, but with cognitive layers on top.

In deep or highly trained hypnosis, the call-out/response can feel: involuntary, inevitable, “faster than thought,” or even as if the body/response “acts before you do.”

And that is fascinating because it shows something important:

Narrative consciousness arrives late.

Many human responses are: detection, automatic activation, and post-hoc interpretation.

The rational brain then invents continuity afterward.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

[yumedesutrance]

Hypnosis was never about the hypnotist alone

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

So let's return to the beginning.

Prestige.

That word that started everything.

It can mean merit. It can mean authority. It can mean fascination.

And it can also mean something far less noble:

illusion.

Maybe that’s why it appears so often in the history of hypnosis.

From Mesmer, who literally spoke of animal magnetism and conducted almost theatrical sessions…

to more modern approaches where trance is explained as a shared psychological process.

There has always been tension between two things:

the real experience

and

the way we present it.

The artist builds the stage. The explorer studies the phenomenon.

One needs presence. The other needs curiosity.

But both depend on something that is rarely mentioned enough:

the subject.

Because trance doesn’t occur in a vacuum.

It doesn’t happen just because someone has a deep voice or an impressive reputation.

It happens because another person chooses to participate.

Chooses to imagine. Chooses to follow instructions. Chooses to explore their own mind.

And maybe that’s the most interesting point of all.

If the hypnotist’s prestige depends so much on the subject’s expectations…

then hypnosis has always been, in a sense,

a collaboration.

Not a trick. Not a power.

But something simpler and stranger at the same time.

Two people using words to modify the experience of one of them.

Some may prefer the artist model. Others may prefer the explorer model.

And both probably have some truth to them.

But personally I still prefer something fairly simple:

A hypnotist who practices, a subject who doesn’t pretend, and enough curiosity between them to see what happens.

Without needing to pretend to be The Hypnotist.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

[yumedesutrance]

Maybe the question isn’t which one is right

Art or exploration?

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

So we return to the question that started all of this.

When we talk about hypnosis…

are we talking about stage art?

Or about shared psychological exploration?

Maybe the answer isn’t one or the other.

Maybe it depends on the context.

On the hypnotist. On the subject. And on what both expect to find when they begin playing with the mind.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦