Natural

I was wondering, am I a "natural". I have been reading some posts and some people seem to have alot of trouble LDing. However, I have 1 DILD everyday or so. The longest time I have ever gone without having a DILD was 1 week or so. WILDs I am more of an average kind of guy on because although I used to be pretty good, I have not had a WILD in a while. Anyway, I was wondering if I was what is considered a "natural" because I wanted to know if I should use these frequent LDs for the TOTM or the TOTY. So I guess the question is am I natural and should I attempt the TOTM or TOTY? Thanks in advance.:D

Eh, a lot of people use different meanings for natural, I for example, think it is when someone can LD without having to try anything, it comes naturally to them.
So, did you train for it? If not, then you are a natural in my book.
Anyway, the ToTM and the ToTY you can do if you want to, being a natural or not doesn't mean anything for it lol

If you can have an LD every night then yeah, you're probably a "natural". I know I am happy if I get one once a week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cybereality

If you can have an LD every night then yeah, you're probably a "natural". I know I am happy if I get one once a week.

---

Wrong!!!

We had always lucid dreams, but not every single night. I had lucid dreams since I was a small kid and I can remember some. I remember saying, "I knew I was dreaming last night and I did whatever I wanted." With the innocence of not knowing what a lucid dream is. That is what makes us natural, the fact of having lucid dreams without knowing the world "lucid" 95% of naturals ld with DILD, like me... and most of us, as we know we can realize we are dreaming, we incubate dreams. I recall when i was a kid I would want to dream with something, I just though of it the whole day, dream with it and turn lucid.

To be brief... natural people is people who always had lucid dreams (1 or more) The fact of knowing the word, "Lucid" increases the chances of having a lucid "your subconscious learns about it." So people who find out the meaning of "Lucid dreaming" they are naturals if they say something like, "Gosh... this is what happened to me all the time. Finally I find a word for that." That was my experience when I first found out about LD.

Anyone, and I mean anyone can archive have a lucid dream or more per night, but that does not make them naturals, they make them well trained (naturals or non naturals). Also, for my experiences and the experiences of other naturals (and some non naturals) the development towards mastering lucid dreaming is dramatically different"

See? 3 definitions already!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walms

See? 3 definitions already!

---

LOL

True.

I call natural to someone good at something that can do it untrained. Lucid dreaming, running faster than average, playing soccer. All of those are possible to do it "over the average without trying" for natural people. Of course, if a natural lucid dreamer, runner or soccer player trains, will develop even better, but will have a fresher start than a non natural.

Now it becomes 2! I agree with that def.

Thanks :) I just did not know how to explain properly. My first language is Spanish and I'm sure yours too, Walms, isn't?

Btw, I live like 20 minutes from the Mexico Border :)

Yup and cool. Thats really close, too bad I live like 14 hours away from it, in the center <.<
We should stay on topic though lol

[threadjack] All those acronyms and nobody's come up with a better reference than "natural" yet?

I prefer use of the word natural for, say, someone born to a particular county (a natural born citizen) or even a tennis player (possessing what seems to be a born talent or inclination as opposed to the having the ability to pick up a skill later in life), but when it comes to lucid dreaming, as much as I can't stand all the acronyms, I'd rather one of them then use of a word which seems to deny what I believe to be everyone's natural heritage even though not everyone seems to be born doing it at this stage of the evolution of consciousness.

My father is naturally left-handed but as a child he was forced to learn to write with his right hand. He can write right-handed but he will never be naturally right-handed. However, a person who was not born lucid dreaming and learns to dream lucidly does so naturally. There is nothing less "a natural" about it.

I was born as a lucid dreamer but I do not consider myself to be any more "a natural" than someone who picks it up later in life. When it comes to a game of tennis, likely someone is always going to win. But when it comes to the evolution of consciousness, regardless of what might seem like a head start, we all wind up at the same place.[/threadjack]

As to the OP's original question, sorry, but I am of no help as I have no idea what all those acronyms mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PercyLucid

Wrong!!!

We had always lucid dreams, but not every single night. I had lucid dreams since I was a small kid and I can remember some. I remember saying, "I knew I was dreaming last night and I did whatever I wanted." With the innocence of not knowing what a lucid dream is. That is what makes us natural, the fact of having lucid dreams without knowing the world "lucid" 95% of naturals ld with DILD, like me... and most of us, as we know we can realize we are dreaming, we incubate dreams. I recall when i was a kid I would want to dream with something, I just though of it the whole day, dream with it and turn lucid.

To be brief... natural people is people who always had lucid dreams (1 or more) The fact of knowing the word, "Lucid" increases the chances of having a lucid "your subconscious learns about it." So people who find out the meaning of "Lucid dreaming" they are naturals if they say something like, "Gosh... this is what happened to me all the time. Finally I find a word for that." That was my experience when I first found out about LD.

Anyone, and I mean anyone can archive have a lucid dream or more per night, but that does not make them naturals, they make them well trained (naturals or non naturals). Also, for my experiences and the experiences of other naturals (and some non naturals) the development towards mastering lucid dreaming is dramatically different"

---

Exactly. Thats EXACTLY the same story with me too. I was LDing without even knowing that any person in the world but me could do it, and was miles away from the term "lucid dreaming". In fact, the earliest thing I remember is the day I tripped on stairs when I was REALLY little, and the second last thing is me wondering "Is this real?" and then "No way!". So I have been LDing as far as my memory goes back.
Optim, if you have practiced LDing and THEN become really good at it, then that is just mastering LD, not being a natural. But if you did it without knowing you were, or since you were a kid, then you can call yourself a natural.

I would like to point out that non-natural people can become just as good, and even better than natural people. Being a natural LDer is just another category of LDers, it really doesn't mean anything. Natural LDers DO have a head start though.
Excellent post, dream yogi. :)

That was my reaction the whole time. I thought that everyone was able to control their dreams until my brother told me about LDing and how most people are not able to. I have been controlling my dreams as far back as I can remember. I did not know it was special until not to long ago. This is what led me to believe that perhaps I was a "natural" I do it at times without RCs. It is almost like lucid dreams outnumber my regular dreams.

Thank you lucidmax. I understand how the "a natural" phrase is being used as "just another catagory" so I do not take this to heart, but, intellectually, I disagree, in part, that "it really doesn't mean anything." For one thing, I would argue, irrefutably, that words have meaning, regardless of whether or not meaning changes over time, in given contexts, etc.

Where I agree that "a natural" really doesn't mean anything, as such, derives from the ambiguity of its meaning in this application and, perhaps, the more ambiguous, the less meaningful (were it not for the subtle, of course). Does "a natural" refer only to those of us born lucid dreaming and if so, then to that, do we know whether many more babies aren't born lucid dreaming only later learning to repress it. Or does "a natural" refer to someone who starts lucid dreaming between the ages of 3 & 10? How about someone who naturally (without self-initiated effort) starts lucid dreaming in their teens or twenties?

An old friend of mine never lucid dreamed until I told her about them. She did nothing to encourage her ability. All she did was to have listened to what I said about them one evening. The next day she told me she had one, the only one about which she is aware. Just slipped into it during a dream when she became conscious of her dreaming. As she started lucid dreaming without any effort on her part is she a natural too, even though she only had her first lucid dream in her 40s? Or is she just a late blooming a natural. Or does that I told her about lucid dreaming renege her a natural status?

How about someone who was born lucid dreaming but could never handle it and winds up institutionalized because of it, as opposed to someone who learned about it later in life, and, consequently to being more stable, developed great skill. Which one of them is the "natural"?

Where the phase particularly bothers me, however, is both how it segregates the community, creating what I believe is a distinction without a difference and in doing so it creates a hierarchy or ordering of experience which I believe to be falsely value laden, setting up not just distainful snobbery (even if not intended as it could be how it is taken) but also providing fodder to the ego which inhibits introspection by trapping us within our own delusions that somehow lucid dreaming came naturally to me but not to the other person.

Lastly, I would argue that especially where fundamentalism abounds, if your goal is to share your experiences, to open the world's mind, to further the evolution of consciousness, then I would be careful in choosing my words so as to highlight human potential as commonly accessible and not relegate heritage to a cult.

Those deviant lucid dreamers with their agenda, recruiting non naturals just so they can win their toaster ovens...the shame!

You're welcome.
In my belief, the term "natural" applies to whoever learns lucid dreaming by himself, without any extra effort. You can say that lucid dreaming "comes naturally" to some people, giving them the name of "naturals". It doesn't matter if the person learned lucid dreaming after the age of 90 or anything, the important concept is the ability to lucid dream "naturally".
I would go as far to say that I do not think that your friend is a natural. About three or more of my friends had a lucid dream after I told them about it. The conversation alone is enough to implant an idea in one's subconscious, which is then, somehow, used to 'trigger' a lucid dream in a non-lucid dreamer. For example, a guy is dreaming that the apocalypse is happening. He will, by all dream logic, accept that and try to escape, not thinking about the reality of the situation. However, he might spontaneously remember a conversation, and think, "Could this be a dream? Now that I think about it, didn't that dream yogi guy tell me something about lucid dreaming or whatever? Wow! Cool! I am actually in a dream!" and then he would turn lucid. But that alone does not satisfy the specifications of a natural. It was just an affect of something that he heard from a lucid dreaming, not something that comes "naturally" to him.
As I said, the term "natural" applies to whoever lucid dreams...uh, 'naturally'. That is, it comes to him without any need of effort or practice. It is solely their choice to either hone their skill to perfection, or disregard them as fiction. But that does not change the fact that he is a natural.
I absolutely agree to the whole "community segregation" thing, because, even if people do not really mean it, it can cause a certain crack in the geographical land of us lucid dreamers. Exactly to avoid that particular feeling, if I may be as bold to call it jealousy, I mentioned natural lucid dreaming "doesn't really mean anything", in order to lift up the spirits of someone who is not natural, and not cause him to feel inferior, because even unconscious thoughts have a significant effect on dreaming. I certainly do not wish for anyone's lucid dreaming experience to be messed up just because I was bragging about being a natural!

Though my left-handed father who learned how to write with his right hand will never be naturally right-handed, someone who was not born a natural citizen can be naturalized.

Experiencing orgasm on your own makes you no more a natural masturbator than someone who experiences orgasm after being told how to do it. Lucid dreaming is as natural as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dream yogi

Experiencing orgasm on your own makes you no more a natural masturbator than someone who experiences orgasm after being told how to do it. Lucid dreaming is as natural as that.

---

By that definition, yes.

However, most people tend to take the "being talented through inherited qualities" definition more heavily in this case ([bias]and if they don't, they should [/bias]). While I would argue against you in your assertion that words have inherent meaning, that's irrelevant; you can still understand that words are sometimes given multiple meanings. This is one of those times.

Of course if your last sentence was a remark on the entire post instead of the one paragraph, then you already see my point quite readily.

I'm not sure I agree with this idea of "natural" being some god-ordained prodigy of lucid dreams. I mean, you can be natural at other things without doing it on your own. For example, you can be a natural at playing the piano. But that would usually mean you were a quick learner and did in fact take lessons. No one would expect some kid that has never seen a piano before to sit down and play Beethoven's 5th. Just because you had some practice, that doesn't just erase the "natural" ability you already had. I think of it like talent. Just because you are talented at something doesn't mean you didn't have to learn the skill the first time. But if you are really talented at something, even with effort, maybe thats because it comes "naturally" to you. See what I mean.

Everyone is a natural that has lost there ability, stop worrying about being a natural and start worrying about what makes you not one.

We have much to learn :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

By that definition, yes.

However, most people tend to take the "being talented through inherited qualities" definition more heavily in this case ([bias]and if they don't, they should [/bias]). While I would argue against you in your assertion that words have inherent meaning, that's irrelevant; you can still understand that words are sometimes given multiple meanings. This is one of those times.

Of course if your last sentence was a remark on the entire post instead of the one paragraph, then you already see my point quite readily.

---

I've no idea what arguing that words do not have meaning will get you, but you are welcomed to it. Note first that I did not say "inherent", you did; rather, I noted, specifically, "meaning changes over time, in given contexts". So you saying that I said anything about inherent meaning, when I said no such thing, is just you projecting your own thoughts onto something you think I said but that I did not say. Therefore, your argument is not with me, you argue with yourself.

As to my last sentence about which you referred, it was written literally. I meant nothing by it other than what it says. It says that we do not get special bragging rights for being endowed with bodily functions natural to everybody.

That the phrase "a natural" has taken on whatever meaning ascribed to it within the lucid dreaming community, I simply suggest it both misguided and misguiding and I put forward my reasoning about that in the three prior posts. I have no, um, inherent aversion to it; it just strikes me as missing the mark. That its usage might be so engrained into the community's conversation that there would be no reconsideration of it perhaps exhibits clearly, within a world of dreams where the touchstone is malleability, remnants of rigid thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cybereality

I'm not sure I agree with this idea of "natural" being some god-ordained prodigy of lucid dreams. I mean, you can be natural at other things without doing it on your own. For example, you can be a natural at playing the piano. But that would usually mean you were a quick learner and did in fact take lessons. No one would expect some kid that has never seen a piano before to sit down and play Beethoven's 5th. Just because you had some practice, that doesn't just erase the "natural" ability you already had. I think of it like talent. Just because you are talented at something doesn't mean you didn't have to learn the skill the first time. But if you are really talented at something, even with effort, maybe thats because it comes "naturally" to you. See what I mean.

---

Of course, thats what we mean. NONE of us went and battled a dragon on his first lucid dream, breathed fire, and created a portal. We were NOT really good at LDing from the start, rather, it was a SELF-discovered skill that took me a span of nine years to bring to this level. I am a little slow at learning, while some are phenomenally fast, but that doesn't make someone natural or non-natural. I would describe "natural" like a certain talent you don't know you had, but then you discovered it one day and kept getting better and better.

I started having lucid dreams when I was a kid. Around 14 years after I first started having lucid dreams, I randomly ran across the word on the internet and found out what it was lol

Lets just let the thread die. There was noreason to start a whole crazy thing on here. Just wanted a yes or no. I leave this forum with a classic vague answer of "Is the one already dreaming the natural, or the one who learns it naturally the natural young grasshopper." Whatever. Thankyou everyone for I suppose somewhat shedding light on the very much misunderstood topic of a natural and now we can let this thread die. Like this > :split::panic:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Optim

Lets just let the thread die. There was noreason to start a whole crazy thing on here. Just wanted a yes or no. I leave this forum with a classic vague answer of "Is the one already dreaming the natural, or the one who learns it naturally the natural young grasshopper." Whatever. Thankyou everyone for I suppose somewhat shedding light on the very much misunderstood topic of a natural and now we can let this thread die. Like this > :split::panic:

---

Something you will learn about the users on DV, we like to understand everything and we also talk lots :P