Thread: (Prove Me Wrong) No One Has Literally Ever Talked to Their Subconscious. Ever.

Originally Posted by tofur

didn't Robert Waggoner basically do this? he talks about it in his book, how he shouts out to the dream and it responds? He calls it the dream awareness, or awareness behind the dream, or something like that.

This is supposedly exactly so:

Originally Posted by LucidJordan

..
During a lucid dream last night I remembered an interview I watched a few nights earlier with Robert Waggoner on Conscious TV:



and he said that he had started to address questions to the awareness behind the dream rather than the objects in the dream with interesting results of an inner voice responding, "an awareness within an awareness", and so I stopped and asked out loud during my lucid dream "What is the meaning of this?". When I asked the question I didn't really think about what "this" was, or what exactly I was asking about, and as soon as I asked that question it felt like something heavy had hit me in the back of the head only there was no pain, just a white flash that persisted for a few seconds, a faint dizzy feeling and a white noise ringing sound. Then I lost conscious thought and continued to just dream as normal.

...

Now something to Goldenspark:

Originally Posted by Goldenspark

Screen, I guess I was saying that when we LD we ARE sort of "talking to our subconscious", depending on how you define subconscious and how you define talking.
What you appear to be asking is a bit like saying, "has anyone talked to God, you know, the old guy with a beard in the clouds, have you actually had a conversation with him?"

While I understand, that you feel, it's not an answer to your question, Screen - I think it is, and it grasps something, which shimmered through your question.
That is the idea of there being a unified unconscious ("sub" would indicate I subscribe to Freud).
Just like a god, in principle - but I also hold the opinion, there is not.
There is an unconscious, which by the very "un-" suggests unity - in the end effect, with what you could communicate will always be a partition of that whole complex of neural functions.
And so the "literally" in the title does not make a lot of sense.
I hope, I made myself clear here and didn't come over rude.