|
I liked this part alot:
| quote: | | youīre completely wrong there. when you standardize a colour, then you are sure, all people who can see, do see some colour. if you standardize a state of hypnosis and say "this is hypnotic" and it does completely nothing to me, then every thing which does nothing to me has to be considered as hypnotic as well. That implies that if there are some new trance tracks that do nothing to me, they are hypnotic, so itīs absolutely okay they are called trance, cause trance has to be hypnotic |
YES! Standards do that! Hypnotic has a difinition, and if things that are hypnotic don't do anything for you, then at least you know that hypnotic is not what you are looking for! But there is a false dichotomy in this argument, there is a third option you are neglecting, which is that there are many things which are not hypnotic and may also do nothing for you.
I have to say, I love this friggin thread, all these different arguments over interperetation, quality, meaning, and shit I've written so much about in previous threads, it just makes me feel happy that other people are thinking about this same stuff even if they go way overboard and abuse it to protect thier egos(you know who you are). I kinda thought that everybody was sick of me writing shit like that but now I see lots of people going down these same topics, it just makes me feel a little better, like im not such a friggin weirdo.
There is one issue with creating a standard for what is hypnotising that we need to be aware of though. If you ask a real psychologist about hypnosis (not one of these weird quack religous people, but the kind of psychologist that actually conducts experiements and does verifiable research), they will tell you that hypnosis is not an objective fact, that people cannot be hypnotized unless they WANT TO BE hypnotized. I urge you all to look into this for yourself rather than blindly accepting my opinion. Scientists don't beleive there is a standard for hypnosis, even they beleive that hypnosis does not work without ENGAGEMENT. You can't define trance because you can't define what is entrancing because you can't define what is engaging! That's not to say there is no point in using the category or that the word trance is completely meaningless, just that engagement plays an important role in trance which cannot be ignored, so whatever standard you come up with, you have to qualify it with your opinions of what is engaging in order for it to make any sense.
|
