It's...a bloody new age book?

[Timothy Paradox]

I have just taken a quick look at Stephen Laberge's book ETWOLD. I thought he was a respected scientist. Apparently I was wrong. I have seen him refer to "healing physical injuries" using LD's and he talks about Jungian psychology! I thought Jungian psychology was NOT accepted by the scientific community? By the way... the book looks a lot like those self help new-age books... Testimonies from people, grotesque language... so typical. Please tell me LD'ing is still science...

[Shift]

That's my biggest problem with the book. He's a scientist, and he has done legit research on these things, but he also mixes it all up in there and yes, it does sound like a New Age book Just keep reading through and take out the tiny hidden gems. It is well worth reading. You just have to understand what to skip I honestly get very very bored of the testimonials, too lol

[LuxAeterna]

I just ignore the parts where Dr. LaBerg waxes Aquarian. Take the solid, practical stuff and run with it--it works! As for the rest, well, that's up to you.

[Hukif]

He is a respected scientist, with not so respected beliefs lol Testimonials can be boring <.<

[Shift]

He is a respected scientist, with not so respected beliefs lol Testimonials can be boring <.< Yea so is the way he presents himself Damn Hawaii. I used to think he looked like the pics below (preferably the first). Then I saw the way he really dresses and now even I have a hard time taking lucid dreaming seriously or believing that it exists... and I DO it....

[Snowy Egypt]

Either I don't know what y'all are talking about, or my mind skipped over those parts when I read the book.

[Hukif]

Well I don't see how that would change anything, his research makes LD very doubtful, considering that we know autosuggestion is really strong, REM movement can be determined by that... best way to believe is to experience lol

[Caradon]

Whether or not you approve of some of the approaches to Lucid Dreaming Laberge outlines in his book is really moot. It doesn't change the fact that the man is a very skilled Lucid Dreamer, and has been a great help to countless others in achieving Lucidity. The book is all about teaching one to become Lucid, and that it does, excelently. I learned to Lucid dream on my own before stumbling upon the book one day. And just reading it, and finding out that there were others that had the same passion for dreaming that I did was a major inspiration, and motivator for me. Because back then I didn't know anyone else was even doing it. I probably wouldn't have had half the Lucids that I have had if it wasn't for him. His work has been a wonderful gift. I think you guys should be ashamed of bad mouthing the guy. here is to Stephen Leberge.

[Shift]

Whether or not you approve of some of the approaches to Lucid Dreaming Laberge outlines in his book is really moot. It doesn't change the fact that the man is a very skilled Lucid Dreamer, and has been a great help to countless others in achieving Lucidity. The book is all about teaching one to become Lucid, and that it does, excelently. I learned to Lucid dream on my own before stumbling upon the book one day. And just reading it, and finding out that there were others that had the same passion for dreaming that I did was a major inspiration, and motivator for me. Because back then I didn't know anyone else was even doing it. I probably wouldn't have had half the Lucids that I have had if it wasn't for him. His work has been a wonderful gift. I think you guys should be ashamed of bad mouthing the guy. here is to Stephen Leberge. I don't feel ashamed. He'd be even more amazing if he'd taken a less questionable approach to presenting the information. Enough people think we're crazy. He had such a great thing to present to the masses, but... Still, overall I love EWOLD and I think it's great.

[Quiver]

The study of lucid dreaming is still relatively young. Of course some of the ideas are going to sound a little far fetched. Personally, something like having healing dreams does not seem too 'out there'. Our bodies has all sorts of mechanisms that are designed for self healing. Is using our minds to try and direct those processes so unbelievable? I find it similar to the way you can lower stress levels and blood pressure by directing your breath and mental imagery, which is a replicable phenomenon. Like most I would prefer scientific evidence as well. But we have to consider that this isn't a major area of interest for the scientific world. Like Arthur Schopenhauer said, "All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Secondly, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Scientific explanation doesn't spring out of nowhere. We need crazy theories and hypotheses to refute and refine. Although I must agree that the testimonials are filler, and painful to read for the most part.

[Captain Sleepalot]

Just because LaBerge doesn't conform to a cliche of what a scientist looks or acts like doesn't mean that his scientific work on the process and potential of lucid dreaming should be demeaned. The fact that anyone would think less of him because he doesn't fit some mental expectation culled largely from popular culture says more about their own biases than it does about the integrity of his research. As for his book, sure there are some New Age concepts and ideas in there but what would you rather it be? A dry scientific article filled only with EEG data arranged into tables? I suppose there are people who enjoy reading that kind of thing, but I know that I was pretty young when I first read his book and really enjoyed all of the anecdotes in there. And actually, that raw experimental data is available on his website I believe.

[thedogsmeow]

I think with anything, you need to take out of something what you want to take out of it. As a Christian, I am not into the New Age type stuff, but I am interested in research on lucid dreaming. This could also expand to other things as well. Think of any role model you have/have had. They most likely did something/believed in something in their lifetime that you do not. But, you looked up to those aspects that made an impression on you. You could even think of the USA presidential election. Just because you voted one way does not necessarily mean that you agree 100% in all of their policies.

[moonshine]

"healing dreams" was one single chapter. To be fair most of that was about dealing with mental issues. The rest of the book is very much grounded in science.

[ZotC]

I just ordered the book from the library... it'll be interesting to see what people think of it while I wait for it to arrive...

[apachama]

Please tell me LD'ing is still science... I can't see how it could be a science. Science is a method that one can apply to understanding the cycles of sleep that make it possible. But we're not scientists because we lucid dream. I see it more of a tool for self-analysis and personal growth. The nice thing about it is that lucid dreaming is a very personal thing. Its a way of achieving some of what the new age wanted without necessarilly believing in cystals and spirit guides and whathaveyou. Unless thats what you're after.

[moonshine]

I can't see how it could be a science. Science is a method that one can apply to understanding the cycles of sleep that make it possible. But we're not scientists because we lucid dream. I see it more of a tool for self-analysis and personal growth. The nice thing about it is that lucid dreaming is a very personal thing. Its a way of achieving some of what the new age wanted without necessarilly believing in cystals and spirit guides and whathaveyou. Unless thats what you're after. Laberge studies it under laboratory conditions using scientific equipment. Science is both theory, and observation. Laberge used both. Agree with you on the new age stuff though.

[drewmandan]

I can't see how it could be a science. That's like saying physics can't be a science because we use electricity. Lucid dreaming can be studied scientifically because it's a part of nature. That has nothing to do with people lucid dreaming. Lucid dreamers aren't scientists; scientists are scientists.

[ChaybaChayba]

No no no, you got it all wrong, it's the other way around. New age books sound like Stephen Laberges book.. Anyway, who the fuck cares about science? The obsession of our society with science and scientific evidence has come so far, that people want scientific proof for lucid dreaming, eventho they could just start dreaming right now. Seriously, what do you have to lose? Nothing! Therefore, it has been proven our society has gone completely crazy over it's obsession with science. I think one day our society will come to the point kids will require scientific evidence for love before they will believe in it! LOL

[Robot_Butler]

I think he presented it that way to appeal to his audience. New age fans were the only ones even considering lucid dreaming when he put this all together for them. The book is not just about his reasearch. If you really want to read his original research papers, feel free. They are booooring.

[ZmillA]

I really like the books, and like shift I was kinda surprised when I saw what laberge actually looked like. Unlike him that didnt change my perception on LDing at all (if it did it was for the better). And lets say LDs "arent science" wtf does that mean? does that make them any less real? And why skip anything in the book? Maybe you should have gone into it not expecting it to fit what you wanted and instead just thought "oh a book about LDing, how interesting" Some of the things you guys are saying in this thread are quite humorous.

[Shift]

I really like the books, and like shift I was kinda surprised when I saw what laberge actually looked like. Unlike him that didnt change my perception on LDing at all (if it did it was for the better). And lets say LDs "arent science" wtf does that mean? does that make them any less real? And why skip anything in the book? Maybe you should have gone into it not expecting it to fit what you wanted and instead just thought "oh a book about LDing, how interesting" Some of the things you guys are saying in this thread are quite humorous. A) I'm a girl B) LDs do have scientific evidence supporting their existence. Maybe not as much as cancer or schizophrenia, but some. C) I skip parts of the book because they are useless and one man's beliefs that I do not agree with and nor do I find relevant to the learning of lucid dreaming. D) I got it expecting to learn how to lucid dream. I did get that out of it. I was just disappointed that I had to sift through so much of his personal beliefs and interpretations on lucid dreaming. E) And my post on here was my expression of disdain that such a popular book, while embraced by many who have already experienced a lucid dream, may not appear as legitimate to those who have not and who are wary of all the new age hype and some of the things that the new agers propagate that appear to be complete bullshit. Maybe one day those phenomenon will be in the limelight and have their own evidence, but in the mean time do they have to hold the acceptance of lucid dreaming back?

[ZmillA]

A) I'm a girl B) LDs do have scientific evidence supporting their existence. Maybe not as much as cancer or schizophrenia, but some. C) I skip parts of the book because they are useless and one man's beliefs that I do not agree with and nor do I find relevant to the learning of lucid dreaming. D) I got it expecting to learn how to lucid dream. I did get that out of it. I was just disappointed that I had to sift through so much of his personal beliefs and interpretations on lucid dreaming. E) And my post on here was my expression of disdain that such a popular book, while embraced by many who have already experienced a lucid dream, may not appear as legitimate to those who have not and who are wary of all the new age hype and some of the things that the new agers propagate that appear to be complete bullshit. Maybe one day those phenomenon will be in the limelight and have their own evidence, but in the mean time do they have to hold the acceptance of lucid dreaming back? Just out of curiosity, what parts of the book do you believe to just be his beliefs? EWOLD does seem to be more in the "new age" vein than his first book, but thats not saying much since I don't see whats so new-agey about EWOLD. I also think your worry about these books holding the acceptance of LD back is unnecessary. No one is going to pick up these books and make it past the table of contents unless they know enough about LDing to want to learn more. I go so far as to say that this is the last book I would be worried about turning someone off from lucid dreams. Its hard for me to imagine Lucid Dreaming ever gaining mainstream acceptance, there is to much time and discovery involved with them and society is not headed in that direction.