lucid dreaming milestone! oh this is good!

[slider]

### - ok here it is + am not really one for blowing me own trumpet that
much? but 4 weeks ago 'nearly' did it but no, only 4 out of 7, the best
yet... 3 weeks ago nearly did it again but again nooo: only 4 outta'
friggin' 7 again! almost did it last week again but fell over right on the
very last day! - 6 out of 7! (ffs d'oh!)

BUT HEY... i just woke up about an hour ago! (if ya can even call it being
asleep that is...)

and that's IT! - 7 days out of 7 on the trot lucid dreaming!! whoo-hoo!!!
a personal best!

beat that ya land-lubbers! :P

each session lasted for about an hour (some shorter some slightly longer)
and all were 'fully' lucid throughout!

and to all extents and purposes i was the very same person 'in the
dreams(s)' that i am right now in waking! (pinches himself to make sure,
am i awake? yep! am defo awake! hah:)

'fully lucid' dreams! all of them rock solid! no morphing or anything like
that + were completely devoid of other people altogether... (i
deliberately kept away from those levels because they're kinda harder to
maintain and i was going for the record)

how and why did this happen?? - simple! i didn't actually 'fall asleep' to
begin with!

they were all... WILDs! :)

incidentally, on the days where i missed (the other 3 outta' 7 i mean, and
the 1 out of 7 too) i only experienced semi-lucid dreams (DILDs) so they
don't count...

DILD'Os are weird man! they're like inadvertently finding yourself in
someone 'elses' dreams? and as such are on-going; complete with convoluted
plots, special effects and everything heh, weird! so who the heck writes
the scripts for them is what i wanna know - phantoms from the ID? the
subconscious mind? - i just find it hard to accept that it (the
subconscious mind or whatever) could write such fanciful + convoluted
plots and scripts when i don't even think like that!

with WILDs, ya tend to write the scripts yourself to a higher degree, ya
call them up (or intend them then whatever ya wanna call it) by holding
that image (a beach scene say) in your mind's eye IN the dream, and it's
like ya fall asleep and wake up again only now you're at the beach! (kewl:)

was tempted to report on this a while back (did mention it some) but
wasn't satisfied with WILDing only 3 days on the trot and wanted something
a little more controversial say - something like a 'whole week' of lucid
dreaming! (lol howZat!:)))

so what's next i wonder... EIGHT days on the trot??

may be! - watch this space! :P

[thang ornerythinchus]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:38:05 -0000, slider <sli...@nanashrams.net>
wrote:

Fuck you! My missus is home from the boons and loooooookin' goooood
:)

[allreadygone]

king of wake induced dreaming writes:


DILD'Os are weird man! they're like inadvertently finding yourself in
someone 'elses' dreams? and as such are on-going; complete with convoluted
plots, special effects and everything heh, weird! so who the heck writes
the scripts for them is what i wanna know - phantoms from the ID? the
subconscious mind? - i just find it hard to accept that it (the
subconscious mind or whatever) could write such fanciful + convoluted
plots and scripts when i don't even think like that!

yeah who writes this stuff? i wanna to know too.
that's my point, i don't think like that.
but whatever, it is way fun to get to that stuff.
she beats dreaming about old crap from 45 years ago
or something. I hate having 'old' dream memories.
A serious waste of time in dreaming. Now is where
it's at. The past is useless replay.

[B. Badenov]

"I find it hard to accept that the
subconscious mind or whatever could write such fanciful and convoluted
plots and scripts"

A hundred years ago van Eeden was puzzled by it and remarked that he would never be able to invent the intricacies of twigs and branches he perceived in the trees as he flew between them in a lucid dream.

It should not be too difficult to figure out why this happens.
Maybe the Denisovan in the group can explain it.

[slider]

### - heh no doubt it'll have something to do with: man-made global
warming tho'? heh (j/k:)

can only assume that the sub-mind has already taken-in all these intricate
details in the course of it's learning and can than regurgitate them in
novel scenarios, woven (possibly in order of importance and/or size of
storage area) from memory - that the way it (or rather: we) think is (or
must be) always in terms of a 3-dimensional field coz that's how it/we
remember 'and' store them: 3-dimensionally... like a hologram?

[slider]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:58:27 -0000, B. Badenov
<borisbla...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

The unconscious mind is by necessity much *larger* than
the conscious mind. Our brains have stored decades of memories.
And not just memories of realities - also fictions, dreams,
movies, songs, novels, etc., and fleeting impressions that
never quite made it into the window of "consciousness".
There are also entire functions of our being that usually
remain largely unconscious, and perhaps only occasionally
do certain 'facets' of those functions 'rise' and become
known to us consciously.

Since you're not directly perceiving reality using your senses
during dreaming, that means EVERY dream you ever had was a
'construction' of the brain, pulling from all stored resources.

Dreams can be just as detailed as reality, since the same
'machinery' that creates your real world perception in every
moment also creates your every dream, yet has also been
*unconstrained* by real perception flowing in directly, so it
is even more free to be 'creative'. Nor is the 'content'
limited by physical laws of the real world, so it's much
more like a 'virtual reality'.

Research so far indicates that dreaming "processes" our
real life experiences in several ways. It is still somewhat
mysterious. Part of it's about consolidating information.
Part of it's about processing emotions. Part of it's about
simulating or practicing reality. Part of it seems to be
abstract and about the deeper 'meanings' of life. There's
much more to be discovered.

Ordinary dreaming utilizes the *unconscious* aspects of mind
and processes information in sort of 'automatic' ways.
When you dream lucidly, you bring the conscious mind
into 'terrain' that is usually the province of the unconscious.
So it's a genuine experiential meeting between the conscious
and unconscious aspects of your own mind. In lucid dreaming,
the conscious aspects take over to some extent, but
nevertheless unconsciously generated aspects remain...

***

Slider, my opinion is still that WILD only seems different
to you because you're not that practiced with DILD.
To all intents and purposes I'm also very, very close to
being 'the same person' in an extended DILD that I am in
waking reality. That's been true for me for many years.
I'm not *exactly* the same mainly due to how aware I am
that I'm *not* subject to real world laws inside dreaming.
So that makes me behave differently, more... whimsically
for example.

There may also be tiny differences due to the "hangover" of rising
up out of a REM state to begin with (when going lucid in a DILD).
But once you maintain a stable lucid state for several minutes
or more, at that point I can't see any rational reason why the
two states would fundamentally differ.

Both WILD and DILD utilize both the conscious and unconscious
aspects of the mind. Even when you intend a specific dreaming
scene, the unconscious STILL plays a major role in constructing
that scene, and can still bring unexpected elements into play.
I have found that to be true in both WILD and DILD.

It sounds like you're getting really good at WILD! It's an
advantage to be able to repeat such experiences many times.
So ... now that you've done it so very many times,
what do you think you have learned from it? :)

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

Actually, I want to ask you a specific question.

When we dream lucidly, we usually experience the dream
scene in at least a somewhat similar way to how we
experience the real world, i.e. in coherent sequences
of actions. But ... there's no reason why this must
necessarily be the case.

I have at time s experienced 'the world' differently
inside dreaming. For example, in dreaming and in
lucid dreaming, I've been things like: a cartoon
character, a character inside a TV show, a "point
of awareness" floating in space (rather than having
a physical body), as an 'animal' who lives in a
different medium, such as in water instead of on land,
as a 'witness' to rapidly changing 'scenes' where
there's no longer a coherent moment-to-moment
continuity of experience, as a being who can travel
back and forth in 'time'. Those are just examples.

The point I'm getting at is that in lucid dreaming
there's no physical 'constraining' need to perceive
'the world' in the same manner one usually does in
the real world, i.e. as a moment-to-moment flow
of coherent sequences of actions. I think our
brain leads us to *usually* experience 'the world'
that way even in dreaming, simply because that's
how we're used to experiencing the world in reality.
But there's no necessary reason we *must* in dreams,
other than ... that's what our brain is used to.

Now my question for you:
Have you experienced 'the world' or 'time and space'
in radically different ways inside dreaming?

Follow up question:
Have you created radically different scenes
*intentionally*?

(My experience is that the radically different scenes
usually manifest from my unconscious, and I merely
remain lucid inside those scenes. I have not done
much experimentation with *intentionally creating*
'radically different modes of experience in dreaming'.)

[allreadygone]

i tell you that all of us are cutting our own trails here.
(in lucid dreaming that is)

who knows what we will discover ?

need some inspiration?

eh?

"break on through to the other side"

old Doors song, use it, it will get you movin'.

[slider]

Jeremy wrote...

### - imho... such weird things happen only in DILDs, probably because one
is nearly always less than fully lucid in them... in fact, ya can gauge
your own 'level/degree' of lucidity by just 'how bizarre' they are or
not...

less bizarre = more lucid

> Now my question for you:
> Have you experienced 'the world' or 'time and space'
> in radically different ways inside dreaming?

### - again, only in DILDO's heh, WILDs are almost completely stable by
comparison...

the 'only' thing that resembles what you're saying is a kind of 'mid-way
point' experience with WILDs, something that seems to a particular +
distinctive feature of them due to the high levels of lucidity always
obtained: a rather weird (but very interesting actually) place in
awareness, with WILDs, wherein one appears to be just a bodiless thought,
or something... (i hesitate to say 'spirit' because i don't know what that
is, but i guess that's kinda what it's like...)

> Follow up question:
> Have you created radically different scenes
> *intentionally*?
>
> (My experience is that the radically different scenes
> usually manifest from my unconscious, and I merely
> remain lucid inside those scenes. I have not done
> much experimentation with *intentionally creating*
> 'radically different modes of experience in dreaming'.)

### - would imagine that it's possible to create 'any' scene! although
just 'why' i'd ever wanna create a "radically different" (example please?)
scenario to experience i just don't know? (doesn't seem like a very
'lucid' thing to do, i mean? whatever for?? ya wanna shag a six-tittied
alien or summat or what? j/k:)

[thang ornerythinchus]

Cobba! I know this place is called "dreams" but I always thought it
meant a place for anti-scam survivors like Dave. Like "dreams" means
Castaneda's bullshit was always a dream. Nothing like reality or even
truth. I'm certain the founding member(s) here meant it in this way.

Now we got bullshit about how dreams are even more enjoyable than RL.
Like, really?? Hole shit, means you gonna lay in bed all day,
*that's* what it means - and dream. This NG as far as I know was not
intended for that purpose. Time to lock and load heh

[slider]

### - this is ridiculous thang hahaha :))) RIDICULOUS!

i mean, how the heck did you ever end up in adc never realising what it's
actually all about?? (or was 'supposed' to be all about before it imploded)

iow... it's really quite obvious that you 'haven't actually read' the
material involved, nor even understand what cc was actually all about?

coz no, it's a 'not' an anti-scam group, it only turned 'into' that after:
jeremy was booted from the 'inner cc circle' (heh) and cc kicked the
proverbial bucket!

that, up until that time, jeremy was an actively participating member who
gave it his all! (due credit to him actually in that he doesn't do things
by half, no matter how erroneously in the case of all these different +
failed cults he became involved in)

you should read it! read it all! it's actually quite interesting and
rather intelligent! ostensibly an alternate approach to life and living
that involves rescuing oneself from the trap of the daily world! which is
'exactly' what one has to ultimately do anyway... only perhaps just not
this (cc's) way...

it's nigh on 'impossible' to give you an abridged version of cc's
particular brand of dreaming that makes any real sense in the way that
'cc' intended it, so you've got to read the material! i.e., start right at
the beginning and read through just as though you'd only just naively
encountered the whole thing... and after that, read also the books his
fellow party-members (3 women, only 2 of which wrote about their
experiences with don juan) and then only after 'that' read all the 'other'
pissing & moaning books (hah) and 'supposedly' true accounts of people who
felt that they were all ripped off in some way and all the rest of it! heh
even including material from cc's ex-missus lol:)

and then at least you'll know wtf you're actually talking about!?!?

one of the best lines of cc's (and there's really quite a lot of them that
shine and that are noteworthy...) is perhaps this one:

"mankind is so dumb that if we wouldn't be 'tricked' then we just wouldn't
learn!" :)

(or words to that effect because i can't remember the exact quote
verbatim, but that is the essence of it)

that getting everyone's 'full + active participation' is one of 'the' most
diffi-cult things there is! ('because' we're so dumb! heh), and that the
'nagual julian' (whom cc often compared himself directly to) was the best
at getting both of 'em outta peeps!

consequently, every apprentice involved (in the stories i mean) had their
very 'own' + personal stories about how they were pulled/reeled 'into'
that world with and by the direct use of... artifice and trickery!

hence: "if we wouldn't be 'tricked' we just wouldn't learn!"

that, if i had to sum it all up in just a few words, then i'd have to call
it (cc's whole thing, i mean) a cult of the anti-cult! which, strictly
speaking, isn't really a cult then is it! (i.e. because it encourages:
individualism as opposed to membership)

'they' (cc's mob) might have all done things in 'hereditary groups' going
back over 27 generations - but everyone else was on their own and each
individual an individual case, who, once having an inkling of what it's
about, perforce had to look after + train themselves!

now then! (hah) coming back to today... 'lucid dreaming' played a big part
in it all and was key to the whole enterprise! - the 'alt.dreams' of
castaneda! - which 'he' (cc i mean) posited was a gateway to alternate but
real worlds! worlds as real as this one, worlds that you could live and
die in!

in 'modern' terms, however, 'lucid' dreaming, because one is 'awake' in
them, actually equates with an extension to one's day, particularly if you
could manage to do it 'every' day! (e.g., 16 hours of flogging yourself to
death working (heh) followed by a few extra hours in lucid dreaming.
something that effectively 'ups' the standard 16 hours of waking to 17,
18, or even more depending on just how good at it you can become at doing
it!)

i.e. why have ordinary random dreams if they could all be lucid ones
instead eh? big question huh...

so it's NOT about lying around all day sleeping and dreaming ya twerp!
(really laughing lol:) it's about adding an 'extension' to one's waking
experiences and day!

get it now?

(good)

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

It would seem you and I have yet another serious disagreement.
Big surprise. :)

Look, I intentionally gave some examples of weird scenes in
lucid dreaming I've been in over the decades just to get at a
certain question, but... I've also had hundreds and hundreds
of banal and 'stable' lucid dreaming experiences too. I have
done BOTH for decades. I also stated (factually) that my
'sense of self' inside lucid dreaming has long been highly
similar to my day-to-day waking 'sense of self', and that's
as "lucid as lucid gets". In my considerable experience,
there's not necessarily any difference in degree of lucidity
depending on how "bizarre" a dream scene is or isn't.
It ain't necessarily so... :)

Your theory is wrong, and I know it is wrong.

In fact, just by virtue of how you have drawn that
(erroneous) conclusion, I can now form my own theory
about exactly what YOU have done in lucid dreaming.
If you truly believe "less bizarre = more lucid",
then I know what one of your own major biases in LD is. :)

And I could tell you what it is, but I wonder if it
would be better to let you figure it out for yourself...

> > Now my question for you:
> > Have you experienced 'the world' or 'time and space'
> > in radically different ways inside dreaming?
>
> ### - again, only in DILDO's heh, WILDs are almost completely stable by
> comparison...

In your experience that's what has happened. :) Leave it to
you to concoct some belief going by your experiences alone
and then swear by it. Are you not yet aware how your own
beliefs, expectations, and biases create and color your
own lucid dreaming experiences?

Because that's one *essential* thing to know. I recently read
one of the best lucid dreaming books I've ever read, written
by the guy who was for years president of the International
Association for the Study of Dreams, Robert Waggoner.
He's also co-editor of the 'Lucid Dream Exchange' online.

Waggoner's one of the few people I've ever read who thinks
almost as logically about lucid dreaming as I do. Almost.
I could still write my own LD book on slight differences
between us, but essentially we see eye-to-eye on many issues.

Lucid Dreaming, Gateway to the Inner Self:
http://tinyurl.com/j262pcj

Waggoner, while taking a generally rational approach to LD,
sometimes loses it a bit by fooling himself into believing
he can perform 'supernatural'/religious feats in dreaming.
(I can usually see exactly how he fools himself too...)

I'll quote him a few times below on the main issue at hand.
But not enough to totally tip to you off on your own bias...

" 'As you believe, so shall it be' is a powerful truth
when lucid... In the lucid dream state, the senses
show themselves as the confirmers of expectation -
not infallible guides... and experience is largely
infused with

So your first clue is, your big theory about 'bizarreness'
is merely one of your own 'expectations', nothing more.

That's all I will tell you about it so far.
What I think you should ask yourself is:
WHY did you draw that conclusion? And...
WHAT could you miss out on by making that assumption?

Only one more clue, also a quote from Waggoner:

"In dreaming, one touches the unconscious... something that
extends beyond the waking self... the unconscious does not
merely reflect a 'psychic mirror world' of the conscious mind."

That is true not only in ordinary dreaming, but also...
in fully lucid dreaming as well. :)

That's your clue.
If you think I'm off base, feel free to say.
But I'm not. And I'm sure I'm not. :)

> the 'only' thing that resembles what you're saying is a kind of 'mid-way
> point' experience with WILDs, something that seems to a particular +
> distinctive feature of them due to the high levels of lucidity always
> obtained: a rather weird (but very interesting actually) place in
> awareness, with WILDs, wherein one appears to be just a bodiless thought,
> or something... (i hesitate to say 'spirit' because i don't know what that
> is, but i guess that's kinda what it's like...)

Like I said, I've been in such a place a few times.
But only a few times. 99% of the time I don't do LD that way.
It was only an example, getting at a specific point.

> > Follow up question:
> > Have you created radically different scenes
> > *intentionally*?
> >
> > (My experience is that the radically different scenes
> > usually manifest from my unconscious, and I merely
> > remain lucid inside those scenes. I have not done
> > much experimentation with *intentionally creating*
> > 'radically different modes of experience in dreaming'.)
>
> ### - would imagine that it's possible to create 'any' scene! although
> just 'why' i'd ever wanna create a "radically different" (example please?)
> scenario to experience i just don't know? (doesn't seem like a very
> 'lucid' thing to do, i mean? whatever for?? ya wanna shag a six-tittied
> alien or summat or what? j/k:)

No. I was asking a question that gets at the nature of
perception and experience inside the virtual reality of
lucid dreaming, where consciousness meets the unconscious.
It was an attempt to propose experiments in discovering
just how flexible such a dreaming 'reality' can really be.

Example off the top of my head. One of the many ways I learned
in which to consciously change dreaming scenes while lucid
is sort of like the characters in 'Dragon Ball Z' who can
just "blink" and instantly teleport themselves in space-time.
Now I have done that many times. A related experiment, which
I have not yet tried, is to repeatedly do that over and over,
like once every 5 seconds, for 5 minutes, just to see what
the effects are on consciousness of continuously disrupting
one's own 'reality'.

Another example off the top of my head might be to see if
one can intend 'the reversal of time's arrow' inside dreaming.
A principle physicists have been concerned with forever...
Would it be possible to concoct lucid dream scenarios that
mess with the very foundations of 'reality' inside dreaming?

I'm not just talking about flying or walking through walls
or on the ceiling. I've done those things many times.
I'm suggesting the conscious intention of 'radical' scenarios
significantly departing from our common experience of reality.

One might engage in such experiments out of pure
curiosity, or possibly... for increased self-knowledge.

It doesn't sound like you have either the aptitude for
or the interest in answering such abstract questions,
at least ... not for now, so ... fine. :)

But Slider, you didn't answer my question re: what
you think you've learned? Emphasis on *think* of course. :)

Thang's comment is just ... odd. He apparently does not
get dreaming at all. Nor does he realize what people
like me went through in the course of this long strange trip.
But that's not unusual. Pretty much no one really gets it.

In a way, I'm like you Slider. A perpetual stranger on
the earth. But I don't mind now. I'm having a blast with it.

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-8, Jeremy H. Denisovan wrote:

> " 'As you believe, so shall it be' is a powerful truth
> when lucid... In the lucid dream state, the senses
> show themselves as the confirmers of expectation -
> not infallible guides... and experience is largely
> infused with

Oops, I got brought some lunch and forgot to finish typing
this one quote. Sorry. :)

" 'As you believe, so shall it be' is a powerful truth
when lucid... In the lucid dream state, the senses
show themselves as the confirmers of expectation -
not infallible guides... and experience is largely

infused with mental expectation about the experience."

Doesn't change much.

Another important thing to know when consciously
confronting one's own unconscious mind (in LD) is:
"no sailor controls the sea". :)

[allreadygone]

can i get you two hot shots to read
this Sex Dreaming book i mentioned?

this is like reading shorty in 1968
all over again. there's some stuff
in this book that will definitely
blow your mind. Can't say it is for
real, i just don't know. BUT for
some strange reason the writer sez
shorty left out a whole bunch on sex.
Shorty not addressing sex? Mr. "Gotta
have that Pussy" himself not go into
Toltec details regarding sex? How can
this be? Shorty held out on us? That
little bastard. And to think i could have
had a rich and rewarding sex life and still
be a 'warrior'. Son of a bitch ! :)

[slider]

allreadygone wrote...

### - 'very' funny ahaha! :)))

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

I agree that it's funny...but also peculiar.
My bs radar's going off already. :)
What "sex dreaming book"??
You better not say it's Big Swifty...

[slider]

### - well that's ok... by thrashing it all out - 'objectively please' coz
anything less is just a sheer waste of time! - we may even arrive at novel
ideas and conclusions! (provisional, of course:) that we might not have
otherwise thought of without that examination! something i enjoy
immensely! :)

> Look, I intentionally gave some examples of weird scenes in
> lucid dreaming I've been in over the decades just to get at a
> certain question, but... I've also had hundreds and hundreds
> of banal and 'stable' lucid dreaming experiences too. I have
> done BOTH for decades. I also stated (factually) that my
> 'sense of self' inside lucid dreaming has long been highly
> similar to my day-to-day waking 'sense of self', and that's
> as "lucid as lucid gets". In my considerable experience,
> there's not necessarily any difference in degree of lucidity
> depending on how "bizarre" a dream scene is or isn't.
> It ain't necessarily so... :)
>
> Your theory is wrong, and I know it is wrong.

### - and you're totally allowed to think that! so, intelligently
argue/debate your specific points, in support of that, in a composed +
cogent manner (as will i if not 'assaulted' for having my 'own' ideas and
impressions of same) and then we'll see where it all goes and/or just what
stands up (or not) in the firing line under examination! and maybe we'll
'both' advance! (i really enjoy stuff like that, it's stimulating!)

> In fact, just by virtue of how you have drawn that
> (erroneous) conclusion, I can now form my own theory
> about exactly what YOU have done in lucid dreaming.
> If you truly believe "less bizarre = more lucid",
> then I know what one of your own major biases in LD is. :)
>
> And I could tell you what it is, but I wonder if it
> would be better to let you figure it out for yourself...

### - am relatively new to lucid dreaming, so am wide open to any current
impressions/observations of mine being potentially incorrect and/or biased
perhaps in favour of how i'd maybe 'like/prefer' it/things to be... thus
my interest in thrashing things out! and because 2 heads are always
definitely better than one when it comes to checking out/exploring unusual
material! (this isn't a competition to see who is personally the best or
anything! at least not as i'm concerned, am personally only interested in
advancing on what i already know)

>> > Now my question for you:
>> > Have you experienced 'the world' or 'time and space'
>> > in radically different ways inside dreaming?
>>
>> ### - again, only in DILDO's heh, WILDs are almost completely stable by
>> comparison...
>
> In your experience that's what has happened. :) Leave it to
> you to concoct some belief going by your experiences alone
> and then swear by it. Are you not yet aware how your own
> beliefs, expectations, and biases create and color your
> own lucid dreaming experiences?

### - am not 'swearing' on anything... am only reporting on what my
observations to-date 'appear' to conclude! plus am totally open to
updating on that because i WANNA KNOW what it all really is or isn't! so
convince me! but you'll never achieve that by merely belittling me, but by
arguing well! - there IS a difference!

> Because that's one *essential* thing to know. I recently read
> one of the best lucid dreaming books I've ever read, written
> by the guy who was for years president of the International
> Association for the Study of Dreams, Robert Waggoner.
> He's also co-editor of the 'Lucid Dream Exchange' online.
>
> Waggoner's one of the few people I've ever read who thinks
> almost as logically about lucid dreaming as I do. Almost.
> I could still write my own LD book on slight differences
> between us, but essentially we see eye-to-eye on many issues.
>
> Lucid Dreaming, Gateway to the Inner Self:
> http://tinyurl.com/j262pcj
>
> Waggoner, while taking a generally rational approach to LD,
> sometimes loses it a bit by fooling himself into believing
> he can perform 'supernatural'/religious feats in dreaming.
> (I can usually see exactly how he fools himself too...)
>
> I'll quote him a few times below on the main issue at hand.
> But not enough to totally tip to you off on your own bias...
>
> " 'As you believe, so shall it be' is a powerful truth
> when lucid... In the lucid dream state, the senses
> show themselves as the confirmers of expectation -
> not infallible guides... and experience is largely
> infused with
>
> So your first clue is, your big theory about 'bizarreness'
> is merely one of your own 'expectations', nothing more.

### - well that could well be so, no problem... the main difference
between us currently being one of 'approach' giving rise to different
'impressions' of what's actually occurring... for instance, am basically
describing things from an almost purely WILDs pov and the impression WILDs
give rise to... and you're doing basically the same albeit from a DILD pov
and the impressions 'they' give rise to - and that's fine! coz between the
pair of us we'll more likely arrive at the reality of the matter instead
of merely remaining stuck with our own impressions...

> That's all I will tell you about it so far.
> What I think you should ask yourself is:
> WHY did you draw that conclusion? And...
> WHAT could you miss out on by making that assumption?
>
> Only one more clue, also a quote from Waggoner:
>
> "In dreaming, one touches the unconscious... something that
> extends beyond the waking self... the unconscious does not
> merely reflect a 'psychic mirror world' of the conscious mind."
>
> That is true not only in ordinary dreaming, but also...
> in fully lucid dreaming as well. :)
>
> That's your clue.
> If you think I'm off base, feel free to say.
> But I'm not. And I'm sure I'm not. :)

### - i of course draw those conclusions from the experience itself and
nothing more, am an explorer making and taking notes the better to arrive
eventually at a perhaps more inclusive understanding of it all, as is
usually the case in most things... plus all i can really do in the
meantime is to act on current assumptions in order to test them! am not.
for example, starting out with any pre-conceived ideas or notions and then
perforce trying to make everything fit into and/or conform to them...

>> the 'only' thing that resembles what you're saying is a kind of 'mid-way
>> point' experience with WILDs, something that seems to a particular +
>> distinctive feature of them due to the high levels of lucidity always
>> obtained: a rather weird (but very interesting actually) place in
>> awareness, with WILDs, wherein one appears to be just a bodiless
>> thought,
>> or something... (i hesitate to say 'spirit' because i don't know what
>> that is, but i guess that's kinda what it's like...)
>
> Like I said, I've been in such a place a few times.
> But only a few times. 99% of the time I don't do LD that way.
> It was only an example, getting at a specific point.

### - well ok, but that's currently all i gots in terms of anything you
mentioned - that there at least 'appears' to be a particular place, in
WILDs, that is nether lucid dreaming nor being awake in bed, but is rather
an 'in-between' place where one is just a bodiless thought surrounded by
blackness... a point (in awareness then) where one can quite easily go
either way: into a lucid dreaming scenario or lying awake in bed... and
i've no idea what it is! only that it... is!

### - that at least makes for more interesting sense: 'testing' the
parameters of it all being something i can easily relate to... currently
though, am really only right at the beginning, and as such can really only
report on how things 'seem' to go from the WILDs pov because that's all i
know... there's been many DILDs too by now albeit never on purpose, but
they are so 'bizarre' by comparison (in one of them i even thought i must
have died because i could no longer feel/see my sleeping body lol, the
latter being a key feature of WILDs which is apparently absent from DILDs,
at least for me that is:) that am looking around thinking: wtf IS all
this! coupled with a distinct sensation of less control over the whole
thing! thus seemingly 'less' lucid!

> It doesn't sound like you have either the aptitude for
> or the interest in answering such abstract questions,
> at least ... not for now, so ... fine. :)

### - there's really no need to start condescending to me, coz am actually
'very interested' in such things! plus IF ya 'go-there' we'll just only
end up not discussing anything at all?

> But Slider, you didn't answer my question re: what
> you think you've learned? Emphasis on *think* of course. :)

### - what i 'appear' to be learning (if you'll let me put it that way,
and also just to take it all up a notch) overall, is that of a perhaps
'corresponding' lucidity to be found in waking! that in many ways our
unconscious random nutty dreams are perhaps merely reflecting a
corresponding + equally nutty waking awareness and vise versa! plus am not
asserting this as flat fact, merely making that 'observation' from my
experiences to date...

> Thang's comment is just ... odd. He apparently does not
> get dreaming at all. Nor does he realize what people
> like me went through in the course of this long strange trip.
> But that's not unusual. Pretty much no one really gets it.

### - that's correct... he doesn't get it and thus he can't relate...

but then there's actually quite a lot of things like that for thang, coz
unlike you and i, thang's actually a 'born' outsider! and that makes all
the difference! (iow: he'll pick up on things (or rather: thangs:) that
you and i prolly wouldn't even notice! and that's good!)

> In a way, I'm like you Slider. A perpetual stranger on
> the earth. But I don't mind now. I'm having a blast with it.

### - imho (AND experience) that's actually a really very good thing
jeremy! that instead of wasting any more time perhaps being resentful for
things that *didn't* (or couldn't) work out because they ultimately didn't
have any reality behind them; you've moved on from the 'disillusionment'
of such things, to dealing with + being a part of a much wider reality,
one that 'includes' all those idealistic-type dreams that are typical of
young men!

not everyone survives that horrendous process... intact!

intact enough, i mean, to still be able to enjoy 'anything' without being
all cynical and resentful and fucked up about everything!

ya made the grade! well done :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kPXw6YaCEY

[allreadygone]

there are a couple of tubes you can view at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12oysS3-hcU

these guys look weird at first, (i agree)

but hear 'em out. When you have some time take

a look and then follow the trail to where the

book is. Reserve your judgments until you review

all the data/details. Don't jump to a quick conclusion.

[slider]

### - well he certainly 'looks' the part anyway! :D

(grinz...)

[slider]

### - the 'stone of crying'?? (oh nooo...)

lol i think i can hear jeremy's dickhead-detector going-off full-pelt from
right across the pond!

"the stone of crying' wow...

i want one! how much??

sign me up!

plus 2 T-shirts of same! :)

when do the classes begin!

(lol poor old cc must be literally turning in his grave already!)

there, but for the grace of god, go i?

very good chris, excellent! :)

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

Dude, that was 35 minutes of my LIFE! :)
Alan Steinfeld again.

Well, I suppose it's a fun game to play - everybody get
nekkid in the dark and grope, and then all start tripping.
Why not? But...

You led me to believe this had something to do with
Castaneda, but this dude admits right in this video
that he just made this shit up himself.

And... man, no. Those people aren't going to 'other worlds'
unless perhaps to new heights of inanity and self-deception.

The main thing I got out of it all was Steinfeld's
interesting question, which ought to be asked of
all religious believers:

"What do we DO for eternity once we get there?"
LOL. A great question! And not a good answer at all...
Of course they can't answer, because it's pretend bs.

One more thing maybe worthwhile to point out is that
human self-importance IS probably the world's worst
problem. I agree. Yet what they for some reason never
notice is that their own hastily concocted and poorly
validated horseshit is itself only more of the same!

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 7:32:14 PM UTC-8, slider wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:15:01 -0000, Jeremy H. Denisovan

Just keep in mind that because of the encompassing tendency
for lucid dreaming to conform to your own expectations,
since it's basically your own private 'world', you have to
do some things to remain even remotely objective:

1) continually question your own expectations/assumptions

2) check out OTHER experienced lucid dreamers and similarly
continually question THEIR expectations/assumptions.

3) make sure to have *strong* evidence for any retained beliefs.

My personal experience is that I can maintain full lucidity
in either a banal stable LD OR in a weird, trippy one.
And logically, I can't see any reason why it would be otherwise,
since when fully lucid you KNOW a dream scene is...
just a dream scene. It doesn't really matter what it is.

I also know this is true for many other talented dreamers.

Unless... you are asserting that some dream scenes are...
more than just dream scenes. And if you are, that would
require seriously strong evidence to validate.

I don't know of any evidence from the sleep labs
that scientifically distinguishes WILD from DILD.

And logically, again, once you're fully lucid,
defined as maintaining for significant time a
similar degree of self-awareness and control over
moment-to-moment actions that you have in waking,
why would there be any difference? What could it be?

In WILD you enter the state without going to sleep first.
But either way you enter a state of self-aware dreaming.

> > That's all I will tell you about it so far.
> > What I think you should ask yourself is:
> > WHY did you draw that conclusion? And...
> > WHAT could you miss out on by making that assumption?
> >
> > Only one more clue, also a quote from Waggoner:
> >
> > "In dreaming, one touches the unconscious... something that
> > extends beyond the waking self... the unconscious does not
> > merely reflect a 'psychic mirror world' of the conscious mind."
> >
> > That is true not only in ordinary dreaming, but also...
> > in fully lucid dreaming as well. :)
> >
> > That's your clue.
> > If you think I'm off base, feel free to say.
> > But I'm not. And I'm sure I'm not. :)
>
> ### - i of course draw those conclusions from the experience itself and
> nothing more, am an explorer making and taking notes the better to arrive
> eventually at a perhaps more inclusive understanding of it all, as is
> usually the case in most things... plus all i can really do in the
> meantime is to act on current assumptions in order to test them! am not.
> for example, starting out with any pre-conceived ideas or notions and then
> perforce trying to make everything fit into and/or conform to them...

This is why I have read the accounts of many other lucid dreamers.
And why I talked at length with other talented dreamers I've known.
It's one way to challenge your own ideas. However, it's also quite
necessary to also challenge theirs.

> >> the 'only' thing that resembles what you're saying is a kind of 'mid-way
> >> point' experience with WILDs, something that seems to a particular +
> >> distinctive feature of them due to the high levels of lucidity always
> >> obtained: a rather weird (but very interesting actually) place in
> >> awareness, with WILDs, wherein one appears to be just a bodiless
> >> thought,
> >> or something... (i hesitate to say 'spirit' because i don't know what
> >> that is, but i guess that's kinda what it's like...)
> >
> > Like I said, I've been in such a place a few times.
> > But only a few times. 99% of the time I don't do LD that way.
> > It was only an example, getting at a specific point.
>
> ### - well ok, but that's currently all i gots in terms of anything you
> mentioned - that there at least 'appears' to be a particular place, in
> WILDs, that is nether lucid dreaming nor being awake in bed, but is rather
> an 'in-between' place where one is just a bodiless thought surrounded by
> blackness... a point (in awareness then) where one can quite easily go
> either way: into a lucid dreaming scenario or lying awake in bed... and
> i've no idea what it is! only that it... is!

Yeah, I have experienced something like that several times.
Sometimes from that point I've woken up in bed.
Sometimes I've entered another dreaming scene instead.
And sometimes from there I've had a false awakening.

I didn't mean to belittle you. You just seemed to be kind of
blowing off the idea.

> > But Slider, you didn't answer my question re: what
> > you think you've learned? Emphasis on *think* of course. :)
>
> ### - what i 'appear' to be learning (if you'll let me put it that way,
> and also just to take it all up a notch) overall, is that of a perhaps
> 'corresponding' lucidity to be found in waking! that in many ways our
> unconscious random nutty dreams are perhaps merely reflecting a
> corresponding + equally nutty waking awareness and vise versa! plus am not
> asserting this as flat fact, merely making that 'observation' from my
> experiences to date...

Okay, that's an interesting idea. And a common one in a way.
It's the idea that "mindfulness" is important. It can be
a significant idea both in waking and in dreaming, but
I'd say it's even more important in waking, where all
the consequences are real.

I don't know about "nutty", in waking awareness a lot of people
are sort of "continually on auto-pilot", rather than being
alert and cognizant of what is happening around them.

I've wondered from time to time if being especially "mindful"
in waking life could lead to becoming lucid inside dreaming.
But I'm not sure there's a direct correlation. It would be
kind of hard to validate.

> > Thang's comment is just ... odd. He apparently does not
> > get dreaming at all. Nor does he realize what people
> > like me went through in the course of this long strange trip.
> > But that's not unusual. Pretty much no one really gets it.
>
> ### - that's correct... he doesn't get it and thus he can't relate...
>
> but then there's actually quite a lot of things like that for thang, coz
> unlike you and i, thang's actually a 'born' outsider! and that makes all
> the difference! (iow: he'll pick up on things (or rather: thangs:) that
> you and i prolly wouldn't even notice! and that's good!)

Perhaps. But I doubt he could contribute much to this particular
discussion. We both have a great deal of intense experience
with LD, and he has almost none.

> > In a way, I'm like you Slider. A perpetual stranger on
> > the earth. But I don't mind now. I'm having a blast with it.
>
> ### - imho (AND experience) that's actually a really very good thing
> jeremy! that instead of wasting any more time perhaps being resentful for
> things that *didn't* (or couldn't) work out because they ultimately didn't
> have any reality behind them; you've moved on from the 'disillusionment'
> of such things, to dealing with + being a part of a much wider reality,
> one that 'includes' all those idealistic-type dreams that are typical of
> young men!
>
> not everyone survives that horrendous process... intact!
>
> intact enough, i mean, to still be able to enjoy 'anything' without being
> all cynical and resentful and fucked up about everything!
>
> ya made the grade! well done :)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kPXw6YaCEY

I'm at a point where I wouldn't even mind dying that much
(but only if I absolutely had to), because I feel like
I've already had far more than my 'fair share' of enjoyment
on this earth. And yet there's still more every day...

[allreadygone]

dave admits:

You led me to believe this had something to do with
Castaneda, but this dude admits right in this video
that he just made this shit up himself.

that guy in the video may have made stuff up, sure.
I'm not really interested in the long hair.
I was trying to get you interested in the book
Vega wrote. you should still read the book.
perhaps i should buy one for you. That way
you won't feel burned. Oh and your precious time,
geez, how many years did we piss away with CoS and CC's
steamy pile of a story? This is a drop in the bucket.
Come on now, where is your sense of adventure? :)

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

Come on now Chris, this is another person saying
he's a "Toltec". In my view, that's like waving
a huge red flag shouting "I'M A BULLSHITTER!" :)
I'm supposed to read THAT book? I'm sure it's
fun sex games and all and I know you like that,
but ... sheezus. Can't I just corral some peeps
in a dark room naked and show them all what a good
'seer' I am? :) What did YOU get out of the book?

You'd have to specify or quote something good
from it before I could consider it. Fess up puke. :)

[slider]

> where is your sense of adventure? :)

### - ah c'mon buddy don't take it so hard, jer was 'never' gonna go for
something like that, ever again!

not in this lifetime bud! probably not in his next several lifetimes!
(haha:)

one of my old mentors (my first) used to repeat endlessly to me to: always
do things the 'hard' way

why? coz the benefit of doing stuff the 'hard way' is that you really 'do'
learn!

and... you never forget 'what' you learned!

and jeremy will never forget! (he may forgive, but he'll never forget!:)

and is likely to bust out into a prickly sweat and come out swinging at
just the mere 'mention' of the word toltec!

imho, people (in this instance you) are allowed to look at and read
anything they want!

even try it on for size and fit should they so wish, there aren't any
rules...

and because for some peeps that's the only way to 'know' a thing... by
wearing it!

in fact i've had several girlfriends like that! (dey all seemed to fit at
the time but where are they now!:)

first one's name was 'mantis' or something? - she was always praying!

i shoulda' known! :)))

[slider]

### - no, i wasn't saying/suggesting that, although i wouldn't rule it out
either now that you mention it...

i.e., there's been some inexplicable experiences/encounters that 'could'
be something along those lines, and/or that possibly hints at it or
something like it, but wouldn't jump to that conclusion based on that
alone...

fact is that so far 'trippy' doesn't seem to have been a feature of the
WILDs i've been having, rather the opposite altogether actually and thus
the distinct impression when comparing them to the far fewer DILDs - that
are nearly always trippy to varying degrees - that lower degrees of full
lucidity are required to bring/allow bizarre stuff 'into' them (am not
asserting that's the case, only that it's a distinct impression compared
to the near absolute calmness of WILDs, where 'nothing' happens until you
make it so)

### - am pretty sure that WILDs and DILDs are really only the 2 sides of
the same coin - that both pertain to the same waking dream state... a
dream's a dream, right? - WILDS then being merely the 'polar opposite' of
DILDs and vise versa, 2 different (but opposing) ways to enter into what
is ostensibly the 'same' altered state of awareness...

the resulting experiences, however, being (at least initially) markedly
noticeably different for content (lol DILDs are like arriving in a
madhouse by comparison!) although i don't doubt for a moment that the
exact same place in awareness can eventually be reached from 'either'
entry point/pole... although just quite how such a place could be
identified and/or agreed upon beforehand exactly, i just don't know...

### - can't see any problem in that... as a 'newbie' to all this though,
all my 'expectations' (and there really were quite a few considering the
sheer amount of material and movies out there) all turned out to be
DILD-based! nothing of which at all prepared me for the way WILDs
typically play out! lol i didn't even know they 'were' WILDs until you
told me!

certain standard things apply for sure, like getting booted for the same
unbalanced mental and emotional behaviours if ya go too far... but the
initial stages of WILDs (there are other busier levels) are just like
walking around on an empty movie set, nothing even 'remotely' trippy or
bizarre in sight! plus, you're just as awake as you were only a moment ago
before it all started! exactly the same! but in a different scene now! a
virtual one...

>> >> the 'only' thing that resembles what you're saying is a kind of
>> 'mid-way
>> >> point' experience with WILDs, something that seems to a particular +
>> >> distinctive feature of them due to the high levels of lucidity always
>> >> obtained: a rather weird (but very interesting actually) place in
>> >> awareness, with WILDs, wherein one appears to be just a bodiless
>> >> thought,
>> >> or something... (i hesitate to say 'spirit' because i don't know what
>> >> that is, but i guess that's kinda what it's like...)
>> >
>> > Like I said, I've been in such a place a few times.
>> > But only a few times. 99% of the time I don't do LD that way.
>> > It was only an example, getting at a specific point.
>>
>> ### - well ok, but that's currently all i gots in terms of anything you
>> mentioned - that there at least 'appears' to be a particular place, in
>> WILDs, that is nether lucid dreaming nor being awake in bed, but is
>> rather
>> an 'in-between' place where one is just a bodiless thought surrounded by
>> blackness... a point (in awareness then) where one can quite easily go
>> either way: into a lucid dreaming scenario or lying awake in bed... and
>> i've no idea what it is! only that it... is!
>
> Yeah, I have experienced something like that several times.
> Sometimes from that point I've woken up in bed.
> Sometimes I've entered another dreaming scene instead.
> And sometimes from there I've had a false awakening.

### - well... and this is where it gets kinda weird? (not trippy just
weird:)

from that position (whatever it is), where you're just a thought or
whatever, it's somehow perceptually possible to then be in several
different places at the same time? i don't mean literally just
perceptually (or maybe it 'is' literally 'and' perceptually, hard to say)
- for instance, you can be in a LD, standing at that same bodiless point,
AND lying down in bed all at the same time! lol hence i thought i must
have died in tha DILD because all that was missing! (omg i must have died
and ended up here! - i felt genuinely sad for minute! lol)

### - well i wasn't... if anything, it's only that i probably lack the
appropriate reference points (for DILDs) to be able to relate to what your
saying? none of which seems to even 'apply' to WILDs, at least so far and
coz this is all new!

the few DILDs i 'have' experienced were just so 'bizarre' as to be
ridiculous! subjectively, it's like they're trying to suck the lucidity
right out of ya! and 'do' from ya even start to get involved! several
times i've suddenly returned to my senses only to then wonder in
astonishment at wtf i was just the hell doing?!?! - which, from that pov,
is like suddenly having 'less' lucidity for a few moments and then it
comes back to ya + it jars you that it happened!

>> > But Slider, you didn't answer my question re: what
>> > you think you've learned? Emphasis on *think* of course. :)
>>
>> ### - what i 'appear' to be learning (if you'll let me put it that way,
>> and also just to take it all up a notch) overall, is that of a perhaps
>> 'corresponding' lucidity to be found in waking! that in many ways our
>> unconscious random nutty dreams are perhaps merely reflecting a
>> corresponding + equally nutty waking awareness and vise versa! plus am
>> not
>> asserting this as flat fact, merely making that 'observation' from my
>> experiences to date...
>
> Okay, that's an interesting idea. And a common one in a way.
> It's the idea that "mindfulness" is important. It can be
> a significant idea both in waking and in dreaming, but
> I'd say it's even more important in waking, where all
> the consequences are real.
>
> I don't know about "nutty", in waking awareness a lot of people
> are sort of "continually on auto-pilot", rather than being
> alert and cognizant of what is happening around them.
>
> I've wondered from time to time if being especially "mindful"
> in waking life could lead to becoming lucid inside dreaming.
> But I'm not sure there's a direct correlation. It would be
> kind of hard to validate.

### - am not sure if it is either, BUT... i 'do' have a theory!

(s'ok, not a toltec in sight mate! lol :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM10y4XgTG0

>> > Thang's comment is just ... odd. He apparently does not
>> > get dreaming at all. Nor does he realize what people
>> > like me went through in the course of this long strange trip.
>> > But that's not unusual. Pretty much no one really gets it.
>>
>> ### - that's correct... he doesn't get it and thus he can't relate...
>>
>> but then there's actually quite a lot of things like that for thang, coz
>> unlike you and i, thang's actually a 'born' outsider! and that makes all
>> the difference! (iow: he'll pick up on things (or rather: thangs:) that
>> you and i prolly wouldn't even notice! and that's good!)
>
> Perhaps. But I doubt he could contribute much to this particular
> discussion. We both have a great deal of intense experience
> with LD, and he has almost none.

### - oh well, 'thangs' have been known to change?

(slider humming... 'thangs' ain't wot they's used to be!)

maybe he'll catch up one of these days... :)

>> > In a way, I'm like you Slider. A perpetual stranger on
>> > the earth. But I don't mind now. I'm having a blast with it.
>>
>> ### - imho (AND experience) that's actually a really very good thing
>> jeremy! that instead of wasting any more time perhaps being resentful
>> for
>> things that *didn't* (or couldn't) work out because they ultimately
>> didn't
>> have any reality behind them; you've moved on from the 'disillusionment'
>> of such things, to dealing with + being a part of a much wider reality,
>> one that 'includes' all those idealistic-type dreams that are typical of
>> young men!
>>
>> not everyone survives that horrendous process... intact!
>>
>> intact enough, i mean, to still be able to enjoy 'anything' without
>> being
>> all cynical and resentful and fucked up about everything!
>>
>> ya made the grade! well done :)
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kPXw6YaCEY
>
> I'm at a point where I wouldn't even mind dying that much
> (but only if I absolutely had to), because I feel like
> I've already had far more than my 'fair share' of enjoyment
> on this earth. And yet there's still more every day...

### - heh ah don't split just yet... in a recent DILD i walked into this
small cimema/theatre where people right at the front were all taking their
seats etc, whereon i went straight up to this young fresh-faced freckled
guy standing in front of the screen dressed like something straight out of
a 50's popcorn advert; little round hat, stripy cream shirt, blue pants,
black shoes and everything; and i was staring at him in amazement
wondering just what is he/she/it made of?!

and looking straight at me he says, polite as ya like, "please take your
seat sir; the show is just about to begin."

:)

[BBadenov]

In Dreams

No sailor controls the sea.
No sea is really a sea.
So whatever you see
Just like the sea
It's not sea you see.

Do You see?

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

I don't know. That's kind of confusing.

What the saying "no sailor controls the sea" means in the context
of lucid dreaming is that since the unconscious aspects of one's
mind are still in play even in "fully lucid" dreaming, it's not
possible to totally control *every* aspect of dreaming. You can
often make "general suggestions" re: the overall dreaming scene,
but there will always be unexpected aspects of the scene anyway.
You can intentionally "materialize" specific objects, people
or things within a dreaming scene, as long as you don't try
to control every minute detail of those items, or every detail
of the general scene itself.

You can to a large extent control your own actions in and
reactions to the dream scene. And you can partially control
certain aspects of the dream scene and elements within it.
But there will always be aspects of a dreaming scene that are...
unpredictable, and often surprising - sometimes things
you couldn't even imagine you could possibly imagine.
Those elements are supplied by the unconscious.

In my opinion, one of the most fun things to do in lucid
dreaming is to NOT be very controlling of dream scenes
or items, so as to let the unconscious have full reign,
or to even encourage it to further manifest. That tends
to bring up all kinds of interesting situations.

How to 'encourage it'? Other than just letting scenes
present as they will without controlling anything,
you can ask "open ended questions" (you're not really
asking anyone or anything in particular - you're asking
your own unconscious, which will act kind of like an
internal Ouija board.) Example: "show me something that
I really need to see right now." And then just watch
and see what unfolds. What you have control over when
fully lucid is the sharpness of your self-awareness,
observational powers, command over your own actions
and choice of exactly what your attention focuses on.
Another example: intentionally change the dreaming scene
WITHOUT holding in mind anything about what it is to be.
Again be aware and observant regarding whatever unfolds.

My experience is that I always gets just as much or
more from the unconscious aspects of dreaming as I
do from my conscious mind. I think this is even true
in fully lucid dreaming. It is obviously the case in
ordinary dreaming.

In ordinary dreaming, 'the sailor' isn't consciously
steering the boat at all. In fully lucid dreaming,
'the sailor' has quite a bit of control over his/her
'boat in relation to the sea', and sometimes even
a bit of control over the state of the sea itself
(the general nature of the dream scene), but not
ever complete control over the complete scene.

The sailor can control his/her own self-awareness,
mental presence, choice over personal actions and
what is attended to in the moment, and can even
create or project general suggestions related to
the content of dream imagery (the boat in relation
to the sea). Everything else is supplied or filled
in by the unconscious, which is 'the deep sea'.

In my opinion, Slider, you focus heavily on your
conscious mind and moment-to-moment awareness.
Thus, you control dreaming scenes to a much greater
extent than I usually prefer to do. My opinion is
that it's more interesting to give the unconscious
mind greater leeway and be more quizzical toward its
capacity for manifesting the unexpected.

When I was a CC true believer, I believed that
a significant aspect of the unconscious mind was
what CC called "the spirit". Now I don't think that
was a warranted interpretation or conclusion, and I
think it merely manifested that way in my dreaming
in accord with my strong beliefs in Castaneda at
that time.

Carl Jung believed in a "collective unconscious" -
I think mainly just because he couldn't imagine
how a merely personal unconscious could be so vast
and surprising and deep. I think he was wrong,
and that the personal unconscious IS vast and
surprising and deep. I do not think there's any
evidence at all of a "collective unconscious"
or of "the spirit".

Now there are genetic components that probably
contribute to the unconscious and the instincts
which probably carry all kinds of information
from previous generations of life on earth,
but again, this does *not* magically comprise
a collective repository of all human unconscious
minds on earth. I don't really know what all
the unconscious consists of, of course, but I'm
pretty sure it isn't that.

I understand why Jung thought so, because the
unconscious mind is indeed vast and impressive.
There may even be aspects of it that ARE shared
by large numbers of people (traits passed down
to groups of people who have common ancestors).
Clearly the general brain mechanisms generating
mammalian dreaming ARE shared between people.
It's just not the "collective mental imagery"
of all human "souls". It's not that. Or at least,
there's little evidence that it is, and to me
it doesn't seem at all likely.

But each person's personal unconscious is vital.
Neurology discovers more about it every day.
And as you inhabit the virtual reality of your own
personal creation that is dreaming, what could
possibly be more influential than your own current
personal belief system, and your own expectations -
i.e your wishes, fantasies, fears, and memories?
This is the stuff that dreams are made of.

Why would you not expect your dreams to conform to
your deepest beliefs, wishes, fantasies, and fears?
You should. It would be weird if they didn't. But...
to whatever degree they DON'T, that's the unconscious. :)

So WHY do people still just LOVE to believe that
in their dreams they might be able to talk to
angels or Gods or dead relatives, or see the future,
or psychically intuit the lottery numbers or something?

The real opportunity in dreaming is not to connect
with other minds, see the future, divine information
from afar, or travel to other worlds. It's not clear
that any of those things are even possible. The real
opportunity in dreaming is to gain a deeper knowledge
of everything you are. You can also use lucid dreaming
to practice anything you might want to do or be,
live out your wishes and fantasies, or confront
any of your fears. Or just use it for fun.

When you meet other 'people' in dreaming, they
are only the internal representation of themselves
in your mind. If you then ask, "why do they seem
to have volition of their own?" Ask yourself next,
doesn't your *expectation* of a person always INCLUDE
the ability to act with a mind of his/her own?
Of course it does. Your unconscious know that too.

If your EXPECTATION within dreaming somehow becomes -
instead of that natural one - the altered one that
"dream people have no volition of their own" it is
possible that dream people will start to appear bland
and without desires and incapable of surprising you.
However, it's equally possible that even if you do
start to expect that, your unconscious will STILL
provide the people in your dreams with what appears
to be volition, because unconsciously you are still
totally USED to people having volition, and used
to people sometimes acting utterly contrary to you.

Thus, notice that it's entirely possible even in
*fully lucid dreaming* for there to be a *conflict*
between the conscious expectations and unconscious
facets of your mind.

That fact makes dreaming ever-unpredictable.
And that's one reason "no sailor controls the sea".

In dreaming you're never going anywhere outside
yourself. There's no reason to believe there will
ever be any way to do that. Your dreams are created
by mechanisms internal to your own being. Just like
a possum's dreams are. Just like a cat's dreams are.

Would you suppose you could 'connect' with 'the soul'
of a mouse in lucid dreaming? Or perhaps to the
"collective unconscious" of all mice everywhere??
No? *Why* would a human be any different?

Similarly, there's no 'essence' or 'soul' that can
leave and go outside your body when you die.
You just die. The same as any worm or any ant or
any mouse dies. It's almost certainly that simple.

Do you suppose there's a cosmic "akashic records"
keeping track of the content and doings of trillions
of 'souls' of all monkeys, mice, sea slugs, bacteria,
minnows, jackals, pigs, spiders, etc.? Really??
Probably not, huh?

Why would humans be any different?
Our DNA isn't all that different...

Humans just love to believe in magical nonsense.
We LOVE it. It's one of the main things we do
with our over-sized brains. And we should stop.

[allreadygone]

yeah it's time to stop all that nonsense
and get real SERIOUS, hell yes, be serious.
like maybe do some bettin' on the upcoming
Superbowl. Bronco money or Panther money?

if you bet with me here is the deal.
IF you win, i buy you a Sex Dreaming book.
If you lose you buy yourself a book.
Either way you're gonna be reading this book.
We don't need to bet about money, no one here
needs another ten dollars to their name.
I guess i failed to motivate anyone in buying
this book or looking at this book.
I didn't want to become the offical book reviewer
in residence here. I'm too lazy to type all that
stuff. But I'm thinking of typing up the preface
for you all. This guy who wrote this book went
into great cunningness , so it should be looked
at.

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

I believe the Panthers are favored, and I hardly care
who wins it. I find Peyton Manning amusing sometimes.
So I'll take the Broncos. You?

[slider]

allreadygone wrote...

### - ahem, dunno if am even included in this or no; but cud' ya just let
me have the ten an' i'll take your word for the rest of it? (j/k:)))

heh if so: The Panther's it is - (the bronco's can... buck-off ;)

[allreadygone]

alright boys, you're on.

Jer takes Broncos,
Slides takes Panthers.

one of these bet i'm gonna win, lol!

[slider]

### - but what happens if there's a draw?

e.g., me and jer gots ten each...

and 'you' have to type out the whole friggin' book? (grinz)

[allreadygone]

ain't gonna be no stinkin' draw homes.

one of you boys is gonna lose.

got kindle? the book is $9.99 on Amazon Kindle.

i don't know who is gonna win the game.

either way i'm eatin' nachos damnit. :)

[slider]

### - haha funny - ok, but IF it's a draw you're gonna 'eat' that book! :)

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

What's funny is... I post a book by a former president

of the International Association for the Study of Dreams,

and Chris posts some new friggin' "Toltec dreaming" book,
and we only talk about that one. :)

[slider]

Jeremy wrote...

>> > ain't gonna be no stinkin' draw homes.
>> >
>> > one of you boys is gonna lose.
>> >
>> > got kindle? the book is $9.99 on Amazon Kindle.
>> >
>> > i don't know who is gonna win the game.
>> >
>> > either way i'm eatin' nachos damnit. :)
>>
>> ### - haha funny - ok, but IF it's a draw you're gonna 'eat' that
>> book! :)
>
> What's funny is... I post a book by a former president
> of the International Association for the Study of Dreams,
> and Chris posts some new friggin' "Toltec dreaming" book,
> and we only talk about that one. :)

### - achhh sooo... but then: *you're* book obviously doesn't have
anywhere near the same 'emotional incentives' as his one does?

i.e., lashings of kinky tantric sex & shagging! ahahaha! :)))))

[allreadygone]

At a chance meeting in a sidewalk cafe near the Mexican border, I found myself talking with a man and woman who revealed themselves to be sorcerers
from an ancient lineage. Once they were convinced of my integrity and
something they called omen alignment, they proposed writing a book
together that was of utmost importance to the balance of the entire human
species. I was intrigued by their serious inspiration to assist in
global transformation beyond commercial remittance. It was the evolutionary
information they were imparting that was their only priority. This book
provides the missing link to complete the teachings in the Toltec tradition,
imparted in comtemporary times by the author Carlos Castaneda. Any
reference to sexual conduct as a powerful tool in sorcery practices and as
part of the Toltec map had been excluded from his texts. This book is the
final key to recifiy this void in the Carlos Castaneda books.

Well there you go boys and girls, straight out of Sex Dreaming by Anthony
Flores Vega. This is part of the preface of the book. Interesting no?

[slider]

> Well there you go boys and girls, straight out of Sex Dreaming by
> Anthony Flores Vega. This is part of the preface of the book.
> Interesting no?

### - yes, i think i can already feel my 'upper lip' beginning to
stiffen? :)))

[slider]

Jeremy wrote some good things on lucid dreaming, among them:

> In my opinion, Slider, you focus heavily on your
> conscious mind and moment-to-moment awareness.
> Thus, you control dreaming scenes to a much greater
> extent than I usually prefer to do. My opinion is
> that it's more interesting to give the unconscious
> mind greater leeway and be more quizzical toward its
> capacity for manifesting the unexpected.

### - ok, but from my pov that kinda equates with arguing for having
'less' lucidity tho?

plus don't really know if it's just 'me' (i rather doubt that i mean)

or is such clarity 'more likely' just a facet of WILDs as opposed to DILDs?

Am having a hard job accounting for it anyway!

But think am maybe just about... getting there

We'll see ;)

[wildheart]

Why are men always so interested in sex? Yea, I know about testosterone and the unstoppable urge to procreate but it seems like such an obsession. Well Chris you have me interested and I'm going to read that book. And what is it with men and football? :) just kidding.

[thang ornerythinchus]

On Sun, 07 Feb 2016 03:06:28 -0000, slider <sli...@nanashrams.net>
wrote:

So this is what you do on your social security cheque mate - fucking
dream instead of looking to better yourself or invest in yourself. To
me that smacks of *loser*.

When was the last time you worked for a stipend Slider? 15 years ago,
20 perhaps? Last week I pulled in $1500 or thereabouts on an average
of around 4 hours a day for one client. I'm otherwise extraordinarily
busy working pro bono to defend a very good friend against government
collusion because that friend was proud to stand aloof when others
bent to the whip (excuse the metaphorical approach but I do not want
to be identified circumstantially - I value my anonymity). 5 of my
grandchildren just took leave - they were here today to swim and eat
and have fun, three boys two girls - and it was very noisy and
difficult to work (yes, I work on weekends).

In the good old days, when I was distant from the human race (or
thought I was) I was making around $7000/week minimum. To do that
though I had to divorce myself from the species and all that entails
and in time I came to my senses (it's hard not to when one is crashing
to the ground from a very high horse indeed). But I went from drug
selling drug taking psychedelic/psychotic youngster to "evident"
pillar of the community - but not really.

Now in my approaching dotage like every other old cunt here (yep,
you're all a bunch of old cunts, have a gander in the nearest mirror
for contemporaneous evidence) I have different views of all and my
time is taken with ensuring those views are arm's length and not
tainted by my increasingly age-compromised brain processes. It's not
philosophy it's coming to grips at long last with nature in all its
glory and all its indifference.

Its total indifference to us all, here populating certain parts of a
great ball of metal with a sheen of water and gas circling around a
standard GO orange main sequence star which isn't even in the main
corridor of stars in this standard run of the mill galaxy in a
standard cluster in the endless void.

One can only stand in awe at all this mindless reality. I certainly
am learning how to do this.

[wildheart]

Jeremy, I understand everything you are saying but there is more. Have you not dreamed with another person, a person you know in real life? Not talking about just remembering someone, e.g. my favorite Aunt died last year and I have had many dreams with her, some people's parents show up in dreams often. I'm talking about purposely meeting up with someone in LD and then doing things together. What about physical evidence from a dream that continues after you wake up? One example of my own experience - I wake up in dreaming to discover a large dark being trying to pull me by my legs off the bed. It's my bedroom in exact detail, I am fully aware of what's happening and start pushing myself backwards to try and stop "it" from dragging me off the bed. "It's" very strong, I become scared and start trying to kick. I break loose and immediately tell myself to wake up but at the last second "it" grabs at my leg again but I am now awake and I actually see a faint outline of the being and feel the pressure on my leg, awake. It was definitely not happy I got away. There was some light in the room so I looked down at my legs and the one it tried to grab at the last second had red marks on it. Also when I went to sleep I was covered by a sheet, the sheet was on the floor. This was the start of me learning about protecting myself in dreaming, which has come in handy many times since then.

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 7:07:09 PM UTC-8, slider wrote:
> Jeremy wrote some good things on lucid dreaming, among them:
>
> > In my opinion, Slider, you focus heavily on your
> > conscious mind and moment-to-moment awareness.
> > Thus, you control dreaming scenes to a much greater
> > extent than I usually prefer to do. My opinion is
> > that it's more interesting to give the unconscious
> > mind greater leeway and be more quizzical toward its
> > capacity for manifesting the unexpected.
>
> ### - ok, but from my pov that kinda equates with arguing for having
> 'less' lucidity tho?

Not at all. Lucidity involves maintaining full awareness
and carefully choosing how to behave at each moment inside
the dream scene. It has nothing to do with the content
of the dream scene itself, which can be literally anything.
The quality of my lucid self-awareness and conscious volition
is the same whether I'm flying like superman on Planet Yarg,
seeing weird psychedelic visions, or just taking a walk down
an ordinary street.

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 11:49:53 PM UTC-8, wildheart wrote:
> Jeremy, I understand everything you are saying but there is more. Have you not dreamed with another person, a person you know in real life? Not talking about just remembering someone, e.g. my favorite Aunt died last year and I have had many dreams with her, some people's parents show up in dreams often. I'm talking about purposely meeting up with someone in LD and then doing things together. What about physical evidence from a dream that continues after you wake up? One example of my own experience - I wake up in dreaming to discover a large dark being trying to pull me by my legs off the bed. It's my bedroom in exact detail, I am fully aware of what's happening and start pushing myself backwards to try and stop "it" from dragging me off the bed. "It's" very strong, I become scared and start trying to kick. I break loose and immediately tell myself to wake up but at the last second "it" grabs at my leg again but I am now awake and I actually see a faint outline of the being and feel the pressure on my leg, awake. It was definitely not happy I got away. There was some light in the room so I looked down at my legs and the one it tried to grab at the last second had red marks on it. Also when I went to sleep I was covered by a sheet, the sheet was on the floor. This was the start of me learning about protecting myself in dreaming, which has come in handy many times since then.

I've never seen convincing evidence of any real interaction
inside dreams or dream actions really affecting the real world.
I spent a lot of time trying to obtain such evidence, and
never succeeded. Of course people can dream with the images
of people they know, but those are not the real people involved.
No one is ever careful enough when attempting to validate such
experiences, and people commonly fool themselves with regard
to such matters.

I have had at least 40-50 lucid dreaming experiences that took
place in exact copies of my real-time environment. What I found
is that if you stay lucid long enough, eventually the dream
scene will change (or you'll really wake up). I've also had
dozens of false awakenings inside exact copies of my current
real-time environment. So you may not have really been awake
yet, when you thought you were.

Two other thoughts come to mind regarding your story. You may
simply have thrashed around in bed and made your own legs red.
Also, sometimes a person's own mind CAN create actual effects
on the physical body. That's called "psychosomatic".

The alternative is a real 'monster' was pulling on you?
Do you really believe that?? :)

[allreadygone]

ok the day of the big game. This Bud is for you
Ann Marie Carter, I got your big game right here
pally girl. What's wrong with watching the "Big Game"
anyways? Christ most of America is sitting on their
ass drinkin' beer and telling stories before the big
game begins. I try to avoid those Superbowl parties,
mostly because all the women want to do is talk about
nothing. They could care less about the game itself.
There's no place like home for watching the big game.
Hey hon bring another round of brew. :)

[slider]

### - i hear + understand what you're saying, only that's not my
experience to date which is almost exclusively from WILDing...

i.e., sounds to me like you're describing events during DILDs as opposed
to WILDs... plus, i have experienced enough DILDs by now to be able to
tell the difference, and the effects of either are consistently different!

in fact, i'd go as far as to say that WILDs are actually by far the
'easier' to get into! everything's smooth and uneventful...

DILDs, though, are like entering a madhouse by comparison!

(DILDo's are weird! :)))

[slider]

allreadygone wrote...

### - going for the 'draw' here boss!

i hope that book is tasty! :)))

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

Don't get me that book. I already got it, and already read it too. :)

Nice exit for Peyton.

[slider]

> Don't get me that book. I already got it, and already read it too. :)
>
> Nice exit for Peyton.

### - gee, have i really gotta read all this... crap? (grin:)

how about if i give 'you' the ten chris? (really laffing!:)

tsk, i can see it now, right up there on the shelf in good company along
with the likes of Ruby-Fruit Tuesday and the Memoirs of friggin' Popeye!
poor old henry miller, rimbaud, camus and sartre et al, all roughly shoved
out of the way further to the 'back' to make room for the... 'swingin'
tantic toltecs' of Cal inc. lol

not so much Art 'imitating Life' - or even Life 'imitating Art'; so much
as: shit imitating shit! LOL:)))

tsk, the things i get myself into sometimes... i dunno :)

[allreadygone]

get to ordering that book Slider.
You lost bigtime, i've never seen
a quarterback suck so bad in a game.
i was a quarterback in high school and
to see someone get sacked that many times
really hurts. I feel his pain. Well better
luck next year Panthers. And so long to Peyton.
He just played an 'ok' game, he has played better
but it was enough for the win. Nice to see Jer got
motivated and bought the book. i guess you get a 10%
discount on your next order Dave. I'll be headin' that way
around the 18th of this month. Going down to the OC for a week
or so. Halftime show was better than the game. Geez. what hype.

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

QB in high school, eh? Sweet.
At my rate of usage, my 'next order'
will probably be in around 2044.

Even though in several places it seems batshit crazy,
that book does warrant a few comments; you're right.
Ironically, I think there's a chance Slider will appreciate
it more than I do. For example, the author says he was friends
with Terence McKenna. I didn't like McKenna...

[allreadygone]

i just think it should be looked at.
As far as agreeing or disagreeing about
the content, it doesn't much matter.

as usual it's pointless to come to
a conclusion about anything. One needs
tons of evidence and data to really invaluate
something. I don't have the time to gather
all that crap, so no big need to come to a
final conclusion. I just thought it might
spark some serious inquiry into dreaming.
Nothing is final in the dream world. :)

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

That's actually the very first paragraph. Notice what
it does right off - totally aligns with Castaneda exactly.
On the first page of the book alone we find:

* At a chance meeting
* near the Mexican border
* sorcerers from an ancient lineage
* omen alignment
* proposed writing a book
* the Toltec tradition
* by the author Carlos Castaneda
* Change their names
* Not reveal their appearance or location
* benefactor nagual

The author even took the middle name 'Flores'.
Supposedly that was Genaro's name.

The main theme of the book is using sexual energy for dreaming -
an idea first directly stated by CC in 'The Fire From Within'.

Vega makes it clear from page one that he plans to use
virtually every one of Castaneda ideas, even claiming
to be associated with a lineage similar to Castaneda's.
He continually uses CC ideas throughout the entire book.

Folks, there were NO other "Toltec lineages" out there
until 2 or 3 decades AFTER Castaneda's works appeared.
Then lots of people took up that idea and ran with it.
This book is another great example of how Castaneda
laid a foundation for future con-artists to expand on.

Ultimately, Carlos laid foundation myths for a whole
new religion. Just like Joseph Smith did in the 1800s.
Just like L. Ron Hubbard did in the mid-1900s.

CC's platform of myth was custom-made for 'plugging in'
new chapters in the fictional saga of these fictional
Toltec lineages. And this Vega person has done a fine
job of adding just such a new chapter.

The cardinal rule of laying down imaginary mythologies
is to claim it came from some fairly mysterious 'culture'
about which little is known.

Carlos vaguely referenced 'Toltecs'. This author, Vega,
goes him one better. Vega claims all 'Toltec' materials
had their original source in "the Atlantean lineages".
That's right, boys and girls, all 'sorcery' lineages -
whether of ancient Mexico, Egypt, or Tibet - they all
originally began on the lost continent of Atlantis. :)

While the author of this book did a good job creatively
weaving in a new aspect of 'Toltec' knowledge, and the
book is not poorly written, neither is it well-written.
Whoever edited it did an extremely poor job, evidenced
by how I discovered well over a dozen errors in the text
just in the process of a quick casual reading.

But the main ideas in this book are indeed compatible
with the set of myths Carlos Castaneda laid down.

I will probably comment on the book at some length...

[allreadygone]

dave takes some of his precious time by saying:

> That's actually the very first paragraph. Notice what
> it does right off - totally aligns with Castaneda exactly.

Well of course, hooks all previous readers in right off the bat.

> On the first page of the book alone we find:

> * At a chance meeting
> * near the Mexican border
> * sorcerers from an ancient lineage
> * omen alignment
> * proposed writing a book
> * the Toltec tradition
> * by the author Carlos Castaneda
> * Change their names
> * Not reveal their appearance or location
> * benefactor nagual
>
> The author even took the middle name 'Flores'.
> Supposedly that was Genaro's name.

Not bad for a runaway dropout from Boyle Heights huh?
Even hung out at the Ashgrove up on Melrose in Hollyweird.
I thought you would get the "Flores" part, very good.

> The main theme of the book is using sexual energy for dreaming -
> an idea first directly stated by CC in 'The Fire From Within'.

Yeah but shorty goes vague (as usual) with that topic.
Who's the prude now? Charlie the catholic?

> Vega makes it clear from page one that he plans to use
> virtually every one of Castaneda ideas, even claiming
> to be associated with a lineage similar to Castaneda's.
> He continually uses CC ideas throughout the entire book.

> Folks, there were NO other "Toltec lineages" out there
> until 2 or 3 decades AFTER Castaneda's works appeared.
> Then lots of people took up that idea and ran with it.
> This book is another great example of how Castaneda
> laid a foundation for future con-artists to expand on.

Bingo! Give that man a free copy of Tensegrity ! ha ha

> Ultimately, Carlos laid foundation myths for a whole
> new religion. Just like Joseph Smith did in the 1800s.
> Just like L. Ron Hubbard did in the mid-1900s.

Meet the new age religion, same as the old age religion.

> CC's platform of myth was custom-made for 'plugging in'
> new chapters in the fictional saga of these fictional
> Toltec lineages. And this Vega person has done a fine
> job of adding just such a new chapter.

Yeah he' gone out of his way quite a bit here to hook
in readers with stuff he manufactured.

> The cardinal rule of laying down imaginary mythologies
> is to claim it came from some fairly mysterious 'culture'
> about which little is known.

> Carlos vaguely referenced 'Toltecs'. This author, Vega,
> goes him one better. Vega claims all 'Toltec' materials
> had their original source in "the Atlantean lineages".
> That's right, boys and girls, all 'sorcery' lineages -
> whether of ancient Mexico, Egypt, or Tibet - they all
> originally began on the lost continent of Atlantis. :)

Can't touch that can those old scientists? Fool-proof
once again.

> While the author of this book did a good job creatively
> weaving in a new aspect of 'Toltec' knowledge, and the
> book is not poorly written, neither is it well-written.
> Whoever edited it did an extremely poor job, evidenced
> by how I discovered well over a dozen errors in the text
> just in the process of a quick casual reading.

One of the funnyest word uses was waist for waste.
Sugguests a non-english editor eh?

> But the main ideas in this book are indeed compatible
> with the set of myths Carlos Castaneda laid down.

But the fact remains: bullshit with bullshit is still
bullshit. (nothing from nothing is still nuttin')

> I will probably comment on the book at some length...

please do, you can have some real fun with this one.
hey maybe non-pentration sex is the wave of the future.
Lots of dry-humping with serious blue balls, oh hell yes
sign me up. I'm 17 all over again lord. lol! :)

[slider]

> hey maybe non-pentration sex is the wave of the future.
> Lots of dry-humping with serious blue balls, oh hell yes
> sign me up. I'm 17 all over again lord. lol! :)

### - way ahead of ya pal!

my, ahem, current recommendation is already for: once per day and twice on
sundays?

new book: Get on the slider-diet! lol :)

[Jeremy H. Denisovan]

The author is big on Ignatius Donnelly, who wrote
'Atlantis: The Antidiluvian World' in 1882. Scholars
and scientists consider Donnely "a crank and
pseudoscience promoter" (note that Blavatsky,
Velikovsky, and many other later 'cranks' were also
influenced by Donnely). Vega is also big on Wilhelm Reich,
and he uses Reich's phrase "orgone energy" to refer to
sexually generated energy for dreaming.

Vega was a lab assistant to Terence McKenna in 1974,
working on mushroom research, and while high on
mushrooms he thought they started "telling him"
weird things "telepathically" about "trillions of years"
in the universe (which of course he totally believes).
Among the things the mushrooms told him, supposedly
"every separate species of plant, animal, and
microbiological life found their way to earth from
deep space". (That's obviously idiotic, since millions
of forms of life evolved HERE, and we KNOW this for a
fact from the examination of genetic trees.) He makes
other truly ridiculous claims such as that modern man
was "created on Atlantis" (and what, migrated from there
to Africa 80,000 years ago, somehow without leaving any
evidence at all of any great 'civilization' there??)

Vega also uses (i.e. steals) the following CC concepts:

* East, West, North, South directional women
* special references to "intensity"
* the assemblage point
* seeing energy as it flows
* not doing
* the totality of oneself
* the Eagle (and its emanations)
* the energy body and the luminous shell
* recapitulation
* power spots
* omens
* the glow of awareness
* the spirit (and 'grand gestures' for it)
* unbending intent
* 'Gates' as levels or obstacles
(but he uses the 4 'enemies' of CC's book one)
* a worthy adversary
* stopping the internal dialog and silent knowledge
* the will
* curtailing self-importance
* the usher
* the earth as a lasting true love
* a predatory universe
* flyers and inorganic beings
* humans being 'chickens in a cage'
* the wheel of time
* emotional 'revelations' vs. sobriety
* a 'warrior' as being at war with your own weaknesses
(vs. victim or oppressor modalities)
* an old man saying he's 300 years old,
and able to transform from young to old.
* 'right and wrong' vs. saving energy

I think Vega has one interesting idea.
He calls it "the one great love", and says that is...
the "love of awareness" (which imparts the ability
to experience intensity).

I DO have a love of awareness and intensity;
certain kinds that is - not every kind. :)

That's all I've written up for now...
I may post again regarding a few of Vega's
'Toltec' sex techniques, which are a bit creative,
allegedly designed in an *attempt* to solve a
'common problem' (not sure it could ever succeed).

The common problem his book *claims* to solve:
how to find the 'right' life and sex partners,
with an eye toward gaining energy for dreaming.
But of course the 'solutions' are ... dubious
to say the least.

[allreadygone]

dave reports:

> The common problem his book *claims* to solve:
> how to find the 'right' life and sex partners,
> with an eye toward gaining energy for dreaming.
> But of course the 'solutions' are ... dubious
> to say the least.

i find the non penetration idea a little interesting.
it does seem like just as soon as you bone someone
that there is some kind of connection. Even if it
is a quickie or one-night-stand, the connection
develops, even if you can't stand the other person.
most women enjoy/want the penetration. Show me
where these girls are who don't want to go all the
way 'and yet' would enjoy fooling around to enhance
their dreaming? i suppose there is nothing wrong
with doing that. Maybe my wife will go for it? lol!

[slider]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:40:46 -0000, allreadygone <cr...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> i find the non penetration idea a little interesting.
> it does seem like just as soon as you bone someone
> that there is some kind of connection.

### - lol, ya think??

> Even if it
> is a quickie or one-night-stand, the connection
> develops, even if you can't stand the other person.

### - wasn't like ya exactly just 'bumped' into someone in the supermarket
was it lol, oop's sorry babe!

it's bound to 'effect' (create) a relationship no?

> most women enjoy/want the penetration.

### - just like most guys wanna 'do it' too huh, i wonders why... :)

> Show me
> where these girls are who don't want to go all the way

### - lesbians?

> 'and yet' would enjoy fooling around to enhance
> their dreaming? i suppose there is nothing wrong
> with doing that.

### - foolin' around to 'enhance their dreaming'?? - riiight

well i've heard some pick-up lines in my time, but sheesh! :)))

> Maybe my wife will go for it? lol!

### - was just wondering if maybe thang's wife might go for it!

hey thang, am defo coming to oz! :)))