I have been enlightened...
DSR
Long ago I was once a member of this newsgroup. For the past couple of
years I have been studying the concept of alternate realities, dreams,
astral projection, lucidity, meditiation, psychics, psychic
abilities...I can go on for half a page, this is not the point of this
announcement. Since I last talked to this group I have gone into
deeper study. Deeper practices. I must've read atleast 10 books on
this since then. And I don't know if any of you remember me, but I
have come to a great conclusion lately.
Our Dreams Are Real.
Within my studies of the last five years I have recorded over 500
hundred dreams in my database. Dreams to me always felt so real to me,
so vivid as if they were really happening. I finally realized that our
dreams are not our imagination running wild, they are not memories,
they are not fake.
Our dreams are more than we think, but the reason why it
doesn't matter to most is that dreams are not important. And its
true...our dreams really aren't all that important to regular people.
Except for us. When I first started this journey many years ago, I
felt like many of you that our dreams are nothing more than a memory
being re-inacted in my mind.
First let's get a few things straight...
1. we all know that when we dream that our astral bodies are hovering
about 6 inches above, correct?
2. We can become lucid by doing certain things such as developing
habit to realize such, waking up at certain times, correct?
3. Becoming lucid means that we have gained conciousness in our dream,
correct?
I have gathered a few things from these perceptions. I feel that when
we dream we are ineffect retracing our steps.
Picture this..we are all connected in this universe to a divine cosmic
reality. This reality is split into countless planes of conciousness,
countless planes of reality if you must. Let's say that today
something happens where a set of reactions makes you feel angry at one
point, and sad at another. When you goto sleep tonight, you will dream
those same reactions in an alternate reality, in an alternate life.
The dimensions of time are only threefold, while the dimensions of
life are possibly millions more.
What we witness and feel today we will feel again tonight, and the
same will happen tomorrow and the next day. In your dream you might
look different but you feel its still you, and in places you've never
been before, but you recognize parts of them. In a non-lucid dream we
feel we are just watching a movie in a sense. Well that's because we
are watching fate. When we do become lucid, we can change fate, but
only so much.
Ironically we are all learning the same lessons a thousand times over
during the course of one day. Do you understand me guys?
Everyone of us is simotanously living a thousand lives at the same
time.
Anyways, I have babbled enough, if you feel I am wrong on anything,
please reply.
Sweet Dreams,
DSR
DreamWave
is subjective and actually we're all living them all at once? And lucid
dreams connect these realities?
>1. we all know that when we dream that our astral bodies are hovering
>about 6 inches above, correct?
How can we know it? How can we be certain?
>Our Dreams Are Real.
In which meaning? Does this mean that reality is absolutely subjective,
since you can modify reality as you will?
>Picture this..we are all connected in this universe to a divine cosmic
>reality. This reality is split into countless planes of conciousness,
>countless planes of reality if you must. Let's say that today
>something happens where a set of reactions makes you feel angry at one
>point, and sad at another. When you goto sleep tonight, you will dream
>those same reactions in an alternate reality, in an alternate life.
>The dimensions of time are only threefold, while the dimensions of
>life are possibly millions more.
Countless meaning infinite? This starts to sound like theoretical quantum
physics... all of the possibilities share the same space and time, but still
being different?
What do you mean with "dimensions of time being treefold"?
>What we witness and feel today we will feel again tonight, and the
>same will happen tomorrow and the next day. In your dream you might
>look different but you feel its still you, and in places you've never
>been before, but you recognize parts of them. In a non-lucid dream we
>feel we are just watching a movie in a sense. Well that's because we
>are watching fate. When we do become lucid, we can change fate, but
>only so much.
But if we can't wake up in one of the alternate realities, isn't this just
speculation?
George Ziniewicz
I have read that, but have no experience of it.
I agree except where noted. Dreams have been used by many as a
proving ground, for past or upcoming lessons.
zin
> Sweet Dreams,
> DSR
--
For PC & Mac 3-D graphics shareware: http://www.zintel.com
ciotóg
>Our Dreams Are Real.
>
>Within my studies of the last five years I have recorded over 500
>hundred dreams in my database. Dreams to me always felt so real to me,
>so vivid as if they were really happening. I finally realized that our
>dreams are not our imagination running wild, they are not memories,
>they are not fake.
Have they always been this real to you? I've never had a dream that
came close to rivalling the vividness wakefulness. I'm not spiritually
empty (as some might think from what I've written in this NG), so the
only conclusion I can come to is that dreams aren't "real".
They may be real to you because you experience them differently than I
do, but just because you believe they're real doesn't mean that you're
correct in your belief.
I should take this opportunity to explain that I'm not trying to shake
your belief because I think you're wrong (same to you, George) - if in
fact you're right and I'm wrong then anything I do to question your
beliefs will only make them stronger. If it makes them weaker then
they weren't true enough to begin with. I hope that's the impression
that's gotten through with my criticisms.
--
Chris Craig (ciotóg)
http://www.ciotog.net
http://ciotog.gemm.com
http://www.mp3.com/stations/ciotog
George Ziniewicz
>
> public class DSR extends UsenetDiscussion {
>
> >Our Dreams Are Real.
> >
> >Within my studies of the last five years I have recorded over 500
> >hundred dreams in my database.
Wow, 50,000!! (*>*)
>> Dreams to me always felt so real to me,
> >so vivid as if they were really happening. I finally realized that our
> >dreams are not our imagination running wild, they are not memories,
> >they are not fake.
>
> Have they always been this real to you? I've never had a dream that
> came close to rivalling the vividness wakefulness. I'm not spiritually
> empty (as some might think from what I've written in this NG), so the
> only conclusion I can come to is that dreams aren't "real".
I have had many many dreams that rival reality, and many many LD that
equal or exceed reality (superconsciousness). All reality is "local"
and real, and since everything is in flux, perhaps a major difference
between dreams and reality is a matter of degree.
> They may be real to you because you experience them differently than I
> do, but just because you believe they're real doesn't mean that you're
> correct in your belief.
>
> I should take this opportunity to explain that I'm not trying to shake
> your belief because I think you're wrong (same to you, George)
Shake me! I would not have my new "beliefs" if I still had my old
ones. But I usually say I believe in very little, but I do know a few
things. Buddha's logic teachings have helped me get right with
"belief".
> - if in
> fact you're right and I'm wrong then anything I do to question your
> beliefs will only make them stronger. If it makes them weaker then
> they weren't true enough to begin with. I hope that's the impression
> that's gotten through with my criticisms.
Criticisms are a form of debate.
zin
DSR
wrote:
>Sounds like a lot of philopsophy... so you're mainly suggesting that reality
>is subjective and actually we're all living them all at once? And lucid
>dreams connect these realities?
>
hmmm.....no. :)
I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm only reflecting on what I've read and
expierenced. Lucid dreams can, CAN connect these realities, but there
are many ways. I wasn't saying lucid dreams connect these realites, I
was saying that when we sleep our mind and astral bodies drift. When
we dream we are dreaming from an alternate reality that is happening
at that time. I feel this is how our mind teaches us lessons through
dreams.
>>1. we all know that when we dream that our astral bodies are hovering
>>about 6 inches above, correct?
>
>How can we know it? How can we be certain?
I shouldn't have said all. From what I have expierenced and what I
hear others have as well, and books I've read, It does 'seem' to be
true, because I have been concious in this position a few times, and
been able to look down and see my body.
>>Our Dreams Are Real.
>
>In which meaning? Does this mean that reality is absolutely subjective,
>since you can modify reality as you will?
In the sense that our dreams are real in different realities. Our
dreams don't have to matter to us because some are too busy. I could
be wrong because This has only come to me within the last week or so,
and it is not fully developed.
>>Picture this..we are all connected in this universe to a divine cosmic
>>reality. This reality is split into countless planes of conciousness,
>>countless planes of reality if you must. Let's say that today
>>something happens where a set of reactions makes you feel angry at one
>>point, and sad at another. When you goto sleep tonight, you will dream
>>those same reactions in an alternate reality, in an alternate life.
>>The dimensions of time are only threefold, while the dimensions of
>>life are possibly millions more.
>
>Countless meaning infinite? This starts to sound like theoretical quantum
>physics... all of the possibilities share the same space and time, but still
>being different?
>What do you mean with "dimensions of time being treefold"?
Infinite, possibly, I don't know because no-one has developed a method
to count each reality. Yes I know it sounds like quantum physics, it
does borrow from it.
I wrote threefold. What I meant was, Time only exists as present past
or future.
>>What we witness and feel today we will feel again tonight, and the
>>same will happen tomorrow and the next day. In your dream you might
>>look different but you feel its still you, and in places you've never
>>been before, but you recognize parts of them. In a non-lucid dream we
>>feel we are just watching a movie in a sense. Well that's because we
>>are watching fate. When we do become lucid, we can change fate, but
>>only so much.
>
>But if we can't wake up in one of the alternate realities, isn't this just
>speculation?
>
We can. That is what I feel a lucid dream is. Walking up in an
alternate reality. Now what we do when inside that body and reality
can be as many things as we like.
Oh and I never said the rules of physics and gravity apply to every
reality. They don't have to. So if you can fly in one of your lucid
dreams, then everyobdy in that reality can too. If you want the
scenery to change such as wishing to go somewhere, you might be
warping yourself into another reality where we are at that point.
What essentially I mean is that when we become lucid, it becomes our
game. At that point we can do anything. But when we usually dream, our
minds are just connects us to another life of ours in another realm.
Sweet Dreams,
DSR
DSR
(ciotóg) wrote:
>public class DSR extends UsenetDiscussion {
>
>>Our Dreams Are Real.
>>
>>Within my studies of the last five years I have recorded over 500
>>hundred dreams in my database. Dreams to me always felt so real to me,
>>so vivid as if they were really happening. I finally realized that our
>>dreams are not our imagination running wild, they are not memories,
>>they are not fake.
>
>Have they always been this real to you? I've never had a dream that
>came close to rivalling the vividness wakefulness. I'm not spiritually
>empty (as some might think from what I've written in this NG), so the
>only conclusion I can come to is that dreams aren't "real".
Yes and no. Dreams are so freaky sometimes that it is hard to
understand them. But if you can relate them to a problem in your life,
then that's the key.
>They may be real to you because you experience them differently than I
>do, but just because you believe they're real doesn't mean that you're
>correct in your belief.
Yes, I understand, I know I could be completely wrong, but this is
what I feel is right. That's is why I enjoy these discussions because
we can hold our own opinions.
>I should take this opportunity to explain that I'm not trying to shake
>your belief because I think you're wrong (same to you, George) - if in
>fact you're right and I'm wrong then anything I do to question your
>beliefs will only make them stronger. If it makes them weaker then
>they weren't true enough to begin with. I hope that's the impression
>that's gotten through with my criticisms.
That's what its all about. I know I haven't come back here in the
longest of times, and I haven't seem anyone from the past that I
recognize, but I wanted to see what this NG thought of my new idea.
This only popped into my head last week, so feel free to criticize.
Sweet Dreams,
DSR
Robert Vincent Walker-Smith
<snip>
>Dreams to me always felt so real to me,
>so vivid as if they were really happening.
(8-9 hours/night).
>I finally realized that our
>dreams are not our imagination running wild, they are not memories,
>they are not fake.
hearing it.
>1. we all know that when we dream that our astral bodies are hovering
>about 6 inches above, correct?
Not correct. We do not all know this. Many of us have had no experience that
suggests such a thing.
>Picture this..we are all connected in this universe to a divine cosmic
>reality.
I happen to believe this also; however, I consider it an article of faith,
rather than an objective fact.
Thank you for contributing to the ongoing discussion.
Robert
DSR
Walker-Smith) wrote:
>DSR wrote:
><snip>
>>Dreams to me always felt so real to me,
>>so vivid as if they were really happening.
>I have dreams like that also - especially when I've been getting adequate sleep
>(8-9 hours/night).
Well, necessarily yes, but I meant by the methods to which we become
more aware of our dreaming patterns. Such as doing a dream diary, I
said I had a pretty large one and the fact that I've recorded so many
has made the reality of my dreams very solid. Its been shown, and I
believe others will agree with me, that once we begin any of the
techniques to strengthen our ability of dreaming such as the many
given out in this group, our dreaming can get more vivid and more
powerful.
>>I finally realized that our
>>dreams are not our imagination running wild, they are not memories,
>>they are not fake.
>If you have any empirical evidence of this, I would be very interested in
>hearing it.
well have you read any books? I know that many think that mystic books
written on these subjects are very subjective and have no hard
evidence of proof, at least not for dreams. But for astral projection
there's the Monroe Institute which Robert Monroe has built. That place
gives these kinds of tests every day.
>>1. we all know that when we dream that our astral bodies are hovering
>>about 6 inches above, correct?
>
>Not correct. We do not all know this. Many of us have had no experience that
>suggests such a thing.
Ok. I shouldn't have said all. From the readings I have acquired at
least 5 different books cross reference this opnion. I'm not saying
its true documented fact, but I am not making it up either.
>>Picture this..we are all connected in this universe to a divine cosmic
>>reality.
>I happen to believe this also; however, I consider it an article of faith,
>rather than an objective fact.
We all do. That's why its called Theory. Many of us I would feel the
same way, which isn't bad, we would just rather see it before we
believe it fully.
>Thank you for contributing to the ongoing discussion.
Anytime.
Sweet Dreams,
DSR
ciotóg
>(ciotóg) wrote:
>
>>Have they always been this real to you? I've never had a dream that
>>came close to rivalling the vividness wakefulness. I'm not spiritually
>>empty (as some might think from what I've written in this NG), so the
>>only conclusion I can come to is that dreams aren't "real".
>
>Yes and no. Dreams are so freaky sometimes that it is hard to
>understand them. But if you can relate them to a problem in your life,
>then that's the key.
I prefer to think of dreams as escapes from reality - I don't want
real problems and concerns interrupting the fantasy! :)
Just having this avenue for escape is good enough to help cope with
the real stuff, for me. And my real problems aren't terribly bad
relative to others, so I really can't complain too much.
ciotóg
> I have had many many dreams that rival reality, and many many LD that
>equal or exceed reality (superconsciousness). All reality is "local"
>and real, and since everything is in flux, perhaps a major difference
>between dreams and reality is a matter of degree.
I'd say the difference between the perception of dreams and reality is
a matter of degree. My perception of reality is so vivid and concrete
that nothing could rival it - but other people seem not to see the
glaring truths.
For example, when trying to teach a new flatmate how to properly wash
dishes so that they aren't covered with some slimy film it often takes
many tries before I get them to even see the film.
> Criticisms are a form of debate.
It takes 2 to debate, but only 1 to criticise. That's why it relies on
both parties to see the criticisms as part of the debate.
Doc
them wherever I go?
{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
Our Dreams Are Real. }}
Oh, shit - I'm going to jail then... [¦-D] I've done a lot of property
damage...
I agree that they're real, to the degree that a novel is real, or a painting
is real. They are an expression of something that is real, but they aren't
real the same way that this delightful cup of green tea (with honey) I may
or may not be drinking is... Mmmm... Oh, excuse me...
{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
Within my studies of the last five years I have recorded over 500 hundred
dreams in my database. Dreams to me always felt so real to me, so vivid as
if they were really happening. I finally realized that our dreams are not
our imagination running wild, they are not memories, they are not fake. Our
dreams are more than we think, but the reason why it doesn't matter to most
is that dreams are not important. And its true...our dreams really aren't
all that important to regular people. Except for us. When I first started
this journey many years ago, I felt like many of you that our dreams are
nothing more than a memory being re-inacted in my mind. }}
While I do agree that there are more to dreams than meets the eye, I have a
hard time with the idea that they're as important as waking life. I think
that they're a sort of sanctuary within, a place where we resolve internal
issues; waking life is where we resolve external issues. In the current
state of human evolution, there are still more external (biological) issues
than there are internal (psycho-spiritual) issues, collectively speaking, of
course.
{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
1. we all know that when we dream that our astral bodies are hovering about
6 inches above, correct? }}
I haven't seen any proof of that, and in fact, the concept of an "astral
body" seems a bit oxymoronic to me - I think that it is a metaphor which
illustrates the idea that human consciousness can exist outside of flesh,
outside of the brain, and when in that condition, it is free from biological
or spatial constraints.
{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
2. We can become lucid by doing certain things such as developing habit to
realize such, waking up at certain times, correct? }}
Yes.
{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
3. Becoming lucid means that we have gained conciousness in our dream,
correct? }}
Well - a dream is just one of many states of consciousness, but I understand
what you are saying.
{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
I have gathered a few things from these perceptions. I feel that when we
dream we are ineffect retracing our steps. }}
I'd say it's more of an integrative function that a reflexive one. We put
everything together in this little packet, we solve the puzzle, and then we
move on to the next one.
{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
Picture this..we are all connected in this universe to a divine cosmic
reality. This reality is split into countless planes of conciousness,
countless planes of reality if you must. }}
The Bardo.
{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
Let's say that today something happens where a set of reactions makes you
feel angry at one point, and sad at another. When you goto sleep tonight,
you will dream those same reactions in an alternate reality, in an alternate
life. The dimensions of time are only threefold, while the dimensions of
life are possibly millions more. }}
I think it's a mistake to underestimate the complexity of time. Space is
much simpler, IMO.
{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
What we witness and feel today we will feel again tonight, and the same will
happen tomorrow and the next day. In your dream you might look different but
you feel its still you, and in places you've never been before, but you
recognize parts of them. In a non-lucid dream we feel we are just watching a
movie in a sense. Well that's because we are watching fate. When we do
become lucid, we can change fate, but only so much. }}
This begins to hint at a lot of "Matrix" type themes - the idea that we can
extend lucid dreaming to "lucid living" is a very ancient one in fact; the
Buddhists speak of "Maya," or the great illusion. This is much like the
dream that we all are experiencing collectively, and when we become lucid,
when we awaken from Samsara, when Neo dodges bullets and bends the spoon
just because he realizes that he CAN, and when we figure out a way to author
our own existence, we're moving on to something much more significant,
although discussing what that is is beyond the realm of this discussion.
Perhaps in order to awaken from this collective dream that we call reality,
we all need to awaken together...
Cheers,
-- Doc
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Doc
well have you read any books? I know that many think that mystic books
written on these subjects are very subjective and have no hard evidence of
proof, at least not for dreams. But for astral projection there's the Monroe
Institute which Robert Monroe has built. That place gives these kinds of
tests every day. }}
I'm a big fan of Monroe actually, and his take is more that NONE of what we
experience day-to-day is really real. He's more into OOBE than LD, anyway...
It's nice to know that somebody else out there reads Monroe, though - what
did you think of _Far Journeys_, particularly the Loosh Rote?
DSR
wrote:
>{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
>well have you read any books? I know that many think that mystic books
>written on these subjects are very subjective and have no hard evidence of
>proof, at least not for dreams. But for astral projection there's the Monroe
>Institute which Robert Monroe has built. That place gives these kinds of
>tests every day. }}
>
>I'm a big fan of Monroe actually, and his take is more that NONE of what we
>experience day-to-day is really real. He's more into OOBE than LD, anyway...
True. Monroe was only one of the authors I like, other include William
Buhlman, and such. I also have read some of LaBerge's books, which are
more on LDs.
>It's nice to know that somebody else out there reads Monroe, though - what
>did you think of _Far Journeys_, particularly the Loosh Rote?
Personally, very deep. When I first began reading this stuff years
ago, it was a mind trip, and it still is...I really did like Buhlman's
book, Adventures Beyond the Body, that blew my mind completly.
Sweet Dreams,
DSR
DSR
wrote:
>Don't get me wrong here - I love philosophers, but why is it that I run into
>them wherever I go?
Well....I dunno if you are directly asking me that question or if its
a header. but nethertheless, maybe its not that you are running into
them, maybe you are being guided.
>{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
>Our Dreams Are Real. }}
>
>Oh, shit - I'm going to jail then... [Ś-D] I've done a lot of property
>damage...
Yeah, I've done a lot of strange things in my dreams, things I woudn't
even consider in the real world.:)
>I agree that they're real, to the degree that a novel is real, or a painting
>is real. They are an expression of something that is real, but they aren't
>real the same way that this delightful cup of green tea (with honey) I may
>or may not be drinking is... Mmmm... Oh, excuse me...
In a sense yes. Our drems do not directly affect us, we don't have to
learn from them, we can totally ignore them if we like.
>While I do agree that there are more to dreams than meets the eye, I have a
>hard time with the idea that they're as important as waking life. I think
>that they're a sort of sanctuary within, a place where we resolve internal
>issues; waking life is where we resolve external issues. In the current
>state of human evolution, there are still more external (biological) issues
>than there are internal (psycho-spiritual) issues, collectively speaking, of
>course.
you're right. Its hard to picture a person that is dealing with all
outside issues of the world, to begin dealing with new plateaus of
unexplored regions of the mind especially since none of the outside
world focuses on any of this information. Its like learning world
history, we don't need to know that europe was once ruled a certian
way by a certian king. its not essential to many peoples' way of life.
>
>
>{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
>1. we all know that when we dream that our astral bodies are hovering about
>6 inches above, correct? }}
>
>I haven't seen any proof of that, and in fact, the concept of an "astral
>body" seems a bit oxymoronic to me - I think that it is a metaphor which
>illustrates the idea that human consciousness can exist outside of flesh,
>outside of the brain, and when in that condition, it is free from biological
>or spatial constraints.
yes but to use the terminology correctly, we call it an astral body,
even though it is more of a formless entity.
>
>{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
>2. We can become lucid by doing certain things such as developing habit to
>realize such, waking up at certain times, correct? }}
>
>Yes.
>
>
>{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
>3. Becoming lucid means that we have gained conciousness in our dream,
>correct? }}
>
>Well - a dream is just one of many states of consciousness, but I understand
>what you are saying.
>
>
>
>{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
>I have gathered a few things from these perceptions. I feel that when we
>dream we are ineffect retracing our steps. }}
>
>I'd say it's more of an integrative function that a reflexive one. We put
>everything together in this little packet, we solve the puzzle, and then we
>move on to the next one.
>
Right. It can be understood as simple as that, and as complex as a
dream being some life that we are not currently, consciously, living.
I sense that you enjoy having things simple in your mind, I do pretty
much as well, until I begin having revelations. Like I said in my
ending statement of my last message, I could be wrong, but this is
what I feel.
>
>{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
>Picture this..we are all connected in this universe to a divine cosmic
>reality. This reality is split into countless planes of conciousness,
>countless planes of reality if you must. }}
>
>The Bardo.
Could you explain what that means?
>{{ DSR <nat...@hotmail.com> }
>Let's say that today something happens where a set of reactions makes you
>feel angry at one point, and sad at another. When you goto sleep tonight,
>you will dream those same reactions in an alternate reality, in an alternate
>life. The dimensions of time are only threefold, while the dimensions of
>life are possibly millions more. }}
>
>I think it's a mistake to underestimate the complexity of time. Space is
>much simpler, IMO.
I did not mean to mislead in the direction of underestimation. THe
concept of time is truly complex Everything is complex. Except for
one thing, there is only one true emotion, which is love. As I've
learned, or read or whatever, love is the only real emotion that
exists. Everything else does not exist, or so I've read.
>This begins to hint at a lot of "Matrix" type themes - the idea that we can
>extend lucid dreaming to "lucid living" is a very ancient one in fact; the
>Buddhists speak of "Maya," or the great illusion. This is much like the
>dream that we all are experiencing collectively, and when we become lucid,
>when we awaken from Samsara, when Neo dodges bullets and bends the spoon
>just because he realizes that he CAN, and when we figure out a way to author
>our own existence, we're moving on to something much more significant,
>although discussing what that is is beyond the realm of this discussion.
>Perhaps in order to awaken from this collective dream that we call reality,
>we all need to awaken together...
Wow. That was very well done. I have studied Buddhism for about 5
months now and to tell you the truth, I feel I am much more on a
spirtual Journey than anything else. That last line hit the nail on
the head in a sense of saying. WHen the buddha became awakened he was
forever changed. I feel this world will never truly change until all
of us learn this path and become awakened like him. All of us are here
for a reason I feel is cosmically connected to the fact that we can
live anyway we choose.
I learned of the great cycle of the universe that everything comes
from this source of power, learns lessons and over time and
expierence, return back to the source. Until we are all awakened, this
earth will forever be going in a circle. That is what I feel.
But that will never happen.
TO put it as simple as possible, we are here to learn how to cope with
our emtions, with fear, with anger, everything. This reality is
perfect to learn that because pain is as real as anything. When we are
harmed we feel pain, even if we just watch the situation we can still
feel that pain. This is what I feel we are here for. To develop our
ability of pureness.
Sweet Dreams,
DSR
George Ziniewicz
>
> In article <3a352646...@news.unb.ca>,
> cciioo...@ccaannaaddaa.ccoomm (ciotóg) writes:
> > public class George Ziniewicz extends UsenetDiscussion {
> >
> >> I have had many many dreams that rival reality, and many many LD that
> >>equal or exceed reality (superconsciousness). All reality is "local"
> >>and real, and since everything is in flux, perhaps a major difference
> >>between dreams and reality is a matter of degree.
> >
> > I'd say the difference between the perception of dreams and reality is
> > a matter of degree. My perception of reality is so vivid and concrete
> > that nothing could rival it - but other people seem not to see the
> > glaring truths.
> >
> > For example, when trying to teach a new flatmate how to properly wash
> > dishes so that they aren't covered with some slimy film it often takes
> > many tries before I get them to even see the film.
>
> Maybe you think that it was reality because of its realness?
Not sure who you are addressing, I wrote the > >> lines.
In case it was me you are asking: an SP-dream: what is it? I have
only had SP once 29 years ago, and I woke up in bed to an immobile
body. There was no "dream" per se, just a frozen body. The only
dream-like characteristic was a golden milky haze. I consider a dream
to simply be near-total immersion (making allowance for dual
consciousness) in a reality other than "real world", regardless of how I
got there or the lucidity I have, lucidity makes a dream a lucid dream,
but still a dream, still an alternate reality other than real world.
Reality, wherever it is (RL, dream, stoned) has varying quantities of
realness for me, I have been in RL with low lucidity, in a false
awakening with apparent "normal world" realness, and LD with super
consciousness, and all shades in-between.
DSR
>In article <3a324463...@news.concentric.net>,
> nat...@hotmail.com (DSR) writes:
>>
>
>> Our Dreams Are Real.
>>
>> Within my studies of the last five years I have recorded over 500
>> hundred dreams in my database. Dreams to me always felt so real to me,
>> so vivid as if they were really happening. I finally realized that our
>> dreams are not our imagination running wild, they are not memories,
>> they are not fake.
>
>Why do you think that you are able to differenciate between the
>dreams which are real and the dreams which are fake?
no, I said that all dreams are real. None of them are fake. That is
what I feel.
>No, we all know that it is possible (through special techniques)
>to get it into this predictable position if we wish to, but
>I think it would be equally possible to get it under your body
>if you sleep in a hammock... :-)
possibily, its just from the cross references in so many books,
especially Monroe's, that our astral body is somewhat above us when we
dream, that I believe.
>> 2. We can become lucid by doing certain things such as developing
>> habit to realize such, waking up at certain times, correct?
>
>No, I think we are lucid all the time, but the vile dreaming-self
>does refuse to tell us... :-)
LOL. :)
>> 3. Becoming lucid means that we have gained conciousness in our dream,
>> correct?
>
>No, for most people here it means
>"remembering that your dreaming-self was aware of its state"
>As far as I did observe in my short time in this group...
That's not what I have gathered. Although I could be wrong, I thought
the definition was becoming 'currently' aware.
>> I have gathered a few things from these perceptions. I feel that when
>> we dream we are ineffect retracing our steps.
>
>No, that's what recapitulation is for. When we dream we simply continue
>the eternal discussion between the own mind and our thoughts. Maybe
>this discussion does repeat itself, and maybe in the dreams it is
>using a lot more visualization and practical proof, but it is still
>the same discussion as in the mind of the waken-self...
ok....I could follow that. But I can't help but think that we are
connected to so many other things. That when we dream, we are not only
having a 'discussion' with ourselves, we are re-living the same
feelings that we experienced today. You are right, it is the same
discussion both ways, but our dreams are much more than made up
thoughts. I feel they are actual lives, that we are directed to by our
mind to see he same things.
Now I never said the rules were the same in these other lives, such as
gravity, physics, anything, but the general outlining of why we
witness these events in our dream, is because at some point today, we
witnessed those same feelings, just in a different situation, in a
different form.
>> Picture this..we are all connected in this universe to a divine cosmic
>> reality. This reality is split into countless planes of conciousness,
>> countless planes of reality if you must. Let's say that today
>> something happens where a set of reactions makes you feel angry at one
>> point, and sad at another. When you goto sleep tonight, you will dream
>> those same reactions in an alternate reality, in an alternate life.
>> The dimensions of time are only threefold, while the dimensions of
>> life are possibly millions more.
>
>Nice theory, but it does assume that the mind of an alien is
>compatible with the human mind, as otherwise many people would
>go insane after some dream about his re-incarnation into a
>non-humanoid form...
In cosmic theory this is absoulutly true. All forms of life anywhere
are supposed driven by thought and thought alone, when we connect to
another entity, we do not communicate in words, but in pictures, and
in clips of life. What we see, we are to understand as divine truth.
>> What we witness and feel today we will feel again tonight, and the
>> same will happen tomorrow and the next day. In your dream you might
>> look different but you feel its still you, and in places you've never
>> been before, but you recognize parts of them. In a non-lucid dream we
>> feel we are just watching a movie in a sense. Well that's because we
>> are watching fate. When we do become lucid, we can change fate, but
>> only so much.
>
>It's a nice attempt to feel more responsible of the things you do
>in lucid dreams, but it won't work: The things you like doing in
>your dreams you will continue to do because they are "fate", and
>against the things you think are bad you will continue to fight as
>you still don't realize that something which is bad in this world
>could be good in another. So in the end even lucidity won't help
>you to change fate, as you totally relie on the memories of the
>people you "control" in your LD, and in your theory there is no
>space left for knowledge to be transfered from waken- to dreaming-self.
Maybe we misunderstood each other on this point. I felt that fate is
different for each life we are living. In another life we could be
doing things that we never did before, and when we dream of that life,
and become lucid in it, we can change its path if we wanted too.
>> Ironically we are all learning the same lessons a thousand times over
>> during the course of one day. Do you understand me guys?
>> Everyone of us is simotanously living a thousand lives at the same
>> time.
>
>As you said: time is only a property of this 3D-world, so "today"
>doesn't really exist in these other worlds!
no no....I didn't say 3d, I said time is threefold. That means it only
exists as present, past and future.
>> Anyways, I have babbled enough, if you feel I am wrong on anything,
>> please reply.
>
>mee too!
>
>P
If I had the time, I would write a book on my feelings of this
connectedness. I am that awakened, that I can talk for hours on my
feelings, or maybe I am just crazy. Can't say I didn't try though. :)
Sweet Dreams,
DSR
DSR
>
>It's a very pleasant idea of some immortal mind with lots of experience
>teaching by showing. I think the natural extension of this theory is
>to "invent" some external being (very big) which is storing all the
>memory and experience, and our "soul" is just a small part of this
>large (probably as big as a house to actually store all the information)
>being. After death we return to this creature and we sore all the
>experience from this life. then this being does return to his homeworld
>which we call heaven to report the things happening in our world.
>then this being does go into another world, and some other alien
>creature from another reality which was freshly born into that
>other world does get a new parasite (our soul) implanted to give
>the alien (and us) the pleasant advantage of a very big pool of
>experience accessible through dreams... :-)
>
>Sorry, I was reading too much castaneda!
>>
wow, that was far out there. Even I had trouble with handling that. :)
>> I wrote threefold. What I meant was, Time only exists as present past
>> or future.
>
>And why do you think that past and future does exist?
>>
Do you remember yesterday? That is your answer.
>>>>What we witness and feel today we will feel again tonight, and the
>>>>same will happen tomorrow and the next day. In your dream you might
>>>>look different but you feel its still you, and in places you've never
>>>>been before, but you recognize parts of them. In a non-lucid dream we
>>>>feel we are just watching a movie in a sense. Well that's because we
>>>>are watching fate. When we do become lucid, we can change fate, but
>>>>only so much.
>>>
>>>But if we can't wake up in one of the alternate realities, isn't this just
>>>speculation?
that's what I felt lucid dreaming was.
>
>And why did I never see any dream-character with the ability of
>flying?
because they don't know it. Have no idea of it, and no expierence of
it.
>>
>> What essentially I mean is that when we become lucid, it becomes our
>> game. At that point we can do anything. But when we usually dream, our
>> minds are just connects us to another life of ours in another realm.
>
>When you consider the vast amounts of information to even "index" all
>the different lifes it is really strange how fast our mind is able to
>find an aproppiate alternate reality where my LD-dreams come true...
you got it, its all there, all connected, all timeless, all 'true'.
That is what I feel.
Sweet Dreams,
DSR
DSR
>In article <3a3717a7$1...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> "Doc" <gra...@zoominternet.net> writes:
>>
>
>> This begins to hint at a lot of "Matrix" type themes - the idea that we can
>> extend lucid dreaming to "lucid living" is a very ancient one in fact; the
>> Buddhists speak of "Maya," or the great illusion. This is much like the
>> dream that we all are experiencing collectively, and when we become lucid,
>> when we awaken from Samsara, when Neo dodges bullets and bends the spoon
>> just because he realizes that he CAN, and when we figure out a way to author
>> our own existence, we're moving on to something much more significant,
>> although discussing what that is is beyond the realm of this discussion.
>> Perhaps in order to awaken from this collective dream that we call reality,
>> we all need to awaken together...
>
>What for? What is so "good" about being like Neo and understanding
>or manipulating the forces which make up our world? Why do you think
>that "waking up" would have no other effect than being able to "bend"
>reality to meet our needs?
If I may...
To see the truth. to understand everything is to believe in the
energies that drive us to the points of life. Killers are killers
because they can be, mothers are loving because they can be, we are
lucid in our dreams because we can be,
We are part of the most amazing mystery in this divine cosmic
universe, and you don't wonder why we want to become awakened of the
truth?
I'm sorry, I'm not happy know the way the world is, all this sadness,
pain, and torture. All for different reasons. Don't you realize what
the answers hold for us? No more fear, no more pain, just harmony.
hehe....whoa, I was walking out on a limb on that last thought...:)
Sweet Dreams,
DSR
DSR
>In article <3a386967...@news.concentric.net>,
> nat...@hotmail.com (DSR) writes:
>>
>
>>
>> I did not mean to mislead in the direction of underestimation. THe
>> concept of time is truly complex Everything is complex. Except for
>> one thing, there is only one true emotion, which is love. As I've
>> learned, or read or whatever, love is the only real emotion that
>> exists. Everything else does not exist, or so I've read.
>
>I agree that love is the only persistent emotion, but every other
>feeling can be increased to a dregree much higher than love and
>thereby, at least for a short time, these feelings will become
>emotions. So, actually this isn't very "simple" either, especially
>as most people (including me) are even not able to agree upon
>some definition of love (therefore I do define it as the most
>persistent emotion I ever felt)... :-)
>>
good. No one knows what love really is. But it does give us an idea
when we have it.
>>
>> TO put it as simple as possible, we are here to learn how to cope with
>> our emtions, with fear, with anger, everything. This reality is
>> perfect to learn that because pain is as real as anything. When we are
>> harmed we feel pain, even if we just watch the situation we can still
>> feel that pain. This is what I feel we are here for. To develop our
>> ability of pureness.
>
>You mean supperssing all emotions except for love?
All bad emotions, such as hate, greed, anger etc, the one true emotion
should only prevail. I'm not saying it does for everyone, but what
I've learned while learning Buddhism, is that loving everything and
everyone, even our enemies, will give us the answer of the
connectedness of everything.
>The emotion-less human being was always a big goal
>of humanity, especially as he is much more productive
>than any machine or hedonistic person (if you choose
>the right definition of love)...
That's not the goal I am looking for. A productive person is nothing
without their knowledge, we all have to learn how to be close to
everything. How to have compassion for even the crazy people in this
world.
Sweet Dreams,
DSR
DSR
wrote:
George, that was great, so far, you have amazed me. I really liked the
way you put that, well done. :)
Sweet Dreams,
DSR
DSR
>>>Sorry, I was reading too much castaneda!
>>>>
>>
>> wow, that was far out there. Even I had trouble with handling that. :)
>
>human soul going from one life to the next is very similar to a
>parasite going from one host to the next. And of course you can't proof
>that this mind following you from incarnation to reincarnation is not
>just a parasite enslaving the whole humanity. Animals get a parasite
>because they are not able to perceive or even understand it. To be
>successfull in taking control of a human a parasite would need to
>be out of reach of the human perception and the human ability to
>understand. Both properties are unified in the concept of an immortal
>human soul. Therefore I am not able to believe in multiple re-incarnations
>as that could equally mean that some other "creature" did take over my
>mind and now it does feed me (in my dreams) with some old stories from
>the parasite's previous hosts. I even think that this explanation is
>much more probable than the existence of some "divine" index of all
>creatures in the universe for faster access to topics related to the
>things I have experienced today...
>
>But as I said, this way of thinking is too heavily inspired by
>castaneda-books and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously.
Doesn't mean its not possible. But the question I have for you is, is
there a parasite for everyone that lives on the earth, or just one big
one?
>BTW, did you include castaneda into the list of books responsible
>for your theory? Did you include the theories from the native
>inhabitants of australia? I think both these sources are often
>left out of any "investigations" on the human nature, and somehow
>now we are stuck with lots of people babbling about some mixture
>of christianity and buddism while other cultures seem to be ignored.
No I didn't. I'll read them though if you would like to read one of my
books, just give me the titles.
Yeah, the current fix seems to the mix of christianity and buddhism, I
dunno why, I actualy just took a class in this. Very interesting
stuff. Now I don't mean to ignore other religions, but I stopped being
an atheist only a short while ago (2 years), so i haven't had time to
look at other religions....but when I get the chance I will do what I
can. My focus is not to begin studying the history of religion, know
what I mean?
>>>> I wrote threefold. What I meant was, Time only exists as present past
>>>> or future.
>>>
>>>And why do you think that past and future does exist?
>>>>
>>
>> Do you remember yesterday? That is your answer.
>
>Now I understand: you didn't mean past in the sense of previous time
>but in the sense of memory dated before today! So it's actually our
>current memory which is threefold.
>
>That's very true. In my dreams my memory is not always threefold
>and there are sometimes a lot more alternatives for future present
>in my dream-memory and sometimes the past-memory is missing...
That's how I believe things to be connected. I have read that our
thoughts connect everything. So, if we remember a memory from years
ago of an old friend, then that's how we can make our memories
timeless. Here's a good idea...
Try to remember an old clear memory. Go through it as deeply as
possibly, and afterwards when youy are done, does the memory seem like
it just happened? Alot of mine do. :)
>
>>>
>>>And why did I never see any dream-character with the ability of
>>>flying?
>>
>> because they don't know it. Have no idea of it, and no expierence of
>> it.
>
>But they are native inhabitants there! if the inhabitant controlled
>by my dreaming-self does have this ability, then why don't the others?
>what's so special in the one single character which is controlled by me?
>>
That's one of the finer details that which I have not figured out. So
for the time being, I would say I didn't know.
>>>>
>>>> What essentially I mean is that when we become lucid, it becomes our
>>>> game. At that point we can do anything. But when we usually dream, our
>>>> minds are just connects us to another life of ours in another realm.
>>>
>>>When you consider the vast amounts of information to even "index" all
>>>the different lifes it is really strange how fast our mind is able to
>>>find an aproppiate alternate reality where my LD-dreams come true...
>>
>>
>> you got it, its all there, all connected, all timeless, all 'true'.
>> That is what I feel.
>
>The point of "timeless" is not: to build a perpetuum mobily by
>taking some task into another world, doing it there, and
>returning with infinite amounts of energy back in this world.
>timeless means that things which happened in the past are still
>happening now and things happening in the future are affecting
>the things happening now.
that's what I meant. I don't mean that we are taking an adventure to
somehere else in our dreams to do a deed, and then return. That
doesn't fit my beliefs. Did you ever see the move 'Frequency'? Go see
it, and you understand my idea.
>Maybe the things happening in another world are "still" happening
>in this world (in the form of dreams) in the same way as the
>native australians did assume it for their dream-time. The advantage
>of this variation is that a "soul" is not needed to store the
>experience, as then our own decisions inside of the sleeping-state
>will simply move the things happening in another world into the
>dreams. But I think that compared with the things happening because
>of some events in the australian dream-time, then the things happening
>upon my expectations in LDs are still insanly fast!
yes, the power of how these things come together is amazing, but I try
to look past the awe of it, and look for the real answers, and real
details.
>Maybe some events in another world does "form" our dreams in the
>same way as random events are affected by the future in the form
>of an omen showing the outcome of an event which even didn't
>commence yet. Here the existence of a soul is possible. If the
>soul is responsible for finding the right "world" for the things
>happening today, then this task will be a lot more difficult and
>time-consuming than the usual omen-creation. If not the experience
>of the soul is used for the creation of dreams and omen, then
>there would still be a lot of resources required to store a database
>of all aproppiate worlds connected to some real-life events and
>the time for handling ressources always correlated with the amount
>of data involved. (choosing a random "world" out of a bunch of
>not enumerated worlds with a certain property isn't as easy as
>one should think! logicians wouldn't have invented the axiom of
>choice if it where that easy...)
>
>These where just examples of how your theory could be inperpreted
>in different belief-systems, but I think that other belief-systems
>would show similar discrepancies between the time estimated and
>the actual speed of our dreams respectively the real-life events
>influencing the dreams of some alien. However, that's just my own
>feeling I gained in my dreams and not a scientfic disprove of
>anything. I just have the impression that such a generous service
>would be too time-consuming to be done just for the small minority
>of objects in this world which already "own" the precious property
>of being alife. For me the exlanation I used at the end of the
>previous paragraph is the most probable one, as there the ability
>of getting info on the life of other beings is shared with life-less
>objects with the only difference that for us it's called dreams
>while for the stone it's called omen...
>
>P
hmmm...I'll have to think about that for awhile. :) Have a good
holiday!
Sweet Dreams,
DSR
DSR
>> good. No one knows what love really is. But it does give us an idea
>> when we have it.
>
>to stay persistent as long as possible, and thereby you won't
>be able to get even a rough idea of what love really is until
>you did feel that emotion towards thousands of people... :-)
hey man, that's an extremely hard thing to come by, especially towards
people we don't like, know what I mean? Basically, I'm on my way, but
its a long road to actually try and understand what anger and fear is
really about.
>>>>
>>>> TO put it as simple as possible, we are here to learn how to cope with
>>>> our emtions, with fear, with anger, everything. This reality is
>>>> perfect to learn that because pain is as real as anything. When we are
>>>> harmed we feel pain, even if we just watch the situation we can still
>>>> feel that pain. This is what I feel we are here for. To develop our
>>>> ability of pureness.
>>>
>>>You mean supperssing all emotions except for love?
Yes. To develop tolerence towards others is a hard thing to come by.
But its essential to not let every little problem get under our skin
if you get what I'm saying.
>> All bad emotions, such as hate, greed, anger etc, the one true emotion
>
>Exactly: every emotion except for love is a bad emotion!
No, not neccesarily. :)
>> should only prevail. I'm not saying it does for everyone, but what
>> I've learned while learning Buddhism, is that loving everything and
>> everyone, even our enemies, will give us the answer of the
>> connectedness of everything.
>
>No, that's just religious bullshit. Love is just a beautiful feeling
>and its only purpose is to be pleasant. To get the answer of connectedness
>of everything you would need to pose the right question in meditation.
>But to do that you would need to have certain abilities (i.e. you need
>the ability to get relieable, stable and reproducible results through
>meditation) and loving everything and everyone could become an obstacle
>on that path...
Which makes me wonder if you understand any of that, are trying to
pursue it, or is your skepticism getting the best of you?
Whether its BS or not, you have to do whatever's good for you, man. I
am not here to lecture you and change you, I am here to show you the
way. It is you that has to walk that path, I cannot do it for you. I
cannot teach you if don't want to learn. Got me? Its your choice, not
mine. I don't mean to be rash, but your skepticism seems to be
becoming your own obstacle.
DSR
>In article <3a40bc69...@news.concentric.net>,
> nat...@hotmail.com (DSR) writes:
>> On 19 Dec 2000 14:19:48 GMT, pio...@unet.univie.ac.at (Gander) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3a3717a7$1...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
>>> "Doc" <gra...@zoominternet.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> This begins to hint at a lot of "Matrix" type themes - the idea that we can
>>>> extend lucid dreaming to "lucid living" is a very ancient one in fact; the
>>>> Buddhists speak of "Maya," or the great illusion. This is much like the
>>>> dream that we all are experiencing collectively, and when we become lucid,
>>>> when we awaken from Samsara, when Neo dodges bullets and bends the spoon
>>>> just because he realizes that he CAN, and when we figure out a way to author
>>>> our own existence, we're moving on to something much more significant,
>>>> although discussing what that is is beyond the realm of this discussion.
>>>> Perhaps in order to awaken from this collective dream that we call reality,
>>>> we all need to awaken together...
>>>
>>>What for? What is so "good" about being like Neo and understanding
>>>or manipulating the forces which make up our world? Why do you think
>>>that "waking up" would have no other effect than being able to "bend"
>>>reality to meet our needs?
>>
>> If I may...
>> To see the truth. to understand everything is to believe in the
>> energies that drive us to the points of life. Killers are killers
>> because they can be, mothers are loving because they can be, we are
>> lucid in our dreams because we can be,
>
>That's a good explanation...
>>
>> We are part of the most amazing mystery in this divine cosmic
>> universe, and you don't wonder why we want to become awakened of the
>> truth?
>> I'm sorry, I'm not happy know the way the world is, all this sadness,
>> pain, and torture. All for different reasons. Don't you realize what
>> the answers hold for us? No more fear, no more pain, just harmony.
>
>...and this isn't!
>
>the goal of understanding should never be motivated by the things you
>think you will gain through this knowledge, but it should rather use
>the same motivation a killer does use to explain why he does love his
>job. If you wish to "understand" just to show that your theories where
>right from the beginning, then you are certainly doing something wrong!
>
>People don't really wish to know the truth, they just wish to get
>some positive feedback on their success of assembling some random
>theories to form the real truth. people don't wish to be awakened,
>they wish to be in a save stable never-changing environment where
>they are always right and where they can fight their own micro-battles
>without the need to think about the battle called life.
>
>The argument that people wish to get awakened is only used by the
>few people who are using religion as their personal battle-ground
>for their micro-battles, because they actually wish to be the one
>and only person who is responsible for the dramatic changes such a
>global awakening could cause. These people simply refuse to change
>their own beliefs to match the beliefs of others especially as that
>could lead to dramatic changes in their own life. I know that,
>because I'm one of these idiots. I always try to convince other
>people of my beliefs instead of accepting theirs. I keep telling
>them that my words will lead to a much saver and stable life
>and they belief me. This way I never did need to change my beliefs
>to be able to communicate...
>
>P
I understand your dilemma. I had that same problem years ago. You have
to realize that you cannot help the people who don't want to change.
Your own fight is with yourself, not others. Understand that healing
begins with you, and ends with others, I realize that you might
already understand the right things, but you can't go around thinking
that just because you have realized how to live your life with
stability, you can change people.
Please realize that others should not affect your path.
Sweet Dreams,
DSR
DSR
>>
>> I understand your dilemma. I had that same problem years ago. You have
>> to realize that you cannot help the people who don't want to change.
>> Your own fight is with yourself, not others. Understand that healing
>> begins with you, and ends with others, I realize that you might
>> already understand the right things, but you can't go around thinking
>> that just because you have realized how to live your life with
>> stability, you can change people.
>>
>> Please realize that others should not affect your path.
>
>because you are expecting me to speak your "language", and I will
>now try to teach you my own "language" until you understand what I
>mean. I simply refuse to learn your "language", and as you said that
>you had similar problems years ago, you too will refuse to learn my
>"language". That's the real dilemma, and at least for me there are only
>two possibilities:
I apoligize. I have reread your words, and understand that you think
many different things that I do not.
>1) I re-learn the human language from ground up (that will probably
>cost me something about 15 years which won't give me anything useful
>for my own self, but which give you the chance to understand me)
that would not be viable because by that point we would have both
moved on. :)
>2) I refuse to talk any further, I go away from social life and
>concentrate on meditation to gain knowledge without having the
>ability to teach my theories
>
>Both possibilities are unacceptable for me and therefore I simply
>live with this little disadvantage of misunderstanding the words
>of others and not being able to express my own thoughts. Now I
>really don't wish to help others, but I'm forced to "change" them,
>or else I wouldn't have anybody who can understand me. The only
oh. So, not many understand you....correct? You feel somewhat
seperated from the outside world, no? You also feel that people are
generally unwilling to accept new ways, and only do things for
themselves?
Excuse my direct questioning, but I find it hard to discuss things
with you when you seem so left fielded.
>exit out of this dilemma which does have something challenging for
>me (because it has got a lot to do with the things I call LDs)
>is trying to "live" the "religion" of castaneda, because there
>interaction with other people isn't neccessary, and teaching any
>theories does get unimportant somewhere further on this path.
>There aren't many other religions which prohibit "teaching"
>or any other kind of human interaction without also prohibiting
>the emotion often called love...
To see clearly, we do have to divide emotion from reality, and I see
that you'd rather walk on your path alone rather walk with someone by
your side.
Sweet Dreams,
DSR
DSR
>> Doesn't mean its not possible. But the question I have for you is, is
>> there a parasite for everyone that lives on the earth, or just one big
>> one?
>
well....kinda like the boss of a company, who controls all the people
within it. That's what I meant.
>In nature every species does have multiple representants and never
>did a parasite live without rivaling parasites. As long as there is
>some kind of food to gather there will always be even more than just
>one single parasite per creature. maybe the "smarter" parasites will
>be able to act as if they where an union, so that the host will destroy
>one without even noticing the others, but nature was always favouring
>competition among every species...
>
>But that isn't really important here, as it doesn't matter if
>there is one or multiple parasites. If there is one, then it
>would certainly be able to customize to each host by changing
>its character, so that people think there where one parasite
>per host. If there are multiple, then they would create the
>impression "there is only one" to make it more difficult to
>fight them. No matter if there is one or multiple parasites,
>after death they will all get into a world where they can
>communicate with each-other, and thereby they will be unified...
You truly have a dizzying intellect. :) No offense. :)
>>
>>>BTW, did you include castaneda into the list of books responsible
>>>for your theory? Did you include the theories from the native
>>>inhabitants of australia? I think both these sources are often
>>>left out of any "investigations" on the human nature, and somehow
>>>now we are stuck with lots of people babbling about some mixture
>>>of christianity and buddism while other cultures seem to be ignored.
>>
>>
>> No I didn't. I'll read them though if you would like to read one of my
>> books, just give me the titles.
>
>Isn't it already too late? I mean, you already have this fine theory
>and any book you will read in the future will only be examined for
>things which support your theory while things contradicting it will
>be thrown away because they are "false beliefs"... :-)
No, it is not. As I said said once before, my 'theory' isn't a fully
developed theory and, even if it was, I would be able to look at any
and all new information with an open mind. :)
>that was just my experience with fanatics of other religions, and
>maybe there was even some own behaviour resembling that. I really
I kinda sensed that as well. :)
>don't think you are a fanatic or "narrow minded", I just wanted to
>point out that theories like yours should be published *after* you
>did use a lot of independent sources. I wouldn't really call these
>two religions "independent sources" as a lot christians do already
>try to get "closer" to buddhism. Each culture does have its own
>religion and even if there are multiple cultures which call their
>religion "buddhism" or "christianity", that still doesn't mean that
>theses religions would contain more than the belief-system of one
>culture...
I do enjoy being multi-rooted and will adapt myself as I see fit when
new ideas do pop into my head. Change is good. :)
>> Yeah, the current fix seems to the mix of christianity and buddhism, I
>> dunno why, I actualy just took a class in this. Very interesting
>> stuff. Now I don't mean to ignore other religions, but I stopped being
>> an atheist only a short while ago (2 years), so i haven't had time to
>> look at other religions....but when I get the chance I will do what I
>> can. My focus is not to begin studying the history of religion, know
>> what I mean?
>
>Your focus is to create a theory out of the experience in your dreams,
>and therefore you should concentrate on the cultures which actually
>where "interested" in the things happening in dreams. I don't think
>that buddhism does contain anything interesting on "dreams" and
>christianity is totally ignoring "non-prophetic" dreams. The ancient
>egyptian religion did "study" dreams, and even the beliefs behind
>the legends from the area between africa and asia seem to have their
>roots in some study on dreams. Maybe there aren't many cultures
>interested in the "meaning" of dreaming (When I was searching I did
>only find castaneda, only later some books describing the australian
>meaning of "dreaming" did appear on the list of books containing
>"dream" in the title), but I think you should "compare" all their
>theories before you can make your own, or else your theory would need
>to be changed whenever you encounter a new belief-system... :-)
Like I said, its not a fullly developed theory, its a
work-in-progress. :) You are correct in the assumption that I should
compare all information in my mind, and that is what I did. From the
amount of stuff I have in my head and the books I have read, I have
developed a brief theory on what I thought a dream really was. Doesn't
mean I was right. Theory are after all just theories, not facts.
Other theories can coexist within mine. simply because of this reason.
Do not forget that the ability to develop a theory also gives power to
the observer to read between the lines. Plus, I don't have to pick my
religions based on my theory, or my feelings, I could just do it for
the heck of it. :)
>Why do you think there is no difference between thoughts and memory?
>I agree that everything in this world is connected by thoughts and
>if I would stop thinking the world would collapse, but I still don't
>see what memory has go to do with this? In my dreams I think without
Once again I have given the wrong impression....I did not mean that
thoughts and memory are the same thing. What I meant was the idea that
memories are connected by thoughts. Our memories are what helps us to
differentiate time.
>using RL-memory, and my dream-world still doesn't collapse. I mean,
>having the friend stored in my memory doesn't make him "timeless",
>butr thinking about him all the time does...
That's an interesting view. I meant timeless as in we can remember
things as if they were yesterday.
>> Try to remember an old clear memory. Go through it as deeply as
>> possibly, and afterwards when youy are done, does the memory seem like
>> it just happened? Alot of mine do. :)
>
>Wow! You are a talent in that area! Did you try what castaneda called
>"recapitulation"? go to http://www.nagual.com/ixtlan/recap.html and
>try, because there the ability of re-living old memories is needed...
oh stop mocking me. :)
>>>timeless means that things which happened in the past are still
>>>happening now and things happening in the future are affecting
>>>the things happening now.
>>
>> that's what I meant. I don't mean that we are taking an adventure to
>> somehere else in our dreams to do a deed, and then return. That
>> doesn't fit my beliefs. Did you ever see the move 'Frequency'? Go see
>> it, and you understand my idea.
>
>I think I already did understand it correctly. I was just pointing
>out that what you call timeless does in no way mean that the mind is
>able to find the right world for the next LD-decision in zero-time!
Maybe that's why our sleep patterns are like the way they are....
>>>Maybe the things happening in another world are "still" happening
>>>in this world (in the form of dreams) in the same way as the
>>>native australians did assume it for their dream-time. The advantage
>>>of this variation is that a "soul" is not needed to store the
>>>experience, as then our own decisions inside of the sleeping-state
>>>will simply move the things happening in another world into the
>>>dreams. But I think that compared with the things happening because
>>>of some events in the australian dream-time, then the things happening
>>>upon my expectations in LDs are still insanly fast!
>>
>> yes, the power of how these things come together is amazing, but I try
>> to look past the awe of it, and look for the real answers, and real
>> details.
>
>Yes, but my question still is "why the big waste of power just for the
>few objects in this world which merely do have the minor property of
>being alife?" I think the world could have been a lot bigger if only
>the energy would not be wasted for this kind of luxury...
you mean wasted energy of life, or did you mean something else?
>>
>> hmmm...I'll have to think about that for awhile. :) Have a good
>> holiday!
>
>Well, I think there are infinitely many different theories
>which all share the same degree of truth, and it's really
>difficult to decide which to choose. I did make that decision,
>and now I have a lot more "freedom" in life, as I don't need
>to think about these things anymore... :-)
Well I didn't intend to say that I was going to change my ways
depending on everything I come into contact with. I already have a way
of living, and it will probably continue to get more and more refined,
but I in no way plan to rethink my ways.
What, I don't get a happy salute? :(
Sweet Dreams,
DSR
DSR
>In article <3a491267...@news.concentric.net>,
> nat...@hotmail.com (DSR) writes:
>>
>>>> good. No one knows what love really is. But it does give us an idea
>>>> when we have it.
>>>
>>>No, it doesn't! many emotions somehow "cling" to the love-emotion
>>>to stay persistent as long as possible, and thereby you won't
>>>be able to get even a rough idea of what love really is until
>>>you did feel that emotion towards thousands of people... :-)
>>
>>
>> hey man, that's an extremely hard thing to come by, especially towards
>> people we don't like, know what I mean? Basically, I'm on my way, but
>
>No, I don't know what you mean because I never met anybody whom
>I don't like. There might be thousands of people who do not like
>me but so far, I didn't find any reason not to like them or even
>to cease sending them my love...
ok, let me refine it for you then....I meant people that are killers,
and rapists, and natzi's and such. It is hard for me to love those
people.
>> its a long road to actually try and understand what anger and fear is
>> really about.
>
>As I said, try recapitulation and you will learn more about these
>and all other emotions, especially those emotions which are caused
>by habit...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TO put it as simple as possible, we are here to learn how to cope with
>>>>>> our emtions, with fear, with anger, everything. This reality is
>>>>>> perfect to learn that because pain is as real as anything. When we are
>>>>>> harmed we feel pain, even if we just watch the situation we can still
>>>>>> feel that pain. This is what I feel we are here for. To develop our
>>>>>> ability of pureness.
>>>>>
>>>>>You mean supperssing all emotions except for love?
>>
>> Yes. To develop tolerence towards others is a hard thing to come by.
>> But its essential to not let every little problem get under our skin
>> if you get what I'm saying.
>
>Again, here recapitulation does help...
I've got my own ways, thankyou. :)
>>
>>>> All bad emotions, such as hate, greed, anger etc, the one true emotion
>>>
>>>Exactly: every emotion except for love is a bad emotion!
>>
>> No, not neccesarily. :)
>
>Example? I personally don't know any emotion which doesn't contain
>any love and which is still a good emotion. also I don't know any
>emotion which does contain love and which is more "good" than love.
I also don't think there are any emtions that are better than love,
that contain love. But it doesn't mean other emotions are all bad. I
mean emotions that work in conjunction with love, like friendship, and
joy, etc.
>>
>>>> should only prevail. I'm not saying it does for everyone, but what
>>>> I've learned while learning Buddhism, is that loving everything and
>>>> everyone, even our enemies, will give us the answer of the
>>>> connectedness of everything.
>>>
>>>No, that's just religious bullshit. Love is just a beautiful feeling
>>>and its only purpose is to be pleasant. To get the answer of connectedness
>>>of everything you would need to pose the right question in meditation.
>>>But to do that you would need to have certain abilities (i.e. you need
>>>the ability to get relieable, stable and reproducible results through
>>>meditation) and loving everything and everyone could become an obstacle
>>>on that path...
>>
>> Which makes me wonder if you understand any of that, are trying to
>> pursue it, or is your skepticism getting the best of you?
>
>No, I didn't mean it from the theoretical point of view, but I meant
>the practical "problems". In theory it does seem that love would get
>you closer to everything, but when you try it you will notice that
>without the right definition of love you will only realize that you
>are the only living being on this planet, and all other beings are
>just living in your imagination. That realization isn't very helpful
>on the path towards "connectedness", and the probability of having
>the correct definition of love is very low...
hmmm....yes. but we do not have to define it in great detail to use
it. For example I drive a car, but I don't know the first thing about
the engine or the transmision.
>> Whether its BS or not, you have to do whatever's good for you, man. I
>> am not here to lecture you and change you, I am here to show you the
>> way. It is you that has to walk that path, I cannot do it for you. I
>> cannot teach you if don't want to learn. Got me? Its your choice, not
>> mine. I don't mean to be rash, but your skepticism seems to be
>> becoming your own obstacle.
>
>Sorry, I didn't mean Bull-Shit in the sense of a stupid useless
>theory, I meant *religious* bullshit in the sense of the things
>which need to be added to make a religion out of a culture. It
>is true that love should be everywhere and only the person who
>does have no other emotions than love will finally realize how
>"connected" everything is, but the idea of putting love towards
>everyone as the first thing to do does have only the one purpose
>of giving something useful even to the people who are not interested
>in this "connectedness". The real path does start a bit before it.
>First you need to gain enough "experience" to get relieable results
>through meditation, and for that it is better to live a life
>without emotions than a life containing the bunch of different
>negative emotions you call love. First you need to live like an
>animal before you can start following your religion like a human...
I understood everything all up until the last part. I don't feel it is
better to live a life without emotion, to see truth. We are people
after all, and this world is driven by feelings for the most part, as
with everyday interactions. So wouldn't it be wrong to do that?
Sweet Dreams,
DSR
ciotóg
saying:
>Are you sure that you never had a SP-dream?
>Maybe you think that it was reality because of its realness?
As surely as George and others have seen God, I've never had a dream
that came close to the perception I have in wakefulness.
In other words, I'm completely convinced that this is true, but there
is a chance that I'm deluding myself. ;)
Um, please note that I'm talking from _my_ perspective, not George's.
George Ziniewicz
>
> It may have been a whisper in the wind
Wind nonetheless!
> but I think it was Gander saying:
>
> >Are you sure that you never had a SP-dream?
I wish someone would define an SP-dream for me, maybe I am slow, how
is this different from a regular dream, or hypnagogic imagery, or LD...
To me SP is a "physical" phenomenon. Dreams are dreams, regardless
of the "source".
> >Maybe you think that it was reality because of its realness?
>
> As surely as George and others have seen God, I've never had a dream
> that came close to the perception I have in wakefulness.
Dreams, yes, they are a bit fuzzy. But in lucid dreams I could say
I have equaled and even exceeded "realness", thus my 5/5 labeling of
some of my LD's. And yet it was not realness at all, for dream
phenomenon is transitory. It is more a case of "consciousness", of
awareness itself, even if the awareness is of transient phenomenon. I
call some states "superconsciousness", perhaps achievable when
unencumbered by the physical. And that is a rare commodity in RL & LD,
though people think thay have it because RL has more stable phenomenon.
I think the difference may be only a matter of degree. One must
acknowledge that mystics often say that the world itself is but a
dream. What must they mean?!
And as far as seeing God goes: position yourself in between 2
parallel mirrors, the 13th reflection, there HE is!
> In other words, I'm completely convinced that this is true, but there
> is a chance that I'm deluding myself. ;)
>
> Um, please note that I'm talking from _my_ perspective, not George's.
LOL! Even I don't like to talk from "George's" perspective too
often!! (but he does have some crazy LD, tell him to stop playing with
"himself"!)
zin
--
For PC & Mac 3-D graphics shareware & more: http://www.zintel.com
ciotóg
saying:
>Of course I was referring to my theory that many SP-experiences
>are perceived as "waking up and refusing to move or else it would
>be difficult to fall asleep again" or sometimes even as "lying
>in bed motionless with a lot of thoughts in the mind" whereas in
>reality it's just a dream with the intensity of RL...
I guess the best analogy I can think of is watching a movie or tv
show. Of course I still jump when something scary happens, or I get a
lump in my throat every time I watch Little House on the Prairie, but
I still know that it's not real. Dreams are like that for me. It's a
completely different perception from reality.
Just as I would say that I have never believed, even for a moment,
that I existed in the movie I'm watching or book I'm reading, I've
never believed that I was awake during a dream.
But like I said before, perhaps I just _think_ all of this is true.
Actually I'm surprised that neither you or George pointed out the
inconsistency in that idea :)
ciotóg
Ziniewicz saying:
> I wish someone would define an SP-dream for me, maybe I am slow, how
>is this different from a regular dream, or hypnagogic imagery, or LD...
>
> To me SP is a "physical" phenomenon. Dreams are dreams, regardless
>of the "source".
I guess there are certain commonalities amongst SP episodes that put
them in a separate class from your garden variety dream. The same is
true for OBEs. It's just a sub-class of dream.
I've never experienced a SP episode, however.
> Dreams, yes, they are a bit fuzzy. But in lucid dreams I could say
>I have equaled and even exceeded "realness", thus my 5/5 labeling of
>some of my LD's. And yet it was not realness at all, for dream
>phenomenon is transitory. It is more a case of "consciousness", of
>awareness itself, even if the awareness is of transient phenomenon. I
>call some states "superconsciousness", perhaps achievable when
>unencumbered by the physical. And that is a rare commodity in RL & LD,
>though people think thay have it because RL has more stable phenomenon.
>I think the difference may be only a matter of degree. One must
>acknowledge that mystics often say that the world itself is but a
>dream. What must they mean?!
Well, like I said I've never achieved a level of perception that came
close to rivalling that of reality, so I would have to say that since
experiences differ among people, so do their perceptions of reality. A
mystic might _think_ that they have a vision that transcends reality
only because their perception of reality is not very clear in itself.
I've started reading some of the works of P.D. Ouspensky, and he says
some things that I find puzzling. For example, he divides
consciousness into four states: sleep, waking state,
self-consciousness and objective consciousness. The way sleep is
described leads me to believe that he's never had a vivid dream.
Although I haven't either, I don't dismiss the idea that someone else
has.
Sorry, that's far too concise for what I'm trying to say but it's late
:)
> And as far as seeing God goes: position yourself in between 2
>parallel mirrors, the 13th reflection, there HE is!
That's interesting... images tend to lose clarity each time they're
reflected, so you're saying that to see God you have to look in the
murky depths of this vision... Kinda like those 3d spectrograms (I
think that's what they're called) where you have to cross and relax
your eyes to see the object :)
Chris
George Ziniewicz
I'm not sure I see the inconsistency, perhaps I know too well it is
all "what we think".
George Ziniewicz
In my experience, thought is not the thing, one doesn't think one
perceives, one just perceives.
> I've started reading some of the works of P.D. Ouspensky, and he says
> some things that I find puzzling. For example, he divides
> consciousness into four states: sleep, waking state,
> self-consciousness and objective consciousness. The way sleep is
> described leads me to believe that he's never had a vivid dream.
> Although I haven't either, I don't dismiss the idea that someone else
> has.
I find it quite surprising that anyone can say they never had a vivid
dream, from all the people I talked to. To me the term "vivid" seems to
naturally go with "dream".
> Sorry, that's far too concise for what I'm trying to say but it's late
> :)
>
> > And as far as seeing God goes: position yourself in between 2
> >parallel mirrors, the 13th reflection, there HE is!
>
> That's interesting... images tend to lose clarity each time they're
> reflected
Just as God is in us!
> so you're saying that to see God you have to look in the
> murky depths of this vision...
And into the murky depths of ourselves.
> Kinda like those 3d spectrograms (I
> think that's what they're called) where you have to cross and relax
> your eyes to see the object :)
In a way. The "depth" is there, but in a way that has to be decoded.
God is all around, but to see Him, we have to change the way we see as
well.
At first it is a bit of a mystery how one can "see" God. Afterwards,
the mystery is how some do not see.
George Ziniewicz
>
> In article <3A528D1E...@home.com>,
> George Ziniewicz <zi...@home.com> writes:
> > "ciotóg" wrote:
> >>
> >> It may have been a whisper in the wind
> >
> > Wind nonetheless!
> >
> >
> >
> >> but I think it was Gander saying:
> >>
> >> >Are you sure that you never had a SP-dream?
> >
> > I wish someone would define an SP-dream for me, maybe I am slow, how
> > is this different from a regular dream, or hypnagogic imagery, or LD...
> >
> > To me SP is a "physical" phenomenon. Dreams are dreams, regardless
> > of the "source".
>
Is it? I don't think so.
> so a dream
> of being in SP should be called SP-dream.
If all one sees/bes is an immobile body.
> It isn't really important
> if SP-dreams are dreams or RL-perception, the point is that inside
> of a dream you are never that aware of your real current state as
> in a SP-dream. and this combined with the similarity of these dreams
> from person to person independent of character and culture does make
> these dreams something special!
>
> P
ciotóg
>> But like I said before, perhaps I just _think_ all of this is true.
>> Actually I'm surprised that neither you or George pointed out the
>> inconsistency in that idea :)
>
> I'm not sure I see the inconsistency, perhaps I know too well it is
>all "what we think".
The inconsistency I was talking about was my assertion that I'm
absolutely sure that I've never mistaken dreams for reality, but that
I could be wrong :)
This is different from what you've been saying about being "seeing"
God, in that you have no doubts that it's true.
ciotóg
>From the viewpoint of the waken-self the memory on dreams is "blurred"
>and the dreaming-self's memory on RL is too weak to compare the
>perception. From inside of a dream RL seems to have less details and
>from inside of RL dreams seem to have less details.
I don't think this is true. Once I was having a dream about flying
around in a grocery store that I was working in during school, and I
was thinking to myself the whole time about the differences between
this dream store and the real store. The same thing happens with any
dream where the dream scene parallels somewhere real. This memory of
the real place is no less detailed than the same memory would be in
waking life, but the memory in the dream is much more ephemeral so it
may only seem to be less clear.
> If one does try to
>"remember" (actually re-live) the dreams of the previous night in full
>detail this will lead to greater detail than RL if the same is never
>done with RL-memory.
I partially disagree with this, too. It's true that a recreation of a
previous dream will be more detailed in another dream than in waking
memory only because dreams are different from memory. For programmers
out there:
Dream dream1;
memory = (Memory)dream1;
will result in a loss of information, but:
Dream dream1;
Dream dream2 = dream1;
won't (more or less - the information will probably be corrupted).
This is because (for me, at least) dreams have much more detail than
memory to begin with.
> Of course in general dream-perception is less
>clear than RL, because sometimes in a dream even the blurry memory on
>RL seems to be more real than the dream!
That memory will now be a part of the dream, though. This suggests
that if you want to have more vivid dreams you should try and remember
RL information. That would seem counterproductive to me, but of course
I'm not really interested in using my dreams to help me in my RL
activities, only for introspection.
>So, maybe you just think that your dreams are less "clear" or maybe
>you actually "cause" your dreams to have less detail,
If I am causing it then it must be an innate condition, since my
dreams have always been less clear, even before I really knew what
they were explicitly.
> But my question
>still is: what would you do with SP-perception? Did you ever have the
>impression that you did wake up for some short time?
Yes, all the time, but I've never tried to move and been unable to do
so. I have woken up and not moved and fallen asleep again, so it's
still possible that I would've been unable to move but just never
tried.
> Did you ever feel
>that you can't fall asleep even though the time you did spend
>consciously is different from the real time?
Not really, I always have some thoughts running around in my head
while awake and they always correspond roughly to the time I'm aware
of being awake. I've never had the sensation of losing consciousness
like others describe - that I remember anyway. It seems to happen
instantly.
> did you ever believe that
>you actually didn't sleep while in reality you are "rested"?
No, in fact I usually feel pretty lousy after waking up so I know when
I've been sleeping :)
>Without this newsgroup I would probably still believe that my
>SP-episodes where RL-perception, even if I would notice the
>obvious time-discrepancy accompanying it...
Most of the SP episodes that people have mentioned on this NG have
included some pretty strange sensations, and I've never noticed
anything like that, so I can only conclude that I've never experienced
SP. Maybe I do have SP episodes, but they're so mundane that they
don't stand out.
ciotóg
>"ciotóg" wrote:
>> Well, like I said I've never achieved a level of perception that came
>> close to rivalling that of reality, so I would have to say that since
>> experiences differ among people, so do their perceptions of reality. A
>> mystic might _think_ that they have a vision that transcends reality
>> only because their perception of reality is not very clear in itself.
>
> In my experience, thought is not the thing, one doesn't think one
>perceives, one just perceives.
That's basically what Ouspensky says - the normal waking state is the
second state of consciousness (the first being "sleep"), the third
level is what he defines as consciousness, actual thought. He says
that most people go through life in the first and second levels, only
reaching the third state for brief periods.
I can see how this could be applied to some people, but my experience
has been different. Maybe I just resent the implication that I'm half
asleep most of the time.
> I find it quite surprising that anyone can say they never had a vivid
>dream, from all the people I talked to. To me the term "vivid" seems to
>naturally go with "dream".
Not to me :)
> At first it is a bit of a mystery how one can "see" God. Afterwards,
>the mystery is how some do not see.
People who have become involved with religious cults and then leave
them later often wonder how they could have been deceived so
thoroughly that they believed such nonsense :)
George Ziniewicz
>
> public class George Ziniewicz extends UsenetDiscussion {
>
> >> But like I said before, perhaps I just _think_ all of this is true.
> >> Actually I'm surprised that neither you or George pointed out the
> >> inconsistency in that idea :)
> >
> > I'm not sure I see the inconsistency, perhaps I know too well it is
> >all "what we think".
>
> The inconsistency I was talking about was my assertion that I'm
> absolutely sure that I've never mistaken dreams for reality, but that
> I could be wrong :)
Ah, yes, I see it now. Such is the nature of "absolute surety" of the
non-mystical kind! Nothing in RL has the stamp of authority I mentioned that
mystical experience often seems to contain.
The only unchangeable certainty,
is that nothing is unchangeable or certain.
John F. Kennedy
We have to move
from the illusion of certainty
to the certainty of illusion.
Sam Keen
Those to whom the Eternal Word speaks
are delivered from uncertainty.
Blessed is the soul that hears the Lord speaking within it.
Blessed are the ears that hear the still, small voice of God.
Imitation of Christ 3.1
If we begin with certainties, we will surely end in doubts,
but if we begin with doubts, and are patient,
we will end with certainty. ?
> This is different from what you've been saying about being "seeing"
> God, in that you have no doubts that it's true.
Yes, the nature of this knowledge completely excludes the possibility of
doubt. It truly does come down to: Would you doubt anything God says? For
when He is telling you, it is also I telling my self, thus "I" know it, and
have always known it. It is the nature of the union experience, God and I
being completely One, like Jesus mentioned in John 17.
George Ziniewicz
>
> In article <3A550962...@home.com>,
> George Ziniewicz <zi...@home.com> writes:
...
> >> Yes, but just like a dream of lucid dreaming is still a LD
> >
> > Is it? I don't think so.
>
> Why? the definition is "knowing you're dreaming", and it really doesn't
> matter if you really know it, or if you dream that you know it... :-)
LOL! I give up! (*>*)
>
> >> so a dream
> >> of being in SP should be called SP-dream.
> >
> > If all one sees/bes is an immobile body.
>
> Not really. Dreams are often containing a lot of fantasy, and even
> if I am an immobile body, then my immagination would still allow me
> to hover around in my room, to cause some limbs to move through
> my vast telekinesis-abilities, to be abducted by aliens for strange
> experiments or to be controlled by the machines of some evil scientist.
The body is immobile in all dreams, so how does that change anything. The
body is irrelevant/unseen/unfelt for the most part in dream & LD, only in
sleep paralysis is it relevant/seen/felt. So I still don't get what an SP
dream is, or how it differs in a meaningful way from any other.
> Also the "duration" of a SP doesn't need to be long, as I am free
> to leave SP in the first second to get into a false awaking or a
> new dream, and this change doesn't guarrantee that I will re-get
> my ability to move. So, in general it is hard to tell when SP
> does end, but I think it is easy to determine if some dream was
> "inspired" by it because it is rather unprobable that the own
> fantasy would ever cause me to become motionless in any way.
>
> However, in general you are right, SP is lying in bed and looking
> at the wall (or whatever you see in that position) plus some
> additional stuff added by expectations and subconscious associations.
> Sometimes the perception of the sleeping-room is disorted, sometimes
> to a degree that the sleep-position seems to be different from the
> real position of the body, but even if I see something which is
> impossible to perceive from the lying position (maybe I'm really
> sleep-walking?) I always have the impression that what I see is
> created by the real objects in my room, as this perception is lacking
> some kind of "pattern" found in other dreams. The really difficult
> thing is to differenciate between the things I see in the real room,
> and the things created by my expectations, as perception created
> by expectations is much more stable if you don't have the "energy"
> and "ability" to stop the dream-perception from changing...
I don't know, to me this all sounds like just another kind of dream. Even
a false awakening is just a dream, though of the unique script of getting
up. It is a completely arbitrary concept.
ciotóg
> Ah, yes, I see it now. Such is the nature of "absolute surety" of the
>non-mystical kind! Nothing in RL has the stamp of authority I mentioned that
>mystical experience often seems to contain.
There's the paradox - "mystical knowlege" would seem to be less
concrete, less firm, yet it's being said that it's more "true".
> If we begin with certainties, we will surely end in doubts,
> but if we begin with doubts, and are patient,
> we will end with certainty. ?
The only certainty I recognize is that we can never be certain.
>> This is different from what you've been saying about being "seeing"
>> God, in that you have no doubts that it's true.
>
> Yes, the nature of this knowledge completely excludes the possibility of
>doubt. It truly does come down to: Would you doubt anything God says?
Yes :)
> For
>when He is telling you, it is also I telling my self, thus "I" know it, and
>have always known it. It is the nature of the union experience, God and I
>being completely One, like Jesus mentioned in John 17.
This may seem an odd question, but how do you feel about matter
replication/ transporter type ideas? If you could make a complete copy
of a person down to the last atom, would this copy have the same
mystical knowlege that the first one has?
ciotóg
> George Ziniewicz <zi...@home.com> writes:
>> Gander wrote:
>
>>> Yes, but just like a dream of lucid dreaming is still a LD
>>
>> Is it? I don't think so.
>
>Why? the definition is "knowing you're dreaming", and it really doesn't
>matter if you really know it, or if you dream that you know it... :-)
If I may borrow something from popular culture, a picture of a pipe is
not a pipe.
http://www.knobler.com/magritte.html
George Ziniewicz
>
> public class Gander extends UsenetDiscussion {
>
> > George Ziniewicz <zi...@home.com> writes:
> >> Gander wrote:
> >
> >>> Yes, but just like a dream of lucid dreaming is still a LD
> >>
> >> Is it? I don't think so.
> >
> >Why? the definition is "knowing you're dreaming", and it really doesn't
> >matter if you really know it, or if you dream that you know it... :-)
>
> If I may borrow something from popular culture, a picture of a pipe is
> not a pipe.
Yet in a dream, a cigar is sometimes just a cigar!
zin
George Ziniewicz
>
> public class George Ziniewicz extends UsenetDiscussion {
>
> > Ah, yes, I see it now. Such is the nature of "absolute surety" of the
> >non-mystical kind! Nothing in RL has the stamp of authority I mentioned that
> >mystical experience often seems to contain.
>
> There's the paradox - "mystical knowlege" would seem to be less
> concrete, less firm, yet it's being said that it's more "true".
And that's not the half of it!
> > If we begin with certainties, we will surely end in doubts,
> > but if we begin with doubts, and are patient,
> > we will end with certainty. ?
>
> The only certainty I recognize is that we can never be certain.
Yes, on a "conscious understanding" level. Mystical experience is
something else entirely.
> >> This is different from what you've been saying about being "seeing"
> >> God, in that you have no doubts that it's true.
> >
> > Yes, the nature of this knowledge completely excludes the possibility of
> >doubt. It truly does come down to: Would you doubt anything God says?
>
> Yes :)
LOL! Then don't listen to me!
> > For
> >when He is telling you, it is also I telling my self, thus "I" know it, and
> >have always known it. It is the nature of the union experience, God and I
> >being completely One, like Jesus mentioned in John 17.
>
> This may seem an odd question, but how do you feel about matter
> replication/ transporter type ideas? If you could make a complete copy
> of a person down to the last atom, would this copy have the same
> mystical knowlege that the first one has?
Perhaps. But it presupposes the reality of physical phenomenon. I do not.
"90% of everything is half-mental." Yogi Berra
Robert Vincent Walker-Smith
<snip>
>from time to time I get SP, and the most interesting thing to do
>there is to compare the things I see with RL-memory.
Sorry, but I missed the posting where SP is defined, and in all subsequent
postings where it's mentioned, I cannot get the definition by context. Could
someone please explain what the term means?
Thanks!
Robert
SRHadden
or wrote to heart. I think there is evidence out there that he was just
patching various material together crafted it into stories which were to
become his books, a whole series of books that read like novels (i've read
them). So, if you accept or tend to believe in something about existence
that is connected with what you read, just know that in those books is not
necessarily a truthful account.
I find it interesting how people talk about aspects of reality/existence as
if they truly KNOW what it's all about. Such as this concept of everything
being part of a large consciousness. Sure, could be true, but as far as I
can tell or feel and drawing from my "spiritual" lucid dreams, I haven't
picked up on anything like that yet - Maybe these people have?
George Ziniewicz
>
> I'd just like to comment that I wouldn't take anything that Casteneda said
> or wrote to heart.
I always keep a salt-shaker handy.
> I think there is evidence out there that he was just
> patching various material together crafted it into stories which were to
> become his books, a whole series of books that read like novels (i've read
> them). So, if you accept or tend to believe in something about existence
> that is connected with what you read, just know that in those books is not
> necessarily a truthful account.
>
> I find it interesting how people talk about aspects of reality/existence as
> if they truly KNOW what it's all about. Such as this concept of everything
> being part of a large consciousness. Sure, could be true, but as far as I
> can tell or feel and drawing from my "spiritual" lucid dreams, I haven't
> picked up on anything like that yet - Maybe these people have?
I've had LD for 30 years, and been spiritual most of my life. My LD is
fairly low-spirituality. My meditation in high-spirituality. Don't know
if I can bring up the level of it in LD, but am interestd in doing so.
Mystical experience is hard to talk about with precision, so metaphors
abound. I can say quite comfortably "I was one with God" or even "I am
God", based upon many meditative experiences, but what does that mean? It
has to be experienced for oneself.
ciotóg
>"ciotóg" wrote:
>
>> This may seem an odd question, but how do you feel about matter
>> replication/ transporter type ideas? If you could make a complete copy
>> of a person down to the last atom, would this copy have the same
>> mystical knowlege that the first one has?
>
> Perhaps. But it presupposes the reality of physical phenomenon. I do not.
Yes, but that doesn't really answer my question. Would the matter
transporters of Star Trek, for example, wipe clean the "stamp of
authority"? In the show they tend to come up with some excuse why it's
not possible to clone someone using a transporter, but they're really
just sidestepping the issue. If you were to use a transporter to copy
someone and only one of them were able to have the "stamp", which one
would get it?
George Ziniewicz
>
> public class George Ziniewicz extends UsenetDiscussion {
>
> >"ciotóg" wrote:
> >
> >> This may seem an odd question, but how do you feel about matter
> >> replication/ transporter type ideas? If you could make a complete copy
> >> of a person down to the last atom, would this copy have the same
> >> mystical knowlege that the first one has?
> >
> > Perhaps. But it presupposes the reality of physical phenomenon. I do not.
>
> Yes, but that doesn't really answer my question. Would the matter
> transporters of Star Trek, for example, wipe clean the "stamp of
> authority"? In the show they tend to come up with some excuse why it's
> not possible to clone someone using a transporter, but they're really
> just sidestepping the issue. If you were to use a transporter to copy
> someone and only one of them were able to have the "stamp", which one
> would get it?
ITS JUST A TV SHOW!
I agree some of their transporter excuses are lame.
If someone can be transported with memories intact, I don't see why the
stamp wouldn't copy. But this is only a memory of the stamp occuring, the
stamp is a realtime event.
BTW, with some of the shows activities re human behaviour and
quirkiness, I often find myself saying out loud "Damn, don't they have
buddhism in the 24th century?"!@#%
ciotóg
> cciioo...@ccaannaaddaa.ccoomm (ciotóg) writes:
>
>No, it's worse than that: inside of a dream RL-memory doesn't have
>much continuity (Different RL-experiences mix up with each other
>and most importantly past dreams and expectations add new elements
>to that mix.
That's true for me in waking life - and I suspect for most other
people as well. Ask anyone to step through an experience they had,
they're sure to skip over stuff and remember it later, or get things
out of order to begin with, or even believe thing happened that
didn't. That Scientific American Frontiers episode on dreams indicated
this very phenomenon when Alda remembered someone drinking from a
water bottle during a picnic scene, when it actually didn't happen.
>from time to time I get SP, and the most interesting thing to do
>there is to compare the things I see with RL-memory. Never did
>I find a difference, even to the tiniest detail, but after waking
>up I always did realize that something in the middle of my vision
>was different from my RL-bedroom, and most of the time I was even
>able to identify the dream in which I did see that additional
>object for the first time, and there it was always somehow connected
>with the correct position in my bedroom...
Similar to OBEs, really.
Of course maybe the "reality" is what you see in your dream, you're
just not seeing it while awake!
>Actually what you call "Dream" here is "Event" for you (i.e.
>independent from the state). then it is self-evident that Memory does
>contain less information that Event. I was talking about two different
>kinds of memory: "remembering" and "re-living". In RL we all rely on
>memory instead of trying to perceive the things, therefore re-living
>does contain more information than RL -- even if you re-live some dream
>inside of RL...
For me the only kind of "reliving" that's possible is in a dream or
dream-like state. Normal consciousness (for me) pipes all past
information through some process that loses information or clarity.
It's like having a song run around in my head - it's never close to
actually listening to the song itself.
Maybe dreaming is the same thing, but the brain has more resources to
flesh out the details (relying on other experiences as well), so it
only seems that more information is kept.
>> That memory will now be a part of the dream, though. This suggests
>> that if you want to have more vivid dreams you should try and remember
>
>I doubt there is any correlation between "trying to remember RL-info"
>and the actual things copied form RL-memory into dream-memory.
>It's true that I can "influence" which things from RL should be "ported"
>into the dream, but that isn't done by the usual memorizing-techniques,
>but either by "habit" or by directing the last thought before falling
>asleep towards that memory...
Yeah, I always have trouble doing any planned activity in a dream
anyway. My memories of RL stuff that I remember during a dream seem to
correlate with my waking memories, however - so I'm assuming they're
the same memories.
>> Yes, all the time, but I've never tried to move and been unable to do
>> so. I have woken up and not moved and fallen asleep again, so it's
>> still possible that I would've been unable to move but just never
>> tried.
>
>Did you ever have success with some WILD-technique while in that state?
Occasionally, but for the most part I fall back into a sleep state
where I don't remember dreaming.
>WILD is very effective from inside of a dream (i.e. from false awakings
>and from SP), and except for the easiness there doesn't seem to be much
>difference between getting into LD from SP and falling asleep for real...
Well I've always taken the view that if I'm dreaming, it's lucid -
because all my dreams have the same feel to them, and I've never
believed that I was awake while I as dreaming.
>Well, if you decide that it's a natural RL-state inbetween two dreams,
>then you probably won't ever try to move, and without even trying to
>perceive your surroundings you won't "wake up" any "intruders", so as
>long as you don't show your "emotional" interest in dream-characters
>you probably won't ever get what is described by others... :-)
Many of the things that are similar between two people experiencing SP
don't seem to be easily controlled - the buzzing noises, tingling or
feelings of pressure on parts of the body, etc. If I've never
experienced these, then I would say it's safe to assume that I just
don't get SP!
George Ziniewicz
...
> Well I've always taken the view that if I'm dreaming, it's lucid -
> because all my dreams have the same feel to them, and I've never
> believed that I was awake while I as dreaming.
I find this fascinating, that all your dreams feel the same.
Just recently I have switched my categorization of LD into the 3
categories:
1) Lucidity, awareness of the dream as dream, which varies dream to
dream and within dream, and is (I used to think anyway) directly
proportional with controllability, even if I don't exercise control.
2) Controllability, mostly an inverse measure of apparent resistance to
attempts at walking, flying, matter-manipulation...
3) Realism, mostly an indication of the stability of visual phenomenon
(though of late I am suspecting this is related to controllability,
independent of lucidity).
In these 3 categories I use 5 rough graduations 1-5, yielding 125
shades, and I often use decimals!
So for me, lucid dreams are quite varied in "feel" however defined.
What do you mean when you say "all my dreams have the same feel to
them"? Define "feel" as you use it here? Mental awareness, visual
perception?
...
George Ziniewicz
>
> In article <3A5A06F6...@home.com>,
> George Ziniewicz <zi...@home.com> writes:
> > SRHadden wrote:
> >>
>
> >>
> >> I find it interesting how people talk about aspects of reality/existence as
> >> if they truly KNOW what it's all about. Such as this concept of everything
> >> being part of a large consciousness. Sure, could be true, but as far as I
> >> can tell or feel and drawing from my "spiritual" lucid dreams, I haven't
> >> picked up on anything like that yet - Maybe these people have?
> >
> > I've had LD for 30 years, and been spiritual most of my life. My LD is
> > fairly low-spirituality. My meditation in high-spirituality. Don't know
> > if I can bring up the level of it in LD, but am interestd in doing so.
>
> RL also in your dreams? Didn't you know that meditation is much
> more easy inside of a dream?
I meditate with eyes closed. In LD, closing my eyes has ended the
dream, or lack of visual phenomenon with eyes open ends the dream, or I can
feel it slipping and I abort it, and stare down a bit of color and restore
the LD. As my recent "security guard" episode also seemed to indicate,
even maintaining a visual image but without "staring" or "looking" caused
it to end. I don't know what kind of meditation I could do that wouldn't
involve detachment from visual phenomenon.
LD is too precious a thing to waste!
> > Mystical experience is hard to talk about with precision, so metaphors
> > abound. I can say quite comfortably "I was one with God" or even "I am
> > God", based upon many meditative experiences, but what does that mean? It
> > has to be experienced for oneself.
>
> That's exactly why I would never assume that castaneda did ever try to
> speak about his own "spiritual experience" (except maybe in his first
> two books), But instead I think that whatever he said was directed at
> helping others to gain his experience, even if he was forced to spread
> lies for that purpose... :-)
I have no problem with that. In that case I don't consider it a lie,
but a device. A lie to me is a statement that contradicts reality, for
the purpose of concealment. Using something made up, modified or or
embellished, for the purposes of unfoldment is a different matter.
zin
Jani Miettinen
>"ciotóg" wrote:
>> Well I've always taken the view that if I'm dreaming, it's lucid
>> - because all my dreams have the same feel to them, and I've
>> never believed that I was awake while I as dreaming.
>
> I find this fascinating, that all your dreams feel the same.
To me this sounds like there is always the same 'dreamy' feeling in
dreams, but that is probably a misconception. But for the record, I
have categorized my dreams into three different classes and they each
have different overall feeling to them:
1) nostalgia - I usually return to a dream I once had, sometimes
taking off where I left, sometimes I return to there as if I was gone
for years and everything has changed as in RL. These dreams
practically *never* turn (at least so far haven't) into LD's but are
full of emotion and thus very enjoyable as such. My mental abilities
are not entirely lost so I remember the people from previous dreams
(although usually vaguely as if I had met them when I was a child).
Images are very vivid and quite stable.
2) foggy - I am just going with the flow, wherever the dreams takes
me, I am willing to go and whatever happens, I accept it without
question. It feels a bit like I was drunk. These dreams turn into
LD's very rarely but when they do, I cannot control scenery at all
but I can eg. fly very easily. Vision is somewhat blurred.
3) realistic - I could be awake, but there's always feeling os
something being not just right. At some point I usually realize that
I am dreaming and assuming control is very easy. However, it is very
hard to fly or go through walls but it is very easy to transform
objects and do some other neat stuff like that. Objects are usually
exceptionally hard and stable compared to those in dreams of other
kind.
> In these 3 categories I use 5 rough graduations 1-5, yielding
>125 shades, and I often use decimals!
For each of my dream-feel categories, these would apply roughly as
follows:
1) nostalgia:
Lucidity 1
Controllability 1-3
Realism 3-5
2) Foggy
Lucidity 1-2
Controllability 1-2
Realism 1-2
3) Realistic
Lucidity 3-5
Controllability 3-5
Realism 4-5
Oh, and I think I should mention that the overall dream-feel very
seldom changes. If a dream has begun as a foggy dream, I have very
little hope in turning it into a realistic dream.
George Ziniewicz
Interesting how objects and walls are hard yet "easy to transform". I
need more categories!
> > In these 3 categories I use 5 rough graduations 1-5, yielding
> >125 shades, and I often use decimals!
>
> For each of my dream-feel categories, these would apply roughly as
> follows:
>
> 1) nostalgia:
>
> Lucidity 1
> Controllability 1-3
> Realism 3-5
>
> 2) Foggy
>
> Lucidity 1-2
> Controllability 1-2
> Realism 1-2
>
> 3) Realistic
>
> Lucidity 3-5
> Controllability 3-5
> Realism 4-5
How are you defining lucidity here, if these are "just dreams"? Sounds
like "LD potential" here?
Even a 1 on my lucidity scale is a LD, i.e. I know I am dreaming and at
least attempt control regardlesss of resistance (2-4/5), or consciously
choose not to control it (1/5).
I thought I was becoming aware of an inverse ratio of controllability and
visual realism, but your list doesn't show that.
And I may need more categories, separating out flying ability and matter
malleability. I would have thought the two would track, but not in one of
my recent LD where I could fly well but matter wouldn't budge, at least not
until later in the LD, I wonder what changed in between (burning my
finger?). It is VERY rare in LD that matter won't behave like putty.
And where does the ceiling on flying come from? It sometimes seems like
gravity starts to come into play at some vertical level, or a level is
completely impenetrable though invisible.
> Oh, and I think I should mention that the overall dream-feel very
> seldom changes. If a dream has begun as a foggy dream, I have very
> little hope in turning it into a realistic dream.
But are they lucid? Without lucidity, how can you "turn" it?
Of course, how does one ever "get lucid" anyway. For me it just
happens. And that is when the fun starts.
ciotóg
> ITS JUST A TV SHOW!
Of course, but what easier way was there for me to get my point across
aside from using it as an example?
> I agree some of their transporter excuses are lame.
>
> If someone can be transported with memories intact, I don't see why the
>stamp wouldn't copy. But this is only a memory of the stamp occuring, the
>stamp is a realtime event.
Well then that would mean that the stamp would be removed. This
implies that ANY change to the brain that affects the area where the
stamp is stored (if it is in fact localized) would erase the stamp as
well. Do you see where I'm trying to go with this? ;)
> BTW, with some of the shows activities re human behaviour and
>quirkiness, I often find myself saying out loud "Damn, don't they have
>buddhism in the 24th century?"!@#%
It never stops annoying me in those shows when alien races talk about
how "unique" humans are, or ultimately superior, or some other rubbish
like that.
ciotóg
> What do you mean when you say "all my dreams have the same feel to
>them"? Define "feel" as you use it here? Mental awareness, visual
>perception?
I mean that all my dreams have the same general feel to them, not that
they are all equal. Basically I mean that there is no overlapping
between reality and dreaming, just as there's no overlapping reality
and memory, memory and dreaming, reality and book absorption, book and
movie absorption, etc ad nauseum :)
That's not to say that, for example, when I'm reading a really good
book that's drawing me into the story it "feels" the same as reading a
textbook, but in both cases there's always an underlying "book
readingness" to the experience.
I find it incredible that people think they're awake when they're
asleep!
George Ziniewicz
>
> public class George Ziniewicz extends UsenetDiscussion {
>
> > ITS JUST A TV SHOW!
>
> Of course, but what easier way was there for me to get my point across
> aside from using it as an example?
>
> > I agree some of their transporter excuses are lame.
> >
> > If someone can be transported with memories intact, I don't see why the
> >stamp wouldn't copy. But this is only a memory of the stamp occuring, the
> >stamp is a realtime event.
>
> Well then that would mean that the stamp would be removed.
The memory of the stamp occurring?
> This
> implies that ANY change to the brain that affects the area where the
> stamp is stored (if it is in fact localized) would erase the stamp as
> well. Do you see where I'm trying to go with this? ;)
No. As I said, the stamp is a realtime event, and memory of it
happening is stored, but it occurs in parallel with the insight or
knowledge that it "affirms", like the union/oneness/connectivity thing. Do
you mean that memory of the union experience/insight can be lost somehow?
That would be an interesting question. I wonder if there are any old
senile mystics that can confirm this? See me in a few decades!
> > BTW, with some of the shows activities re human behaviour and
> >quirkiness, I often find myself saying out loud "Damn, don't they have
> >buddhism in the 24th century?"!@#%
>
> It never stops annoying me in those shows when alien races talk about
> how "unique" humans are, or ultimately superior, or some other rubbish
> like that.
Yes that is a bit unusual, often regarding human will and resistance to
slavery.
There are some inconsistencies. Often I find errors, that I think are
programmed in, just to see if we are paying attention. Did you see the
Voyager where Hugh first said "I"? And how they made such a big deal about
it? But he said "I" about 20 minutes earlier! And on a later show, they
rubbed that fact in our faces by showing Picard reviewing a clip of that
very scene!
Or did you see where Janeway referred to 7 of 9 as 7 of 12 (I call her 6
of 9!)?
In the same sentence she referred to Neelix as the Cardassian cook.
George Ziniewicz
>
> public class George Ziniewicz extends UsenetDiscussion {
>
> > What do you mean when you say "all my dreams have the same feel to
> >them"? Define "feel" as you use it here? Mental awareness, visual
> >perception?
>
> I mean that all my dreams have the same general feel to them, not that
> they are all equal. Basically I mean that there is no overlapping
> between reality and dreaming, just as there's no overlapping reality
> and memory, memory and dreaming, reality and book absorption, book and
> movie absorption, etc ad nauseum :)
>
> That's not to say that, for example, when I'm reading a really good
> book that's drawing me into the story it "feels" the same as reading a
> textbook, but in both cases there's always an underlying "book
> readingness" to the experience.
>
> I find it incredible that people think they're awake when they're
> asleep!
I don't know if people "think" they're awake, I think it just doesn't
occur to them to question.
For example, I don't walk around all day thinking "I am awake".
Only in a dream, when an anomaly of some sort is perceived, does the
question arise. And since (I assume) we are operating with diminished
capacity, it is not a surprise.
Only the most "aware" people may notice "awakeness" as a matter of
routine. Perhaps this is another reason why I have many LD, I studied
Buddhism, and meditate[d], both things that "teach" the mind about paying
attention to (or disregarding!) sensory phenomenon.
jungf...@my-deja.com
Bonham and Jean-Christophe Terrillon:
"The phenomenon of sleep paralysis has attracted increasing attention in
the scientific community only in recent years, even though the
occurrence of what may be described as sleep paralysis has been
documented as early as Hellenistic times. At a fundamental level, the
term "Isolated Sleep Paralysis" (ISP) is used to differentiate between
an abnormal generalized muscle atonia and the usual generalized muscle
atonia which is characteristic of REM sleep (dream state), as well
as to distinguish such a condition from sleep paralysis occurring as an
ancillary symptom of narcolepsy (which exhibits a combination of several
symptoms). ISP is a common condition with a prevalence of 5-62% [1]
depending on geographic location, but most affected people have a single
episode or infrequent episodes during their life and the duration of an
episode is generally less than a minute. In contradistinction to ISP,
Recurrent Isolated Sleep Paralysis (RISP) is a rarer variant of sleep
paralysis characterized by frequent episodes or complex of sequential
episodes of generally longer duration, and in particular by the range
and intensity of the perceptual phenomena occurring during episodes.
RISP is found to be familial in most cases [1], [20]. RISP is a complex
phenomenon that, at present, cannot be explained by any appropriate and
comprehensive model that would integrate low-level neurophysiological
processes, high-level neurocognitive functions and possibly higher-level
processes."
So in laymen's terms sleep paralysis is a state of awareness of the
muscle atonia or shutdown of muscular function that occurs during sleep
that prevents us from hurting ourselves while we rest. Of course the
experience of being aware and unable to move that is often accompanied
by hynogogic and hypnopompic imagery can be very frightening. These
authors hope to connect RISP with paranormal phenomena but rest assured
that SP is not outside the perceptual experience of reality no matter
how strange it may feel.
jf
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Jani Miettinen
>Jani Miettinen wrote:
>> 3) realistic - I could be awake, but there's always feeling os
>> something being not just right. At some point I usually realize
>> that I am dreaming and assuming control is very easy. However,
>> it is very hard to fly or go through walls but it is very easy
>> to transform objects and do some other neat stuff like that.
>> Objects are usually exceptionally hard and stable compared to
>> those in dreams of other kind.
>
> Interesting how objects and walls are hard yet "easy to
>transform".
I really don't know how this is so, but the more realistic my dreams
are the harder it is to perform dream actions like flying and the
easier it is to control everything else outside myself.
>I need more categories!
:)
But before this, I never thought about categorizing my dreams.
>[snip]
> How are you defining lucidity here, if these are "just dreams"?
>Sounds like "LD potential" here?
Sorry, very vague explanation. It really is LD potential, but once
I've gained lucidity, it also tells how lucid I will be. Dreams of
high LD potential turn into very lucid dreams and vice versa (maybe
it is easier to regain lucidity once it is accidentally lost). I
should learn to think before posting ;)
But my regular LD'ing four years ago still has an impact on my
regular dreams now, too. I often find myself aware of that I am
dreaming - so I could do this and that and I have no reason to get
scared and I won't get hurt etc. but the dream is still a regular
one.
> I thought I was becoming aware of an inverse ratio of
>controllability and visual realism, but your list doesn't show
>that.
My dreams seem to be just the opposite. :)
> And I may need more categories, separating out flying ability
>and matter malleability. I would have thought the two would track,
>but not in one of my recent LD where I could fly well but matter
>wouldn't budge, at least not until later in the LD, I wonder what
>changed in between (burning my finger?). It is VERY rare in LD
>that matter won't behave like putty.
Matter hasn't always been hard in my dreams either. I think my first
dream with hard matter was one with almost real life realism: I could
even feel hard floor under my feet, I could hear my steps (and they
echoed in a great hall) and when I pushed a door open, it was hard
and very heavy so I had to actually push it open instead of usual
automatic doors in my dreams. I have never had these things in my
dreams.
Ever since I have occasionally had [normal] dreams with non-malleable
matter and number of these dreams seems to be increasing - perhaps
even 1/5 dreams I remember are like this now.
> And where does the ceiling on flying come from? It sometimes
>seems like gravity starts to come into play at some vertical level,
>or a level is completely impenetrable though invisible.
That is something I'd like know, too. But my the height of ceiling on
flying in my dreams varies greatly. Sometimes I cannot fly upwards at
all - I can just jump and there's no going upwards at all, sometimes
it is at about 100 meters or so and going up only gets harder, not
impossible. Hmm.. maybe this ending up banging one's head in a light
bulb has something to do with this?
>> Oh, and I think I should mention that the overall dream-feel
>> very seldom changes. If a dream has begun as a foggy dream, I
>> have very little hope in turning it into a realistic dream.
>
> But are they lucid? Without lucidity, how can you "turn" it?
I know it is strange, but I seem to have some control over my dreams
without fully realizing that I am dreaming. This is frustratring
sometimes: upon waking up, realizing that I knew I was dreaming but I
did not get lucid at all. I'm too much involved in dream events, I
guess.
> Of course, how does one ever "get lucid" anyway. For me it
>just happens.
Same here. Some very unusual events might get me very suspicious and
LD will be triggered more easily but usually it just happens.
> And that is when the fun starts.
Oh, yes :)
George Ziniewicz
>
> George Ziniewicz <zi...@home.com>:
> >Jani Miettinen wrote:
> >> 3) realistic - I could be awake, but there's always feeling os
> >> something being not just right. At some point I usually realize
> >> that I am dreaming and assuming control is very easy. However,
> >> it is very hard to fly or go through walls but it is very easy
> >> to transform objects and do some other neat stuff like that.
> >> Objects are usually exceptionally hard and stable compared to
> >> those in dreams of other kind.
> >
> > Interesting how objects and walls are hard yet "easy to
> >transform".
>
> I really don't know how this is so, but the more realistic my dreams
> are the harder it is to perform dream actions like flying and the
> easier it is to control everything else outside myself.
So you feel as I am beginning to suspect to realism is correlated to
"resistance".
> >I need more categories!
>
> :)
>
> But before this, I never thought about categorizing my dreams.
I used to work on data collection software at a semiconductor
manufacturer. The more data you can collect and categorize, the more
conclusions you may be able to successfully make later.
> >[snip]
> > How are you defining lucidity here, if these are "just dreams"?
> >Sounds like "LD potential" here?
>
> Sorry, very vague explanation. It really is LD potential, but once
> I've gained lucidity, it also tells how lucid I will be. Dreams of
> high LD potential turn into very lucid dreams and vice versa (maybe
> it is easier to regain lucidity once it is accidentally lost). I
> should learn to think before posting ;)
Level of detail increases when things are looked at close up!
> But my regular LD'ing four years ago still has an impact on my
> regular dreams now, too. I often find myself aware of that I am
> dreaming - so I could do this and that and I have no reason to get
> scared and I won't get hurt etc. but the dream is still a regular
> one.
>
> > I thought I was becoming aware of an inverse ratio of
> >controllability and visual realism, but your list doesn't show
> >that.
>
> My dreams seem to be just the opposite. :)
>
> > And I may need more categories, separating out flying ability
> >and matter malleability. I would have thought the two would track,
> >but not in one of my recent LD where I could fly well but matter
> >wouldn't budge, at least not until later in the LD, I wonder what
> >changed in between (burning my finger?). It is VERY rare in LD
> >that matter won't behave like putty.
>
> Matter hasn't always been hard in my dreams either. I think my first
> dream with hard matter was one with almost real life realism: I could
> even feel hard floor under my feet, I could hear my steps (and they
> echoed in a great hall) and when I pushed a door open, it was hard
> and very heavy so I had to actually push it open instead of usual
> automatic doors in my dreams. I have never had these things in my
> dreams.
I have only noticed the super-realism of late. Haven't yet figured out
what's up with those.
> Ever since I have occasionally had [normal] dreams with non-malleable
> matter and number of these dreams seems to be increasing - perhaps
> even 1/5 dreams I remember are like this now.
>
> > And where does the ceiling on flying come from? It sometimes
> >seems like gravity starts to come into play at some vertical level,
> >or a level is completely impenetrable though invisible.
>
> That is something I'd like know, too. But my the height of ceiling on
> flying in my dreams varies greatly.
Yes. Often I can go as high as I want, but clouds will eventually
appear and obscure, even in a pitch-blue sky!
> Sometimes I cannot fly upwards at
> all - I can just jump and there's no going upwards at all, sometimes
> it is at about 100 meters or so and going up only gets harder, not
> impossible. Hmm.. maybe this ending up banging one's head in a light
> bulb has something to do with this?
That's an idea!
> >> Oh, and I think I should mention that the overall dream-feel
> >> very seldom changes. If a dream has begun as a foggy dream, I
> >> have very little hope in turning it into a realistic dream.
Spinning, staring, begging...
> > But are they lucid? Without lucidity, how can you "turn" it?
>
> I know it is strange, but I seem to have some control over my dreams
> without fully realizing that I am dreaming. This is frustratring
> sometimes: upon waking up, realizing that I knew I was dreaming but I
> did not get lucid at all. I'm too much involved in dream events, I
> guess.
>
> > Of course, how does one ever "get lucid" anyway. For me it
> >just happens.
>
> Same here. Some very unusual events might get me very suspicious and
> LD will be triggered more easily but usually it just happens.
>
> > And that is when the fun starts.
>
> Oh, yes :)
zin
George Ziniewicz
>
> In article <3A5B9EE4...@home.com>,
> George Ziniewicz <zi...@home.com> writes:
> > Gander wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3A5A06F6...@home.com>,
> >> George Ziniewicz <zi...@home.com> writes:
> >> > SRHadden wrote:
> >> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I find it interesting how people talk about aspects of reality/existence as
> >> >> if they truly KNOW what it's all about. Such as this concept of everything
> >> >> being part of a large consciousness. Sure, could be true, but as far as I
> >> >> can tell or feel and drawing from my "spiritual" lucid dreams, I haven't
> >> >> picked up on anything like that yet - Maybe these people have?
> >> >
> >> > I've had LD for 30 years, and been spiritual most of my life. My LD is
> >> > fairly low-spirituality. My meditation in high-spirituality. Don't know
> >> > if I can bring up the level of it in LD, but am interestd in doing so.
> >>
> >> What, did you never try to use the same meditation-techniques from
> >> RL also in your dreams? Didn't you know that meditation is much
> >> more easy inside of a dream?
> >
> > I meditate with eyes closed. In LD, closing my eyes has ended the
> > dream, or lack of visual phenomenon with eyes open ends the dream, or I can
> > feel it slipping and I abort it, and stare down a bit of color and restore
>
> but the worst thing one could ever do in a LD is actually re-opening
> them afterwards... :-)
>
> > the LD. As my recent "security guard" episode also seemed to indicate,
> > even maintaining a visual image but without "staring" or "looking" caused
> > it to end. I don't know what kind of meditation I could do that wouldn't
> > involve detachment from visual phenomenon.
>
> of the human eyes won't work that well in a dream, but in a dream you
> can skip that part and use Janice's "acting as if" technique to jump
> right into the point where visual perception isn't important anymore.
I don't know the tec.
> Did you "see" god while on drugs with your "closed eyes"
That way too, various combinations.
>, or did you
> get the impression that the state of your eyelids isn't important
> for the things you see?
It's either God on black or God on stuff. Both good.
> IMHO in a dream it is much more clear what
> some meditation-technique actually does and how it works. For example
> I once tried out my newly aquired tai-chi abilities in a dream, and
> there I realized that I'm doing it wrong simply through the impression
> of falling and hitting the ground there...
I have added meditative tecs to my ToDo list.
> > LD is too precious a thing to waste!
>
> No, sleep-time is too precious to be wasted for "day-dreaming"!
> >
> >
> >> > Mystical experience is hard to talk about with precision, so metaphors
> >> > abound. I can say quite comfortably "I was one with God" or even "I am
> >> > God", based upon many meditative experiences, but what does that mean? It
> >> > has to be experienced for oneself.
> >>
> >> That's exactly why I would never assume that castaneda did ever try to
> >> speak about his own "spiritual experience" (except maybe in his first
> >> two books), But instead I think that whatever he said was directed at
> >> helping others to gain his experience, even if he was forced to spread
> >> lies for that purpose... :-)
> >
> > I have no problem with that. In that case I don't consider it a lie,
> > but a device. A lie to me is a statement that contradicts reality, for
> > the purpose of concealment. Using something made up, modified or or
> > embellished, for the purposes of unfoldment is a different matter.
>
> Well, I bet a lot of the things made up by castaneda where also
> aimed at concealing his own personal history, or the personal
> history of the people involved in the creation of his books
> (he said something along these lines in his books and interviews),
> so technically he was a lyer even if your definition is used,
> although I personally don't see what the exact position in space
> and time of a person does have anything to do with his creditability... :-)
Me neither. Carlos maybe concealed some things, but I assume those
were small or with reason, compared to the unfoldment he was prescribing.
zin
--
Jani Miettinen
>Jani Miettinen wrote:
>> I really don't know how this is so, but the more realistic my
>> dreams are the harder it is to perform dream actions like flying
>> and the easier it is to control everything else outside myself.
>
> So you feel as I am beginning to suspect to realism is
>correlated to "resistance".
Yes, that's it! I hope that resistance was more futile, by the way :)
(You have to know a lot about dreaming coz you can translate my vague
explanations into solid English :)
>> But before this, I never thought about categorizing my dreams.
>
> I used to work on data collection software at a semiconductor
>manufacturer. The more data you can collect and categorize, the
>more conclusions you may be able to successfully make later.
Yes, I think I should put more effort into my dreaming, too. So far I
have just had it happen and never tried to analyze anything.
> I have only noticed the super-realism of late. Haven't yet
>figured out what's up with those.
I think they have the most potential once they could be utilized and
achieved at will.
>> That is something I'd like know, too. But my the height of
>> ceiling on flying in my dreams varies greatly.
>
> Yes. Often I can go as high as I want, but clouds will
>eventually appear and obscure, even in a pitch-blue sky!
:D Dream logic is *some* funny logic.
>> >> Oh, and I think I should mention that the overall dream-feel
>> >> very seldom changes. If a dream has begun as a foggy dream, I
>> >> have very little hope in turning it into a realistic dream.
>
> Spinning, staring, begging...
That changes the dream, too. With 'dream' I meant one that has some
continuity.
Begging is something I should try :) However, it is very different
from my usual dream actions where I just intend and things happen.
I'll give it a try, but I don't have the slightest idea how to beg
because I have great difficulties speaking in dreams.
George Ziniewicz
>
> George Ziniewicz <zi...@home.com>:
> >Jani Miettinen wrote:
> >> I really don't know how this is so, but the more realistic my
> >> dreams are the harder it is to perform dream actions like flying
> >> and the easier it is to control everything else outside myself.
> >
> > So you feel as I am beginning to suspect to realism is
> >correlated to "resistance".
>
> Yes, that's it! I hope that resistance was more futile, by the way :)
>
> (You have to know a lot about dreaming coz you can translate my vague
> explanations into solid English :)
And alot about StarTrek!
"The dream dreams the dreamer" Neelix
> >> But before this, I never thought about categorizing my dreams.
> >
> > I used to work on data collection software at a semiconductor
> >manufacturer. The more data you can collect and categorize, the
> >more conclusions you may be able to successfully make later.
>
> Yes, I think I should put more effort into my dreaming, too. So far I
> have just had it happen and never tried to analyze anything.
>
> > I have only noticed the super-realism of late. Haven't yet
> >figured out what's up with those.
>
> I think they have the most potential once they could be utilized and
> achieved at will.
If the superrealism doesn't reduce lucidity (because you think it is
RL)!
> >> That is something I'd like know, too. But my the height of
> >> ceiling on flying in my dreams varies greatly.
> >
> > Yes. Often I can go as high as I want, but clouds will
> >eventually appear and obscure, even in a pitch-blue sky!
Only once did I make it out to the edges of space, just as a
space-capsule whizzed by, ~1974, I couldn't catch it, like I do airplanes,
and enter the fuselage and walk down the aisle.
> :D Dream logic is *some* funny logic.
Fuzzy logic!
> >> >> Oh, and I think I should mention that the overall dream-feel
> >> >> very seldom changes. If a dream has begun as a foggy dream, I
> >> >> have very little hope in turning it into a realistic dream.
> >
> > Spinning, staring, begging...
>
> That changes the dream, too. With 'dream' I meant one that has some
> continuity.
Yes, things do tend to change with spinning.
> Begging is something I should try :)
Well, it didn't work with the ex!
> However, it is very different
> from my usual dream actions where I just intend and things happen.
> I'll give it a try, but I don't have the slightest idea how to beg
> because I have great difficulties speaking in dreams.
I used the term beg like ask, request, demand, assert...with feeling!
Lutegirl
up during the day,making you realize that you weren't as awake or as aware as
you thought you were, just merely getting by,going through the motions of every
day life.
Andrea
ciotóg
>"ciotóg" wrote:
>> I mean that all my dreams have the same general feel to them, not that
>> they are all equal. Basically I mean that there is no overlapping
>> between reality and dreaming, just as there's no overlapping reality
>> and memory, memory and dreaming, reality and book absorption, book and
>> movie absorption, etc ad nauseum :)
After having said this, I have to admit that memories and dreams
sometimes run into one another somewhat just before waking, but it's
more like memories trying to be "like" dreams. This is because for the
most part my thoughts throughout the day are like prose - mostly words
(and sounds), very few "visual" thoughts. In the early morning just
before waking up I have the most visual memories/thoughts, but they're
still not the same as dreams :)
Most people I've asked about this have said that they think in much
more abstract terms than I do. I seem to have much higher abstract
thinking skills than most, though, judging from my classmates in
classes dealing with logic, algorithms, etc.
>> I find it incredible that people think they're awake when they're
>> asleep!
>
> I don't know if people "think" they're awake, I think it just doesn't
>occur to them to question.
>
> For example, I don't walk around all day thinking "I am awake".
No, but if anyone were to ask me whether I was awake or asleep It
seems to me, given my current state of mind (in other words I may have
been wrong in the past put didn't know it, but I don't think this is
true), that I could always answer truthfully in each case. That is to
say that if someone were to ask if I were awake I would know that I
was (even if I answered falsely ;) ), and if I were dreaming I would
be able to answer that as well.
That's basically why I say that all my dreams are lucid - there's
never a time when one "feels" like the other, even if I'm not 100%
cognizant of it at every moment.
This seems to be different than most people report.
> Only in a dream, when an anomaly of some sort is perceived, does the
>question arise. And since (I assume) we are operating with diminished
>capacity, it is not a surprise.
I never question it because it's so obvious!
> Only the most "aware" people may notice "awakeness" as a matter of
>routine. Perhaps this is another reason why I have many LD, I studied
>Buddhism, and meditate[d], both things that "teach" the mind about paying
>attention to (or disregarding!) sensory phenomenon.
You ought to read up on P.D. Ouspensky (who I've mentioned a few times
here already) - his methods are supposed to raise consciousness to
this higher level of awareness (and he's a complete kook, so I'm sure
you'll like him ;) )
ciotóg
> cciioo...@ccaannaaddaa.ccoomm (ciotóg) writes:
>>
>> Similar to OBEs, really.
>
>No, in an OBE I always get the impression that the scenery does
>slightly differ from RL after I do a few steps, but maybe what
>I call OBE isn't what you call OBE...
From what you describe I'd say OBE's are just like SP except you leave
your body, and you are slightly more aware of the differences between
what you see and reality.
Personally I would define OBE differently, as in any time where you
feel disconnected from some sort of grounding agent (your physical
body, usually but could be a dream body that's not necessarily even a
version of your own body). That means no real awareness of limbs and
such.
Many others restrict it to dreams that seem to reflect reality (some
even claiming that it is reality that they're seeing), and you could
even have some type of spectral body.
>Maybe it's just illusion, but for me the dreams I write into my
>dream-journal become more vivid than RL for the short time of
>"formulating" and remembering the details. This is certainly
>not the fault of the dreams, as I often do have dreams which would
>"deserve" more to be written down, especially more "vivid" (inside
>of the dream) dreams are not as clear as the dreams I write down...
I have a hard enough time describing mundane things, I couldn't begin
to describe my dreams!
>But the advantage of WILD (even through SP) is that you can "drag"
>some wisely-chosen RL-memory into your LD. Whenever I get into SP
>I use that fact to fill up my LD-schedule with as much things as I
>can remember, and thereby I evade the problem of getting into a LD
>without knowing what to do, while in reality I had a batch of plans
>what to do in my next LD...
That really is a good idea - even keeping a list of things you want to
do in your dreams beside your bed so that when you wake up you can
refer to it before going back to sleep. That might take some of the
onus of remembering off it.
>Well, most of the time when I get such effects they are caused by
>me either consciously or through expectations (if there was a fly
>in my room or the computer was buzzing with its fan before I did
>fall asleep, then in my next SP this sound will turn into some
>kind of nightmarish noise which can't be escaped because of the
>paralysis-effect. However, sometimes there are things in SP which
>can't be controlled by me, and most of the time they do stay there
>even if I swith into a dream and it does only go away if I express
>my wish that it should go away...
It's interesting that SP often seems to intensify real-world
sensations beyond a comfortable level, when in a "normal" dream they
only give some vague impressions. Maybe I'm wrong about that, though.
ciotóg
>"ciotóg" wrote:
> No. As I said, the stamp is a realtime event, and memory of it
>happening is stored, but it occurs in parallel with the insight or
>knowledge that it "affirms", like the union/oneness/connectivity thing. Do
>you mean that memory of the union experience/insight can be lost somehow?
>That would be an interesting question. I wonder if there are any old
>senile mystics that can confirm this? See me in a few decades!
Ok, I think I understand a little better now. It still raises some
more questions, though - is this just a memory of a divine event? If
so, then I don't see why it couldn't easily be a false memory.
Other than that, if the memory of the event can be replicated, then it
would suggest to me that it's value is reduced. Ugh, I can't explain
it very well, let me think about it some more.
> There are some inconsistencies. Often I find errors, that I think are
>programmed in, just to see if we are paying attention. Did you see the
>Voyager where Hugh first said "I"? And how they made such a big deal about
>it? But he said "I" about 20 minutes earlier! And on a later show, they
>rubbed that fact in our faces by showing Picard reviewing a clip of that
>very scene!
I've only seen a couple of episodes of Voyager, so I really can't
comment on it much. I'm pretty sure I've seen every ST:TNG though
(except the movies).
> Or did you see where Janeway referred to 7 of 9 as 7 of 12 (I call her 6
>of 9!)?
>
> In the same sentence she referred to Neelix as the Cardassian cook.
Well, they're "real people", after all. You can't expect them to be
perfect! ;)
George Ziniewicz
>
> In article <Xns90267B0B75A1...@192.89.123.233>,
> ja...@my-deja.com (Jani Miettinen) writes:
> > George Ziniewicz <zi...@home.com>:
> >>Jani Miettinen wrote:
> >>> 3) realistic - I could be awake, but there's always feeling os
> >>> something being not just right. At some point I usually realize
> >>> that I am dreaming and assuming control is very easy. However,
> >>> it is very hard to fly or go through walls but it is very easy
> >>> to transform objects and do some other neat stuff like that.
> >>> Objects are usually exceptionally hard and stable compared to
> >>> those in dreams of other kind.
> >>
> >> Interesting how objects and walls are hard yet "easy to
> >>transform".
> >
> > I really don't know how this is so, but the more realistic my dreams
> > are the harder it is to perform dream actions like flying and the
> > easier it is to control everything else outside myself.
>
> a force "fighting" against your flying-attempts?
>
> Logically flying should become more easy if you gain more control
> on the things outside, as you would only need to move the dream
> with all it's elements into the opposite direction, and you are
> flying at any speed you wish... :-)
That's often how I do it, mentally imagining things whizzing by.
But other times, it is like I am pushing to fly, and the medium is
mollases-like.
> >> And where does the ceiling on flying come from? It sometimes
> >>seems like gravity starts to come into play at some vertical level,
> >>or a level is completely impenetrable though invisible.
> >
> > That is something I'd like know, too. But my the height of ceiling on
> > flying in my dreams varies greatly. Sometimes I cannot fly upwards at
> > all - I can just jump and there's no going upwards at all, sometimes
> > it is at about 100 meters or so and going up only gets harder, not
> > impossible. Hmm.. maybe this ending up banging one's head in a light
> > bulb has something to do with this?
>
> As I said in this newsgroup: for me flying higher than at
> a certain a certain altitude is impossible when I use any
> other flying-technique than the one I call real "flying".
> the maximum altitude does depend on the dream-characters
> I see in my dream (I can fly upwards forever as long as
> there are none) and it does change unpredictably every night.
> With the real "flying" technique I can get out of the dream
> into outer space or wherever I wish to, I just need to fly
> through some kind of ceiling which is always somewhere above
> the clouds, which are actually a lot higher than my usual
> maximum altitude...
Often I fly through a cloud layer, only to find a ceiling, then going
through the ceiling gets me into a shopping mall or office, where the
process repeats.
Like I'm Truman!
George Ziniewicz
>
> public class George Ziniewicz extends UsenetDiscussion {
>
> >"ciotóg" wrote:
> >> I mean that all my dreams have the same general feel to them, not that
> >> they are all equal. Basically I mean that there is no overlapping
> >> between reality and dreaming, just as there's no overlapping reality
> >> and memory, memory and dreaming, reality and book absorption, book and
> >> movie absorption, etc ad nauseum :)
>
> After having said this, I have to admit that memories and dreams
> sometimes run into one another somewhat just before waking, but it's
> more like memories trying to be "like" dreams. This is because for the
> most part my thoughts throughout the day are like prose - mostly words
> (and sounds), very few "visual" thoughts.
Oh, a right-hander.
> In the early morning just
> before waking up I have the most visual memories/thoughts, but they're
> still not the same as dreams :)
>
> Most people I've asked about this have said that they think in much
> more abstract terms than I do.
That always sounded too abstract for me to grasp.
> I seem to have much higher abstract
> thinking skills than most, though, judging from my classmates in
> classes dealing with logic, algorithms, etc.
>
> >> I find it incredible that people think they're awake when they're
> >> asleep!
> >
> > I don't know if people "think" they're awake, I think it just doesn't
> >occur to them to question.
> >
> > For example, I don't walk around all day thinking "I am awake".
>
> No, but if anyone were to ask me whether I was awake or asleep It
> seems to me, given my current state of mind (in other words I may have
> been wrong in the past put didn't know it, but I don't think this is
> true), that I could always answer truthfully in each case. That is to
> say that if someone were to ask if I were awake I would know that I
> was (even if I answered falsely ;) ), and if I were dreaming I would
> be able to answer that as well.
And say what?
> That's basically why I say that all my dreams are lucid - there's
> never a time when one "feels" like the other, even if I'm not 100%
> cognizant of it at every moment.
>
> This seems to be different than most people report.
Anyone ever tell you "you are different"? (*>*)
> > Only in a dream, when an anomaly of some sort is perceived, does the
> >question arise. And since (I assume) we are operating with diminished
> >capacity, it is not a surprise.
>
> I never question it because it's so obvious!
To you perhaps! I don't know what it is that can make me see dead
relatives and not question reality.
Part of me (the critical faculty) is still asleep.
> > Only the most "aware" people may notice "awakeness" as a matter of
> >routine. Perhaps this is another reason why I have many LD, I studied
> >Buddhism, and meditate[d], both things that "teach" the mind about paying
> >attention to (or disregarding!) sensory phenomenon.
>
> You ought to read up on P.D. Ouspensky (who I've mentioned a few times
> here already) - his methods are supposed to raise consciousness to
> this higher level of awareness (and he's a complete kook, so I'm sure
> you'll like him ;) )
I like him already! Any url's?
George Ziniewicz
>
> public class Gander extends UsenetDiscussion {
>
> > cciioo...@ccaannaaddaa.ccoomm (ciotóg) writes:
> >>
> >> Similar to OBEs, really.
> >
> >No, in an OBE I always get the impression that the scenery does
> >slightly differ from RL after I do a few steps, but maybe what
> >I call OBE isn't what you call OBE...
>
> From what you describe I'd say OBE's are just like SP except you leave
> your body, and you are slightly more aware of the differences between
> what you see and reality.
>
> Personally I would define OBE differently, as in any time where you
> feel disconnected from some sort of grounding agent (your physical
> body, usually but could be a dream body that's not necessarily even a
> version of your own body). That means no real awareness of limbs and
> such.
>
> Many others restrict it to dreams that seem to reflect reality (some
> even claiming that it is reality that they're seeing), and you could
> even have some type of spectral body.
I studied astral projection/OBE for many years in dozens of books in the
early 70's, seems it got watered down of late, but "when I was a kid" an
OBE was where the person was in the real world, no ifs, ands or buts.
Different body types were seen: usual body, different body, a single point,
but the common thing was that the surroundings were the "real world".
There were also other places to go to, like the astral realm, etc. who
knows where they are, in or up, but OBE was strictly out of body, the body
was in the world, so when out of body you were still in the world just out
of the body.
I have had ~1000 LD, but no OBE, and at this point, I doubt such a thing
as real world OBE exists.
> >Maybe it's just illusion, but for me the dreams I write into my
> >dream-journal become more vivid than RL for the short time of
> >"formulating" and remembering the details. This is certainly
> >not the fault of the dreams, as I often do have dreams which would
> >"deserve" more to be written down, especially more "vivid" (inside
> >of the dream) dreams are not as clear as the dreams I write down...
>
> I have a hard enough time describing mundane things, I couldn't begin
> to describe my dreams!
!
> >But the advantage of WILD (even through SP) is that you can "drag"
> >some wisely-chosen RL-memory into your LD. Whenever I get into SP
> >I use that fact to fill up my LD-schedule with as much things as I
> >can remember, and thereby I evade the problem of getting into a LD
> >without knowing what to do, while in reality I had a batch of plans
> >what to do in my next LD...
>
> That really is a good idea - even keeping a list of things you want to
> do in your dreams beside your bed so that when you wake up you can
> refer to it before going back to sleep. That might take some of the
> onus of remembering off it.
Good idea.
> >Well, most of the time when I get such effects they are caused by
> >me either consciously or through expectations (if there was a fly
> >in my room or the computer was buzzing with its fan before I did
> >fall asleep, then in my next SP this sound will turn into some
> >kind of nightmarish noise which can't be escaped because of the
> >paralysis-effect. However, sometimes there are things in SP which
> >can't be controlled by me, and most of the time they do stay there
> >even if I swith into a dream and it does only go away if I express
> >my wish that it should go away...
>
> It's interesting that SP often seems to intensify real-world
> sensations beyond a comfortable level, when in a "normal" dream they
> only give some vague impressions. Maybe I'm wrong about that, though.
>
> --
> Chris Craig (ciotóg)
> http://www.ciotog.net
> http://ciotog.gemm.com
> http://www.mp3.com/stations/ciotog
zin
George Ziniewicz
>
> public class George Ziniewicz extends UsenetDiscussion {
>
> >"ciotóg" wrote:
> > No. As I said, the stamp is a realtime event, and memory of it
> >happening is stored, but it occurs in parallel with the insight or
> >knowledge that it "affirms", like the union/oneness/connectivity thing. Do
> >you mean that memory of the union experience/insight can be lost somehow?
> >That would be an interesting question. I wonder if there are any old
> >senile mystics that can confirm this? See me in a few decades!
>
> Ok, I think I understand a little better now. It still raises some
> more questions, though - is this just a memory of a divine event?
The divine event just IS, a realtime now event. There is also memory of
it to a certain degree.
> If so, then I don't see why it couldn't easily be a false memory.
If one only had the memory, I had the experience (many times) and the
memory. Or is this circular?
> Other than that, if the memory of the event can be replicated, then it
> would suggest to me that it's value is reduced. Ugh, I can't explain
> it very well, let me think about it some more.
ITS A TV SHOW!
The memory of it cannot be replicated, but luckily the event can!
Mysticism!
> > There are some inconsistencies. Often I find errors, that I think are
> >programmed in, just to see if we are paying attention. Did you see the
> >Voyager where Hugh first said "I"? And how they made such a big deal about
> >it? But he said "I" about 20 minutes earlier! And on a later show, they
> >rubbed that fact in our faces by showing Picard reviewing a clip of that
> >very scene!
>
> I've only seen a couple of episodes of Voyager, so I really can't
> comment on it much. I'm pretty sure I've seen every ST:TNG though
> (except the movies).
It was my fav, until Voyager.
> > Or did you see where Janeway referred to 7 of 9 as 7 of 12 (I call her 6
> >of 9!)?
> >
> > In the same sentence she referred to Neelix as the Cardassian cook.
>
> Well, they're "real people", after all. You can't expect them to be
> perfect! ;)
No, only 7 of 9!
I think she was just f*cking with us!
I like Janeway as captain. Whoever said a woman doesn't "work" as
captain is...well, to each there own.
ciotóg
> Oh, a right-hander.
Guess what "ciotóg" means :)
>> true), that I could always answer truthfully in each case. That is to
>> say that if someone were to ask if I were awake I would know that I
>> was (even if I answered falsely ;) ), and if I were dreaming I would
>> be able to answer that as well.
>
> And say what?
Whatever I want, but aware of my true state.
> Anyone ever tell you "you are different"? (*>*)
Doesn't everyone hear this at some point? I guess some hear it more
than others, and for some of them it's actually true :)
> To you perhaps! I don't know what it is that can make me see dead
>relatives and not question reality.
>
> Part of me (the critical faculty) is still asleep.
Well, when you're dreaming and seeing things that can't be, are you
"feeling" the same as if you're awake? Does everything else look the
same as it would (depth perception, etc)? Do you feel the pressure of
your clothes (especially shoes), hunger, air movement on your skin,
etc?
None of these things are really noticable when I'm asleep, so I'm
curious if they exist in your dreams.
>> You ought to read up on P.D. Ouspensky
>
> I like him already! Any url's?
Let's see...
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/o/ouspensky_p_d.html
http://www.summafoundation.org/
http://www.gurdjieff.org/ouspensky.htm
http://skepdic.com/ouspensk.html
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/1236/index.html
ciotóg
>"ciotóg" wrote:
>
> I studied astral projection/OBE for many years in dozens of books in the
>early 70's, seems it got watered down of late, but "when I was a kid" an
>OBE was where the person was in the real world, no ifs, ands or buts.
>Different body types were seen: usual body, different body, a single point,
>but the common thing was that the surroundings were the "real world".
> There were also other places to go to, like the astral realm, etc. who
>knows where they are, in or up, but OBE was strictly out of body, the body
>was in the world, so when out of body you were still in the world just out
>of the body.
> I have had ~1000 LD, but no OBE, and at this point, I doubt such a thing
>as real world OBE exists.
Hmm, rejecting something because it's not in your personal experience.
That doesn't seem like you! :)
>> I have a hard enough time describing mundane things, I couldn't begin
>> to describe my dreams!
>
> !
There are just too many "asides", too many details that are important
even if they don't apply to the main story. I guess I could learn a
lot from Hemingway.
ciotóg
>"ciotóg" wrote:
>
>> If so, then I don't see why it couldn't easily be a false memory.
>
> If one only had the memory, I had the experience (many times) and the
>memory. Or is this circular?
That depends if the experience is more than just a memory - if there's
some sort of "stamp" on the mind.
>> Other than that, if the memory of the event can be replicated, then it
>> would suggest to me that it's value is reduced. Ugh, I can't explain
>> it very well, let me think about it some more.
>
> ITS A TV SHOW!
Hm? I've moved on from that already. This is speculation now.
George Ziniewicz
>
> public class George Ziniewicz extends UsenetDiscussion {
>
> >"ciotóg" wrote:
> >
> > I studied astral projection/OBE for many years in dozens of books in the
> >early 70's, seems it got watered down of late, but "when I was a kid" an
> >OBE was where the person was in the real world, no ifs, ands or buts.
> >Different body types were seen: usual body, different body, a single point,
> >but the common thing was that the surroundings were the "real world".
> > There were also other places to go to, like the astral realm, etc. who
> >knows where they are, in or up, but OBE was strictly out of body, the body
> >was in the world, so when out of body you were still in the world just out
> >of the body.
> > I have had ~1000 LD, but no OBE, and at this point, I doubt such a thing
> >as real world OBE exists.
>
> Hmm, rejecting something because it's not in your personal experience.
> That doesn't seem like you! :)
Ouch! You may have something there!
30 years is a long time to keep trying something. But I will keep
trying.
> >> I have a hard enough time describing mundane things, I couldn't begin
> >> to describe my dreams!
> >
> > !
>
> There are just too many "asides", too many details that are important
> even if they don't apply to the main story. I guess I could learn a
> lot from Hemingway.
What? Suicide? (*>*)
George Ziniewicz
>
> public class George Ziniewicz extends UsenetDiscussion {
>
> > Oh, a right-hander.
>
> Guess what "ciotóg" means :)
! How is "left-hander" (me) expressed?
>
> >> true), that I could always answer truthfully in each case. That is to
> >> say that if someone were to ask if I were awake I would know that I
> >> was (even if I answered falsely ;) ), and if I were dreaming I would
> >> be able to answer that as well.
> >
> > And say what?
>
> Whatever I want, but aware of my true state.
"True" state? God? True "as you know it so far"!
> > Anyone ever tell you "you are different"? (*>*)
>
> Doesn't everyone hear this at some point? I guess some hear it more
> than others, and for some of them it's actually true :)
Women say it mostly!
> > To you perhaps! I don't know what it is that can make me see dead
> >relatives and not question reality.
> >
> > Part of me (the critical faculty) is still asleep.
>
> Well, when you're dreaming and seeing things that can't be, are you
> "feeling" the same as if you're awake?
Pretty much, but a bit foggy. And my consciousness runs "behind", it is
not realtime, so it is like watching a movie.
> Does everything else look the
> same as it would (depth perception, etc)?
Pretty much, in regular dream I don't notice. Until I notice!
> Do you feel the pressure of
> your clothes (especially shoes), hunger, air movement on your skin,
> etc?
Sometimes.
> None of these things are really noticable when I'm asleep, so I'm
> curious if they exist in your dreams.
The same way that in RL we sometimes "note" these things, dreams too.
> >> You ought to read up on P.D. Ouspensky
> >
> > I like him already! Any url's?
>
> Let's see...
>
> http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/o/ouspensky_p_d.html
> http://www.summafoundation.org/
> http://www.gurdjieff.org/ouspensky.htm
> http://skepdic.com/ouspensk.html
> http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/1236/index.html
Will surf! Thanks.
George Ziniewicz
>
> In article <3A5F3714...@home.com>,> "The Dreamed Dreams the Dreamer" Castaneda
>
> Are you sure that neelix actually said "the dream" and not "the dreamed"?
That was from memory though I think it was correct, but that too would
be an inference from what I heard on the show, and I sometimes don't
understand those aliens!
The only difference was a missing "ed", and since the next sound is a
"D", he very well could have said it the way you describe. But to me it
makes less sense your way than mine, not that mine makes clear sense
either!
Neelix said it was a saying on his planet. Was Carlos there? (*>*)
> In which episode did you find that quote?
I don't remember ST titles. If I see it again, I will let you know.
Obviously dreams were a story element, but that is fairly common in ST. I
think Neelix said it to Tuvok, but not sure.
George Ziniewicz
>
> In article <3A5E461B...@home.com>,
> on that tec. It's really not Janice's property, but everybody with
> some LD-experience does use it, Janice is just pointing out that
> the same can be done to achieve longer LDs or a shorter SP, and as
> she was the first person who even mentioned that technique in a waken
> state, now I call it Janice's tec... :-)
Ok, it seems you mean act as if something is, regardless of appearance,
and appearance may follow.
Mary Baker Eddy talks about this in Christian Science, "pay no attention
to what your senses (the devil) tell you", even if you see you have a
tumor, disregard it as b.s. and it goes away. Her metaphor of senses
being like the devil is in line with the Hindu concept of Mara the
[sensory] temptress.
Like when I came to my car and found it stripped, no tires, engine,
body, just a gutted frame, yet I sat down and drove away just fine because
I somehow "knew" I could, and this was a regular dream!
> >> Did you "see" god while on drugs with your "closed eyes"
> >
> > That way too, various combinations.
>
> So if the eyes are not important for seeing God, why should they
> be important for anything else achieveable through meditation? :-)
Not absolutely critical perhaps, but most of the time it is with eyes
closed. It is easy to get distracted by visual phenomenon, so minimizing
them increases the likelihood of spiritual experience in meditation.
Those "good" at it can do it either way.
ciotóg
>Well, it is true for everybody, but you are right, most of the
>time this "you're different" is a lie, as the person saying that
>didn't realize the "difference"... :-)
Usually it's said by somebody who's trying to flatter you for some
reason, and isn't genuine.
>For me too they are a good dream-sign, and even in SP I don't really
>feel my "breathing", but unfortunately it doesn't really give "control",
>as the body in my dreams is different, and maybe the aliens don't have
>any clothes or hunger or air-movement. Obviously my dreaming-self does
>think it is such an alien instead of believing it is actually in RL?
Yeah, it's one thing to perceive these things and another to act on
them. For me the sum total of sensory perception while awake is just
too important to be disregarded, so when it's missing while asleep I
guess I'm just able to realize that something is wrong, and know i'm
dreaming.
>Did you ever feel hunger (or any disgestive perception) while awake
>inbetween two dreams? do you always feel the perceptions from inside
>of the body in that state?
I think everyone has woken up needing to urinate, and for me it's a
separate sensation from anything in a dream I'm having. In other words
I have at the back of my mind during a dream that my real body needs
to go to the washroom. Sometimes the mild discomfort is what allows me
to be aware enough to remember dreaming in the first place!
As for hunger, I was under the impression that it was normally
suppressed by the body while asleep, which means my question was kinda
dumb :)
ciotóg
>"ciotóg" wrote:
>
> ! How is "left-hander" (me) expressed?
Um, ciotóg. That was my point :)
>> Whatever I want, but aware of my true state.
>
> "True" state? God? True "as you know it so far"!
Hey, I'm not the one who thinks he's awake while he's dreaming! ;)
>> > Anyone ever tell you "you are different"? (*>*)
>>
>> Doesn't everyone hear this at some point? I guess some hear it more
>> than others, and for some of them it's actually true :)
>
> Women say it mostly!
Generally women will say it more about personality or character, men
will say it (if they happen to feel like communicating it) more about
physical things.
>> Does everything else look the
>> same as it would (depth perception, etc)?
>
> Pretty much, in regular dream I don't notice. Until I notice!
Yeah, that makes sense - how about once you notice?
>> None of these things are really noticable when I'm asleep, so I'm
>> curious if they exist in your dreams.
>
> The same way that in RL we sometimes "note" these things, dreams too.
In RL I'm always aware of _something_, if it's tight shoes, cold
fingers (like right now, brr!), sound - which is never even remotely
as intense during a dream, etc. Usually I'm aware of many of these
things.
ciotóg
>You mean, when I leave my 1st-person body to get a movie-dream,
>I'm actually having an OBE?
Why not? What's the difference between the "fake" reality during what
everyone else calls OBE and any other dream scene? If it's not real,
it's not real! Perhaps that's thinking too digitally :)
>> Many others restrict it to dreams that seem to reflect reality (some
>> even claiming that it is reality that they're seeing), and you could
>> even have some type of spectral body.
>
>Well, that's what I call SP... :-)
Yes, but with SP you're seemingly stuck in your physical body, OOB is
the opposite
>> I have a hard enough time describing mundane things, I couldn't begin
>> to describe my dreams!
>
>That's probably the reason why my dreams take up so much space in
>in my dream-diary conversely to the rather short descriptions other
>people post in this newsgroup...
That's one of the reasons why I haven't started a dream diary - when I
do happen to remember a dream it would take a lot to write it down. I
should still start one anyway, I guess. A little is better than none
at all.
>> It's interesting that SP often seems to intensify real-world
>
>Actually it's not "intensify" but "distort"!
How about both? :)
>and as "following" the sound of the alarm-clock will lead you into SP,
(please forgive the ubersnippage) I've never really tried that - maybe
I'll give it a whirl tonight!
George Ziniewicz
>
> public class George Ziniewicz extends UsenetDiscussion {
>
> >"ciotóg" wrote:
> >
> > ! How is "left-hander" (me) expressed?
>
> Um, ciotóg. That was my point :)
-}B^)
> >> Whatever I want, but aware of my true state.
> >
> > "True" state? God? True "as you know it so far"!
>
> Hey, I'm not the one who thinks he's awake while he's dreaming! ;)
LOL!
> >> > Anyone ever tell you "you are different"? (*>*)
> >>
> >> Doesn't everyone hear this at some point? I guess some hear it more
> >> than others, and for some of them it's actually true :)
> >
> > Women say it mostly!
>
> Generally women will say it more about personality or character, men
> will say it (if they happen to feel like communicating it) more about
> physical things.
>
> >> Does everything else look the
> >> same as it would (depth perception, etc)?
> >
> > Pretty much, in regular dream I don't notice. Until I notice!
>
> Yeah, that makes sense - how about once you notice?
Once I notice, and become lucid, clarity of perception increases
dramatically, but what I notice varies, mostly the dream is speckled,
shimmering, with patches of color, highly unstable. Rarely and of late I
notice high realism like RL, everything looks very smooth or high res and
stable.
> >> None of these things are really noticable when I'm asleep, so I'm
> >> curious if they exist in your dreams.
> >
> > The same way that in RL we sometimes "note" these things, dreams too.
>
> In RL I'm always aware of _something_, if it's tight shoes, cold
> fingers (like right now, brr!), sound - which is never even remotely
> as intense during a dream, etc. Usually I'm aware of many of these
> things.
Same here in RL, though due to my meditative experience, awareness
shifts, and can be focussed.
In dreams and LD, it also changes. My recent LD where I played with
sound perception, covering my ears etc, the intensity of sound was very
dramatic, and I would rate it as equal to or more intense than RL.
Jani Miettinen
>Jani Miettinen wrote:
>> > I have only noticed the super-realism of late. Haven't yet
>> >figured out what's up with those.
>>
>> I think they have the most potential once they could be utilized
>> and achieved at will.
>
> If the superrealism doesn't reduce lucidity (because you think
>it is RL)!
Yes, that's true. This one super-real dream I had was so life-like
that if it wasn't for the most strange cathedral I was walking in, I
would have been easily confirmed that this was not a dream - I could
just have been awakened from my daytime dreaming and forgot just for
a moment that I was awake.
>> >> That is something I'd like know, too. But my the height of
>> >> ceiling on flying in my dreams varies greatly.
>> >
>> > Yes. Often I can go as high as I want, but clouds will
>> >eventually appear and obscure, even in a pitch-blue sky!
>
> Only once did I make it out to the edges of space, just as a
>space-capsule whizzed by, ~1974, I couldn't catch it, like I do
>airplanes, and enter the fuselage and walk down the aisle.
BTW, that's something to try! I've noticed that *any* real excuse for
any action - no matter how strange - helps greatly. Doing something
just by will is a lot harder. Like finding something behind a wall vs
just molding something out of thin air.
>> However, it is very different
>> from my usual dream actions where I just intend and things
>> happen. I'll give it a try, but I don't have the slightest idea
>> how to beg because I have great difficulties speaking in dreams.
>
> I used the term beg like ask, request, demand, assert...with
> feeling!
Anyway, it is something I should try. Breaking habits might could in
more flexibility in dreams. I usually just let things happen - it's
like I'm assured that something happens and I let it come forward.
--
Perustuu hypoteettisiin tositapahtumiin
Jani Miettinen
>ja...@my-deja.com (Jani Miettinen) writes:
>> I really don't know how this is so, but the more realistic my
>> dreams are the harder it is to perform dream actions like flying
>> and the easier it is to control everything else outside myself.
>
>a force "fighting" against your flying-attempts?
It's like inertia. I don't feel bound nor pushed, I just feel heavy
'upwards', but not forward.
>Logically flying should become more easy if you gain more control
>on the things outside, as you would only need to move the dream
>with all it's elements into the opposite direction, and you are
>flying at any speed you wish... :-)
:D
But hey, that *could* work so I'll give it a try. I've done something
similar - rolled the whole world around myself (what an egocentric
maniac I am :)
>With the real "flying" technique I can get out of the dream
>into outer space or wherever I wish to, I just need to fly
>through some kind of ceiling which is always somewhere above
>the clouds, which are actually a lot higher than my usual
>maximum altitude...
How do you get through that ceiling? Do you dig your way throug it or
let yourself be pulled or something else?
George Ziniewicz
>
> In article <3A6102FF...@home.com>,
> In reality it's the "spiritual" experience of which I remember nearly nothing
> which does occasionally "put me off" from LDing... :-)
Not sure I understand. My LD is very low spirituality.
ciotóg
>But it's still strange that whenever I notice that "something is wrong"
>in a half-LD, I simply explain it with the "different body" I'm occupying
>instead of getting fully lucid. I mean, there are perceptions which are
>only present in RL but not in dreams, and there are perceptions in dreams
>which do not exist in RL. This does lead me to realizing in a dream that
>I am not in RL, but I still don't realize that I'm dreaming! In these
>dreams I am lucid, as I know I'm dreaming, but I do not realize the
>implications thereof, and so I don't gain full control.
Again, it's the difference between "perception" and acting on that
perception. I almost never take control of a dream, not because I
can't but because it never really crosses my mind while I'm dreaming.
For example, I mentioned that over the Christmas holiday I had a
repeated dream. Once I realized this, I thought "hey, I dreamed this
before, too!", but I still didn't act on it.
There was no "realization" that I was dreaming, it's never something
that I think is special - but I still don't explicitly think "I'm
dreaming". It's probably not correct to say that I'm "lucid", but
still I've never been "un-lucid"!
>Don't you think that it is strange to feel the need to urinate in the
>middle of sleep-paralyzed REM? Shouldn't that perception be blocked,
>or are there some hormones telling us when to visit the bathroom?
I don't think it's strange, since that need _must_ be dealt with to
avoid bodily injury. Hunger isn't really life-threatening like a full
bladder is.
>I know that a great part of "hunger" is created by some nerves
>in the digestive section of the body, but isn't hunger actually
>perceived in a dream by the brain-cells which do not get enough
>food? Maybe the sensation is different, but IMHO hunger is still
>perceived in a dream (probably symbolically). But your question
>wasn't dumb, because often a dream seems to last days or hours,
Yes, hunger has several different components to it - a physical
sensation in your stomach and an "emotional" component. Not really
emotional, but I can't think of a good word for it. Almost like a
craving.
>and it is really strange that in this long time of "RL-events"
>no hunger is perceived and there is no need to go to the toilet.
>It's just like in most films and TV-shows. These natural needs
>of the body seem to be "supressed" in the human cultures... :-)
I think George said it pretty well in another thread - you just don't
notice these things in a dream. It's not _too_ much different than
what happens in RL, you can get so absorbed in something that you
forget to eat!
ciotóg
> cciioo...@ccaannaaddaa.ccoomm (ciotóg) writes:
>
>> Why not? What's the difference between the "fake" reality during what
>> everyone else calls OBE and any other dream scene? If it's not real,
>> it's not real! Perhaps that's thinking too digitally :)
>
>I always had the impression that these people "define" OBE as a
>SP-induced lucid dream. When I leave the body in a dream, I don't
>have the sensation of really leaving the body, but instead I feel
>like spawning a second body. maybe the OBE-body is not real just
>like this spawned body, but I think the difference does lie in the
>abandoned body. in OBE it is a real body while in a dream it is as
>fake as the newly created body...
I think the "classic" definition is the best - that you're actually in
the Real World. It's just that I don't really believe anyone has real
OBEs, so it would then be a null set, which isn't very useful for
something like this.
>> Yes, but with SP you're seemingly stuck in your physical body, OOB is
>> the opposite
>
>Now I have to ask: what's the difference?
>In both it is some type of spectral body you are controlling. In SP
>this spectral body does accidentally occupy the same position as the
>real body while OOB means occupying some other position near the real
>body, but in both this spectral body is independent from the real body!
I've never had one, but from what I've read of the experience most
people do feel that they're in their real body. They try to move their
hands but can't, etc. Even if the body in SP is in a different
position from the real body, it's still "locked". In OBE there's a
certain amount of movement control possible.
>I assumed that "distort" does already imply "intensify", just like
>a distorting mirror does imply that some parts of it are magnifying...
It's possible to change something without altering it's magnitude, and
also to make it smaller. When I hear an "outside" noise in a dream
it's usually faint.
>getting into SP is really like waking up. you just need to do it
>slowly to actually notice when you enter SP...
I notice very little transition either way. That's probably why I've
never experienced SP, my body chemistry just doesn't allow it.
Jani Miettinen
>ja...@my-deja.com (Jani Miettinen) writes:
>>>Do you think this is because of realism, or is there really
>>>a force "fighting" against your flying-attempts?
>>
>> It's like inertia. I don't feel bound nor pushed, I just feel
>> heavy 'upwards', but not forward.
>
Also that, but flying forward requires almost no effort at all so
there's no inertia either.
>I know that feeling. I would describe it as an external
>force, like the one preventing that an electron does get
>farther away from the atom...
Well, it's something like that - like steep gravity increase at some
point.
>IMHO the same force is also in non-LDs, but just like every
>other force it isn't noticed there as the mind is not critic
>enough to notice the little discrepancies created by the battle
>between expectations and such a force...
That might be the case. I have had some funny experiences with walls
that are similar to those in LD's but I don't notice the usual
anomalies until I wake up.
>> But hey, that *could* work so I'll give it a try. I've done
>> something similar - rolled the whole world around myself (what
>> an egocentric maniac I am :)
>
>As I said, this will work in non-LD, but in a LD ythere will
>certainly be something wrong... :-)
Well, this rolling-world-around-my-very-own-belly-button thing *was*
in a LD so pushing the ground down should be that hard.
>> How do you get through that ceiling? Do you dig your way throug
>> it or let yourself be pulled or something else?
>
>Once I accidentally touched it with my feet, and this caused
>it to become rock-solid. But usually it's like quantum-mechanics:
>if you do not try to find out if it is solid, then you can go
>through it. But of course that is true for nearly every
>dream-wall. However, the trick is to fly through the ceiling
>without touching it. It might seem to be a paradoxon now, but in
>my dream it is a relieable technique to get "out"...
That's something I suspected. I considered some options after reading
your post and that was the best option I could find.
--
Signport --\
Pass out --/tm
ciotóg
> cciioo...@ccaannaaddaa.ccoomm (ciotóg) writes:
>
>Well, when you ignore all the OBE-reports from "dreamers", then
>you will still have these strange reports of comatose patients
>who did somehow manage to report the things happening in their
>room -- once they did get out of coma of course...
I haven't heard any convincing reports of this type :)
>I mean, the real reason why you can't move in SP is that you believe
>to be trapped in the real body, and there you try to move that, while
>in OBE you are trapped in an AP-body looking at the real body and of
>course as a blob of energy hanging around at the ceiling you probably
>don't try to move, and if you do, you will probably just get into
>a dream or something...
Ah, I see what you're saying. If there is movement it's not controlled
movement.
I've heard many reports of people who claim to have full motion
control in OBEs, however. I guess it's just another category!
>When you get a LD at the beginning of REM and you try to wake
>up, then you will probably just get a false awaking, and SP
>is inbetween the "waking up" and the following false awaking.
I've never experienced anything that I would consider a false
awakening, at least not that I'm aware of. It's possible that I've had
them but didn't recognize them as FA, but I doubt it...
>Therefore I assumed that when you hear
>the alarm inside of your dream (i.e. it doesn't force you to
>do any sudden waking up, and it actually does happen while in
>REM), then you will need to use SP in one way or another to
>get a chance of turning it off, and I just proposed that you
>should use the sound to observe the change from dream to SP,
>and instead of waking up fully you should just realize that
I do that all the time, when I'm waking up slowly from a dream. I
still haven't noticed any difficulty moving when I want to at any
time, whether waking up suddenly or slowly. I think that SP episodes
are fairly rare, and are dependent on certain brain physiologies/
chemistries that I don't have.
>as long as you do not move, you will be paralyzed...
Well, how would you know?
ciotóg
> cciioo...@ccaannaaddaa.ccoomm (ciotóg) writes:
>
>> Again, it's the difference between "perception" and acting on that
>> perception. I almost never take control of a dream, not because I
>> can't but because it never really crosses my mind while I'm dreaming.
>
>Well, that's actually what I call "I can't"!
>It's like a dialogue between a mathematican and a mysticism-person:
>The mathematican can talk about maths and he might show the most
>fantastic discoveries, but even if the mysticism-person does understand
>he will still not act upon it because this science is totally useless
>for mysticism.
The mystic would be just as remiss in dismissing math as the
mathematician would be to dismiss mysticism... Either way it's
close-mindedness.
> In a half-lucid dream I might realize that I am dreaming,
>but I'm too occupied with the story, and maybe I will use flight as
>a way of traveling, but I can't break out of the viscious circle of
>the dream-script leading my thoughts. I am part of the dream, and there
>I do have some responsibility...
Yes, higher level lucidity is almost like refusing to take part in the
dream naturally. I guess I'm just too easy going to try and stop it!
>> For example, I mentioned that over the Christmas holiday I had a
>> repeated dream. Once I realized this, I thought "hey, I dreamed this
>> before, too!", but I still didn't act on it.
>
>You mean, you didn't try another "possibility" of how the dream should
>evolve? Did you really do the same mistakes as before?
What mistakes? It was like reading a story :)
This was one of those "observation" type dreams, where I really don't
participate in what's going on. Many of them are like that, like a few
months ago when I watched as David Letterman drove golf balls from the
sloped lawn in front of one of the University buildings here.
>> There was no "realization" that I was dreaming, it's never something
>> that I think is special - but I still don't explicitly think "I'm
>> dreaming". It's probably not correct to say that I'm "lucid", but
>> still I've never been "un-lucid"!
>
>...No, I don't agree that LD does depend on the position of what
>castaneda called assemblage-point. I think it's pure choice if you
>wish to get in control or not. RL does teach us the habit of accepting
>the responsibility for uncontrollable things, and this habit does
>prevent "control" in both: RL and LD!
Actually in RL I tend to take a lot of control, for example I'll
correct a professor readily if they make a mistake. Not too many other
students here will, but I guess when I was as young as them I didn't
either. No, actually I've always enjoyed proving the teacher wrong! :)
> Get rid of that habit (which
>really seems to be rather rare for female dreamers) and you will
>improve the chance of getting LDs. So, it's not the thoughts (which
>equal to castaneda's "position of the assemblage-point") preventing
>a LD, it's the day-to-day habits...
I'll only take control of a dream if it's boring me or frustrating me
for some reason. This rarely happens, so I'm usually content to follow
the action!
>In which way is a wet bed life-threatening? :-)
It gives away your location to predators!
>I was talking about REM and the dreams therein. after REM you will
>probably even "feel" hunger, and you will be able to pee in your
>bed, but I don't understand why a full bladder would influence the
>contents of a dream! Which mechanism is responsible for that?
A full bladder is a sensation that requires action, and so it isn't
suppressed by the nervous system. I think for most people it's not
something that they feel too often, so since it's an infrequent
sensation during your dream it will have more significance than that
lump in your mattress that you're used to.
It's human nature to only notice when things are different, and to
take for granted everthing when it doesn't change.
>> Yes, hunger has several different components to it - a physical
>> sensation in your stomach and an "emotional" component. Not really
>> emotional, but I can't think of a good word for it. Almost like a
>> craving.
>
>But somehow in a dream this sensation
>is turned into something different...
Really? How does it feel? I can't say that I've ever felt "hunger" in
a dream.
>> I think George said it pretty well in another thread - you just don't
>> notice these things in a dream. It's not _too_ much different than
>> what happens in RL, you can get so absorbed in something that you
>> forget to eat!
>
>Yes, but when I stop such a dream (get out of the absorbed state),
>then I still don't think that the previous dream was unrealistic
>even though the main characters did never go to the toilet... :-)
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here - what do you mean by
getting out of the absorbed state? Is it like when you're
concentrating on the computer, and then see the time and realize that
you were supposed to go somewhere soon and so lose your concentration
of what you were doing? If so, then you would really just be trading
one absorbed state for another, and so you still wouldn't realize the
inconsistencies outside of these states.
If you mean getting lucid, then wouldn't it being a dream be enough to
satisfy you?
George Ziniewicz
>
> In article <3a69f517....@news.unb.ca>,
> cciioo...@ccaannaaddaa.ccoomm (ciotóg) writes:
> > public class Gander extends UsenetDiscussion {
> >
> >> cciioo...@ccaannaaddaa.ccoomm (ciotóg) writes:
> >>
> >>> Again, it's the difference between "perception" and acting on that
> >>> perception. I almost never take control of a dream, not because I
> >>> can't but because it never really crosses my mind while I'm dreaming.
> >>
> >>Well, that's actually what I call "I can't"!
> >>It's like a dialogue between a mathematican and a mysticism-person:
> >>The mathematican can talk about maths and he might show the most
> >>fantastic discoveries, but even if the mysticism-person does understand
> I thought this would imply that the mysticism-person
> was *not* close-minded and therefore he would not
> dismiss the theories, but instead he would simply
> see no connection between these theories and his
> mysticism (maybe there is none).
>
> >>he will still not act upon it because this science is totally useless
> >>for mysticism.
> >
> > The mystic would be just as remiss in dismissing math as the
> > mathematician would be to dismiss mysticism... Either way it's
> > close-mindedness.
>
> upon my dream-perception because of my own close-mindedness,
> but it is because it isn't relevant for me. I mean, a
> mathematican could "proof" the existance of God, but the mystic
> isn't interested in that result because he does define God
> differently, and he does see no correlation between his
> definition and the one of the mathematican. It's got something
> to do with lack of knowledge and experience...
That's the 2nd time you said mystics wouldn't see a correlation. I for
one feel that part of mysticism involves seeing the connectedness of
everything.
"Not but, but and."
zin
> >> In a half-lucid dream I might realize that I am dreaming,
> >>but I'm too occupied with the story, and maybe I will use flight as
> >>a way of traveling, but I can't break out of the viscious circle of
> >>the dream-script leading my thoughts. I am part of the dream, and there
> >>I do have some responsibility...
> >
> > Yes, higher level lucidity is almost like refusing to take part in the
> > dream naturally. I guess I'm just too easy going to try and stop it!
>
> Well, at least for me only this "higher level lucidity" does deserve
> to be called LD, because in any other state I simply don't act upon
> the realization that I'm dreaming. In a half-lucid dream I actually
> get a LD for some seconds to "introduce" some new abilities into the
> dream, and then I stop thinking about it being a dream and therefore
> it isn't proveable anymore if the dream is lucid or not...
> >
> >>> For example, I mentioned that over the Christmas holiday I had a
> >>> repeated dream. Once I realized this, I thought "hey, I dreamed this
> >>> before, too!", but I still didn't act on it.
> >>
> >>You mean, you didn't try another "possibility" of how the dream should
> >>evolve? Did you really do the same mistakes as before?
> >
> > What mistakes? It was like reading a story :)
>
> Well, when I read a story, there is always some part of the
> script where I do not agree with the author on the outcome.
> The same goes for dream-scripts, but in a lucid 3rd-person
> dream I have the chance to change the script before it does
> come true in that dream...
>
> > This was one of those "observation" type dreams, where I really don't
> > participate in what's going on. Many of them are like that, like a few
> > months ago when I watched as David Letterman drove golf balls from the
> > sloped lawn in front of one of the University buildings here.
>
> But did you ever get a recurring dream which is exactly the
> same everytime you get it, or were all your recurring dreams
> somehow "improving" or evolving with time?
>
> Mine do get "better" everytime I get them, because inside of the
> dream I get thoughts into the direction of "last time I did dream
> this the ending didn't seem realistic..."
> >
> >>> There was no "realization" that I was dreaming, it's never something
> >>> that I think is special - but I still don't explicitly think "I'm
> >>> dreaming". It's probably not correct to say that I'm "lucid", but
> >>> still I've never been "un-lucid"!
> >>
> >>...No, I don't agree that LD does depend on the position of what
> >>castaneda called assemblage-point. I think it's pure choice if you
> >>wish to get in control or not. RL does teach us the habit of accepting
> >>the responsibility for uncontrollable things, and this habit does
> >>prevent "control" in both: RL and LD!
> >
> > Actually in RL I tend to take a lot of control, for example I'll
> > correct a professor readily if they make a mistake. Not too many other
> > students here will, but I guess when I was as young as them I didn't
> > either. No, actually I've always enjoyed proving the teacher wrong! :)
>
> Well, in RL getting rid of habit doesn't have such a great impact
> on the quality of "control" as in a dream! In RL I always stay in
> an environment with which I do have a lot of experience and because
> of that experience I am in control. A dream is a situation where I
> seem to lack any experience (until I get lucid), and therefore I
> get the impression that I don't have control. George would probably
> say that "control" is a relative thing, as I might feel in control
> now while sometime later I will realize that I actually didn't have
> any. However, in this situation I did define "control" relative to
> what I "feel" while I am in the particular situation. When I feel
> not in control in RL, then it is because some habit does "enforce"
> my actions while I am certainly aware of the other possibilities.
> The same goes for my non-lucid dreams. A lucid dream is simply a
> dream where I manage to break out of some of my dream-habits...
>
> Btw, in RL habit can't "guide" my actions because experience does
> tell me when a habit is not aproppiate, but in a dream or in a
> RL-situation outside of my "competence" habit is unstoppable simply
> through the high speed of life... :-)
> >
> >> Get rid of that habit (which
> >>really seems to be rather rare for female dreamers) and you will
> >>improve the chance of getting LDs. So, it's not the thoughts (which
> >>equal to castaneda's "position of the assemblage-point") preventing
> >>a LD, it's the day-to-day habits...
> >
> > I'll only take control of a dream if it's boring me or frustrating me
> > for some reason. This rarely happens, so I'm usually content to follow
> > the action!
>
> Exactly, if the dream does slow down I'll get enough time to drag some
> LD-realizations into the dream, and thereby I'll get a controlled LD.
> >
> >>In which way is a wet bed life-threatening? :-)
> >
> > It gives away your location to predators!
>
> LOL! I think predators can often smell you anyway... :-)
> >
> >>I was talking about REM and the dreams therein. after REM you will
> >>probably even "feel" hunger, and you will be able to pee in your
> >>bed, but I don't understand why a full bladder would influence the
> >>contents of a dream! Which mechanism is responsible for that?
> >
> > A full bladder is a sensation that requires action, and so it isn't
> > suppressed by the nervous system. I think for most people it's not
>
> How does the body manage to get the bladder-info through SP?
> What's the use when after REM there will be enough time to end sleep?
>
> > something that they feel too often, so since it's an infrequent
> > sensation during your dream it will have more significance than that
> > lump in your mattress that you're used to.
> >
> > It's human nature to only notice when things are different, and to
> > take for granted everthing when it doesn't change.
>
> Yes, but why and how does this "noticing" last a few hours
> even if the input causing this sensation is blocked?
> >
> >>> Yes, hunger has several different components to it - a physical
> >>> sensation in your stomach and an "emotional" component. Not really
> >>> emotional, but I can't think of a good word for it. Almost like a
> >>> craving.
> >>
> >>But somehow in a dream this sensation
> >>is turned into something different...
> >
> > Really? How does it feel? I can't say that I've ever felt "hunger" in
> > a dream.
>
> Well, the dream-contents does change along a certain pattern,
> and the bigger the hunger, the more will this pattern be obeyed...
> >
> >>> I think George said it pretty well in another thread - you just don't
> >>> notice these things in a dream. It's not _too_ much different than
> >>> what happens in RL, you can get so absorbed in something that you
> >>> forget to eat!
> >>
> >>Yes, but when I stop such a dream (get out of the absorbed state),
> >>then I still don't think that the previous dream was unrealistic
> >>even though the main characters did never go to the toilet... :-)
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here - what do you mean by
> > getting out of the absorbed state? Is it like when you're
> > concentrating on the computer, and then see the time and realize that
> > you were supposed to go somewhere soon and so lose your concentration
> > of what you were doing? If so, then you would really just be trading
> > one absorbed state for another, and so you still wouldn't realize the
> > inconsistencies outside of these states.
>
> Good point! You're right, "habit" does equal some positions of
> "assemblage-point", and thereby a person with an unflexible
> "assemblage-point" is doomed to get only non-lucid dreams...
>
> Thanks, now I completely agree with you that LD should be defined
> as a constant subconscious thought that "I'm dreaming"!
> >
> > If you mean getting lucid, then wouldn't it being a dream be enough to
> > satisfy you?
>
> No, because I just don't believe that dreams are as rough and
> lacking details as a bad movie. In my dreams there are lots
> of details coverd which would certainly be ommited if the same
> script would have been written in the waken state, and the little
> inconsistencies do always have some "twisted" explanation (at
> least inside of the dream), but I don't have any explanation for
> the lack of pissing'n'eating in my dreams... :-)
>
> P
ciotóg
> cciioo...@ccaannaaddaa.ccoomm (ciotóg) writes:
>>>Well, when you ignore all the OBE-reports from "dreamers", then
>>>you will still have these strange reports of comatose patients
>>>who did somehow manage to report the things happening in their
>>>room -- once they did get out of coma of course...
>>
>> I haven't heard any convincing reports of this type :)
>
>What do you mean by convincing?
>Isn't it convicing enough when 2 people which where not
>conscious at the same moment did manage to describe that
>very moment without getting into contradictions? :-)
There are other explanations that can be made in many cases, for
example they may have been partially alert. They may also have had an
idea about what _could_ be happening based on their expectations of
what their family would be doing in this situation, etc.
How many of these cases are reported, anyway? Is there a source that I
could look into?
>> I've never experienced anything that I would consider a false
>> awakening, at least not that I'm aware of. It's possible that I've had
>> them but didn't recognize them as FA, but I doubt it...
>
>You mean, you never actually tried and failed to wake up from a LD?
I've never had a reason to _try_ and wake up from a dream, and I've
never had a spontaneous FA that seem to be widely reported - I mean
most FA reports that have been made here are "accidental" FAs.
>> I do that all the time, when I'm waking up slowly from a dream. I
>> still haven't noticed any difficulty moving when I want to at any
>> time, whether waking up suddenly or slowly. I think that SP episodes
>> are fairly rare, and are dependent on certain brain physiologies/
>> chemistries that I don't have.
>
>Well, it is impossible to move from inside of the dream,
>at which moment exactly do you re-gain your ability to move?
As soon as I'm consciously awake! Sometimes even earlier, I've jumped
up to turn off an alarm clock before realizing that was what I was
doing. This is mostly due to habit, though - so it became an
autonomous response.
>It's true that not every awaking can be turned into SP, but
>every false awaking can! First you should learn to do that
>before you can start "changing" the way you wake up for real
>into one which does contain the possibility for SP...
I'll try, but like I've said - dreams tend to be far from the
vividness of reality, and like most people I tend not to "remember"
that I was planning on doing these types of things.
ciotóg
>I thought this would imply that the mysticism-person
>was *not* close-minded and therefore he would not
>dismiss the theories, but instead he would simply
>see no connection between these theories and his
>mysticism (maybe there is none).
I would say that if the mysticism person was unable to see the
validity of the mathematician's arguments then he would _have_ to be
close-minded :)
Every viewpoint has some validity (even if it's very small!)
>Well, when I read a story, there is always some part of the
>script where I do not agree with the author on the outcome.
>The same goes for dream-scripts, but in a lucid 3rd-person
>dream I have the chance to change the script before it does
>come true in that dream...
Have you ever tutored someone in something? You really get to see how
differently some people think about things. I'm never really surprised
when someone does something foolish or abnormal, it's human nature -
which carries through in my dreams.
Besides, it's all good. Dream experience, that is.
>But did you ever get a recurring dream which is exactly the
>same everytime you get it, or were all your recurring dreams
>somehow "improving" or evolving with time?
My recurring dreams are only roughly the same - similar situations,
similar people in them. They usually take off on their own arc,
though. It's rare for a dream of mine to follow the same story for
more than a few "minutes" anyway.
>Mine do get "better" everytime I get them, because inside of the
>dream I get thoughts into the direction of "last time I did dream
>this the ending didn't seem realistic..."
Your dreams seem to follow a storyline much more than mine do!
>In RL I always stay in
>an environment with which I do have a lot of experience and because
>of that experience I am in control. A dream is a situation where I
>seem to lack any experience (until I get lucid), and therefore I
>get the impression that I don't have control.
People are different that way - some like to always be in familiar
locations, others prefer to travel and see other places. It's not
terribly surprising that they'd have different viewpoints on dreams...
>> A full bladder is a sensation that requires action, and so it isn't
>> suppressed by the nervous system. I think for most people it's not
>
>How does the body manage to get the bladder-info through SP?
>What's the use when after REM there will be enough time to end sleep?
Not everything is shut down during SP. As for there being enough time
to empty your bladder later, that's often not true!
>Yes, but why and how does this "noticing" last a few hours
>even if the input causing this sensation is blocked?
Assuming it's blocked...
>> Really? How does it feel? I can't say that I've ever felt "hunger" in
>> a dream.
>
>Well, the dream-contents does change along a certain pattern,
>and the bigger the hunger, the more will this pattern be obeyed...
Yes, but _how does it feel_? :)
>Thanks, now I completely agree with you that LD should be defined
>as a constant subconscious thought that "I'm dreaming"!
Isn't that the opposite of what I've been saying? :)
>No, because I just don't believe that dreams are as rough and
>lacking details as a bad movie. In my dreams there are lots
>of details coverd which would certainly be ommited if the same
>script would have been written in the waken state, and the little
>inconsistencies do always have some "twisted" explanation (at
>least inside of the dream), but I don't have any explanation for
>the lack of pissing'n'eating in my dreams... :-)
That's because dreams are in "real time", and "first person", isn't
it? They don't often include these things in a movie because they
aren't necessary for the plot. What kinds of details are in your
dreams that are inconsistent? I guess things like people being
composed of dozens of interconnecting pieces (from one of my dreams).
The thing is I didn't really question why this person was like this,
because I knew it was "just a dream".
Actually for a minute I did wonder if this had some hidden meaning...