Return to Review

If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!

A Review
Boris Sidis' Book
Nervous Ills
Chapter XI: The Conditions and Laws of Suggestion
by Doug Renselle
Doug's Pre-review Commentary
Start of Review

Chapters I-XXI





Move to any Chapter of Boris Sidis' Nervous Ills,
or to beginning of its review via this set of links
says, "You are here!")

Chapter XI......The Conditions and Laws of Suggestion



(Most quotes verbatim Boris Sidis, some paraphrased.)

(Relevant to Pirsig, William James, William James Sidis, and
Quantonics Thinking Modes.)



In order to bring to the fore subconscious activities with their reflex, automatic psycho-motor reactions by removal of the upper consciousness I have found requisite, in my investigations, the following conditions:

(Our bold.)

Boris' thelogos for this chapter is 8.4%! That is an relatively large number: 74 occurrences of the out of 882 total words!

How could our subconscious have reflex, automatic psycho-motor reactions were it not for quantum flux? Without quantum flux, from whence "automatic reactions?"


Normal Suggestibility,Suggestibility in the Normal, Waking State.

  1. Fixation of the Attention.
  2. Distraction of the Attention.
  3. Monotony.
  4. Limitation of Voluntary Activity.
  5. Limitation of the Field of Consciousness.
  6. Inhibition.
  7. Immediate Execution of the Suggestion.

Abnormal Suggestibility,—Suggestibility in Hypnotic and Trance States:

  1. Fixation of the Attention.
  2. Monotony.
  3. Limitation of Voluntary Activity.
  4. Limitation of the Field of Consciousness.
  5. Inhibition.
82 4 The nature of abnormal suggestibility, the result of my investigations, is a disaggregation of consciousness, a cleavage of the mind, a cleft that may become ever deeper and wider, ending in a total disjunction of the waking, guiding, controlling guardian-consciousness from the automatic, reflex, subconscious consciousness. . . .

(Our bold violet, classical problematics.)

Boris' knife talk here is SOM's schism, its scission of reality into subject and object. Once done, SOMites wield said scalpel on all of reality at will. It is called 'analysis.'

Quantum reality issi n¤t analytical! It issi quantum c¤mplementary. Quantum comsciousness amd subcomsciousness aræ quantum c¤mplement(ing)s ¤f each ¤ther(ings), while(ings) they als¤ c¤mplement(ings) much ¤f all ¤ther(ings) quantum reality(ings).

Quantum reality issi anihmatæ, present participle, plural, EIMA reality pr¤cessings.

5 Normal suggestibility is of like nature,—it is a cleft in the mind. Only here the cleft is not so deep, not so lasting as in hypnosis or in the other subconscious trance states. The split is but momentary. The mental cleavage, or the psycho-physiological disaggregation of the superior from the inferior centers with their concomitant psychic activities is evanescent, fleeting, often disappearing at the moment of its appearance.

(Our bold, violet classical problematics.)

Here Boris admits his own SOMiticism!!! See our quantum stages.

Note his classical arrogance of imposing classical schismatics on Nature! UGH!!!


The following laws of suggestibility were formulated by me:

I. Normal suggestibility varies as indirect suggestion and inversely as direct suggestion.

II. Abnormal suggestibility varies as direct suggestion and inversely as indirect suggestion.

(Our bold, violet classical problematics.)


This, in our opinion, is blatant classical HyperBoole.

7 A comparison of the conditions of normal and aim normal suggestibility is valuable, since it reveals the nature of suggestibility, and discloses its fundamental law. An examination of the two sets of conditions shows that in abnormal suggestibility two conditions, distraction of attention and immediate execution are absent, otherwise the conditions are the same. This sameness of conditions clearly indicates the fact that both normal and abnormal suggestibility flow from some one common source, that they are of like nature, and due to similar causes.

(Our bold, violet classical problematics.)




Quantum reality offers n¤ sameness, n¤ identity. Quantum fractal s¤phist amd recursive self-similarity, yæs. Identity, n¤.

Quantum reality issi an acausal, ensehmble indeterminism, reigned by ensehmble stochastic umcærtainty.

To a classical mind like Boris' our quantum reality appears as an ensemble of non classicisms: paradice, dilemma, illusions, prevarications, equivocations, general non verities based upon classical objective predicable negation, nonsenses, irrationalisms, etc. To classicists (to SOMites) quantum thinkers are 'fools!' But their pots aræ black amd m¤stly ESQ.


8 Now a previous study led us to the conclusion that the nature of abnormal suggestibility is a disaggregation of consciousness, a slit produced in the mind, a crack that may become wider and deeper, ending in a total disjunction of the waking, guiding, controlling consciousness from the reflex consciousness. Normal suggestibility is of a like nature. It is a cleft in the mind. The cleft is not so deep, not so lasting as it is in hypnosis, or in the state of abnormal suggestibility. The split is but momentary, disappearing almost at the very moment of its appearance.

(Our bold, violet classical problematics.)





Quantum reality has n¤ stoppable classical 'state.'

To good, Boris' use of moment and momentary suggest an animate process reality, however classical his interpretations of those terms may be.

9 This fleeting, evanescent character of the split explains why suggestion in the normal state, why normal suggestibility requires immediate execution as one of its indispensable conditions. We must take the opportunity of the momentary ebb of the controlling consciousness and hastily plant our suggestion in the soil of reflex consciousness. We must watch for this favorable moment, not let it slip by, otherwise the suggestion is a failure. Furthermore, we must be careful to keep in abeyance, for the moment, the ever active waves of the controlling consciousness. We must find for them work in some other direction, we must divert, we must distract them. That is why normal suggestibility requires the additional conditions of distraction and immediate execution. For in the waking state the waking, controlling consciousness is always on its guard, and when enticed away, leaves its ground only for a moment.

(Our bold.)





And here we see an almost wholly quantum Boris Sidis!


10 In normal suggestibility the psychic split is but faint; the lesion, effected in the body consciousness, is superficial, transitory, fleeting. In abnormal suggestibility, on the contrary, the slit is deep and lasting,—it is a severe gash. In both cases, however, we have a removal, a dissociation of the waking from the subwaking, reflex consciousness, suggestion becoming effected only through the latter. For suggestibility is the attribute of the subwaking, reflex consciousness.

For one to adjudge a classical notion of suggestibility as either good or bad, as Boris does (appears to do) implies an underlying rational (classical) understanding of reality.

How does one classically assess good or bad suggestions?

A Catholic Inquisition might have omnifferent standards from a gay pride demonstration in 2003 in downtown LA.

We see why psychology is a soft science. It like anthropology has no hard objective metrics. (Nor does quantum science; only quantum 'mechanics' will claim that quantum reality has 'hard' metrics.)

In order for anyone to be totally, ideally, classically 'non' suggestible requires an individual disciplinary matrix so strong as to be ESQ itself. That kind of mind, in our view, cannot thrive in a plural, animate vastly heterogeneous and emerging hermeneutic quantum reality.

Our success in Quantonics depends enormously on our own nurturing of our own hermeneutic suggestibility possibility(ings).

Reserve energy makes suggestions to us countless tihmæs every day of our lives, 24x7x365xN!

SOM's box, SOMites ways of viewing reality, and SOM's loop all attempt to make us 'non' suggestible. "We have to be carefully taught..."

11 A comparison of the two laws discloses the same relation. The two laws are the reverse of each other, thus clearly indicating the presence of a controlling, inhibiting, conscious element in one case, and its absence in the other. In the normal state we must guard against the inhibitory, waking consciousness, and we have to make our suggestion as indirect as possible. In the abnormal state, on the contrary, no circumspection is needed; the controlling, inhibitory, waking consciousness is more or less absent. The subwaking, reflex consciousness is exposed to external stimuli, and our suggestions are therefore the more effective, the more direct we make them. "Contraria sunt complementa."
85 12 Suggestibility is a function of disaggregation of consciousness, a disaggregation in which the sub-waking, reflex consciousness enters into direct communication with the external world. The general law of suggestibility is:
13 Suggestibility varies as the amount of disaggregation, and inversely as the unification of consciousness. HyperBoole!
Return to Chapter Index

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
1950 East Greyhound Pass, Suite 18, #368
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730

©Quantonics, Inc., 2003-2009 Rev. 31Dec2007  PDR Created: 8Sep2003  PDR
(13Jan2006 rev - Adjust colors. Add 'Fools' anchor.)
(30Jan2007 rev - Adjust colors. Revise format.)
(31Dec2007 rev - Reformat slightly.)

Return to Review