Thread: What is a Lucid Dream?

Let me put it in other words: you think you're so intelligent and fantastic, that people have to read what you're writing several times, before they can comprehend what you're saying. Sadly, so far nobody on this forum, AT ALL, has been able to understand anything of what you're saying, and everytime people try to comment on your posts, you insult them because they don't understand what you're trying to say. Instead of clarifying, you simply make your posts even more cryptic.

Why can you not understand, that if you've been trying to explain something in over near 100 posts, and people still fail to understand you, then the problem is probably in you and not other people. Plato would recognise your error instantly if he was in your position, and he would try to clarify and simplify his scripture, not insult people.

Returning to your original post, what you're saying is that you think lucid dreaming is a tool of communication, but we don't have the language (you use language as a metaphor for ability I suppose) to use it yet?

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Actually I have no mental problems, people with problems do not acquire over 30 years sen, and respected as a top machine operator. Sorry. I have won photography awards, writing awards, but that is not the point.

Guess what? That. Means. Nothing. Really. Bill Gates has aspergers autism, which is a mental disorder (at least according to a recent issue of scientific American.) I have Sensory Integration Dysfunction, and I hope to be successful. Just because your successful, doesn't mean you aren't crazy/have a mental problem.

Exactly, Marvo, and exactly, YYNYM.

Also, to add to what YYNYM said, some of the most successful and important people in history were dyslexic. For example, Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison.

And philosopher, I actually cannot believe how stuck up you are. I'm starting to think we are being trolled.

I'm really hoping this is a troll. Conceited doesn't do this guy justice.

"To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity and trust."~~Henry David Thoreau

Learning to speak in the vernacular is the onus of the writer. Practicing this could in turn help clear the writer's mind of gobbledegook and tangential thinking which, while sometimes interesting & useful, often, especially when improperly delineated, obscures rather than illuminates.

For instance, to say

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

hand typed

.

shows unnecessarily labored thinking as it tries to overlay the standard phrase "hand written"--which, in typical usage, references something written out manually by pen or pencil in hand rather than mechanically by typewriter, word processor or computer--when in reality "hand typed" means nothing more than to have said, simply, typed.

Now you might have meant that you typed with your fingers instead of a voice recognition program, all irrelevant to your point, distracting & tiresome to your reader. And so you write like someone desiring to be loved yet setting up obstacles making it impossible to kiss you.

"...simplicity, patience, compassion. These three are your greatest treasures."~~Lao Tzu

What I'm missing is this: if lucid dreams are communication, what are they communicating?

Originally Posted by DuB

What I'm missing is this: if lucid dreams are communication, what are they communicating?

The message is not the messanger. The question should be who, what, and why.
What I have been learning, is that it is about how to think. And so, what is given, what can be done, is based on a persons own psychology. One might say, it is all aimed at judgment.
In the past men have called Who, God, angles, spirits, etc., but that is not important as learning to comprehend what is going on.

Very bright people in history have understood it better than most, like Socretes, Plato, others. But, from Socrates to Scripture, the message is always the same, learning to think according to principles. Depending on how far off one is, depends on what is given.

Until man can think according to principles, and has a stable psychology, I think we are too primitive for too much social contact. However, the why of it on a universal scale is secondary to the personal scale. The Unit before the Universe.

'Are not our lessons given in a dream' Job.

True masters, from what I gather, end up in a life of study, in what one calls a critique mode--always examining. This posture is often misunderstood by others.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I noticed this question on the sticky notes, and going there I was hoping to be informed. However, I do not believe that the question was answered.

Now, I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, no, not by a long shot, and therefore it took me a considerable number of years to figure out the answer to the question.

Lucid dreaming appears to be in fact, a form of communication. As in all communication, that which establishes the limit of communication is, of course, the less intelligent of the two. This means a great deal. All miss representation and fantasy about what is said and why is effected by the least intelligent of the two parties.

A great deal of non-sense, will of course, be perpetrated by the least intelligent of the two parties. Which parties are communicating? You need to specify that.

And so, "I the Lord will speak unto him in a dream." It is a language. The evolution of a sentient being is paralleled by its linguistic comprehension.

I am not religious, however, if I reference the Judeo-Christian Scripture, I find the text is sealed, but simply by principles of language. No magic. I find that the Eden, or the Garden of God, is a metaphor, as God is given as a metaphor for truth. Garden of Truth. The entire text is about judgment, which cannot be effected without basic understanding of langauge. Principles not yet recognized or taught. This is off-topic. Really, this has nothing to do with lucid dreaming as a language, but with just language in general.

Sometimes I day-dream. I realize that any significant space travel will always be impossible. Men fantasied its possibilies by contradicting physical facts of reality. However, one does not need to visit physically if telepathy were a simple fact of sentient existence. However, like children, before one leaves the nursery, they should at least be able to speak. You're now sugesting that lucid dreaming is a form of telepathy. Okay, what's your basis for that belief?

It is written that at some point in history lucid dreaming would reappear--however, people would be ashamed of what they see. The lessons, so to speak, address our own short commings. We are children, one might say, savages. So, I do not believe that any of us are even a tool in the shed at all, yet.
Where is it written? By who? How does this person know the future? Why will people be ashamed of what they see? You leave a lot of questions.

After re-reading your OP, I decided to attempt to analyze it. Responses in red.

The message is not the messanger. The question should be who, what, and why.

You have made a factual claim, the least you could do is support your assertion. Your philosophical musings on communication and suchlike are irrelevant to this claim, at least until you bother to explain yourself more fully.

If people cannot understand what you write...then you have failed as a writer. The responsibility for reading comprehension is on the author...not the reader.

It depends on the target audience and the purpose of the writing. If I take part in a scientific discussion and someone lacking knowledge is unable to understand what I wrote, that doesn't mean I have failed when they look at it with a blank expression; they were not the intended audience. If however I am trying to summarise a complicated concept in to a more simple one that they are able to understand, and they cannot comprehend it, then you would usually say that is a failure on the part of the author. Though it is possible that the other party is simply too unintelligent, which is a failing on their part.

It most definitely is the author's failure if he badly words and explains something, which I would agree happens to be the case in the OP.

I do not understand what Philsopher said. So insult me.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Though it is possible that the other party is simply too unintelligent, which is a failing on their part.

Failing to skim a rock across a lake does not make it correct to assert that the rock has failed to float.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

You have made a factual claim, the least you could do is support your assertion. Your philosophical musings on communication and suchlike are irrelevant to this claim, at least until you bother to explain yourself more fully.

In order to understand my answer, which will not be different from one given historically, is 1) knowing what the function of the mind is. and 2) Not subjecting yourself to linguistic fallacy.
Under linguistic fallacy is tense error. If one learns of things to come, it is perfectly absurd to think that time is different from time and that one can see into the future.
Under linguistic fallacy is to imagine that proof, which is no more than complying wtih the principles of a grammar system is the same as evidence, that which has yet to be symbolically encoded.
Under the heading of the function of the human mind, working definition given by a few throughout history:

The human mind is that environmental acquisition system which must acquire experience of the environment, and process those experiences such that the results maintain and promote the life of the body.

In effect, the human mind is responsible for human will. Logic is the class of standard grammars by which man predicts the results of human behavior, among other things.

Therefore, when you learn of things to come, and you could not possibly have made happen, by what is given, you were told.

Sorry- still don't understand.

I MUST be unintelligent*.

Oh, and by the way, I was being sarcastic.


*No I'm not. I'm actually v smart.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

The message is not the messanger. The question should be who, what, and why.

Right, let me rephrase the question. It's really a couple of related questions--essentially questions of who and what, which from what I can see you didn't fully answer. The questions are:
--To call something "communicaton" or a "message" implies that it was crafted by an intentional agent for the purpose of communicating. If lucid dreams are communication, who/what is the intentional agent responsible for them?
--Regardless of who or what crafted the message, what is its content? What is it intended to convey? Is it to show "how to think" as you mentioned earlier, and if so could you clarify exactly what that entails? All I got from your reply was some vague stuff about "a life of study" and living "according to principles."

It seems tempting to answer the first question with something like "yourself" or "your mind," but that would seem inconsistent with another thread you made in which you said that the idea of coming to know oneself is incoherent. I'd be interested to hear how you resolve this.

philosopher 8659, you still have not answered by questions. I kinda get what you want to say, but I need those questions to be answered to understand fully. Are you trying to say lucid dreams are a message of truth? if so, How does this happen?

Originally Posted by YYNYM

philosopher 8659, you still have not answered by questions. I kinda get what you want to say, but I need those questions to be answered to understand fully. Are you trying to say lucid dreams are a message of truth? if so, How does this happen?

Everything you learn, you learn by experience. In the waking state, you have a common environment, in the dreaming state you have a specific environment--specific to your psychological profile. What you abstract and learn from either is up to you.
You learn by making choices in either, you learn by asking questions and reflecting. You keep working at it, all your life, and slowly your mind functions more in accordance with truth.
Truth is the state of being true. Two or more things are true when by some means of measure no difference is found between them. The two things for truth in judgment are reality and your language systems. They are being developed to maintain and promote life.

Perception determines conception, conception determines will. In a metaphor, the father, the son, and the holy spirit are one. A = A = A. Linguistically, You learn to say what you see, with your whole body, mind and soul.

And since the outcome is human will, or soul, practice makes perfect. You have to work for it.

Are you saying that lucid dreaming is to find truth? But what is there to learn in lucid dreaming, apart from the SC. And where does fun come into the equation? Are you the sort that is too busy looking for depth in everything, and skims over fun like a stone skims on a lake? There is many a thing that lucid dreaming can help us with, and none of them should be ignored. Yes, we can look into ourselves with it, but I prefer flying. Is there anything wrong with that, I ask.

Although most is learned by experence, not all of it is. Has anyone ever told you about stranger danger? Most of the time, you do not expirence a stranger of that type, yet you learn nontheless. But what has this got to do with lucid dreaming.

And Truth is not a state of mind. It is a concept, that can be found in many different ways. Agin, how does it connect with dreams?

And you find a way to link seemingly unrealated things together, but are they related? As of yet I don't see the link.

And you then say that this truth stuff leads to the soul- but if a soul consists of thoughts and feelings, and the mind. How can the truth lead to this?

I hope what I said is understandable.

Philosopher, the general consensus here seems to be that your posts are a jumbled mess of incoherent thoughts, mixed up with a few condescending comments, and the occasional veiled insult. You mentioned that you had won writing competitions and so forth, but that was "not the point" of the argument. Why mention it then? Do you intend to impress us with your alleged writing abilities? The only writing award I would give you would be first place in Bad Writing.

This is a forum about lucid dreaming. Lucid writing is encouraged also.

Originally Posted by Monolith

Philosopher, the general consensus here seems to be that your posts are a jumbled mess of incoherent thoughts, mixed up with a few condescending comments, and the occasional veiled insult. You mentioned that you had won writing competitions and so forth, but that was "not the point" of the argument. Why mention it then? Do you intend to impress us with your alleged writing abilities? The only writing award I would give you would be first place in Bad Writing.

This is a forum about lucid dreaming. Lucid writing is encouraged also.

One of the things that I have learned about human behavior. When one goes out into a public place, and the lighting does not suit them, they simply move. For example, finding shade on a sunny day. They do not sit down and start tossing a tantrum, nor do they try to find rocks to fit their hand to toss at the lights. Both actions would indicate a lack of mental development. Lack of civil development.

Now, you have provided an example of reacting in two contrary ways to the same fundamental abstraction. Plato called it the simili in multis.

Learning to abstract information form lucid dreaming is exactly the same.

And the point about the awards? was to indicate that I have been capable for a long time of dumbing down to the point of triviality. If I were proud of that achievement, I would have become a professional writer as my college English teacher advised. If I were proud of the awards I have taken in my life, I would not have put them all where they belonged, in the garbage. Now perhaps you see a second mistake, judging me by your standards. There are standards independent of both gods and men. This has been said for a very long time, and it is absolutely true.

I apologize that my words do not suit your taste, even though I really don't give a damn.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I apologize that my words do not suit your taste, even though I really don't give a damn.

Your words won't be of anyone's taste until you stop insulting everyone and being so stuck up.

stop patronising people, you're a MAN and your going 'look how smart I am' ' oh you don't understand because my writing is so superior to yours' I'm 16 years old ffs, you should at least be a little mature by now. Also, stop using stupid metaphors and say what you want to say, I DO understand what your saying. Also I'm the sad one for answering back. Go ahead and patronize me some more, even if that is not how you intend to write.

So we are in fact the superior ones (in my view), and I look down at your attempts at impressing younger (in some cases) people, on a forum that is intended to help people have and discuss lucid dreams.
However I do admire that you obviously took a long time on writing this thread, and you are a bit smart, but thats no reason to use language in ways that people like me feel patronized by it. It also makes you look stuck up.

I do not have a clue what Philospher said- Philospher, please can you write in such a way that I can understand? And isn't writing about getting thoughts to pass from the writer to the reader? It seems to be that one of us isn't communicating or recieving well.

I have tried the best I know how. Perhaps if you read a novel I have been working on, the Delian Quest. It is written in two languages, well three if you account common grammar. Elementary Algebra, Geometric figure, common grammar. It is an exercise in saying what you see. I started with what is claimed to be an impossible problem to solve--cube roots in geometry given by the "gods". Now if it was given by the "gods", I thought it would have a solution, even though 2500 years of man has said no. If it was not given by the "gods" well, it beats cross-word puzzles.

I eventually solved it, and at the heart of it was a beautiful idea about language in general--among other things. Enjoy. There is no trig, and my apologies to DesCartes, no cartesian coodinate systems.

At the foundation of every grammar is learning how to say what you see. This implies the validity of metaphor which is used in lucid dreaming.