Printable View
I had a lucid dream last night in which I went down a water slide into a pool. I immediately noticed something very strange - the water was not wet! The physics of it all seemed to still exist (I was still floating on the surface of the water, treading water, etc) but it did not feel wet. Has anyone else had this? Any explanations?
Wow that's hard to think about but cool, I will have to try this.
You say wet... Was there still a sensation of it touching you, but just one that didn't resemble wetness? Or was there no sensation whatsoever?
I could still feel it touching me... beyond that I don't know how to explain it.
Well, there is an intersting thing about metaphor. It works this way, Definition is the equation of the name of a thing to the names of that things forms and the various material differences in those forms, metaphor works in the reverse, the image of definition. Given the forms, which may have various material differences within them, find the name of the thing indicated. Often metaphor requires a few of them to find the intersection of the thing being named--unless one is aware of the topic to begin with. Scripture often gives one a straight answer as to what a metaphor is, water is one of them. "many nations, languages and tongues" i.e. general humanity. The reason for this is that water distorts reflection because of constant motion, not firm, unstable, etc.,
If one cannot think in accordance with definition, then one certainly cannot think metaphorically, there is a symmetrical relationship. As far as I know, this explaination of metaphor is not in the public domain. I learned the principles via lucid dreaming. Scripture calls the technique "dark sentences" This is because definition is the light, the inverse is dark, or so I suspect.
I walked through a flooded freeway the other night and I didn't really feel all the sensations I would get from actually walking through water. I think that if you were to stop and feel the water touching you, then it would feel more real.
I noticed in one post someone said that they stayed in a dream for a good long while and with the passing of time, things became more realistic. So that could be the case here, if you give it some more time, the wet sensation should come.
that or was you focusing on the feeling? Was it very stable?
I was in the lucid dream for quite a while before this. At this point when I was in the water slide / pool, I wasn't focusing on the details of the dream, just enjoying the situation I was in (I was in a colorful, inflatable castle of sorts with numerous water slides and hallways and pools). It was quite stable at this point.
The only possible explanation that I can think of is that a few weeks ago, I read a thread about water in dreams and someone mentioned that it didn't feel wet. So I probably went into this pool with a thought in the back of my mind that dream water is not wet, and since what we think in lucid dreams usually becomes what is actually there, lo and behold the water was not wet. I tried to "make it wet" by concentrating and using mind powers, but it didn't work and I woke up.
Have had lots of dreams about water, it has always felt like water but I havent felt wet, your dream sounds strange, how long did it seem to last?
You're either posting nonsense or failing to communicate your ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
If I thought your level of comprehension was the benchmarck of social discourse, I trust I would not post at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foul
Why don't you start talking to the dirt at your feet claiming how stupid it is for your lack of understanding?
I was not aware that your lack of comprehension was the topic.
Brilliance is not claiming that the object of perception is that which is failing to perceive.
However, there seems to be a general attitude among the young and those who are not use to study, that it is the fault of reality that they cannot perceive nor conveive it. This leads to an interesting set of short stories available for anyone to take up, one story for each of the environmental acquisition systems of the human body, about people who, instead of repairing their own eyes, bitch at rocks because they find them hard to see. Such behavior is neither intelligent, nor it is very social.
But your mistake is that you liken inanimate objects, which are incapable of flexible communication, to animate entities with such capabilities. Communication between the latter entities is a mutual exchange, where it should not be only the receiver's intention to understand the message being relayed, but also the speaker's intention to make that message understandable. The failure of comprehension does not immediately place the fault at the receiver - in asserting this you, perhaps unwittingly, imbue yourself with undue self-importance insofar as implying that you need not be flexible for those you erroneously believe to be 'below you'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
^I feel I needn't reply now.
If, what you say is true, demonstrate which principle of grammar I have violated. I will attempt to correct it. If you cannot do so, then the mistake is not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfwood
Assumption - your most formidable foe. Are you so certain that effective communication is contingent only on correct grammar usage?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
Absolutely.
Then it follows that you will not concur with the assertion that two grammatically correct and meaningfully identical sentences--that vary in complexity and ambiguity--can result in a variation in comprehensibility. That is to say, you disagree that one sentence can effectively communicate the same idea more so than the other - (like I just did with the two sentences in this post). Why would you believe that?
Check this:
http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Bu ffalo_buffalo
There is a space between http: and the // as I cannot post links yet, and there seems to be an unwanted space in the penultimate buffalo.
There you go with a nasty anthropomorphism. Sentences do not communicate anything. Is that the level of understanding you wish to dwell on, then I have no choice but to leave you with writing non-sense--and referring as authoritative more non-sense.
Anyone that claims that words or sentences have meaning are not worth reading.
The digestability of a potatoe does not have anything to do with the potatoe, but with a particular digestive tract.
Meaning qua meaning is not even a grammatical component. Can meaning be conventionalized?
Can a potatoe qua potatoe determine if it is good for you or not?
'Anyone that claims that words or sentences have meaning are not worth reading.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
Then explain this to me without using words or sentences.
Of course, a word or sentence in itself does not have meaning; however, it is a system used to communicate the meaning of something. Where are we going with this?
Not to detract from the fact that Wolfwood is correct I pointed out a few of the flaws in your original post.
Having said that, there are plenty of people on here who type with anhorrent grammar and are completely understandable. You, Sir, fail in your attempts to type as effectively, and be as understandable, as the people who fail to put even an ounce of effort into their typing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
Let me send you on one of those mystic eastern quests. Find me a hammer that means to build a house.
I have never in my life wanted to communicate meaning. That is just more non-sense.
Fact, one can make it a crusade of the century. Gather all those who claim that words and sentences have meaning and send them on a holy quest to find the hammar that means to build a house.
Now you are drewling on yourself. Sorry, I seem to have that effect on want to be's.
You want grammatical perfection, fault this.
http://www.archive.org/details/Solut...idean_Geometry
Nice temper tantrum.
So what are you trying to communicate if not the meaning (metaphorical, literal, or whatever they're still a form of meaning) of your words?
Eh? Where has it been implied that a hammer has an inherent meaning, or purpose for that matter? We imbue such meaning, and then use words to communicate this. It's simple.
Wolfwood, you seem like a nice and intelligent guy. However, I can see that you're new on the block and therefore I'll give you one piece of advice.
Never talk to Philsopher8659. He's known to intentionally mislead and confuse people with his nonsensical sentences.
Oh and :welcome: to DV!
When I speak with other people, I make an effort to ensure that my posts are easily understandable.
As Wolfwood says, it goes both ways - I must make my posts readable to the masses, and the masses must make an attempt to read them.
If you're going to post things in such a cryptic way, making no effort to use readily understandable language, and instead word things in a confusing manner, and then tell everyone they have to make the effort to understand it, what is the point?
It would be like me posting in Russian, here, and then when people complained that they couldn't understand it, saying "It's your fault for not knowing Russian".
Your absolute lack of empathy, or ability to understand another person's point of view, is baffling.
If you truly wish to communicate with a group of people, you have to make yourself understandable to them, regardless of how arrogant you are.
Just because we don't understand you doesn't mean it's our fault - have you ever considered that it may be your lack of ability to effectively communicate?
Let me use an example for you.
Things which are called abstract in Java are Methods and Classes. Abstract methods have no implementation, and an object cannot be made from an abstract class.
Abstract methods are one of the more interesting parts of Java Inheritance. You get to create a method but the code inside it, you do not have to fill!
So what can you do with these abstract methods which because they are abstract have nothing inside them?
The answer lies, of course, within the subclasses. Because the method is abstract in the superclass, subclasses are required to implement the method. This means that now it is up to the subclass to determine what code goes inside said method, and the subclass requires the method to exist inside it.
Did you fully understand that in all its entirety?
No?
Then it's your fault.
I can't stress enough: If you want to communicate with people, make what you're trying to say more understandable! To get on with others, you must "put yourself in their shoes", and be empathetic.
If you refuse to, and consider yourself better than everyone else, just because you haven't made an effort to clearly word your post, there is little point, other than causing arguments.
I, for one, cannot understand your post or the point you are making. Judging by similar reactions from other people (who can understand each other's posts, and mine, perfectly well), it appears to be your fault.
While it seems unlikely, I sincerely hope you can see our point of view. Please try to.