Originally Posted by DownrightDreamr
In the book "Dreamside" by Graham Joyce, lucid dreaming is referred to as "An art that believes it's a science".
What do you all think about this quote?
Who says science isn't an art?
I haven't read, or even heard of, this book, but I would imagine the author is using the classic definition of art, and not the current popular definition.
The classic definition, according to the OED's first listing, is: "Skill, its display or application; Skill in doing anything as a result of knowledge and practice." About a page later we come across the more popular modern definition, which is, "The application of skill to subjects of taste." I couldn't help but notice that "skill" showed up in both, and "images or works you present for other people's edification," showed up in neither. Now:
I think what's happened is that lucid dreaming has been an art -- a carefully refined skill applied to dreaming -- for centuries, if not millennia, and obviously predates science, which has only existed for about four centuries. But science has become the driver of modern Western society (Eastern society has pretty much caught up as well), and any practice has the potential for illegitimacy if it lacks the imprimatur of Science. These days if Science doesn't recognize the existence of something, it does not exist.
So science and LD'ing are dovetailing at two points:
First, there are the scientists, like LaBerge, who feel that LD'ing deserves the approval of science, or rather desire that their acquired LD'ing skill and related experience ought to be considered "real." These scientists have endeavored, and sort of succeeded, to prove that LD'ing exists, and deserves to be looked upon as real by Science.
Second: There are those who, because of Science's apparent power, believe that science can solve anything or foster technology that will do tasks for them. So, clearly to them, applying science will be the very thing they need to finally be able to LD, or to be able to do it without really trying.
Put these two together, and you have an art that has been proven a physical process, and a crowd of people who believe that science alone can solve or drive that process. From that collision is birthed all the techniques, the pills, the machines, and the general attitude that, "If I just do these things they say, or take the right pills at the right times, or buy that cool machine, I will enter the magical world of lucid dreaming, and in that magical world enjoy my own universe of unfettered creation."
That attitude leads to overlooking the basic requirement for success in LD'ing -- carefully developed skills based on self-awareness, expectation, and memory -- in favor of trusting science to replace what's been overlooked with something easy, applicable, and purchasable. In other words, LD'ers -- newbies and gurus alike -- have come to believe that if LD'ing were to be included in the folds of Science, then it ill not only be "real," but also much easier to do.
[As an aside, using science to "believe" that LD'ing is real has become a fairly practical tool for building expectations, so I can't really argue with that (That is also a hint as to why LaBerge et al have gone to so much trouble scientifically proving its existence, BTW).]
tl;dr: Since I didn't read the book, I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that the author is acknowledging that practitioners and examiners of the art -- the skill -- of lucid dreaming have come to believe that it is physical event that can be defined, studied, and controlled scientifically, and they believe this both because modern Western society will accept as real only what science confirms is real, and because science has made so many other things in life easy, why not LD'ing?
|
|
Bookmarks