Carlos Castaneda's Art of Dreaming

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by little nemo

Sandform, I haven't looked at the video so I can't comment on it, but I DO have a response to the above;

Ideas are real. Period. The desk I am sitting at while I type this was a idea before it was a desk. Ditto for the computer, printer, lamp, room, window, street, town, etc., etc.
ALL ideas are real at some level(s). Many aren't directly materialized in physical form, but they still have both validity and consequence.

I am taking your comment out of context and therefore altering its meaning somewhat, but nonetheless, there is a strong tinge of materialistic fundimentalism that runs through all your postings and I would respectifully suggest that you allow your definitions of what is real to relax and expand.

---

=( But if I do that I would have to believe any and all foolish blatherings of any insane person who comes my way. I would have to believe that muhhamad spoke to God while Joe spoke to an angel, Christ came from a woman who never had sex, The Dali lhama is really reincarnated again and again all throughout the worlds history, astrology is real, the flying spaghetti monster really tastes like chicken, Carlos Castenada really did go to other worlds, and every other crack pot theory that has been put out there on Earth.

I hate it, people come up with ridiculous claims based on the POSSIBILITY that it can happen, but the thing is that they have no evidence other than the fact that you can come up with an insane scenario to justify these insane theories, it has a slim chance at validity, even though the scenario has no evidence anywhere in existence of its claims being true...

Why should I believe in something that has no proof whatsoever?

When dealing with subjective experience proof is something you have to attain through direct experience, it can't be delivered to you by word-of-mouth (or page). Relaxing your definitions of what is real is not throwing them out wholesale - discrimination and a healthy dose of scepticism are excellent safeguards against the kind of gullibility you are so right to reject.

It's important to apply discrimination and scepticism to the rational, scientific mindset as well! There are scientific dogmas just as there are religious and new-age dogmas, and dogmas are always distortive at best, and downright false at worst.

Scientific dogma can be the hardest to spot because the scientific method is so much in vogue in our lifetimes. It informs the core assumptions of most non-thirdworld people today. If you think of science as a kind of religion you will more easily catch sight how heavily it relies on some very unscientific assumptions, and demands a kind of unquestioning faith from its adherents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by little nemo

If you think of science as a kind of religion you will more easily catch sight how heavily it relies on some very unscientific assumptions, and demands a kind of unquestioning faith from its adherents.

---

I would like an example if you can provide one.

Bare in mind, scientists never say 100% that some of their theories are true, they only say this is a "possible" but very likely explaination of what happened. (big bang theory for example)

There are a couple of proven effect in Quantum physics, like quantum entanglement and the observer effect that are the stuff of magic but also science fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vortex

There are a couple of proven effect in Quantum physics, like quantum entanglement and the observer effect that are the stuff of magic but also science fact.

---

People say that all the time...but no one has ever provided me with anything other than the theory, and no evidence of why the theory is true...

[QUOTE=Sandform;500101]I would like an example if you can provide one.[QUOTE]

I will provide you with an article of scientific faith you provided yourself;

In order for something to be true, it must have the ability to be observed by another person at the same time... "if" someone else were in the room, they would percieve the same surroundings and events.

This is a root assumption, fully approved through the application of scientific methodologies. If you take this statement as 'gospel' you will be forced to reject any information from whatever source - even if that source is your own direct experience - that runs counter to it. You will filter it out, explain it away, 'rationalize' it, or simply ignore it.

Our perceptive mechanisms are the handmaidens of our expectations. Not the other way around. The statement "Believing is seeing." is far truer than you can imagine, but to test its truthfulness you would have to take the plunge into the wild and woolly realms of not-so-rational, subjective experience. (Note; I did not say irrational.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by little nemo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

I would like an example if you can provide one.

---

I will provide you with an article of scientific faith you provided yourself;

In order for something to be true, it must have the ability to be observed by another person at the same time... "if" someone else were in the room, they would percieve the same surroundings and events.

This is a root assumption, fully approved through the application of scientific methodologies. If you take this statement as 'gospel' you will be forced to reject any information from whatever source - even if that source is your own direct experience - that runs counter to it. You will filter it out, explain it away, 'rationalize' it, or simply ignore it.

Our perceptive mechanisms are the handmaidens of our expectations. Not the other way around. The statement "Believing is seeing." is far truer than you can imagine, but to test its truthfulness you would have to take the plunge into the wild and woolly realms of not-so-rational, subjective experience. (Note; I did not say irrational.)

---

Well first off if your going to quote someone it would be nice if you would use direct quotes, without cutting through the middle of the quote, what you failed to mention was that inbetween these words. "In order for something to be true, it must have the ability to be observed by another person at the same time...[That doesn't mean that one individual can not experience something by himself that is real, it simply means that] "if" someone else were in the room, they would percieve the same surroundings and events."

The statement that "you will be forced to reject any information from whatever source -" is in no way true whatsoever. If there is evidence that the counter evidence is true, then there will be an explaination of why it is true. Because, if something is true, there will be evidence that it is! If something is not true, then there will be no evidence.

Let me make this very clear, and if you reject this next statement you are indeed a moron, or whatever word is less offensive for mentaly inferior to the rest of society.

If there is not concrete evidence for something, then you SHOULD NOT BELIEVE IT over other things that there ARE concrete evidence for.


You see, you would like me to believe anything that I percieve to be true (like for example by your logic every dream i've ever had was indeed actually a factual existence), however without evidence of why it is true, there is no reason to believe it is true.

There ARE explainations for seeing things that aren't real, they are called hallucinations...

Btw, your answer in no way provided an answer for the question that you quoted, the question was,


Show me an example of this.

Quote:

---

If you think of science as a kind of religion you will more easily catch sight how heavily it relies on some very unscientific assumptions, and demands a kind of unquestioning faith from its adherents.

---

You say that your answer was an example because you say that we will "rationalize it" or etc. untill we reach a conclusion that is that of the same we already had. However that is not true, often when a scientist is presented with a situation that counters what he normally would believe through science, he comes up with NEW THEORIES that explain why it happened.

Like for example, I saw a purple 3 headed monkey walk by me just now...A scientist will look at this and explore the possibilities, "does this monkey exist?" A scientist will look for evidence, and see that there is none
"Is it possible this person is lieing?", scientist will try to find out if that is true, "Is it possible this person is hallucinating?" a scientist will try to find out if this is true.

I felt that this part needed a new response, so it wouldn't be over looked.
Scientist find out new things everyday, you say that science is like a religion because we reject anything that doesn't fit the already described sense of reality we have from science. THAT IS NOT TRUE. We constantly search for explainations to new phenonema every single day. I have said this over and over and over and over and over. There are scientific studies in EVEN THE MOST RETARDED OF FEILDS!

Little Nemo: now that you're back in the circuit of this topic, I responded to your first post several pages ago... So yeah! here! vvvv

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by little nemo

I read the Castaneda series and first learned to induce lucidity by using his methods. Once I became lucid I was able to fall asleep again in the dream, in the same position I first went to sleep in, and found the second dream to be intensely vivid - far more so than a usual lucid dream. (This technique is in one of his books, I forget which.) I have had some success with some of the other techniques for refocusing awareness in unique ways that are presented throughout his books.

I lean strongly to the non-fiction side of the Castenada argument but have other reservations about his writings. Namely; the overall mood of the nagual's path of knowledge is too somber for me, and without a nagual to help me along I'm sure I wouldn't have the nearly superhuman dedication it seems to demand of it's practitioners.

---

little Nemo, I know exactly where you're coming from on the mood of it all. Too dark for me. I would be scared to live in a world where you have to forget your family and friends in your personal history and kill your children to reconstruct your soul (book 5). It's all pretty fucked and heartless, I think. Though SO many of the life lessons in the books are SO relevant, probably even the darker ones. I read the first 5 and slowly went from wanting to be a man of knowledge, and hating not having connections to the/a nagual to guide me, to seeing it more as a strange cult-esque operation about worshiping "the nagual" and seeing even your children as enemies. I love the books though, and will continue to read more. You just have to stay open-minded I guess.

And, wow, you learned to LD through these books? And you achieved the advanced gaits of dreaming? That's awesome! What methods did you use to actually achieve a lucid dream?

---

Standford, and meanwhile, those "scientists" deny anything which doesn't fit into their own schemes. (Narrow-minded schemes).

It is well-known that the 'important' or official scientific comunity hasn't even bothered to pay attention to some 'facts' even if they could be mathematically prove and tested.\

Yeah they need some wider schemes cuz appearantly alot of our experience goes unexplained due to those stubborn, narrow schemes.

We can build the most intricate computers, radio-beacons, crafts and vehicles..yet we never figured out what Dreaming is all about and the entire concept of the mind is still shrouded in mist. Shame on science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polmc

(Sandform?)Standford, and meanwhile, those "scientists" deny anything which doesn't fit into their own schemes. (Narrow-minded schemes).

It is well-known that the 'important' or official scientific comunity hasn't even bothered to pay attention to some 'facts' even if they could be mathematically prove and tested.\

---

No it is not well known, because its not true. Did you not hear mean when I said it...Do I have to say it again? Research is done in even the most retarded of fields, every single damn day. Of course they deny things which they have studied and found no evidence for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

Yeah they need some wider schemes cuz appearantly alot of our experience goes unexplained due to those stubborn, narrow schemes.

We can build the most intricate computers, radio-beacons, crafts and vehicles..yet we never figured out what Dreaming is all about and the entire concept of the mind is still shrouded in mist. Shame on science.

---

Gee, I wonder what all those who study the field of neuroscience would have to say about your "Shame on science" statement, cause obviously they aren't studying the human brain AT ALL right?

And I have to lol at your "the human mind is shrouded in mist" statement. Didn't you link a video that described a very important part of how the human brain functions?... Oh wait, I guess I am the one who is denying anything that doesn't fit my "schemes" and it isn't actually you who is doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

No it is not well known, because its not true. Did you not hear mean when I said it...Do I have to say it again? Research is done in even the most retarded of fields, every single damn day. Of course they deny things which they have studied and found no evidence for.

---

Yes, you're right, research is done in practically any field, but if the discovery is somehow not in their tune (counter-productive) then it's most of the time ignored by the 'official' scientific comunity, and unfortunately, in schools we are only taught what that official community thinks we must know.

It's not science what is wrong, not in the least. It's some (or a lot) of 'scientists' which behave more in a dogmatic way than like true scientists.

And believe me, there are plenty of examples of this throughout history, so don't come up to defend your ideal perception of conventional science with such arguments.

jamous:
I got sidetracked by our friend there - I've been meaning to get back to the original topic.

My first intentional (or non-spontaneous) LDs were achieved by finding my hands in a dream. Just finding them was enough of a to cue my dreaming self to get lucid. It's been a while since I applied myself to some of Casteneda's other dreaming techniques but my success were sporadic and did not go beyond the experience of having a double lucid (explained in an earlier post). Since I haven't repeated the double lucid I can't say I 'achieved the advanced gates'. What I did experience was enough to convince me of the validity of his methods.

Much of what I've read in Castaneda has been echoed by other writers, several of them from his own circle. Florinda Donner-Grau is one of them; she has published several interesting books but the one I recommend most is 'Being-in-Dreaming'. Taisha Abelar is also from his circle and wrote 'The Sorcerer's Crossing', also very good. All of Castaneda's books are fascinating. Your will enjoy finishing the series.

There is much more I could go into on this topic but I will save it for another time.
BTW, I don't want you to get the impression that I have any mastery in these matters. Experience yes, mastery no.

Nemo

Note to Sandform: I respect the passion of your convictions (if not the convictions themselves), but due to the very nature of convictions no one has swayed anyone else in this exchange. It is both off topic and turning into flaming and ranting. Perhaps you should establish a new thread; one more suited to indulge your appetite for confrontation. ;)

The arguement that skepticism is actually healthy vs. having to be forced to accept anything that comes our way just because someone says it is true?

There must be testable and conclusive evidence before we say that it is true.

Aren't there are things you do not believe are true, would you want a scientist to believe what these thigns are that you don't believe are true just because someone says it is true? Would you want a scientist telling schools they should believe these things which aren't founded on conclusive evidence?

Sorry, I just assumed when he asked for the validity of seeing and dreaming in the first post that this would be something of importance...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

The arguement that skepticism is actually healthy vs. having to be forced to accept anything that comes our way just because someone says it is true?

There must be testable and conclusive evidence before we say that it is true.

Aren't there are things you do not believe are true, would you want a scientist to believe what these thigns are that you don't believe are true just because someone says it is true? Would you want a scientist telling schools they should believe these things which aren't founded on conclusive evidence?

---

Well, you seem to have misread my earlier reply. Read it more carefully again because what you're saying is not appropriate I guess.

The things which I'm talking aobut that I wish were taught in school are facts, I already said it, facts ignored by the official science. Not beliefs told from other people.

Regarding to the topic and to Standford's posture I can only say this: I've expierenced myself some of what Castaneda's art of dreaming book says. And that experience, is to me a lot more meaningful than just some theories I've been taught from others (wasn't that the supposed belief system you complained about?), even if those laws and theories are backed up by a Scientific community.

Polmc, i'm sorry but your just flat out lieing...
No FACTS are ever ignored. You can't just throw things out saying its a fact when the "facts" as you put it are so easily discredited...
Like for example your saying its a fact that scientists ignore facts, you have NO basis whatsoever that goes along with that statement. Your probably going to bring up something about how "scientists thought the Earth was flat" bull shit, but that isn't true, yes many scientists said the Earth was flat, but that doesn't mean they believed it, the first scientist to announce this theory was charged with heresy and then sentenced to death for his claims...Gee, if I were going to be sentenced to death by an archaic religious practicianor i'm sure I would poke my head out and say exactly what was necessary to get myself killed. In fact many greek scientist actually DID believe in the theory that the Earth was spherical.

But this is pointless, if your going to believe in things you experience when your in a freaked up delusional state of mind, rather than believing facts I don't think I want to argue with you.

And btw, your "theories I've been taught from others" statement is just stupid, you see, the theories i'm given are based on evidence that is provided side by side with the theories, so your statements are foolish. They aren't "backed up by the scientific community" they are backed up by evidence. Trying to turn my way of thinking into yours is just a red herring attempt at trying to prove your way of thinking is correct. Instead of trying to prove its true, your trying to divert attention from the fact that it is false.

Btw I'm gonna appologize for you know... speaking my opinion. It's really a fruitless battle at this point...

yeah it's healthy to be skeptic. Therefor also being skeptic at science. And allthough science has figured out alot they still have no clue about the function of dreams.
Only theories.

Also science these days is mainly focussed at improving allready existing inventions, but what I would like to see is a little bit more Mind science. I wish there were MUCh more scientists like Stephen LaBerge.

For anyone who's interested, all of Castenada's, Florinda Donner's and Taisha Abelar's books are available free in text format here: http://www.rarecloud.com/dl.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

Sorry, I just assumed when he asked for the validity of seeing and dreaming in the first post that this would be something of importance...

---

"Can anybody vouch for the the validity of any of it. Seeing and dreaming? Anybody experience anything like this?"

regarding to this question to which you were referring: I didn't ask for opinions, I wanted to hear personal experiences that might suggest that seeing and dreaming are real, which might therein suggest truth in the books (or novels). I've heard the 2 versions of wothless opinions before, which are: non-fiction, of course, because he is so naive then drastically changes his style or whatever, OR bull shit! because western science is perfect! >:C These can both be argued extensively, all I want is some witness accounts of seeing or dreaming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polmc

Well, you seem to have misread my earlier reply. Read it more carefully again because what you're saying is not appropriate I guess.

---

He seems to be doing that alot actually... like he's arguing with somebody as stubborn as he is :holycrap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polmc

Well, you seem to have misread my earlier reply. Read it more carefully again because what you're saying is not appropriate I guess.
.

---

I didn't misread it...He said he didn't ike scientists because the official community didn't accept every single account givin to them as true. He said he is upset because we do not teach in our schools things that have "facts", I was merely pointing out that this was not a very bright statement.
With his logic I would have to beg the question...
Why don't we all just go teach in schools tomarro everything about Carlos Castaneda?

actually for awhile "the teachings of don juan" was standard reading in some schools. I think they ought to teach stuff about Castaneda actually, in English/literature of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamous

"Can anybody vouch for the the validity of any of it. Seeing and dreaming? Anybody experience anything like this?"

regarding to this question to which you were referring: I didn't ask for opinions, I wanted to hear personal experiences that might suggest that seeing and dreaming are real, which might therein suggest truth in the books (or novels). I've heard the 2 versions of wothless opinions before, which are: non-fiction, of course, because he is so naive then drastically changes his style or whatever, OR bull shit! because western science is perfect! >:C These can both be argued extensively, all I want is some witness accounts of seeing or dreaming.


He seems to be doing that alot actually... like he's arguing with somebody as stubborn as he is :holycrap:

---

(actually I'm glad to have any responses on this topic, as it keeps it alive! hahaha)