Thread: SilverBullet's Newly Revised Key to Lucid Dreaming

Originally Posted by rynkrt3

I'll tell you what intent is.

something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds.

That isn't exactly the intent I'm talking about. I'm talking about a sorcerers definition of intent. Intention and intent are 2 completely different things.

Originally Posted by rynkrt3

I'll tell you what intent is.

something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds.

I would agree but apparently that doesn't fully describe intent in this sense, as you can see from my attempts .

The only way I can get you to experience "intent" is to get you to do it indirectly. That is the purpose of the original post.

Intent is the reason "it" is "it" Intent is the driving force behind every thing ever done.

Intent is abstract?

It is an idea? An explanation for something that doesn't exist, is "everything and nothing". Thats a paradox, not an explanation. So far you have stressed successfully how difficult it is to explain, yet when you do try to explain it, you give a paradox and again say how difficult it is.

This is not a technique it seems, it's an idea that has developed so far into your head that it's lost it's foundation and is now in fact, up in the air.

A method is not a method if it cannot be taught. A technique is not a technique if it is everything and nothing and totally indescribable. Trees are indescribable, blue is indescribable.

Originally Posted by rynkrt3

Intent is the reason "it" is "it" Intent is the driving force behind every thing ever done.

And that has happened or will ever happen.

Originally Posted by Origami

Intent is abstract?

It is an idea? An explanation for something that doesn't exist, is "everything and nothing". Thats a paradox, not an explanation. So far you have stressed successfully how difficult it is to explain, yet when you do try to explain it, you give a paradox and again say how difficult it is.

This is not a technique it seems, it's an idea that has developed so far into your head that it's lost it's foundation and is now in fact, up in the air.

A method is not a method if it cannot be taught. A technique is not a technique if it is everything and nothing and totally indescribable. Trees are indescribable, blue is indescribable.

I guess you could say this in an anti-method for lucid dreaming. Like I said, I don't do much to lucid dream except simply set my intent on it.

Oh and your right about it being an idea being so farly developed in my head that "it's lost it's foundation and is now in fact, up in the air."

If you go towards the path of knowledge you will find that you feel you are going off the deep end. But for a sorcerer that is alright.

Originally Posted by rynkrt3

Intent is the reason "it" is "it" Intent is the driving force behind every thing ever done.

Yet another circle. So I read that and go; "So intent is what makes us want to do something, we want to do something so we have that driving force"

But then "That isn't exactly the intent I'm talking about. I'm talking about a sorcerers definition of intent. Intention and intent are 2 completely different things."

This is a paradox to me.

Originally Posted by Origami

Yet another circle. So I read that and go; "So intent is what makes us want to do something, we want to do something so we have that driving force"

But then "That isn't exactly the intent I'm talking about. I'm talking about a sorcerers definition of intent. Intention and intent are 2 completely different things."

This is a paradox to me.

It's a part of what intent is. It is the driving force of everything we do, but it is also the driving force of everything that happens, happened, or ever will happen. Regardless if it is a human doing or not.

Originally Posted by Origami

Yet another circle. So I read that and go; "So intent is what makes us want to do something, we want to do something so we have that driving force"

But then "That isn't exactly the intent I'm talking about. I'm talking about a sorcerers definition of intent. Intention and intent are 2 completely different things."

This is a paradox to me.

My intention was to lucid dream every night.
MY intent is to recognize when I'm dreaming.

They are the same thing.

What Silver is trying to say is that his will and intent to lucid dream is so strong that nothing else is required.

Oh and origami, what you said about it being a circle. Many things are paradoxes and a continuous circle. Lucid dreaming itself is a circle, we are unconscious yet we are conscious, we actively create and perceive what we see in dreams.

So we go back to the dictionary definition then?

I want to become lucid so much, that I just will, I made up my mind.
I will become lucid, I am determined.
The purpose of sleep is to lucid dream, so I will.
Dreams are designed to be lucid is, so I know I will, that's what I will do.

So equally all these are true as well then?

Originally Posted by Origami

So we go back to the dictionary definition then?

I want to become lucid so much, that I just will, I made up my mind.
I will become lucid, I am determined.
The purpose of sleep is to lucid dream, so I will.
Dreams are designed to be lucid is, so I know I will, that's what I will do.

So equally all these are true as well then?

Yes, it is an indirect approach at using intent.

So what I just said was right then? Wanting, will, believing in the purpose and knowing/believing that dreams are designed to be lucid is what intent is?

They are all the same word more or less, under the authority of the dictionary, so that's what intent is then?

What we were all saying before? While you were over complicating it? Or are you going to string another paradox on me to try to explain it, like you did here:

"Oh and origami, what you said about it being a circle. Many things are paradoxes and a continuous circle. Lucid dreaming itself is a circle, we are unconscious yet we are conscious, we actively create and perceive what we see in dreams."

Originally Posted by Origami

So what I just said was right then? Wanting, will, believing in the purpose and knowing/believing that dreams are designed to be lucid is what intent is?

They are all the same word more or less, under the authority of the dictionary, so that's what intent is then?

What we were all saying before? While you were over complicating it? Or are you going to string another paradox on me to try to explain it, like you did here:

"Oh and origami, what you said about it being a circle. Many things are paradoxes and a continuous circle. Lucid dreaming itself is a circle, we are unconscious yet we are conscious, we actively create and perceive what we see in dreams."

*sigh* oh man you still don't understand. No I did not over complicate it. In fact I under-complicated it. " Wanting, will, believing in the purpose and knowing/believing that dreams are designed to be lucid is what intent is?" like I said it is only an indirect approach if you see it that way. It's not truly what intent is but by doing that you can indirectly use intent. Which means you're using it but not exactly knowing what it is.

Here is the final thing I will say about what the sorcerers definition of intent is because I feel as if your just fucking with me:

Intent is everything, and it controls everything.

So your version of intent is "the intention to lucid dream". A paradox in itself that describes itself without saying anything.

Intent itself was a paradox all along, an up in the air idea that needs to be up in the air, to define itself, and separate itself from similar meanings which change it to be indirect.

Originally Posted by Origami

So your version of intent is "the intention to lucid dream". A paradox in itself that describes itself without saying anything.

Intent itself was a paradox all along, an up in the air idea that needs to be up in the air, to define itself, and separate itself from similar meanings which change it to be indirect.

Heh, don juan said to carlos castaneda that if he tried to explain intent he would just be going around in circles.

Yes, to the rational mind, intent is a paradox.

Techniques cannot be followed if not understood.
Understanding comes from affirmation.
Affirmation is made from facts and attributes.
Facts come from things which are.

Paradoxes are and are not.

This method shouldn't work, unless you are holding back on something here. Obviously not on purpose though.

Originally Posted by Origami

Techniques cannot be followed if not understood.
Understanding comes from affirmation.
Affirmation is made from facts and attributes.
Facts come from things which are.

Paradoxes are and are not.

This method shouldn't work, unless you are holding back on something here. Obviously not on purpose though.

Techniques CAN be followed even if you don't understand them,
say, you know how to use a computer, but you don't know how exactly the computer does what it does.

That's how to operate something. I know that if I press this key a letter will come up, etc etc.

If you blindly try to follow a technique then it wont work. Like say someone told me the basics of WBTB: Get up at night, wake up your brain, then go back to sleep into a REM.

Now I could do that at 2am and only stay up for 5 seconds. That wouldn't work because I didn't understand the rest of the method.

I don't understand the rest of this method and it seems less and less worth it the more time I spend on it. Is it just you who can do this or how many other people are able and understanding of this method?

Originally Posted by Origami

That's how to operate something. I know that if I press this key a letter will come up, etc etc.

If you blindly try to follow a technique then it wont work. Like say someone told me the basics of WBTB: Get up at night, wake up your brain, then go back to sleep into a REM.

Now I could do that at 2am and only stay up for 5 seconds. That wouldn't work because I didn't understand the rest of the method.

I don't understand the rest of this method and it seems less and less worth it the more time I spend on it. Is it just you who can do this or how many other people are able and understanding of this method?

If you don't want to do it then don't do it, I'm not forcing you.

I'm not going to try to explain this to you any further, it's just a waste of energy.

Originally Posted by Origami

That's how to operate something. I know that if I press this key a letter will come up, etc etc.

If you blindly try to follow a technique then it wont work. Like say someone told me the basics of WBTB: Get up at night, wake up your brain, then go back to sleep into a REM.

Now I could do that at 2am and only stay up for 5 seconds. That wouldn't work because I didn't understand the rest of the method.

I don't understand the rest of this method and it seems less and less worth it the more time I spend on it. Is it just you who can do this or how many other people are able and understanding of this method?

As far as I know, this only works for silver.

Oh really? So this idea he has only works for him? If thats the case...

Then you have an idea of how you become lucid. You are explaining you're own experiences. This is not a how to or a way of understanding. It clearly isn't for me anyway. This is you putting key to screen how it went for you, and anyones attempts at understanding never match up because we are not you.

This whole thing was a waste of time for me. I was never going to understand this, understand your head. Sure, the idea can be understanded, in the same way as a computer, but it can't be "understanded", because we cannot read your mind. It's a paradox of understanding.

Read the whole thread, guys... The first two pages have people saying how this was successful for them. Erible even said how she thought this was a great guide.