Subconscious mental processing is organic, not mechanical. Therefore it changes in a positive way through growth. Growth needs direction and freedom, a combination that is only possible through (auto)suggestion.
is very, well…, concept-based. It is communication with clear and distinct concepts. That’s not bad in itself. In many domains, there is no direct need to go further. In ANY case, conceptual communication should be done with high quality: the ‘clear and distinct concepts’ should really be optimally clear and distinct.
We build positive science on top of conceptual communication. We develop technology such as this computer beneath my fingers. I would have a hard time bringing this text to you without technology and thousands of concepts needed for that.
In another kind of communication,
the conceptual is precisely NOT relevant. For this, I like the term ‘subconceptual’ because it highlights the fact that in our very own brain, the so-called ‘concepts’ that we work with and think with, are at each moment the end-products of a mental / brain processing that is in itself not concept-based but based on the cooperation of many elements (neurons, synapses…) on a level beneath concepts as well as above that of pure chemicals or simple mechanics. It is a level beneath (one could say ‘within) concepts. It is sub-conceptual. In [see: “About Concepts”], I describe how we actually never reach, in our head, a platonic ideal of ‘pure concepts’. We don’t function this way.
This shows that conceptual communication may in many instances not be the ideal kind of communication. If we nevertheless try to squeeze the subconceptual into ‘pure concepts’, we may lose the very essence. We may lose subtlety to a huge degree. We may lose warmth, poetry, deeper meanings, even the meaning of life because, eventually, there is no ‘meaning’ in pure concepts except, indeed, conceptual meaning [see: “Two Meanings of ‘Meaning’”]. The latter is what one may look up in a dictionary. By itself, this is motivationally inert. No one gets moved by a word (or sentence…) except if that word deeply means something to that person: one’s name, that of a beloved one…
Concepts can be inserted in a conceptual box. Like: a broken element can be taken out of a car and a new element can be inserted, which fixes the car. Or like: an arthritic knee can be taken out of a person and a new knee can be inserted, which might fix the person.
No conceptual box
Contrary to the previous, deep meaning cannot be inserted into a human being. It kind of ‘grows’ from inside (mainly: the subconscious). It’s just a very different procedure than the former, although both may overlap on fuzzy borders.
Let’s focus now on this ‘growing from inside’. The main point here is that it is the inside itself that – subconsciously, therefore – does the growing. One simply cannot ‘grow the inside’ as one, for instance, can ‘build a house’. It just isn’t possible. The mental inside is organic stuff, not mechanical stuff.
Nevertheless, while the growing goes on inside, one can do things to enhance it. One can touch, one can move, one can invite, in other words: one can ‘suggest’ to the inside: give it a direction and let it free to grow by itself. This is a very natural proceeding. To emphasize that even this ‘suggesting’ itself has an inner quality, I like to call it ‘autosuggestion’.
Pure autosuggestion, therefore, stands at the opposite end from purely conceptual communication. Of course, both may be applicable. Both may be applied. Both ARE applicable in the medical domain. Both SHOULD BE applied in that domain, as in many others. However, the one should not preclude the other. They each have their own use.
Unfortunately, humanity still needs to learn very much in all this, as a starters in how to manage individual human beings in sickness and in health.
And besides that, in so much more.