Thread: Since the Late 1950's

It's awesome you still have the ability since a young age. I have a question though -- when you say you could see things to come, even while awake, how is that?

You ask a question and close your eyes, and learn to say what you see. This is the foundation of language, and it depends a great deal on being able to abstract the similar idea in the multiple examples, as Plato tried to get his readers to abstract.

It is a question about vision itself.

I will add, that it is not by one's own ability. It depends on where they are at in the way of development. First of all, the future does not exist. But you can be informed what will be--often in metaphor you will not understand until after the event.

to DreamViews, Philospher!

It sounds like you have a lot of experience with lucid dreaming!

I certainly can't help much with the 'life partner' thing, but I'm very interested in hearing/reading anything you have to say or need to communicate. What you have said so far is compelling.

I see no more than anybody else, I'm afraid... but I do not accept most explanations for what I DO see.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You ask a question and close your eyes, and learn to say what you see. This is the foundation of language, and it depends a great deal on being able to abstract the similar idea in the multiple examples, as Plato tried to get his readers to abstract.

It is a question about vision itself.

I will add, that it is not by one's own ability. It depends on where they are at in the way of development. First of all, the future does not exist. But you can be informed what will be--often in metaphor you will not understand until after the event.

It reminds me of remote viewing.

But, as you are a philosopher, and i enjoy considering myself some sort of a philosopher, i must argue -- you say the future does not exist. And then you say you close your eyes and essentially, view the future: "close your eyes and learn to say what you see." In this, you see "things to come." Things to come would mean the future.

So if you see something from the future, and yet the future does not exist, you are essentially seeing something that doesn't exist. So when you see this thing, if it relates to you, you can choose to manipulate the "future," which doesn't exist anyway, so basically you're veiwing a random event your mind makes up. Your actions in the coming time before this event may lead to the future you have seen consciously or subconsciously, because you believe it is the future. And yet, it doesn't exist. Or, on the contrary, you can choose to avoid this path again consciously or subconsciously.

So maybe it's not a question of you seeing the future, more like you seeing an event you are able to create through upcoming actions.

Of course, there's a lot of fault in my argument, but i'm just playing around. It's no offense to you or anything; i believe what you are able to currently do is astounding. I just had to find a hole

[EDIT]
I just re-read this and realized that while saying you are able to create an event through your upcoming actions, i'm saying you are able to create the future. So actually, you are seeing the future, a future in which you create. Jeez, i'm pretty bad at this

I guess my point is this: the future that you see, if you call it the future, is the future only if the event happens. If this future does not happen and/or you can manipulate these events, it's really not the future, it's just a random metaphor you see. But you've already stated the future does not exist. So do you see the future?

One has to stop approaching Lucid Dreaming as a free for all fantasy state. The human mind has a specific job to do. More fantasy is not worth spit.

The human mind takes experience, processes those experiences in order to predict the resulsts of human behavior that sustains and promotes the life of the body. It's function is to predict the future--its own future.

As of yet you do not know the difference between doing as you please and willing it. You will find this in Plato.

But if you take one definition of the human mind--to predict the results of human behavior, you know that a function of language is just that. You will note that both reasoning and prophecy have the same definition. With certain givens predict a result.

So, you can choose to believe in a tense error "the future is" and flatter yourself that you can see it. Or you can realize that when you learn of it, it is communication--i.e. linguistic.

Now HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART. If you should realize that God does exist--you must also realize that there is a difference between what you want God to be, between what myth says God is. And between what you directly learn yourself.

The lessons are hard in lucid dreaming. Very hard. They are all geared to develope human understanding, and the ability of man to actually have a will.

They are lessons. Specific to your own psycholigcal faults. That is why no two people are going to have the same freedom in state. Nor will you have the same freedoms in every lesson. Certain things will repeat until you understand.

Secondly, it is about getting understanding. It is a whole life project, awake or alseep.

I have not had time to read all these responses in whole. I have to get ready for work.

If you note, I started lucid dreaming in the 50's it was rediscovered in the 60's. I have not followed what has been going on in it. I have set myself to following the path of understanding given to me. As a fantasy state, I have no interest in it. As a mystical state--it is just plain worthless.

If you have had OOB, and are honest, you will note that there were always differences between the OOB and waking. In othe words, if you wanted to fool yourself that you were actually out of your body, it was not because of the state. It was your own desire to lie to yourself. Not a pretty picture that is.

As far as religion goes, you may come to a point where it is indicated to you to read the Bible. What you start to comprehend will be significanly different than what is in myth. Don't confront fanatiics--or religious people. They can not see it. It is not their fault. It is just their level of mental development.

You're definately an interesting person.

By the way, i love Plato. So far i've only read Apology, Euthyphro, Crito, Phaedo, Sophist, and the Republic, but i have his complete works and plan to work my way through them.

As you study Plato, and it may take several readings. You may notice that many, if not all the pieces have an outline based on a principle of logic. The material in the piece examines that principle. You may not get it on the first reading, even the fourth, keep at it. Normal minds cannot see it. Their mind wonders, blindly. Work on it as an exercise.
Plato is not trying to get you to learn by rote, but to think.

I will give you one example: I learned that the couple next door had learned that the lady was preg. She asked me what I saw. I saw a boy in the light and a girl in the dark. I told her I saw nothing. Down the road, a bit she learned that they detected 2 hearbeats. she was going to have twins. I waited. Come time for deliverty, when her husband fainally came home from the hospital, he did not look happy. I asked, what did you have. He sadly said a son.

One of the odd things in seeing has been noted, one hardly ever sees things for themselves. When they do, it is cloaked in metaphor they will not understand until after the event. This insures that they cannot create it--but it should make them realize something about will.

Seeing is a question. Is it by your understanding your will? You have to answer. Learning the answer may run you ragged.

As i understand it, you had the option to tell the expecting mother what you saw. It may have changed something, but yet it may have changed nothing. By not telling her and waiting to see the results, you essentially did not display any free will towards the future event -- although you may not have known what it meant, if you chose to tell the mother what you saw it may have "changed the future," changed what you saw in the vision. Brings me back to Philosophy 101 and all the talk about will

So when you say, "Is it by your understanding your will?" i had a whole thought process going on but i'm not even going to try to type it out; it'll be messy and all over the place. I guess you're right, the answer really will run me ragged.

So how did you develop this seeing, did you practice? Did you have any idea what was going on? I'm sure that must have been a strange and maybe even scary process.

You do not develop it. It is part of the training and if you arrive at that level, it will be up to what ever it is teaching you.

I do not have a rose to offer, but a millstone to offer to a prospective mate. This addendum is a small spreading of my feathers.

Principles of Predication

I started learning about the Principles of Predication through the Judeo-Christian scripture and Lucid Dreaming. Lucid Dreaming actually seemed to indicate to me that I should read the Scripture, which I had not done. I was not studying lucid dreaming with any desire to have a fantasy escape, which included mysticism—often called Religion or Spiritualism. I also had questions about metaphor itself—is metaphor a valid use of logic? In the Scripture, metaphor is called “dark speeches.” I asked this as it came to my attention that the language used in Lucid Dreaming employs metaphor. Why, if I am dealing with my own subconscious am I talking to myself in metaphor! How is it that I know spit about metaphor, but my subconscious does? Also, I have noticed since early on in my school years that the math and English books were so full of errors, it was a wonder anyone was speaking at all. What is the foundation of truth?
When it seemed that it was time to read the scripture, I rebelled and tossed the book across the room. What non-sense! The fit did not last for more than a couple of minutes as it sunk in—this is metaphor. In order to help me study the scripture, I actually hand typed the entire work into a computer—at that time it took seventy two disks, if my memory serves me correctly. Hand typing every word listing in the Concordance served to make not only a spell checker, but also I wrote a program to cross reference that every word in the Concordance was actually in the Scripture. It seems that the copy I worked from actually dropped a couple of passages that I had to add in from another version. Eventually I was to learn, over a number of years of study, that the Book that I tossed across the room as non-sense is the greatest Book ever written in psychology, logic, judgment. It can actually divide between the day and the night.
If metaphor is a valid form of logic, then it has rigid principles by which to comply with, if it is not a valid form of logic it has no valid principles upon which to comply. In other words, if true metaphor is effected by standards it is valid, if not, it is worthless.
Within the text there are numerous metaphors referring to human body life senses—often claiming that there are seven of them. Through my studies of not only the Scripture, but Plato and Euclidean Geometry—I finally arrived at the Principles of Predication. With out these principles actually being a functional part of the human mind, then that person is incapable of judgment—they must learn behavior by habit. This means that there are two distinct methods of teaching human behavior, and one of those must employ simple pleasure and pain. There is a direct link between language and psychology.
Language starts with a convention of names. One principle of logic I have never found in any textbook on logic is;
Law: Every valid manipulation of a name must maintain that names conventional assignment. Once the manipulation of a name has left the realm of convention, then one has left the reality of language and only the appearance of language remains.
There is a distinct difference between a Wordsmith and a Wordsmyth. It is in this wise that many people think they are being rational when in fact they are not—many a celebrated “genius” has actually reached their acclaim not by rationality but only by the appearance of it. The above law is frequently violated even in mathematics. I have also noticed that humans can be taught to repeat a given law, but they are incapable of using it as a part of their own reasoning.
And so, in order to have even a cursory understanding of a convention of names, one need to follow the metaphors which deal with shared experience among men, the seven eyes and seven horns of the beast—seven ways to perceive and seven ways to protect one’s life. This led me to a working description.
A human body life sense system is that human body system which must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired for a product that sustains and promotes the life of that body.
When one uses the definition they can locate all seven life senses—these are not the traditional senses taught. Secondly these life senses are divided by the definition of a thing. Some senses abstract form, and thus they must supply material in order to construct a thing; some senses abstract material and thus they must supply a form to that material in order to construct a thing.
From all of this one has the name of a thing is equated to the names of its various materials and its various forms.
Thus a unit sentence consists of one name of a thing, the predicator (is) which is always present tense, and two predicates, one for form and one for material difference.
There are then, by construction two naming conventions, names of things and names made from the composites of the names of form and material. Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. Therefore, every error in logic places the grammatical structure outside of the realm of language. And, believe it or not, truth from fiction “The ability to speak does not mean you are sentient.”
And foremost, names being conventional, means that they are established from shared experience.
Upon this standard, all grammatical theory, from common grammars to the highest forms of mathematics can be sifted—the wheat from the chaff. And also upon this standard rests the validity of metaphor as a tool to test human psychology.
As the greatest institutes of learning, and the highest rung of their ladders have yet to produce these simple results—nor has a human genius stepped forward to propose them, I think it speaks volumes for some of what may appear to be dubious remarks I have, in this piece, made. Secondly, the results detail enough work for more than one lifetime.

Ah, Philosopher8659: Thank you very much for your enlightening posts; I'm reading each one with great delight. I do not understand everything you write, as expected, but I find what you say to be truly great. Please, keep posting.

I am not here to actually start up a writing session. A problem I do have is being underrstood. I am just looking for someone.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I am not here to actually start up a writing session. A problem I do have is being underrstood. I am just looking for someone.

It seems you already know what you are going to find.

I may have been informed, but I certainly do not know.

You see, I constantly doubt my understanding.

Whatever your understanding and journey, i wish you peace.

From what I understand, perhaps I have completed the first two legs of that journey. The third is yet to come. I was actually looking for someone to lean on. I have had two visions in my life. These happend when awake. Time stops and you can see your mistake. I should have been killed over thirty years ago, so I guess I don't have anything to really complain about.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

The human mind has a specific job to do.

Before the genuflection gets too overbearing I do just want to say that I think you're full of it. Your ideas, and the diction you use to convey them, sound like the typical ululations of a crazed esotericist or conspiracy theorist. You're a goal-oriented, pattern-finding guy with an inherent sense of meaning who's going to take culturally important documents and decipher them to discover the hidden depths of the cosmos, just like generations of manic scholars have done before you. And within the scope of your internalized world your revelations will make perfect sense, and to the hoi polloi it will sound like gibberish but that's entirely a mark of their own mental inferiority and no blemish on your record.

Hey, you're lucky, you've got a purpose, a mission, an order to your life, a frontier to blaze and a truth to defend. That's epic. If only every human could let themselves be so happily deluded.

Originally Posted by Spamtek

Before the genuflection gets too overbearing I do just want to say that I think you're full of it. Your ideas, and the diction you use to convey them, sound like the typical ululations of a crazed esotericist or conspiracy theorist. You're a goal-oriented, pattern-finding guy with an inherent sense of meaning who's going to take culturally important documents and decipher them to discover the hidden depths of the cosmos, just like generations of manic scholars have done before you. And within the scope of your internalized world your revelations will make perfect sense, and to the hoi polloi it will sound like gibberish but that's entirely a mark of their own mental inferiority and no blemish on your record.

Hey, you're lucky, you've got a purpose, a mission, an order to your life, a frontier to blaze and a truth to defend. That's epic. If only every human could let themselves be so happily deluded.

I'm glad someone finally said what at least a few of us were thinking.

Maybe I am even schizo---I tried to prove that also, however EEG shot that down. pout. What is a guy to do?

And as far as my diction, can I help it if I was reading Steinbeck when my peers were happy with Spot, Dick, and Jane? I just found the one more culturally significant than the other. Apologies.

And when I can get a machine running in 20 min, when a team of "experts" cannot after three days, its just experience--which I guess has nothing to do with reality.

I do know, however, that sour grapes come in all flavors.

However, your words can be constructed into a great meditational piece, for which I am great full [sic];

If Chaos is the god of the masses, why do their prophets so carefully order their words to prove it? (oh shit, I did not mean to disprove the whole damn thing in one sentence!)
If one cannot spell oxymoron, then perhaps after meditation on 'what is the sound of one hand clapping' and understanding it perhaps even their skills will have improved.

I do wish it were all in fun, however, but what I see is dangerous. If one wants to improve the will of man, then the only path is improve his rationality--the mind is to construct human will. It is the mark of the Beast, which simply means, how well we think determines how well we do. After all, is not 'buying and selling' one of the meanings of the Law of Reciprocity?

so, all philosophy aside, are you looking for someone to get gay with? what do you mean a life partner? there are much better avenues to search for love...

Originally Posted by boognish

so, all philosophy aside, are you looking for someone to get gay with? what do you mean a life partner? there are much better avenues to search for love...

Well, I guess if you can put "gay", "love" and "life" in the same sentence you certainly have put philosophy aside!

What human body life sense system must acquire DNA and process that DNA in order sustain and promote the life of the human body?

Standards of human morality are written in biological law.

It is hardly rational to claim that A does not equal A.

Secondly, I am thinking that there may be a psychological difference between lucid dreamers and other people. I don't know. I do know that if one were to post some of the material on this site, that makes perfect sense on sites where people do not lucid dream, the respose to those posts is radically different.

The defence of myth pervades many more fields than religion. For example, I spent many years in geometry. I even added processes that had never before been figured out. For example, how to muliply and divide a line by a line--a straight forward projection. The figure can do many other manipulations as well. However, all of my results point to how to validate Euclidean Geometry as a standard. My work has been sent out to many places, with only one reply--we cannot post your results because it does not fit our agenda.

Imagine what would happen, if all of a sudden, all non-Euclidean geomtries were easily demonstrated as false. How? Complete the math set for Eulicdean Geometry, which I did. See if you can get anyone to touch it. If there is a one to one correspondence between Euclidean Geometry and basic Algebra, Basic Algebra could no longer be used to disprove Euclidean Geometry.

Another path to proof is simply based on the foundation of language itself. Names are conventional. There is no room for doubt.