Thread: Lucid Dreaming Book Club (January-February)

Okay, so I am about a third into this book now.

My honest thinking so far is that it is not what I was expecting. I was going off the title (Simply Pay Attention) thinking it would be like a guidebook for lucid dreaming. And perhaps, maybe it will go into that (I don't know yet). What I have discovered, so far, is that it seems to be a personal account of spiritual beliefs from the author's perspective.

Personally, I find my views to be different based on my own spiritual experiences (lucid or otherwise), and believe more in the concept of "Source" energy, oneness, and Buddhist concepts, however, it is an interesting interpretation all the same.

It's interesting; I'm about two thirds into the book and have thought about making a similar comment myself here but so far I am holding back until I finish reading the book fully, especially since it's not too long really. Would probably have finished it sooner but days have been a bit erratic.

I will probably go into depth about my thoughts when I'm done reading it myself.

Ok, so this might get long. I'll also try to avoid referencing anything (too) specific so as to not spoil the book for anyone.

I'll also mention that as always, all this is just my opinion at the end of the day.

---

Although I felt conflicted reading this book, or perhaps because of it, I think the author did a good job of getting me to think. This is something I always appreciate in a book. Admittedly, I was pretty slow with my reading, not only because of how my daily schedules had been but I also didn't feel drawn to reading more frequently for the sake of what was being said. Most of what drew me into finishing the book came from wanting to understand what the author was getting at, which is done in the final section (which I avoided peeping at until I had actually read everything up to that point).

I was hopeful there would be such a section by the end, and equally fearful it might be missing. Finishing the book today since my last post (only yesterday) was definitely driven from an interest in putting my thoughts about it out here.

Without actually being inside the author's head (or dreams for that matter) I think that the general message was a good one, even if it was done in such an odd way. Perhaps that's the point. One quirky thing for me was that due to the title of the book I was almost paranoically looking for things to pay attention for; in the end this made me pay a bit too much mind to small typos or strange cases of over/under-indented text, but that just shows what my brain defaults to at times. And the title also did make me think that the book would be more about a specific technique or something like that and although I had read the synopsis, I guess I didn't pay attention in a way, and just expected what I wanted to expect, rather than what the synopsis says all along anyway.

The fictional aspect of the book felt very much like an allegory and difficult to take at face value; it feels as the type of allegory you might see in a more ancient culture and I guess it's odd to think that on some level I still required the final section to reaffirm this idea, that part of what I'm reading is indeed a story, a metaphorical fiction.

The story's discussion of thought energy got me thinking about a somewhat similar concept I've read about, which presents itself in the fictional Warhammer 40k universe. As I was reading I was linking the two universes together in a way I didn't expect would even come up in my mind, and maybe this is deviating from what the book is about... However, it certainly made me think that this book is quite positive; by contrast, in WH40k, thought energy is seen as a dangerous form of energy with just as much potential as described in this book, which can have disastrous results rather than wondrous ones. To put it shortly, both of these fictional representations of thought as energy show me that we can really take this concept in any direction, good, bad or something in-between.

Some of the passages in the book feel like they hold some quite simple truth to them and I think one that stood out most was the description of how basically everything does affect everything else, in some way. It reminds me that the positive interactions I try to foster with others really could be of importance, maybe more to others than to myself at times, even if I often feel it's just driven around myself, perhaps because my self is all I can consciously perceive.

I think to say that the book is directly related to lucid dreaming isn't quite right, as it didn't feel that way to me. The story was, of course, but to say that it shows something about lucid thought in dreaming does not exclude the fact that the same could be said about lucid thought while awake. Personally, I felt that the significance of lucid dreaming was important to the narrative, but secondary; almost a plot device. So I think I'd say the scope was more about awareness in general and it so happens to include lucid dreaming since that's what it's all about, awareness.

I don't have a conclusion to these thoughts so far and so I will be waiting to see what others put out from their own thoughts about the book, here on the thread.

- SPOILERS – READ AFTER -

This book used the right tactic for me. When I read something like Jonathan Livingston Seagull, I get the feeling that the author is telling me: “this objectively is the deep truth you’ve been missing”, and I become sceptical and then close minded as the overt metaphor fails here and there. I hear myself saying “It’s not that simple! This lacks nuance! It’s not that deep!”

But here, the author begins by saying “this is not about proving anything, proof is boring, let’s have fun” and the raptors have a successful civilization somewhere in outer space after all… So, if they can do it, I can probably go for a ride too… not to cosmic depths but to the author's worldview.

So, I enjoyed this metaphysical history fiction interspersed with dream sequences. It allowed me to experience it without filter and simply pay attention. And a shoutout to the comeback of the Tupperware plain from Oneironauticus, this one with a green lid!

I assumed there was a hierarchy of beliefs; some crucial, some exploratory, some merely ornamental. Evidently, I recognized the thought energy concept from… the thread on dream sharing theories! And I remember Sageous defining souls as the accumulation of a lifetime of thought energy in a recent thread on the subject, so these concepts seem to be at the top of the author’s metaphysical worldview. I appreciated seeing a more detailed essay on these concepts here. I interpreted the other elements as lesser pieces of the worldview, like placeholders present for the cohesiveness of the whole. Yet, I thought the “7 souls / 1 soul situation” was a creative explanation for the grand philosophical debate of dualism (the separation between the objective and subjective worlds). Also, ants.

Consequentially, I have been oozing thought energy. Each conscious moment this week added to an in-progress creation out of my grasp. As time distances me from this reading, this sense will disappear because I didn’t become attached to the idea. Although the philosophical question of dualism is a major mystery and I have studied the different schools of thought, I fail and fail to find any theory that satisfies me adequately. I have been leaning toward monism, the concept that the objective and subjective worlds are one and the same, two sides of a coin but one on one equivalents. That and panpsychism. But, something about it feels off. Up next, I intend to read about Daniel Hoffman’s Multimodal user interface (MUI) theory. Yet, I think I have to accept my eternal ignorance.

In the end, what most titillated me was the broadening of attention to something outside our spectrum of perception, via a sense outside those at our disposal. I don’t foresee noticing anything through this exercise, but I get a spiritual satisfaction out of it anyway.

So is this book is a fiction? This whole time I've been reading it, I thought it was non-fiction, at least, from the perspective of the author. That makes a huge difference for me.

Well, even under Sageous' website it's under a Fiction category, so I would think so; it reads as a fiction to me personally and so to me it wouldn't make sense to think of it as strictly non-fiction.

Originally Posted by MoonageDaydream

So is this book is a fiction? This whole time I've been reading it, I thought it was non-fiction, at least, from the perspective of the author. That makes a huge difference for me.

Here's the author's note at the end of the book (which was not present in my copy and I just found):

“I hope you have enjoyed the quasi-fictitious thought experiment that is this little book and that you have given some of its not necessarily fictitious concepts some thought. Yes, things in this book might be wrong, but I believe that even if they do not reflect reality, they offer an excuse to learn the art of lucid dreaming and recognize that it can be used for more than just inserting your presence in a dream and have some fun (not that there is anything wrong with that!). Lucid dreaming can be a vital tool with which to explore the concept of self-awareness, appreciate the value of paying attention, and perhaps to consider a world that includes thought energy in its metaphysical makeup. So, though the unusual little book you are holding may be a work of occasional whimsical fiction, there is a chance that it contains more truth than much of the so-called non-fiction currently occupying the self-help or spiritual sections of your local bookstore.

Though I am a lifelong lucid dreamer myself, and have made paying attention a cornerstone of my lucid life, please be assured that, as far as I know, I am not the prophet and cannot prove his existence, much less identify him directly. However, should you in your explorations discover the prophet, please feel free to contact me through the Sageous.com website, so that we might compare notes!

Best of Dreams,

Peter A. Luber”

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

Here's the author's note at the end of the book (which was not present in my copy and I just found):

Oh, I see, I didn't realise the note might not be present. It was present in the copy I got. That was what I was referring to when I said:

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

I was hopeful there would be such a section by the end, and equally fearful it might be missing. Finishing the book today since my last post (only yesterday) was definitely driven from an interest in putting my thoughts about it out here.

Honestly, I would probably have taken the book at face value in some sense if that note wasn't there, or at least be left confused, but as I also said, it's surprising to myself that I should need such a note to not take something at face value. I think this just reflects what may be contemporary obsession with fact and reference to a source that can confirm the facts and so on; perhaps because we live in a world with much misinformation too?

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

It's surprising to myself that I should need such a note to not take something at face value. I think this just reflects what may be contemporary obsession with fact and reference to a source that can confirm the facts and so on; perhaps because we live in a world with much misinformation too?

Why would we ever take someone who says raptors have a thriving outer space civilization at face value? I think we are naive, here in the spiritual community, because we want to believe in more. There for sure are conversations here on Dreamviews that I have to just stop myself from participating in, because there is no respect for reasonable truth. Some make all kinds of claims that are taken at face value. It would be one thing to say, "I get the feeling that...", "I get the sense that..." but no. If you don't accept claims with no ground, you are a closed minded and far from wise... Anyway...

If anything, the book seemed to be a parody. There was a certain self-awareness. For example, the author made sure to include a criticism of those who make up dogmas by trying to fill in the blanks of mystical or merely odd events and he made sure to warn that after reading this, we were prone to (create) a meeting with a prophet (not an objective one, but simply one created from our expectation and intent). In those moments, if the author meant to be non-fictional, he would have needed to be, not only hypocritical, but malicious. So, it made more sense to me that it would be a self-aware thought experiment.

It's also interesting that Sageous published a book with this quote in 2011,

"It may offer up a few twists on our current remarkably raw understanding of reality, as well as humanity's place in it all, but it does not seek to prove anything. Proofs are boring, rarely believed, and, when discussing the metaphysical, prone to being interpreted by "experts" as incorrect. Finally, this book is not a theological treatise."

Luber, Peter A.. Simply Pay Attention (p. 7). Kindle Edition.

and in the same year, published this thread:

https://www.dreamviews.com/general-l...ise-proof.html

"A Treatise on Proof

There was an emotional eruption on a recent thread regarding proof, and its priority among members here. The conversation really had no place in the thread on which it was, so I thought I would start one here, if anyone is interested.

Why? Because I noticed a very troubling theme in that conversation: That proof, and by extension truth, does not matter.

[...]"

Sageous

A brief summary of the first post in the thread is that because the dreaming mind can conceive any imaginable experience, there is an extra need in dreams to really prove to yourself that you had the experience (let's say, a shared dream, an OBE, astral projection, a meeting with another entity such as... the Prophet or the 7 Souls) rather than a dream of that experience (because dreams can for sure simulate those no problem).

Also, in this first post, Sageous claims 2 things can help you prove it to yourself: 1. Being lucid (because of the implied waking life equivalent access to memory) and 2. Describing the dream events in first person rather than second person. Second person implies that the dream is a different entity and in control. First person implies you are aware that all of the dream is your dream and your dream body if present is also your dream (self-aware). In that sense, Sageous believed that in these conditions, you were that much closer to proving to yourself that an entity in the dream was not "your dream" but another entity. And these things are also discussed by the author of Simply Pay Attention in how to contact the Prophet.

In seems that the book and the thread had a similar goal. One used the approach of debate, the other, of thought experiment.

Evidently, there was debate. Some argued that great memory is not exclusive or necessary to lucid dreams and that even if you can identify all of the dream as yourself, the dream could still identify one thing as external (it's for sure, not outside a dream's capacities) so there's much to discuss here.

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

Honestly, I would probably have taken the book at face value in some sense if that note wasn't there, or at least be left confused, but as I also said, it's surprising to myself that I should need such a note to not take something at face value. I think this just reflects what may be contemporary obsession with fact and reference to a source that can confirm the facts and so on; perhaps because we live in a world with much misinformation too?

Your "taking the book at face value in some sense" was my hope, actually. I put that note in at the end as a gentle warning to folks who might take it all at face value and miss the whole point of the book and possibly turn it into something it is not (though I would have welcomed the sales that inevitably accompany that interpretation! ). Judging by your post I get the feeling that you got from this book the things I hoped a reader would get; including some level of (thought-inspiring) confusion.

Great posts, BTW; you guys have picked up just the things I was hoping would be picked up, which is a real relief to me. I'm waiting for more posts before I offer up an actual response, if one seems necessary, but I figured a quick if obscure note about the nature of this book -- and confirmation that you guys get it -- was worth sticking in here.

Thanks for taking the time!

[EDIT: Your post appeared as I was writing mine, Occipitalred; I wish I had waited, because you said what I meant -- and more, and better -- rendering my post unnecessary; I could've saved some time!]

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

Why would we ever take someone who says raptors have a thriving outer space civilization at face value? I think we are naive, here in the spiritual community, because we want to believe in more. There for sure are conversations here on Dreamviews that I have to just stop myself from participating in, because there is no respect for reasonable truth. Some make all kinds of claims that are taken at face value. It would be one thing to say, "I get the feeling that...", "I get the sense that..." but no. If you don't accept claims with no ground, you are a closed minded and far from wise... Anyway...

Yes. There are members and posts on here that make me want to say "Um, I think you need psychiatric help!!" but I stop myself because I don't want to get into a forum war with someone, especially someone unstable. Bottom line - it wouldn't be productive or helpful I think. But I'm sure you know the kind of posts I'm talking about.

Sageous is not one of those! Or at least, I've never noticed it. But, I wasn't sure if he was serious about the raptors, ants, and mollusks!! Who knows, people think weird things. Hell, I think weird things.

Anyways, still enjoying the book, moreso now that I know not to take it all at face value!!

Sorry guys, I must admit I hate multi-quoting at times as it feels my posts get way too long... I always end my replies feeling I wanted to say something else/different anyway.

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

Why would we ever take someone who says raptors have a thriving outer space civilization at face value? I think we are naive, here in the spiritual community, because we want to believe in more. There for sure are conversations here on Dreamviews that I have to just stop myself from participating in, because there is no respect for reasonable truth. Some make all kinds of claims that are taken at face value. It would be one thing to say, "I get the feeling that...", "I get the sense that..." but no. If you don't accept claims with no ground, you are a closed minded and far from wise... Anyway...

Maybe I chose my wording poorly. When I said "take at face value" I didn't mean to imply acceptance (I think I may be misreading some of what you said, not sure), which is why I said "in some sense" too. In any case, I only meant that I might have dismissed the rest of the content of the book prematurely if it were being worded as some kind of ultimate truth and therefore I might not have had further motivation to finish it; that said, I would be willing to read something I might completely disagree with from the start, if nothing else, to understand why another person thinks the way they do.

And I think to say that we are collectively naive may not be entirely fair to ourselves as unique individuals; as individuals we can be naive in some regards and less in others and that changes over time anyway, I would believe so from my own experience, at least.

Originally Posted by MoonageDaydream

Yes. There are members and posts on here that make me want to say "Um, I think you need psychiatric help!!" but I stop myself because I don't want to get into a forum war with someone, especially someone unstable. Bottom line - it wouldn't be productive or helpful I think. But I'm sure you know the kind of posts I'm talking about.

Sageous is not one of those! Or at least, I've never noticed it. But, I wasn't sure if he was serious about the raptors, ants, and mollusks!! Who knows, people think weird things. Hell, I think weird things.

Yes, I do know the kind of posts both of you are mentioning. I also think that normally there's not much that can be said of productive value and whether those people would be willing to accept a reasoned discussion on the subject or not can be unpredictable. Some may be unstable, sure, but linking back to what I was saying about naivety, it may just be that they are naive on a particular subject. In my personal view, to make assumptions can be a bit like dropping a blanket with a label of "stupid" on top of someone; I have had stupid attitudes or views in life, but I am still the same person and I got over those views. Because I had stupid views, it doesn't mean I have to consider my past self stupid as a whole, does it?

This isn't a jab at your comment by the way, I know you weren't calling anyone anything and sometimes people are actually in need of help too. It just got me thinking was all, after that bit above about naivety.

And I know of Sageous, but I both don't know him as an individual and like you said, people do think weird things, myself included (see bottom of this post). Even the smallest most insignificant point could have been meant as a serious one, and in fact they are made in such a way as to seem serious, which I guess adds to the authenticity of something to be immersed in. I suppose I never lost that immersion whilst reading the book, regardless of how outlandish something seemed.

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

If anything, the book seemed to be a parody. There was a certain self-awareness. For example, the author made sure to include a criticism of those who make up dogmas by trying to fill in the blanks of mystical or merely odd events and he made sure to warn that after reading this, we were prone to (create) a meeting with a prophet (not an objective one, but simply one created from our expectation and intent). In those moments, if the author meant to be non-fictional, he would have needed to be, not only hypocritical, but malicious. So, it made more sense to me that it would be a self-aware thought experiment.

I think we probably agree on this but we probably just use different words to a similar effect. Could you just clarify how you are defining "self-aware thought experiment"?

Originally Posted by Sageous

Your "taking the book at face value in some sense" was my hope, actually. I put that note in at the end as a gentle warning to folks who might take it all at face value and miss the whole point of the book and possibly turn it into something it is not (though I would have welcomed the sales that inevitably accompany that interpretation! ). Judging by your post I get the feeling that you got from this book the things I hoped a reader would get; including some level of (thought-inspiring) confusion.

Great posts, BTW; you guys have picked up just the things I was hoping would be picked up, which is a real relief to me. I'm waiting for more posts before I offer up an actual response, if one seems necessary, but I figured a quick if obscure note about the nature of this book -- and confirmation that you guys get it -- was worth sticking in here.

On the note about something it's not; this book reminded me that at times I have thought of starting a religion -- yes, really, but you already know I have thought weird and stupid things by this point -- it would be mostly for the symbolic value that can be created around such a thing and so the book highlighted for me just how easily something like that could run away from you without your control, something I have also thought a lot about. If it didn't happen in one's lifetime, perhaps after it. I have certainly read about a few small-ish cults where this type of thing happened; very interesting subjects to read about, anyway...

Thank you for your post too, I always appreciate interactions from and with other artists/authors, it was interesting to read your own feelings about our thoughts so far and I'm happy that it has turned out as you hoped too.

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

Yes, I do know the kind of posts both of you are mentioning. I also think that normally there's not much that can be said of productive value and whether those people would be willing to accept a reasoned discussion on the subject or not can be unpredictable. Some may be unstable, sure, but linking back to what I was saying about naivety, it may just be that they are naive on a particular subject. In my personal view, to make assumptions can be a bit like dropping a blanket with a label of "stupid" on top of someone; I have had stupid attitudes or views in life, but I am still the same person and I got over those views. Because I had stupid views, it doesn't mean I have to consider my past self stupid as a whole, does it?

Just to be clear, the posts I was thinking of as I wrote that, they did not strike me as stupid - I wouldn't use that word. More like, delusional. Things like taking credit for causing covid and stuff. That kind of thing.

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

Maybe I chose my wording poorly. When I said "take at face value" I didn't mean to imply acceptance (I think I may be misreading some of what you said, not sure), which is why I said "in some sense" too. In any case, I only meant that I might have dismissed the rest of the content of the book prematurely if it were being worded as some kind of ultimate truth and therefore I might not have had further motivation to finish it; that said, I would be willing to read something I might completely disagree with from the start, if nothing else, to understand why another person thinks the way they do.

And I think to say that we are collectively naive may not be entirely fair to ourselves as unique individuals; as individuals we can be naive in some regards and less in others and that changes over time anyway, I would believe so from my own experience, at least.

Yes, I do know the kind of posts both of you are mentioning. I also think that normally there's not much that can be said of productive value and whether those people would be willing to accept a reasoned discussion on the subject or not can be unpredictable. Some may be unstable, sure, but linking back to what I was saying about naivety, it may just be that they are naive on a particular subject. In my personal view, to make assumptions can be a bit like dropping a blanket with a label of "stupid" on top of someone; I have had stupid attitudes or views in life, but I am still the same person and I got over those views. Because I had stupid views, it doesn't mean I have to consider my past self stupid as a whole, does it?

This isn't a jab at your comment by the way, I know you weren't calling anyone anything and sometimes people are actually in need of help too. It just got me thinking was all, after that bit above about naivety.


I think we probably agree on this but we probably just use different words to a similar effect. Could you just clarify how you are defining "self-aware thought experiment"?

I didn't use the word "naive" to mean "stupid" or "immature." Instead, I really meant "eager to take things at face value." I'm not sure if it was the appropriate word to use in English, but maybe I should have used "gullabile" ... but that also feels like a prejorative... I really meant "eager to take things at face value." And, for sure, if I began expressing every passing thought I have, I would be considered off the rails by any standard.

My point really is just that, yes some people are clearly psychiatrically delusional, and then, there's the rest of us, also delusional, but acceptably so. For example, my father. He's concerned by spirituality which probably influenced me. But when he was a young adult, his dad left the church and found some local spiritual gurus that just told him how the world works. And it clicked for both my grandfather and my father. And forever since, that is their worldview. Yet, some of the claims, there's no possible way to know. Anyone who tells you they know what happens after death... they're just straight out lying to you (unless they are delusional). Either way, you shouldn't take that sort of comment at face value. But we want to believe something. So, if something clicks, we just take it. For my father, I am sure he will never change his mind; he will always stay 100% resolved that he knows what happens to us after we die. And I forever will wish he could have the awareness to say "this guy that told us this, he doesn't know. I don't know. But, this clicks. It's probably wrong but I like it." Instead him and my grandfather kind of looks at anyone who doesn't see this way with some sort of well-intentioned pity, and it's very hard to have really interesting conversations. I also want to find the best answer to all these questions that best clicks for myself, but I remind myself, I won't find it. We can only speculate. I can't just declare I finally found the truth the moment I finally find something that intuitively sounds nice to me. And same for the 'beyond dreaming' topics. No one actually knows these things. But those topics are really interesting, to me at least... well, to us. But as lucid dreamers, we can't have those discussions without acknowledging that dreams can simulate anything imaginable and nothing can be taken at face value. I think "Simply Pay Attention" tries to discuss beyond lucid dreaming topics and how the logistics could work within this framework and how you would avoid being duped by your expectations and intents.


To clarify, I said "Simply Pay Attention" is a self-aware thought experiment because it is a thought experiment in so far as it "considers a theory (i.e. thought energy) for the purpose of thinking through its consequences" and it is self-aware because it is self-critical and overtly opposed to itself: the book is written as a prophet's sacred text, like a Bible. Yet, the author says all these types of texts are misinterpretations of the truth. And there is a lot of time spent discussing the prophet's great challenge of communicating with anyone without the message being distorted into such a thing. If the author meant everything literally and sincerely, he would not have written the book, because he describes the best way to communicate the message: not in a bible format, but, instead, by waiting in dreams where only adequately self-aware people can spot you by paying attention, by taking such a humble form, as to not stimulate the person's fantasies and stay grounded instead, and give so little during each conversation, that this state of paying attention and stability can be maintained. In brief, the book spends most of the time saying that it itself should not have been written because it goes against all the values it holds, but obviously, it was written, because it is not a command to believe everything written in it; it's a thought experiment.

Thank you both for your replies; I didn't mean to put words in either of your mouths, so I'm sorry if it sounded that way. I was only going off my own overarching tangent thoughts and I forget that what (or how) I'm thinking about something is not how other people will see what I'm saying, naturally. Basically there's relevant contextual information in my head that's missing from what I actually end up saying.

And based on your reply, I think I had indeed mis-read some of what you said, Occipitalred so thank you for the clarification. I found that it helped me to better understand what you had already said before too. I suppose how you defined it can fit into my idea of an allegory as I said earlier on; however, your definition is more specific than my general idea would be.

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

Thank you both for your replies; I didn't mean to put words in either of your mouths, so I'm sorry if it sounded that way. I was only going off my own overarching tangent thoughts and I forget that what (or how) I'm thinking about something is not how other people will see what I'm saying, naturally. Basically there's relevant contextual information in my head that's missing from what I actually end up saying.

No worries Dark.

Btw, I do often wonder how you can see every side of every issue you comment on.

Originally Posted by MoonageDaydream

No worries Dark.

Btw, I do often wonder how you can see every side of every issue you comment on.

Good to hear.

And I guess this is off-topic, so feel free to steer me elsewhere to talk about this; I suppose to try and help with your curiosity in a brief sentence, I think it may be because in the past I have often been overbearing and incessantly trying to make points and that probably lead to me being overly defencive, when it's not really necessary. That's not the only thing of course but to boil it down to something denser, "live and let live" is a motto for me to try and live by.

More on topic, I have been thinking today that this should be an interesting book to re-read after I have given myself some time to remember it less accurately.

Still reading this. I notice in the book Sageous talks about "false lucid dreams". I'd like to know what people think about that concept. Basically, it's a non-lucid dream about being lucid, but not really lucid.

I'd probably consider it a low-level lucid dream, because on some level we have increased awareness. We know we are dreaming, whereas in other dreams we don't know at all. Still, it's an interesting concept I wouldn't rule out.

Thoughts, anyone?

I have had at least one of these false lucids at some point. Maybe more, but I can't recall them on a whim. It would take me some digging to find journal entries, but my memory of it is that my dream self thought to themself to be lucid, but when I woke up, there was a distinct feeling of... Not having actually been lucid while dreaming.

It's a feeling I can't really describe, it's one of those things... The absence of something feels distinct from it's presence, you know? Every actual lucid experience I've had, it had a certain feeling to it; this false lucid did not have that feeling.

---

But my more recent experience suggests that you may also be right about awareness, there could be some level of increased awareness regardless; as Occipitalred suggested recently... Arguably, recalling and being in a dream at all, is already a presence of awareness.

Please read this for more context:
https://www.dreamviews.com/general-l...ml#post2241094

And since you're on my friends, you can also read the DJ entry I link there if you're interested in that further reading.

Thank you for sharing those things. You know, I had a dream just today (during a long nap) that seems like it might qualify as a "false lucid" or something similar:

I was riding a bike in NYC, exploring, I was getting into some interesting areas when I realized the parking meter for my car would be expiring. I was about to turn around. But I had a strange thought. I thought You know what? Screw it. Let it expire - I'm gonna keep exploring. After all, this is just a dream.

I wasn't lucid, though. Still, I felt a strange sort of prickly feeling in my mind, not quite like the aha moment when you get lucid, but still, there was something there.

Originally Posted by MoonageDaydream

Still reading this. I notice in the book Sageous talks about "false lucid dreams". I'd like to know what people think about that concept. Basically, it's a non-lucid dream about being lucid, but not really lucid.

I'd probably consider it a low-level lucid dream, because on some level we have increased awareness. We know we are dreaming, whereas in other dreams we don't know at all. Still, it's an interesting concept I wouldn't rule out.

Thoughts, anyone?

I think there's two ways to talk about "false lucid dreams"

1. Setting vs State of consciousness.
You can dream that you're in school, in a game, in a movie... in a dream. (ex. "I am dreaming! Here, all doors bring you to a different realm and if I die, I really die in real life. But since it's a dream, I also can fly and shoot fire balls!"). Do you know you're dreaming thanks to a clarity of your mind? Or do you know you're dreaming because the dream provided that context?

I've come to think that a dream set in a dream generally counts for some clarity. We dream every night so it's actually pretty easy to recognize it as a dream subconsciously if anything. I think we just take our dreams at face value and that's why we don't disregard them as "just dreams" as they happen. At the end of the day, if we're going to talk about false lucid dreams, I'd also claim most of our non lucid-dreams are false non-lucid dreams. Just like we don't think "Oh, I'm in a school!" and instead we just play out a student or teacher role; in dreams we don't think "Oh, I'm in a dream!", we just play out our role.

2. Knowing we're dreaming vs self-awareness
The second way to talk about false-lucid dreams is what's more appropriate to this book or - Sageous' philosophy of dreams - . Here, self-awareness if a fundamental of lucidity if not it's definition. Because there is only the self (no external stimuli) in a dream, self-awareness should be awareness of all, shouldn't it? An omniscient awareness! Thus, in a false lucid dream, we know we are dreaming, but we lack self-awareness/omniscient awareness (perhaps, we fail to identify DCs and the environment as our self, or/and, in theory, we don't notice an external entity such as a dream sharer or astral entity). With this definition, most if not all our lucid dreams are false lucid dreams. And after years of pondering, I disagree with this view. Two reasons:

A. Omniscience.
We actually can't be aware of everything all at once. Our awareness is filtered, thankfully. Imagine knowing the results of all mathematical equations and the name of all birds in the same event of awareness. Now, being aware of the location of your physical body, the big picture of your waking life, the fact that you are dreaming, every single visual and sensory bit of information, the reason there is a monster coming after you and what it really means to be facing a monster in a dream, relevant memories, stabilizing tips learned on Dreamviews, the Task of the month...

B. Nonduality.
Everything in the dream is our own manifestation! Even things that seem separate... are as intimate as our very own thoughts! But then again... Thoughts come and go often unprompted. If I draw a picture, can I really say my conscious self conceived all of that? From observation, meditation teaches us to observe thoughts as one would observe external objects like passing cars... And much like we can drive a car, I guess we also have to conclude that we can drive our thoughts, but the lesson remains. They're like external objects. There is a duality. Everything in our dream is not our conscious self. We're face to face with our subconscious self. My pancreas is part of my self but not part of my conscious self. In the same way, the brain is an organ with many parts outside our conscious reach.

Conclusion: So I think that in a dream with heightened clarity of mind, I won't necessarily check all the boxes of a "lucid dream." I also do not need to appropriate everything in the dream as my nondual self and might still retain a nondual perspective, thus feel a sense of interacting with my subconscious. For me, it's more so that I'm trying to provide myself with the tools to think more clearly in my dreams by having a better understanding of the experience and having preset intentions (notice that knowing that I am dreaming and self-awareness are not even obligatory for success). An example of what I'm trying to say is this dream: "I have a pleasant interaction with a dream character but suddenly they look at me with disdain. I recognize that there's no one judging me, and I am aware that I am face to face with my own oversensitivity to judgement. I manifest a sense of confidence and continue the interaction." This dream also underlines that the knowledge that I am dreaming is implied, subtext. It's a false non-lucid dream.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by MoonageDaydream

I was riding a bike in NYC, exploring, I was getting into some interesting areas when I realized the parking meter for my car would be expiring. I was about to turn around. But I had a strange thought. I thought You know what? Screw it. Let it expire - I'm gonna keep exploring. After all, this is just a dream.

I actually think this is an example of some clarity amidst the fog of sleep. You knew you were dreaming but you were engrossed in the dream and didn't take a time to feel a "aha!" moment. If you are reading a book and you make a witty reflection, you made a witty reflection! I wouldn't be the one to claim your mind was actually really dull because you were engrossed in the book and didn't also think "Aha! I'm reading a book!" or take a moment to feel a spiritual satisfaction out of some self-awareness exercise.

Just wanted to share that today, as I was wandering in my mind, I came across a scene from Oneironauticus, another novel by Sageous which is more of an adventure story, and I thought I would share that it still has an impact on my mind, after having finished it last fall.