# Lucid Dreaming > DV Academy >  >  Dream Sharing Course (Suggestion)

## RedKali

In the past, dream sharing groups have been popular here.  Most of them have been run by regular lucid dreamers with an interest in the topic (which I think was fantastic they were able to form a group large enough to tackle an advanced skill).  Kudos to those groups, really.

However, I notice shared/group dreaming hasn't really been a course in DV Academy (unless I missed it).  Could it be something taught?  Or it could be a course for only DV Academy faculty where it's them who attempt to tackle the skill with their peers.  Simply demonstrating how it could be done or what that problem solving process might look like for people who are experienced and knowledgeable can be useful for the typical lucid dreamer who has an interest in sharing dreams.  There's the potential for the teachers to apply their skills in innovative ways.  That would be the next step for DV Academy, right?  Offering continuing education to those who teach dreaming  :smiley:  

Obviously I'm not only going to suggest something and do nothing to make that suggestion a reality.  I'm totally willing to invest in that process of developing this particular arena of lucid dreaming; but it can't be facilitated with just one person.  It would need to be a joint effort.  

*Which direction is DV Academy heading?*

----------


## DawnEye11

I think that's an interesting suggestion. If the guides here were open to it I'd like to see the direction they would take it in.

----------


## OpheliaBlue

What specifically would be taught in this class?

----------


## RedKali

Specifically, the class would build on the skills taught in the other classes (I’ve outlined, below, what the other classes teach as there’s no interest in re-inventing the wheel).  Some of these courses have done a very thorough job of outlining the components of lucid dreaming.  The course should be taught using plain language but there’s academically mature research which should be included (I can easily cite and reference, others wouldn’t need to unless they felt like it).  The course would grab from the information already provided in other courses and apply that knowledge base into a social setting using a practical approach.  

Shared dreaming outline:
1. Perception
   a. situational
        b. visual (what we’re capable of seeing in waking translates to how we see in dreaming ((visual cones)) ). 
        c. perceptual deviance2. Mental Disorders 
  a. medication effects on cognitive function related to dreaming (but explained using plain language).
        b. disorders3. Communication
  a. applying self-awareness into social situations
        b. objectivity 
        c. subjectivity 
        d. use of language 
        e. terminology4. Is proof necessary?  Yes and No.
  a. why5. Optimal conditions for shared dreams
6. Types of people or entities to interact with
7. Telepathy
a. shared dreaming is a form of telepathy
b. communicating by thought in dreams  
c. transferring the skill from dreaming to waking

*Current DV Courses:*

Intro Class (OpheliaBlue, NyxCC)
    1. Intro to Lucid Dreaming Basics
        a. acronyms, definitions, adequate sleep
    2. Overview of the Types of Lucid Dreaming Techniques
        a. DILD, MILD, WILD, DEILD, WBTB, Dream Yoga
    3. Overview on Awareness 
        a. sensory, self, meditation 
    4. Dream Stabilization & Control
        a. remain calm, positive thinking, visual, tactile, vocal, control, sustaining

General Lucid Dreaming (Scionox)
    1. Improve recall
    2. Create dream goals
    3. Practice technique 

WILD (Sageous)
    1. Mental Prep Part I
    2. Timing
    3. Notes about the Noise
    4. Mental Prep Part II – Forming Dreams
    5. Mantras 
    6. Doing the Dive
    7. Alternative WILD

DILD (gab)
    1. Reality Checks
    2. Awareness
    3. WBTB

Dream Control and Stabilization (dutchraptor, BrandonBoss, and Alyzarin)
    1. Control
        a. universe, shift, memory, program
    2. Persistent
        a. realms, characters, items

Dream Yoga (Sivason) 
    1. Basic Skills
        Lesson 1
        Lesson 2 
    2. Intermediate Skill – Visualization Training
        Creating Motion
        Energy Flow Simulation
    3. Advanced Skill – Immunity to Shock 
        Suppressing Emerging Thoughts

----------


## RedKali

So what's the process for starting courses?  Is it a voting system, interest based...?

----------


## Sageous

Before you start the process for establishing your class, RedKali, you might want to consider an important aspect of DV courses: credibility.

Though your class outline is already impressive enough to me that I'd be interested in following it, there is one thing missing that I think must be addressed:

In order to teach a course on shared-dreaming, I think that you need to have the confidence of your students not only that you are a successful shared dreamer, but also that the things you are teaching might pass that success onto them, if they follow the course properly.  I'm not seeing that.

Are you suggesting instead that we have a class _about_ shared dreaming, sort of a survey of popular theories and potentials (which would be fine by me, BTW), or are you suggesting a class for advancing the actual art of shared dreaming, assuming there is one?  I thing DVA tends to lean toward the "art" camp, in that they want to offer "how-to" classes, rather than theoretical classes, so we would really need to have an accomplished dream-sharer as instructor, one who can confidently transfer his ability to willing students... would that be you?  

On the other hand, I could be wrong; DV might be open to a well-presented theoretical class _about_ dream-sharing.  As I said, that would be fine with me too, but by offering such a class you might run the risk of "students" spending their time arguing about whether dream-sharing exists at all, and demanding proof of that from their professor before discussing anything else about the subject, to the point that the interesting and valuable stuff you suggest teaching gets ignored.

*tl;dr:* Would this be a "how-to" course for shared dreaming?  If so, can you confidently provide the necessary "Been there, done that," credibility so that your students can both accept your words and aspire to your example?  Or would this class simply be a survey about shared-dreaming, with no expectation of learning how to do it?

I hope this post doesn't come off as negative; it wasn't meant that way -- I actually think this is a good idea.

----------


## RedKali

Sageous, I appreciate your response and you bring up valid concerns. If no one questions me then the discussion won't progress, so it's helpful that you've done so.  I'll attempt to tackle the concerns as briefly as I can--as I have a tendency to be wordy at times.  I'll do my best, heh.





> Before you start the process for establishing your class, RedKali, you might want to consider an important aspect of DV courses: credibility.



I think what you might mean isn't credibility, but popularity.  I'm aware of the credentials for most of those who teach the current DV courses (I've been a member of DV for about 10 years now, previously under a different name. I know the general backgrounds of many of the instructors).  There's a large range of credentials, some are merely high school grads, some have written very knowledgeable books on dreaming.  It's a mixed bag of credentials.  Personally, I have an advanced degree in psychology and have experienced numerous (granted that's a vague term) confirmed shared dreams.  I've been a member of another site where we dream share and have been a moderator there, an admin on another dreaming site, and I've been a teacher for the last 10 years.  Yes, I can even provide references and documentation for anything I claim here (including the confirmed shared dreams).  Do I think it would be  excessive to have to prove certain aspects--probably.  Especially considering the credentials of a couple of the instructors... but I'm willing to do it since I lack popularity and remain largely unknown.  I have the credentials going by the current standards and expectations of what's currently in place.  That's why I think it's not merely a matter of credentials, but popularity.

Popularity makes more sense.  You don't want to invite people into leadership roles when the community doesn't know who they are.  There's a high-risk of letting irresponsible people become too involved.  Also, my account reflects practically no postings on these forums.  I'm not involved in the forum community, so there's no fan-base, no established trust, and most do not know who I am.  

I highly value my privacy  :smiley:  it is no accident people do not know me well.  Though I can see how that works against my favor when wanting to pursue something like being involved in a shared dreaming course.





> In order to teach a course on shared-dreaming, I think that you need to have the confidence of your students not only that you are a successful shared dreamer, but also that the things you are teaching might pass that success onto them, if they follow the course properly.  I'm not seeing that.



This is a larger concern.  Shared dreaming is an experimental area of dreaming.  Most average people (in terms of intelligence) can be taught how to lucid dream.  Those are basic skills.  Not that it's easy to become skilled at lucid dreaming, but that the skill itself can be taught in a very linear fashion.  Shared dreaming can't be taught in the same manner.  It's a lot more fluid, and that's mainly because it's a team effort (two or more people involved).  Lucid dreaming is like math, you learn the skill, practice, and it's typically done individually.  Shared dreaming requires an accommodation for others.  People don't only work with themselves, but they're balancing between more than one awareness.  Hence, that kind of balancing act will depend on those involved, on a case by case basis, because everyone is cognitively different than one another.

You're right, I don't think there could be a course on shared dreaming which anyone could follow and reap the desired objective from.  I certainly cannot make that promise for anyone who might enroll in such a course.  Hence why it's still an experimental area of dreaming.  

What I can offer them are skills to help move them in that direction.  Skills based on scientific research and field experience  :wink2:   Best of both worlds.





> Are you suggesting instead that we have a class _about_ shared dreaming, sort of a survey of popular theories and potentials or are you suggesting a class for advancing the actual art of shared dreaming, assuming there is one?  I thing DVA tends to lean toward the "art" camp, in that they want to offer "how-to" classes, rather than theoretical classes, so we would really need to have an accomplished dream-sharer as instructor, one who can confidently transfer his ability to willing students... would that be you?



Interesting question, would that be me.  I dunno.  Honestly, I'm unfamiliar with the term "accomplished dream-sharer".  I don't even know how I'd measure or define the term.  Obviously, it is desirable to have experts in the field do the teaching.  The issue is I don't think DV has an expert in the field for this.  Though we might!  I don't know everyone, but I do know I don't see this topic brought up for serious (academic) discussion.  What I had in mind was working with multiple people who had expertise in various areas so that the knowledge-base wouldn't be restricted to one person, one perspective, one approach, or one method of teaching because not all students are the same.  For an experimental area of dreaming, I think having more than one instructor would be beneficial.

The class itself would definitely be a how-to.  





> As I said, that would be fine with me too, but by offering such a class you might run the risk of "students" spending their time arguing about whether dream-sharing exists at all, and demanding proof of that from their professor before discussing anything else about the subject, to the point that the interesting and valuable stuff you suggest teaching gets ignored.



Arguments are a great place for learning to happen.  The issue of proof is always a fun argument.  For the class itself, it shouldn't require anyone to believe shared dreaming is possible.  That's not the objective of the course.  Just like lucid dreaming doesn't attempt to prove people can control their dreams.  Both are merely ideas to explore further, for those who carry that desire.  It's not my goal to change beliefs.  It's my goal to put people in a position where they can choose whether or not they want to take advantage of an opportunity.  It's important that resources are made available, and it's up to the individuals to decide whether they want to use those resources.  





> *tl;dr:* Would this be a "how-to" course for shared dreaming?  If so, can you confidently provide the necessary "Been there, done that," credibility so that your students can both accept your words and aspire to your example?  Or would this class simply be a survey about shared-dreaming, with no expectation of learning how to do it?



tl;dr: Yes, it's a "how-to" course for shared dreaming.  I am credible, but not popular.  Overall, I know this comes down to what DV wants and what I can offer.  If those two aspects are not aligned, then it's a no-go.  But if they are...

 :smiley:

----------


## Sageous

Interesting response; thanks!  Some quick notes:

I was in no way questioning your credentials, RedKali, and I apologize if you got that impression.  I really don't care much about (anybody's) academic qualifications or personal life-story details either.  The credibility I was talking about was more along the lines of creating an initial impression in your students (or colleagues, as it were) that would confirm not only that shared dreaming can be done, but that doing it would be more likely if they took the course.  

And no, I absolutely did not mean "popularity" instead of "credibility."  Popularity did not even enter my mind; I really don't care if I'm well-liked, and I don't think the other course instructors took on their classes because of their fan bases.  To me that is absurd.  When I started the DVA WILD class I was pretty much unknown here, and the class has gone quite well; popularity was meaningless from the start in my case, and probably still is (given my opinions and willingness to disagree/contradict, I would bet I still am not all that popular). I really don't think popularity carries much weight, if the class is well presented, and I honestly think that starting a class because you're popular is not the best way to begin, by any measure.  

Also, though you've apparently been on DV longer than I have, I am not familiar with the DVA classes that are run by irresponsible people with large fan bases; they are generally run by thoughtful people with a lot of experience and excellent _knowledge_ bases. I doubt any of them were chosen -- or were successful -- out of popularity, but I can assure you that their success is based on their credibility.   Maybe you were thinking of a different website?  

So, no, I did not mean popularity instead of credibility, and do not agree with your suggestion that I should mean that; I am just not that cynical.  

On another note: "Accomplished shared dreamer" didn't seem like a term to me, because the phrase means exactly what it implies: that your students would understand -- more from your words and advice than from some curriculum vitae -- that the teacher(s) of this course came from a position of validity, and would not just be repeating stuff they read somewhere. That validity comes in the form, as I said, of having been there (From what you've written, I have a feeling you will have no trouble projecting that validity to your students, BTW).   In other words, an accomplished shared dreamer is nothing more than a person who has actual experience in the realm of shared dreaming; there really was no deeper meaning intended. 

For what it's worth, if you do go ahead with this course, I would probably be interested in participating. The metaphysical implications of shared dreaming have always intrigued me, and if I can learn anything that would further open the door to its existence and navigation, I would definitely have gained something good.

Good luck!

----------


## RedKali

I think we see popularity differently.  All of the instructors are popular: meaning they are supported.  Either supported by already being a Dream Guide (or in some other position of authority) or having an established fan base. Many are in a position where they are supported, hence, they are popular.  The other stuff you mention about fan bases seems like you mention them in a negative manner, that's not what I meant.  It's not a negative thing to have a fan base, it likely means that person (with the fan base) is trusted and appreciated by their peers.  Those are good traits for an instructor to have.  Being popular can be a useful method to begin a class--but it can also be detrimental, it just depends on how that individual utilizes their fan base. 

It still seems like you're confusing credibility with popularity, though I recognize you're saying you haven't--so I will take you at your word.

It's interesting you don't care about credibility or experience--because by what other means are people to be measured?  Lol.  What people know and what they can do.  This may be a bit short-sighted on my end, but I really don't know what else to judge people by...perhaps by their creativity or willingness to engage?  I don't know, those two features are difficult to measure.  Maybe by their potential?  I'm getting off track here...

Lol.  You're not that cynical, but I didn't mean that in a cynical manner, but I see how you may perceive my statements toward you as cynical... (I'm really trying to make this as least confusing as possible).  Maybe popularity just has a bad association in your mind, but I don't mean to say those who are teaching DV classes only got there by being popular (that seemed to be the assumption you were making).  What I meant was what I said:





> Popularity makes more sense. You don't want to invite people into leadership roles when the community doesn't know who they are. There's a high-risk of letting irresponsible people become too involved. Also, my account reflects practically no postings on these forums. I'm not involved in the forum community, so there's no fan-base, no established trust, and most do not know who I am.



That was not me implying other instructors are irresponsible or got there due to their popularity.  But, since we're on that topic, I certainly think some people have taken courses from those they know and like.  That doesn't seem absurd to me.  I take classes for those reasons.  Not here, but in school, with teachers I know and enjoy learning from.  Why wouldn't people take courses from those they enjoy?  I don't comprehend why this would be absurd to you.  Which is ... somewhat interesting on its own level.  I respect your belief that people were not chosen or successful out of popularity.  I disagree.  Popularity plays a part in success and during a selection process.  For some, it may not play a big part, for others, it might.  Either way, it's not a bad thing.  It merely means they are known and established and have done well with what they were previously doing--it would be reasonable to provide those people with more opportunity.  Now, yes, there's also a skill and knowledge component build into their success and selection, sure.  But to say popularity has nothing to do for some of them is unrealistic.  

Now, I really hope that if the course did get the go-ahead that you'd still be interested in participating after our attempts to clarify things for one another, lol.  You likely would be the best balance for me, to keep me in check, because I do tend to assume people understand me.  However, that's not always the case.  I think we would benefit from each other.

----------


## Sageous

Um, all condescending LOL's aside:





> I think we see popularity differently.  All of the instructors are popular: meaning they are supported.  Either supported by already being a Dream Guide (or in some other position of authority) or having an established fan base. Many are in a position where they are supported, hence, they are popular.  The other stuff you mention about fan bases seems like you mention them in a negative manner, that's not what I meant.  It's not a negative thing to have a fan base, it likely means that person (with the fan base) is trusted and appreciated by their peers.  Those are good traits for an instructor to have.  Being popular can be a useful method to begin a class--but it can also be detrimental, it just depends on how that individual utilizes their fan base.



This would mean that I should not have been a DVA instructor, because I was far from popular, and had an extremely limited fan base.





> It still seems like you're confusing credibility with popularity, though I recognize you're saying you haven't--so I will take you at your word.



 Gosh thanks.  

Actually, I do appreciate that, because I was not, and am not, confusing popularity with credibility; the two are very different things, and it is a bit annoying that you think I don't understand that difference.  Yes, popularity can certainly be a good base for leadership, or for guaranteeing a decent class size, but popularity will not guarantee credibility or quality.  That was my point, from the beginning; I have no problem with the definition of popularity, or the use of the term. 

I would also really appreciate it if you read what I wrote, rather than assume an ability to read my mind or measure my intelligence from afar.  Yes, assuming that I do not understand what popularity might be is a bit insulting, especially when you pair that with your complete disregard for what I clearly said about credibility in the first (and second) place:





> It's interesting you don't care about credibility or experience--because by what other means are people to be measured?  Lol.  What people know and what they can do.  This may be a bit short-sighted on my end, but I really don't know what else to judge people by...perhaps by their creativity or willingness to engage?  I don't know, those two features are difficult to measure.  Maybe by their potential?  I'm getting off track here...



 Sigh... if you actually read my posts, rather than apparently judging them from a great distance or high mountaintop (do I insert a LOL here?), you may have noticed that the _whole point_ of my initial post was about establishing credibility from the get-go; I obviously care about it.  My point was that credibility wasn't measured by a good CV (I never even implied that), but that the _course_ should have credibility -- that the students should accept that some authority and truth underscores the course (and its instructor(s)) before the course begins.  

Basically, and _again_, I was saying that shared-dreaming is a potentially difficult course to teach because it almost foundationally lacks credibility (i.e., it to date has not been proven as an actual event, and no established techniques exist that can guarantee decent -- or any -- results).  I really don't give a crap if the instructor has a psychology degree, is straight out of high school, or has a fabulous fan base; if he can provide credibility through the context of the course and his own experience with, and knowledge of, shared-dreaming, that would be enough for me. 





> Lol.  You're not that cynical, but I didn't mean that in a cynical manner, but I see how you may perceive my statements toward you as cynical... (I'm really trying to make this as least confusing as possible).  Maybe popularity just has a bad association in your mind, but I don't mean to say those who are teaching DV classes only got there by being popular (that seemed to be the assumption you were making).  What I meant was what I said:



Gosh, thanks again for your repeated attempts for making this as least confusing as possible; sorry I'm so simple.  Again and finally, popularity does not have a bad association in my mind; assuming that you are unqualified to teach a course because you don't have lots of DV forum posts or a fan base is what I found absurd.  If you know what you are talking about, I highly doubt that the people here will care how popular you are... you might need to elevate your opinion of DV members, I think.    





> That was not me implying other instructors are irresponsible or got there due to their popularity.  But, since we're on that topic, I certainly think some people have taken courses from those they know and like.  That doesn't seem absurd to me.  I take classes for those reasons.  Not here, but in school, with teachers I know and enjoy learning from.  Why wouldn't people take courses from those they enjoy?  I don't comprehend why this would be absurd to you.  Which is ... somewhat interesting on its own level.  I respect your belief that people were not chosen or successful out of popularity.  I disagree.  Popularity plays a part in success and during a selection process.  For some, it may not play a big part, for others, it might.  Either way, it's not a bad thing.  It merely means they are known and established and have done well with what they were previously doing--it would be reasonable to provide those people with more opportunity.  Now, yes, there's also a skill and knowledge component build into their success and selection, sure.  But to say popularity has nothing to do for some of them is unrealistic.



Okay, you're officially obsessed with popularity (insert another LOL here?).  I am not.  I am interested in quality.  If you are the most popular person on the forum, but didn't know a wit about shared-dreaming, I would not want you to teach the course.

You now what? Never mind.  I should have walked away from this conversation a long time ago.





> Now, I really hope that if the course did get the go-ahead that you'd still be interested in participating after our attempts to clarify things for one another, lol.  You likely would be the best balance for me, to keep me in check, because I do tend to assume people understand me.  However, that's not always the case.  I think we would benefit from each other.



I will probably not bother with the course at this point, because, honestly, the brief snapshot I've had of your condescension and apparent disinterest in reading what I wrote (as opposed to consistently clinging to what you thought I wrote, regardless of my clarifications) tells me that taking the course (or working with you to teach it -- yes, I probably am qualified, and likely carry some credibility, if not popularity), would be a difficult, unwelcome, experience... I really don't feel like being a balance to keep you in check; I would much rather you made an effort to stop assuming that people understand you (a very bad characteristic for a teacher, in my opinion), plus perhaps an effort to assume that people might be telling you something that doesn't match your initial assumptions.

I'm done here.  Good luck with your course, regardless; it is still a good idea.

*To the mods:* advance apologies for my tone.  I will never figure out how I get drawn into these things.

----------


## OpheliaBlue

Well this is what I get for taking too long to reply to the outline!

First of all, thank you Sageous for picking up the ball I dropped there. I will say that the discussion of credibility vs popularity is a tangled briar patch I'm not really interested in. However, shared dreaming is both credible and popular. I personally don't believe in the subject, but loads of DV members and even some staff do, and have done so over the many years I've been here.

How the crap one would teach this, RedKali, I have no freaking idea. But you have more than defended your desire to get a class going on the topic. And Sageous, in spite of your tone or RedKali's condescension, you are the perfect seasoned DVA professor to properly monitor the course. You can pop in every now and then to make sure condescending and/or disbelieving arguments are at a dull roar.

If there are no major objections from forum or DVA staff, then this class is ready to start.

----------


## RedKali

Sageous.

Whoa.

I think your perception of my tone is greatly inaccurate and I'm sorry if how I communicated with you was received badly.  My 'lol's were an attempt to personalize and find humor in the entire absurdity of the discussion.  It kinda went from a 2 in intensity to a 10 and I'm not entirely sure I understand how that happened either.  But rest assured, it was not my intent to be a nag (insert any other descriptive here).  You posed concerns, I wanted to take them seriously and reply.  I did.  Maybe because we're doing this in text things got lost in translation.  I thought you brought up very good points and I wanted to discuss them.  I see now that you've taken offense at much of what I said, but you should know I wasn't arguing with you in my attempt to comprehend your position on various things.  

If this comes up for you regularly, maybe there's another way to supplement this text/forum stuff.  I'm not trying to be abrasive or argumentative, in fact I love discussing ideas and how to implement them better.  So this was GOOD for me.  

All this crap aside, that got excessively out of hand, if it helps you if I kept the lols out, I can.  I didn't realize they bothered you or you found them condescending (because alienating people is entirely unhelpful, especially when asking for help).  

I would like your help Sageous.  

You offer me something valuable in terms of being more realistic and practical.  I understand if you want nothing to do with me if you find me horribly annoying and condescending, but I hope you'll look past the initial miscommunication and see that I'm not trying to be a total bitch.  If I were, I wouldn't be condescending--I would tell you honestly how I felt, so that there would be no room for miscommunication.  I'm not spiteful, I'm not going to hold a grudge just because we disagree.  I appreciate that we disagree and if you are willing to explain why you disagree, then that's something I can better accommodate.  In fact, I just may improve upon my delivery method to specifically cater to your individual preferences.  I only ask that you not assume I'm taking personal jabs at you, because I'm not like that.  If I think you're an ass, I'll tell you.  I can be an ass, and I apologize for that when it comes up.  We're human, I'm not trying to make life more difficult for you.

Will you help me, Sageous?

and thank you OpheliaBlue for the update  :smiley: 


Edit: I just looked over my post (again) trying to figure out what triggered your follow-up post.  I can see how some of those lols could be misinterpreted.  I've seen some people make snide remarks and use lols to be condescending, so it does happen, I've seen it, and find it horribly annoying too.  I would like people to flat out tell me they disagree and why, instead of using lols to avoid saying anything rude or too direct.  I figured since I told you what and why I disagreed, it would be okay to attempt to personalize the exchange--to bring it out of academic focus and into a more humane realm of discussion.  But I see in doing that, you took it another direction.  

Just to share, I'm typically very laid back and find humor in most things.  When discussions get iffy, I try to lighten the mood.  I also enjoy using very informal language online, like I wanted to use the xD and the xP and the  ::D:  in my posts because that makes sense to me.  However, the topic was important so I refrained.  I see that I may have taken you too seriously too, and part of that is I don't know you well enough to understand how you communicate.  Hopefully that changes.

----------


## OpheliaBlue

Class pending reply to PM about alt account.

----------


## Sageous

*RedKali:*

Fair enough, and enough said as well.

Will I help you?  I would like to, but I can make no guarantees.  This is because time for me is at a premium these days.  The least I could do, though, is join the class and try my best to keep you on your toes with questions or suggestions as things move along.

But will you want my help, truly?  I think that's a fair question, actually, given that I don't adhere to very many of the popular notions of shared dreaming.  Most of my opinions are buried in other people's threads (I start very few of my own), but here is a thread of mine that sort of covers my take on the phenomenon... you might want to check it out.  

At any rate, I've already forgotten our first clumsy steps, and look forward to being involved somehow with your class, if I can.

 ::cheers::

----------


## FryingMan

From earlier threads on this site, it's hard to get two people to even agree on what "shared dreaming" means.  Can you give a specific, detailed description of what you think "shared dreaming" means, with some examples of scenarios that you would and would not consider to be shared dreaming?

----------


## ThreeCat

Some of the descriptions of shared dreaming indicate that you could "share" a dream that happens to someone on a different night.  Such as, I dream I am with my wife on Monday, tell her about the dream, and then she has a similar dream.  SHARED DREAM!  Which, to me, is doubtful (to be polite).  I second FryingMan, and would like to know what the definition of "shared dream" is, and then how to have some.  Because that would be really cool.

----------


## Sageous

Setting a go-to definition seems like a good idea to me, and a good foundation for the course -- even if the definition chosen is unique only to the course and doesn't reflect all of the variety of definitions floating around out there.

Maybe you could just make it a simple, sort of blanket definition? Perhaps this: a shared dream occurs when two unique individuals experience the same or similar dream, with each well aware of the presence of the other.

Or maybe something else?

----------


## RedKali

I love the idea of defining shared dreaming; it's necessary.  That's something that must be clarified for people because I hear the term used in various ways.  I really appreciate Sageous' definition: a shared dream occurs when two unique individuals experience the same or similar dream, with each well aware of the presence of the other.  

That's the general idea I'm going for.  Even this version could be simple enough: a shared dream occurs when two individuals experience the same dream.  

The only difference I notice between the two statements is awareness of presence....which is an interesting point.  Consider this: some dreamers lack form in dreams, yet they still observe events within a dream.  If two people observe the same series of events, in the correct sequence, and accurately describe the elements involved in the dream, yet neither notice one another.... should that be considered a shared dream?  They were both clearly observing the same dream, those details add up, but they just didn't see/notice their partner.  Certainly something to think about--and feedback is welcome.

Personally, I don't like the day-after dreams when people have read a dream and then dream of it.  If we're going to focus on shared dreaming, I'd rather just aim for the unexpected and unplanned shared dream instead of inducing a shared dream (accidental or otherwise).  Also, Sageous I like that you included "similar dream", but that might need some clarification.  I don't want people to think just because two people shared a dream of being on a beach that it makes it a shared dream.  However, if two people start in a dirty house, fly around town, see the same landmarks, speak to the same people, but for one a tsunami hits and another a tornado hits--that would be considered similar enough to call a shared dream.  So in some instances the "similar" helps as it allows for variances in perception.  My only concern is I don't want people to over-generalize dreams and think a shared dream occurs when there aren't enough shared elements.

I don't think we could put a number on how many shared elements must occur before a dream can be described as being "shared".  Would it be enough for two people to notice one another in a single location?  I suppose if both were able to accurately describe the location in a fair amount of detail.  Sometimes people try swapping keywords and that's usually never effective; part of this is the portions of the mind which utilize waking memory (which is what was used when coming up with the fantastic idea to swap keywords) is asleep when dreaming.  Being lucid awakens the prefrontal cortex, which helps with even remembering you wanted to swap keywords, but then the struggle revolves around remembering the word itself.  When you're that far lucid, waking becomes a serious concern.  It's so much more practical to have a dreaming experience and then recall it.  Even remembering to keep an eye out for a partner can be challenging.  Speaking of that, I don't think people need to be lucid to have a shared dream.  The elements (which are still being discussed) of a shared dream can be met without having to be lucid.  Though!  Lucidity certainly can be helpful.

FryingMan, did this answer your question?

Sageous, I haven't had a chance to read more than a few posts in that thread but I will soon.  It'll be good to get a feel for what others may be critical of regarding the topic, which is helpful.  I'm coming from one end of this so knowing where the issues are helps me bridge the two ends.  I know there are many who haven't had a shared dream and there are even more who don't believe it's possible.  So having a better grasp on specific concerns is great.  I don't mind the questioning, critique anything and everything I put up, it'll let me know which areas need tweaking.  Thanks for letting me know your time is limited so you can't be overly involved, and I won't ask you to do anything too time-intensive.  Whatever feedback and comments you have is great and appreciated.

----------


## FryingMan

> FryingMan, did this answer your question?



It's a start,  but if you could restate a full definition without the questions and wondering and supposing.   Also, you didn't really specify clear time (simultaneity) constraints.

If you want to say "unexpected and unplanned" to avoid any hint of incubation, then how will you manage a group of people working together to have shared dreams?   That's incubation already right there.  "Joe and Jill are working together to have shared dreams, and they each saw a dream about each other!"    How do you distinguish between "dreaming buddies" who frequently dream about each other and a "true shared dream?"   And while you say you don't want to overly quantify "similar enough," I think the whole subject hinges on precisely that.   Too specific, and "shared dreaming" may never happen (which may beg the question of whether or not it exists at all), too general, and it's meaningless.

----------


## RedKali

Gah, you're right, I did leave out the time parameters.  

To be frank, shared dreams don't have to occur at the same time; there are ways to access a specific point in dreaming, even after the dream has occurred.  Unfortunately, this gets too technical and over-complicates the topic, so I will stay far away from that aspect in regard to this course.  

Time-wise, a shared dream should occur sometime during the same night.  For people who are connecting from different time zones, this could be concern as not everyone has the same sleeping habits (even if they are in the same time zone).  Side-note, I've noticed some people dream of their partners waking lives when one person was asleep and the other was awake.  While that won't qualify as a shared dream, it certainly places an emphasis on both partners needing to be asleep at the same time.  To make it as simple as possible, it would be best to say the dream must occur while both partners are asleep at the same time.  

Updated definition: a shared dream occurs when two unique individuals experience the same or similar dream, simultaneously.  

What defines the same dream aspect is still yet to be determined.  This gets into the realm of qualitative data analysis which science still struggles with.  There's no one besides the dreamers who will determine if a shared dream occurs, so there won't be inter-raters/observers involved for the purpose of the class.  

Example:

Jack and Jill have a dream of one another.  Jack dreams of being inside a car and has the thought, "The door will fly off."  Jill dreams of driving a car and has the same thought, "The car door will fly off."  The two cars collide, the door flies off.  Jill saw Jack in a blue Prius, turns out Jack remembers being in his uncle's blue SUV.  I've known some people who call this a shared dream.  I've known others would refuse to call this a shared dream due to the difference in vehicles.  From the psychological perspective, there could be a few things at play.  One, maybe Jill doesn't know vehicles well and went with what was closest to what she saw (she may not know how to identify vehicles).  Two, maybe Jack thought the car reminded him of a car he used to ride in often and so he made an error by being a subjective observer.  

Ideally, everyone learns how to be an objective observer or participant.  That's a difficult skill to employ on a regular basis because we all have our personal histories.  The key is just to become aware of how our perception is influenced, both psychologically and biologically.  

For the course, I don't want it to focus only on finding dream partners and doing solely that.  Practicing how to be more objective helps to get everyone on the same page.  I would prefer to let everyone decide what they consider a shared dream and sometimes two partners may disagree on whether they had a shared dream.  Everyone has their own guidelines for what they consider a shared dream and I don't want to restrict the experience by limiting what qualifies or what doesn't.  It's not a "yes" it happened, or a "no" it didn't.  It falls on a spectrum.  There are some dreamers who can have entire conversations in dreams, and both recall those in full detail.  These people have a better memory and likely a higher overall awareness--and there other dreamers who consider a shared dream on a much smaller scale.  It's more about skill development than it is a competition and each person/team should set their own goals.

Curious, what are you thoughts, still too vague?  If it is, how could it be defined better without it being too restrictive?  I want to avoid de-motivating participants by creating a nearly impossible task for those in the beginner-intermediate skill levels.

----------


## FryingMan

I can't still determine what you're proposing as a definition so I guess it's still vague IMO.  I see in your last message these points:

*  the dream must occur while both partners are asleep at the same time
* two unique individuals experience the same or similar dream, simultaneously
* What defines the same dream aspect is still yet to be determined
* everyone decide what they consider a shared dream

Earlier there was "unexpected and unplanned" (to avoid confusing simple incubation with shared dreaming), is that off the table?

edit: if it's more about skill development, in observation, perception, and communication per your syllabus, why not just focus on those specifically?  Why include the difficult or impossible to pin down notions of sharing and sameness?    Especially if each person will individually determine the same-ness or shared-ness of any particular dream?

----------


## Sageous

*RedKali:* I took too long to post this, as you seemed to have moved on, but I hope you'll consider it anyway, because it might help with offering explanations or possibilities to curious students:





> The only difference I notice between the two statements is awareness of presence....which is an interesting point.  Consider this: some dreamers lack form in dreams, yet they still observe events within a dream.  If two people observe the same series of events, in the correct sequence, and accurately describe the elements involved in the dream, yet neither notice one another.... should that be considered a shared dream?  They were both clearly observing the same dream, those details add up, but they just didn't see/notice their partner.  Certainly something to think about--and feedback is welcome.



No, I don't think that "If two people observe the same series of events, in the correct sequence, and accurately describe the elements involved in the dream, yet neither notice one another," that ought to be considered a shared dream.  There are other things, perhaps even more likely things, that can make dreams similar, or cause them to be remembered as similar.

One thing I've often noticed in (usually breathless) accounts of shared dreams like this is that the two dream-sharers are almost invariably involved in very similar waking-lives.  They may be family members, close friends, or in intimate partnerships, have closely shared dream goals, or something else that causes them to have very similar life experiences and attitudes.  So there is an excellent chance that they are generating very similar waking-life experience, like day residue, expectation, possibly even thought patterns or perceptual preferences/biases as well.  This proximity of experience could lead to unshare dreams that seem the same; even, perhaps, to the degree you describe above, RedKali.  Though this similarity is certainly a _sort_ of sharing in itself, I'm not sure if it's the sort of dream-sharing we're interested in teaching here.

The same goes for planned or anticipated shared-dreams.  Two people hell-bent on having a shared dream with each other might very likely incubate the same sort of dream, so that when they report to each other the next day it isn't hard to find things that match...even if nothing does:  I can't tell you how many times I've heard or read reports of shared dreams where each dream has nothing to do with the other, but the two excited dreamers find or invent all sorts of things that in their minds surely prove they were sharing a dream. 

I think that, since dreams are essentially projections (literally projections, in dream-sharing, I suppose) created by an individual person's mind, the presence of that mind ought to be noticeable when it encounters the presence of your own mind during a dream.  In other words, I think that what you are really sharing in a shared-dream is a sort of meeting of minds (or individual presences, perhaps), with the dream scene itself being secondary.  In a sense, the presence of another mind in a dream would _precede_ matching imagery, with that similar or recognizable imagery forming only _after_ one dreamer begins paying attention to another dreamer's presence. 

For instance, a shared-dream might start with the appearance of, say, a curious point of light on the horizon on your dream: you sense something different in it, something that is not you, so you focus on it. Your attention on that light brings your mind into closer sync with it, and eventually that point will expand into something more elaborate, perhaps even a new dream scene, that assures you that you are not alone in the dream, and allows you to communicate through imagery or words with the other presence.  Which brings me to another point: 

You wouldn't need to see an identifiable dream body of your dream-sharing partner to know she is present, either. Indeed, given that we really aren't built as television transmitters, if dream-sharing occurs at all it very likely does not include an ability to tell your dream-sharing partner through transmitted imagery what exactly you look like, or even what you wish to look like.  Instead, your presence will appear as a construct created by your partner's own dreaming mind, and that construct will very likely, at least initially, not be a facsimile of you -- or _anybody_; a "receiver's" dreaming mind might initially produce you as, say, a fire hydrant, or perhaps an angry sloth... the construct created could be anything, which is all the more reason that acknowledged presence is more important than shared imagery. Later, after communication has begun, you and your partner's avatars might start forming into something more recognizable, though even then you will likely appear much different in the dream than you do in waking life.

So, and as a *tl;dr:*,  I guess for me presence precedes similar imagery in a shared dream, and, while shared presence (when noticed) cannot be mistaken for a shared dream, imagery can, no matter how similar it may be.


Also, and almost as an aside:




> Speaking of that, I don't think people need to be lucid to have a shared dream. The elements (which are still being discussed) of a shared dream can be met without having to be lucid. Though! *Lucidity certainly can be helpful.*



I think lucidity is not only helpful, but may be may be an imperative for successful shared-dreaming, and I do so for a singular, if odd reason:  The mechanics of shared-dream are impossible, to me, unless we are _all_ sharing our dreams _all the time_. 

It makes much more sense to me that our dreaming consciousness exists, space&time-free, as an individual thread in a great fabric of say, collective consciousness or perhaps thought energy, where every thread is in constant contact with every other thread, and when dream-sharing we are not finding our partners as much as we are singling out their individual presence --their thread -- among the weave of dreaming thought, than it does we that are somehow magically able to find someone (even across time-zones of physical world) among the minds of billions of sleeping people.  

If all our dreams are somehow connected in an as-yet undiscovered metaphysical matrix, it would be safe to say that, by any definition, we're all dream-sharing every time we dream. We just don't know that it is happening, either because we are hard-wired to ignore it as a sort of anti-confusion defense mechanism, or due possibly to the psychic strength our own dreams tending to overwhelm the influence of other people's passing dreams; or maybe we just don't think of it at the time, just like we don't think of so many other things when not lucid.  

The presence of lucidity, though, allows an opportunity to pay attention to our dreamworld, to consciously (if metaphorically) examine that weave of dreamers to spot the dreams of our dream-sharing partner, and also to acknowledge when our partner is looking for us.

So, in effect, if dream-sharing can happen at all it is just as likely that we are all sharing our dreams all the time, but we don't notice it during the dream, which sort of makes such sharing irrelevant from a consciousness perspective.  With lucidity, though, we can learn to pay attention to the cosmic conversation and both seek out desired individuals or make ourselves receptive to contact by individuals.

This sounded a lot better in my head, and I know it is meaningless to the discussion, if not altogether meaningless, but I'll leave it up anyway... maybe one day it will matter.  :smiley:

----------


## ThreeCat

> In other words, I think that what you are really sharing in a shared-dream is a sort of meeting of minds (or individual presences, perhaps), with the dream scene itself being secondary.



I agree with this.  If we think about it, dream imagery is going to be more or less unstable in the majority of dreamers, and just because we are "sharing" a dream, does not mean we are going to see the same appearances.  Even during our waking life, our perception of the world is so heavily influenced by our own hardware and software (sense consciousnesses and thinking--views, opinions, etc.) that we often don't "see" the same things as those around us, even though we are most certainly "sharing" the dream in waking life.  In a dream, since we are disconnected from the stability of the sense faculties, we are relying entirely on our mental consciousness to "tell" us what it is we "see."  The question is, can our mental consciousness and sense of self actually contact another entity, or are we just running the maze?

Which means that most certainly in a shared dream there has to be this meeting of the mind, and in some sense, we may even be sharing the same mental space for the duration of the event, or at least co-creating a shared mental space, in a much more dramatic way than waking life.





> The presence of lucidity, though, allows an opportunity to pay attention to our dreamworld, to consciously (if metaphorically) examine that weave of dreamers to spot the dreams of our dream-sharing partner, and also to acknowledge when our partner is looking for us.



I really think this is paramount to the endeavor.  Without lucidity, we lack the objective awareness to determine whether or not a dream was "shared," or whether or not we were deceived by our--for lack of a better term--"local" projections.  In any case, even if we meet the mind our target, the only information we are going to have about them is through a projection--but possibly a shared, co-created one.  Also, with lucidity, there is the possibility of leaving our "local time zone" and reaching out to other dreaming minds.  In this case, I think there would need to be some way to direct awareness to the mind we are trying to reach, which I think would be a real challenge.  Not impossible, but how do you reach a mind?

Furthermore, I think the possibility of self-deception is high, especially for explorers seeking specifically to share dreams.  So there needs to be rigorous methods of proof in order to determine whether or not a specific event occurred (if one is interested in that).  On the other hand, it is possible that one oneironaut will be certain that "something more" than a lucid dream occurred, while the other dreaming party may have no idea at all.

And finally, there is also the possibility of knowing the contents of another person's dream, but with no other contact--like remote viewing.  That would indicate a kind of shared space, although perhaps not what we are looking for.

I'm interested.  Let's start the show.

I am very interested in this, and would be willing to do some exploration myself.

----------


## RedKali

> I can't still determine what you're proposing as a definition so I guess it's still vague IMO.  I see in your last message these points:
> 
> *  the dream must occur while both partners are asleep at the same time
> * two unique individuals experience the same or similar dream, simultaneously
> * What defines the same dream aspect is still yet to be determined
> * everyone decide what they consider a shared dream
> 
> Earlier there was "unexpected and unplanned" (to avoid confusing simple incubation with shared dreaming), is that off the table?
> 
> edit: if it's more about skill development, in observation, perception, and communication per your syllabus, why not just focus on those specifically?  Why include the difficult or impossible to pin down notions of sharing and sameness?    Especially if each person will individually determine the same-ness or shared-ness of any particular dream?




This is the current working definition: a shared dream occurs when two unique individuals experience the same or similar dream, simultaneously. 

The unexpected and unplanned are ideal conditions.  It's just not practical--if we're all part of the group, all reading and planning to have shared dreams, there's going to be some sort of incubation happening.  Can that be minimized?  Yes.  How?  By not discussing what's to occur in a dream.  If two people go into a dreaming night with just the intent to dream of the other person, this leaves a lot room for anything to occur.  There should be some direction, to increase success, but not too much to incubate a specific dream.  What sounds interesting is to pick someone to dream about (from the class) and NOT share who we've chosen.  Then just post recall from that.  There are a few different ways to go about it, but that will rule out shared sleep schedules which can be helpful.  That's an idea I'd like to try though (not telling people beforehand), likely to be built into the course in some form.

Observation, perception, and communication WILL be focused on specifically.  It's important to still include the difficult task of defining a shared dream because it serves as a guidepost.  It doesn't have to be perfect, but there should be something.  Example: let's swap out shared dreaming for diet.  A healthy diet should be defined for someone who is becoming more health conscious.  Currently, that someone may not have a healthy diet, but wants to move closer to one.  Defining what a healthy diet is important, but the personal goal setting will not reflect the healthy diet immediately; instead it's a work in progress.  Some people start out very close to being healthy, so don't have many adjustments to make.  Others have terrible eating habits, so their focus will be on the small successes as they move toward their end-goal.  Basically, people should understand the larger concept and this is done by defining the larger concept.  Then people decide what's most appropriate for them as they move toward the larger concept.

----------


## RedKali

> *RedKali:* I took too long to post this, as you seemed to have moved on, but I hope you'll consider it anyway . . .



Nah, I always come back to ideas and of course I'll consider what you've said here.  You mentioned you think shared dreams should require the awareness of another person.  This goes back to my stance of, it would be nice, but it's not the only option.  Specifically, there have been people who have dreams where they're observing someone else--but that someone else never recalls that person being in the dream.  Yet, the observer accurately describes the entire dream.  Should that be considered a shared dream?  Maybe not for the purposes of this class, so you're right.  On the other hand, it is a shared dream for the observer (as they were in the dream and sharing it with that person, even if that person was not aware).  Though it is NOT a shared dream for the person being observed.  Rather, the more technical manner to phrase it could be: it was a shared dream for the observer, but the person observed was not aware it was a shared dream.  It's gets a little tricky for some scenarios.  To make it simple, it seems easier to start with being aware of others; I just don't want people to think that is the hard and fast rule for shared dreaming.  





> . . . So there is an excellent chance that they are generating very similar waking-life experience, like day residue, expectation, possibly even thought patterns or perceptual preferences/biases as well.  This proximity of experience could lead to unshare dreams that seem the same; even, perhaps, to the degree you describe above, RedKali.  Though this similarity is certainly a _sort_ of sharing in itself, I'm not sure if it's the sort of dream-sharing we're interested in teaching here.



YES!  I know precisely what you mean and this IS a concern.  It would be ideal to pair up with near-strangers of similar skill level.  It makes it easier to differentiate between each awareness....and this becomes more important when trying to figure out whose dream a person is within.  If two people lead very similar lives, then dreaming will be similar and that's not going to make it easy when picking apart the details.





> The same goes for planned or anticipated shared-dreams.  Two people hell-bent on having a shared dream with each other might very likely incubate the same sort of dream, so that when they report to each other the next day it isn't hard to find things that match...even if nothing does:  I can't tell you how many times I've heard or read reports of shared dreams where each dream has nothing to do with the other, but the two excited dreamers find or invent all sorts of things that in their minds surely prove they were sharing a dream.



I agree here too.  I think for the very inexperienced or the ones who are over-excited about the process, there should be external feedback provided to help these individuals be more accurate and realistic.





> I think that, since dreams are essentially projections (literally projections, in dream-sharing, I suppose) created by an individual person's mind, the presence of that mind ought to be noticeable when it encounters the presence of your own mind during a dream.  In other words, I think that what you are really sharing in a shared-dream is a sort of meeting of minds (or individual presences, perhaps), with the dream scene itself being secondary.  In a sense, the presence of another mind in a dream would _precede_ matching imagery, with that similar or recognizable imagery forming only _after_ one dreamer begins paying attention to another dreamer's presence. For instance, a shared-dream might start with the appearance of, say, a curious point of light on the horizon on your dream: you sense something different in it, something that is not you, so you focus on it. Your attention on that light brings your mind into closer sync with it, and eventually that point will expand into something more elaborate, perhaps even a new dream scene, that assures you that you are not alone in the dream, and allows you to communicate through imagery or words with the other presence.  Which brings me to another point:



Yes.  I agree with what you've said here, but this is assuming the dreamer is highly aware of those subtle shifts in surroundings.  What you're mentioning are usually subtle fluctuations, a dreamer must be sensitive to those shifts to notice them.  Not all dreamers will notice the arrival of a second mind.  Not only this, but some minds are very quiet.  Some learn how to quiet their internal chatter and some lack a heavy presence.  





> You wouldn't need to see an identifiable dream body of your dream-sharing partner to know she is present, either. Indeed, given that we really aren't built as television transmitters, if dream-sharing occurs at all it very likely does not include an ability to tell your dream-sharing partner through transmitted imagery what exactly you look like, or even what you wish to look like.  Instead, your presence will appear as a construct created by your partner's own dreaming mind, and that construct will very likely, at least initially, not be a facsimile of you -- or _anybody_; a "receiver's" dreaming mind might initially produce you as, say, a fire hydrant, or perhaps an angry sloth... the construct created could be anything, which is all the more reason that acknowledged presence is more important than shared imagery. Later, after communication has begun, you and your partner's avatars might start forming into something more recognizable, though even then you will likely appear much different in the dream than you do in waking life.



Heh, this is one of more favorite areas  ::D:   I agree, we can come in any form.  Our form can be directed by our awareness, but also by the person receiving our awareness.  A combination can occur too.  Eventually there's another level of recognition which forms, and this level is not based on anything visual.  This is a fun area for exploration.  I see how presence can mean many things.  I'll add that back into the definition now that I better understand what that means.





> So, and as a *tl;dr:*,  I guess for me presence precedes similar imagery in a shared dream, and, while shared presence (when noticed) cannot be mistaken for a shared dream, imagery can, no matter how similar it may be.



Heh, that's seems to be how you've made sense of this.  I tend to follow that line of reasoning too.  Though there are infrequent exceptions.






> Also, and almost as an aside:
> 
> I think lucidity is not only helpful, but may be may be an imperative for successful shared-dreaming, and I do so for a singular, if odd reason:  The mechanics of shared-dream are impossible, to me, unless we are _all_ sharing our dreams _all the time_.



But aren't we sharing our dreams all the time?   :tongue2:   global consciousness, right?  I'm somewhat kidding.  I agree, lucidity is almost-necessary.  Small shades of lucidity are generally necessary and for the purpose of the class, I'd be comfortable enough saying it's necessary  :smiley:  though, there's more to this than that, but I'm comfortable not getting side-tracked into other ideas xD  we have our hands full as it is xD





> It makes much more sense to me that our dreaming consciousness exists, space&time-free, as an individual thread in a great fabric of say, collective consciousness or perhaps thought energy, where every thread is in constant contact with every other thread, and when dream-sharing we are not finding our partners as much as we are singling out their individual presence --their thread -- among the weave of dreaming thought, than it does we that are somehow magically able to find someone (even across time-zones of physical world) among the minds of billions of sleeping people.



Personally, I believe we all exist on the dreamplane 24/7.  As youve said, it's just a matter of being able to pluck the desired strings to connect directly..Some aspect of us is there.  That's terrible though, I don't want to express my personal beliefs as it usually gets in the way of things. 





> If all our dreams are somehow connected in an as-yet undiscovered metaphysical matrix, it would be safe to say that, by any definition, we're all dream-sharing every time we dream. We just don't know that it is happening, either because we are hard-wired to ignore it as a sort of anti-confusion defense mechanism, or due possibly to the psychic strength our own dreams tending to overwhelm the influence of other people's passing dreams; or maybe we just don't think of it at the time, just like we don't think of so many other things when not lucid.



I think our largest issue is that there is too much available information and our brains are like an old-school processor.  Until we figure out how to overclock our cognitive ability, we'll always be limited in our awareness.  Fortunately, we're all built with different hardware and I'd like to think small upgrades are generally available.  I do think we're all connected.  Individual psychic strength directs how well we can maneuver attention.  It should be no surprise to you that I have more I'd like to say about this, BUT this is already becoming a very long response xD 





> The presence of lucidity, though, allows an opportunity to pay attention to our dreamworld, to consciously (if metaphorically) examine that weave of dreamers to spot the dreams of our dream-sharing partner, and also to acknowledge when our partner is looking for us.



I agree....and this is what I'm very much hoping to explore within the scope of the class.





> So, in effect, if dream-sharing can happen at all it is just as likely that we are all sharing our dreams all the time, but we don't notice it during the dream, which sort of makes such sharing irrelevant from a consciousness perspective.  With lucidity, though, we can learn to pay attention to the cosmic conversation and both seek out desired individuals or make ourselves receptive to contact by individuals.



Oh, we can seek out individuals and make ourselves receptive to contact without lucidity; but yes, it's certainly more difficult without lucidity.





> This sounded a lot better in my head, and I know it is meaningless to the discussion, if not altogether meaningless, but I'll leave it up anyway... maybe one day it will matter.



It's not meaningless at all.  These ideas are all related to shared dreaming and influence that experience.  Being able to identify the various components, even if a bit indirect, is important.  Approaching the psychology of any particular dreamer uses the same method.  When we communicate with a dreaming partner (in waking and asleep) it's very useful to consider the irrelevant as it has a way of becoming relevant.  I'm glad you included the extra.

----------


## RedKali

I was rushing to post (a bit excited to get out a basic thought before I had to leave the house) and was hoping I'd be able to edit before you read it.  Looks like you read it before the edit... lol.  Regardless, I just wanted to say I haven't had such complex discussions about dreaming in a painfully long time.  This is very nice for me, I feel like a fat kid in a bakery.

----------


## AURON

I'm a little late to the party, but if RedKali needs someone to vouch for her, I will. I've had several dream shares with her in the past, and she's very knowledgeable about the subject. When we initially started to try and share dreams, I was complete disbeliever of the practice, and thought it was nothing more than people making events up.  I would often omit dream journal entries until after I've read hers to see how they would match up...or not match and over time I've learned that there is a huge gray area of what can occur (ie the Jack and Jill example).  We've had conversations about various instances and events that have happened, and she was able to explain to me what was going and why it was happening and it was clearly obvious that it wasn't the ramblings of someone else. I have no doubt that she would be fully capable of delivering a solid shared dreaming class to her students; speaking as a former one of sorts. 

On a side note, everyone has made great discussion points, and I'm glad that you're all solidifying a subject that should be taught at DVA.  As for side debates about the possibility or proof of a SD class, lets hope no one wastes time getting into a class and side tracking it with that can of worms. The students who attend should be ready to learn, not debate.

*coughs* and someone merge that triple!

----------


## FryingMan

The problem of course with the healthy diet analogy is that while not everyone may agree with what constitutes a healthy diet, the individual aspects of the particular nutritional components of foods are undisputed and objective and not subject to personal interpretation based on confounding desires or wishes.   Additionally, while not everyone may agree on one particular definition, a particular definition may be made without argument about the objective definition itself, or the need for the definition to change over time based on the experience of those wishing to participate in a healthy diet.   The practitioner of a healthy diet is not free to determine that a donut has the same contribution towards a healthy diet as a carrot because it "feels that way" or because "I want this to be what healthy diet means."

----------


## Sageous

^^ Oh, that's good!





> On a side note, everyone has made great discussion points, and I'm glad that you're all solidifying a subject that should be taught at DVA.  As for side debates about the possibility or proof of a SD class, lets hope no one wastes time getting into a class and side tracking it with that can of worms. The students who attend should be ready to learn, not debate.



You may have inadvertently indicated another unopened can of worms here, Auron.

I must have answered more than a thousand questions on the assorted threads of my WILD class over the years, and I would guess that a good third of them were of the "How does it work?" variety. The students wish to have a feel for the physical process of the WILD transition so, for instance, they know what to look for, can better refine their own technique to best fit the known process (i.e., adjusting their WBTB to best catch a REM period), and above all to reassure themselves that the WILD transition is "real," and so must be doable.  Answering this question is fairly simple, of course, because there is a wealth of information available for specifically how the WILD process physically works, making its "realness" obvious and acceptable.  However:

When that question is asked in the SD class, and it will, the best answer we can give is "Nobody has any idea, but trust me, it does."  This answer might lead to debate of some sort as students wrestle with learning something that by pretty much every (known) physical measure _cannot_ work -- giving the impression that SD may not be real at all, much less projecting that assuring sense of "realness" around which students need to wrap their efforts.  

So coming up with some answer to the "How does it work?" question beforehand might be a good idea, I think, just to avoid a potentially messy open can of worms.  Just saying "It does because I say so" might not be enough for some.  

This is, of course, all still in the "aside" category, but worth mentioning, I think.

----------


## FryingMan

> On a side note, everyone has made great discussion points, and I'm glad that you're all solidifying a subject that should be taught at DVA.  As for side debates about the possibility or proof of a SD class, lets hope no one wastes time getting into a class and side tracking it with that can of worms. The students who attend should be *ready to learn, not debate*.



The particulars of the syllabus do indeed look intriguing,  I think for your last point, this can be avoided by carefully crafting a painstakingly clear, explicit, descriptive introduction that provides a workable solution to the problem that "shared dreaming" has as many meanings as there are people who utter that phrase.   This need is unavoidable given the highly individual, subjective meaning inherent in the topic.

----------


## ThreeCat

As long as the course objective is specific, it will attract the kind of students who are interested in an experiential course (as opposed to theoretical discussion).  I think people will more or less be open to shared dreaming, regardless if they understand the theoretical framework for how it works (because theoretical is as far as it will go).  If they are taking a course on shared dreaming, and they want to have some shared dreams, then I would give students the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are there to do shared dreaming, and not merely talk about it.  There is also the possibility of having an open thread for the theoretical discussion of shared dreaming, though I would suggest such a thing be grounded in the experience of those participating, as opposed to only intellectual guesswork.

And if students show up who disbelieve the entire subject, and only want to argue as to why the phenomenon isn't real, why are they even taking the course?

Also, are there going to be "course requirements?"  Ways of measuring progress?  Will there be ways to improve success rates?  If all we can really say is, "No, that wasn't  it," or "yeah, seems like you got it," then I think that is fine, too.  When something is that experiential and subjective in nature, determining whether or not someone "got it," is going to be more or less impossible.

----------


## Sageous

^^ Again, and I'll shut up about it after this:

I wasn't talking about discussing the theoretical framework of shared dreaming, its existence, belief about it, or anything else like that.  What I was saying is that students will want to know, _functionally_, how the physical SD process works relative to their own efforts: what is going on during their SD attempt that they should attend to in order to make it work better for them. 

For instance, knowing that during WILD you need to fall asleep is not an acknowledgement of belief or exposition of theory, but simply understanding that one of the functions of a successful WILD is falling asleep. You'd be surprised, BTW, how many times I actually had to remind students that they needed to go to sleep in order to dream; they really thought WILD worked differently, somehow. 

So, yes, the students will certainly be of an open mind, and will be there to learn to SD, and not argue against it;  but they may still want to know what is happening to them as it happens, perhaps from a feedback perspective, so it might be a good idea to have something prepared to give them.

I hope that's clear this time; and promise I won't try again, because it really is an aside, and hardly critical to the class.

As long as I'm here:





> Also, are there going to be "course requirements?"  Ways of measuring progress?  Will there be ways to improve success rates?  If all we can really say is, "No, that wasn't  it," or "yeah, seems like you got it," then I think that is fine, too.  When something is that experiential and subjective in nature, determining whether or not someone "got it," is going to be more or less impossible.



That is definitely something well worth thinking about, and perhaps discussing.

----------


## NyxCC

Sounds like an interesting class. Do you plan on making a single or multiple threads with the lessons and also have student workbooks? I suppose students will be given some exercises to perform to apply the knowledge. Also, it may be a good idea to set some rules regarding discussions about shared dreaming. For example, one thread could be dedicated to solely discussing the theory behind the whole matter and address related concerns people may have, while another thread or the workbooks could be dedicated to reporting one's experiences.

----------


## RedKali

> I agree with this.  If we think about it, dream imagery is going to be more or less unstable in the majority of dreamers, and just because we are "sharing" a dream, does not mean we are going to see the same appearances.  Even during our waking life, our perception of the world is so heavily influenced by our own hardware and software (sense consciousnesses and thinking--views, opinions, etc.) that we often don't "see" the same things as those around us, even though we are most certainly "sharing" the dream in waking life.  In a dream, since we are disconnected from the stability of the sense faculties, we are relying entirely on our mental consciousness to "tell" us what it is we "see."  The question is, can our mental consciousness and sense of self actually contact another entity, or are we just running the maze? 
> . . .
> I'm interested.  Let's start the show.



Exactly. I think you'd be surprised by how extensive the differences really are. When using text to say, "A black cat crossed my path," some will envision a fat cat, some slim, clean, dirty, was the tail docked, misshapen, was all of it black or some of it, what about a collar?, any noise to go along with it? Was it dragging a foot behind it, have anything in its mouth? what about the path itself.....? In dreaming, everyone is given information but how that information is translated varies widely. It's definitely an important arena for consideration.

I certainly think meeting another mind in dreaming is more dramatic than waking life. Just because the feels are so much more intense in dreaming, in my experience. One of the very basic objectives when trying to meet another mind in dreaming is to simply see the same way. Seeing (or perceiving) in the same way makes things a whole lot easier. I mean, this is why scientists from most of the world use the metric system (except for us pesky Americans....for some reasons we think counting feet is more appropriate than meters). If everyone is seeing the same thing, for what it is, then when we communicate our experiences those should be relatively accurate. Understanding the difference between objective and subjective reality is essential; difficulties here lead to basic communication issues.

Lucidity can be helpful   though it's not the only way to achieve a shared dream. For a basic example, you know students are often told to do reality checks while they're awake, in hopes of doing them while asleep? If a person is focused on finding another person during waking, then this desire can express itself in dreaming, without having to be lucid. Setting up a sort of cognitive autopilot for ourselves in dreaming is certainly achievable. We don't have to be lucid to have a shared dream, but it can be considerably helpful.
Rigorous testing methods are appropriate for scientific research. What a class aims is not to meet those particular standards. My goal, if to teach this course, would be to help people have the experience of a shared dream. I have no desire to prove to anyone, other than the student, that shared dreaming is possible. I'm not out to produce a scientific article, I want to share the experience with others because a) it's mind blowing and b) if this field is to advance further, there needs to be more people having the experience. Therefore, if I want more scholarly research in this field, people must be having the experience (and yes, I think more research in this field would be amazing). Yeah, and partners may disagree on whether a dream was shared or not, and that's okay both ways. We can't correct people when they call an orange, an apple. If they think an orange is an apple, that's how they perceive things. Now, what we can do is define an orange and apple, then allow people to call things whatever they want. How people integrate knowledge is their responsibility; providing that knowledge is the responsibility of the instructor(s). 

I'm interested too! Lol. We're tailgating in the forums until it gets the go-ahead...I've responded to Ophelia's email soon after she sent it so she's likely dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's.





> I'm a little late to the party . . .
> *coughs* and someone merge that triple!



I JUST figured out the forums have multi-quote capabilities (and only due to your mentioning the merging).  Thanks for pointing that out.

You said very kind things here, but I need to address just one thing. I've never seen you as a student (in any form), don't think that. Our exchanges have taught me how to be more accurate in my own dreaming because you've made yourself available to me. We're friends, friends share experiences and it's always a bonus when friends learn from one another  :smiley:  





> The problem of course with the healthy diet analogy is that while not everyone may agree with what constitutes a healthy diet, the individual aspects of the particular nutritional components of foods are undisputed and objective and not subject to personal interpretation based on confounding desires or wishes.   Additionally, while not everyone may agree on one particular definition, a particular definition may be made without argument about the objective definition itself, or the need for the definition to change over time based on the experience of those wishing to participate in a healthy diet.   The practitioner of a healthy diet is not free to determine that a donut has the same contribution towards a healthy diet as a carrot because it "feels that way" or because "I want this to be what healthy diet means."



I'd hate to go further into the diet and shared dreaming comparison, as not all things will translate equally...but...generally speaking:

Every body responds differently to nutrients. Macro- and micro- nutrients are assimilated to varying degrees by the body. Some people respond very well to smaller amounts of protein, while others struggle to develop mass on a higher protein intake. It's not all about what is eaten, it's about other components within the diet, in addition to exercise, in addition to individual biology. So while, yes, most can agree what a healthy diet is, there's no guarantee that the "healthy diet" will be healthy for every body. Some people have allergies, limiting what they may consume, which may deviate from what is recommended as healthy. What is healthy for one person, or even the masses, is not healthy for all.

Going back to shared dreaming, not everyone is suitable for shared dreaming. Shared dreaming requires allowing others access to personal mindspace. This availability can be threatening to people who have things about themselves they don't want revealed or spoken about. How we speak about others can be abrasive too, so being aware of the sensitivities of our dreaming partners should be addressed. It's important to feel relatively comfortable with oneself, before venturing into shared dreaming because people will perceive all sorts of things and then want to talk about those things. This has lead to many awkward conversations. I've been asked by a good friend recently, "Why did you look like you were on crack, tweaking out, and f*cking men behind restaurants in dreaming?" I laughed, because I have a pretty solid grasp on who I am and am comfortable enough to hear things which may seem like an unkind reflection on my character. It takes maturity to be able to hear others speak of us in ways which contradict our own sense of self. Too, I sometimes do prefer to engage in coitus in odd locations and I can see how she may perceive my attitude as being in a state of withdrawal or addiction. Having an awareness of others and ourselves supports honest communication. Those who lack that maturity may want to delay their shared dreaming exploration until they're more comfortable.

What does this have to do with your concern? Well. For someone who isn't comfortable with themselves (a person who thinks eating donuts is healthy), merely taking the time to objectively write their dreams is a HUGE step in self-awareness. So this may be like going from a dozen donuts a day, to just three donuts a day. That would be healthy behavior for that person because it's supportive of better eating habits. Yes, there's room for further improvement but not everyone is capable of sudden changes; long-lasting changes generally involve small changes. As that person progresses, maybe they want to define shared dreaming differently than how most people define shared dreaming. That's fine, everyone has their own vision of what an experience should look like. We'll provide a standard definition and if people deviate from that to properly address their unique beliefs, the concept of shared dreaming won't be any worse for it.

Defining the typical definition of shared dreaming is like the same as defining the typical definition of a healthy diet. However, everyone is different and responds differently depending on their unique circumstances. Therefore, everyone will have their own goals which are appropriate for them. 

I know you're saying it's important to not lead people to false beliefs as it sends a confusing message. What's I'm saying is we'll send a single message, but what people do with that message is beyond our control.





> So coming up with some answer to the "How does it work?" question beforehand might be a good idea, I think, just to avoid a potentially messy open can of worms.  Just saying "It does because I say so" might not be enough for some.  
> 
> This is, of course, all still in the "aside" category, but worth mentioning, I think.



I know this was directed toward Auron, but I wanted to mention this since it was brought up. Personal experience is typically not helpful as the sole measure of proof or instruction. On the other hand, it is a good supplement to research. From the start, it should be obvious but I'll say it anyway. Shared dreaming won't happen for everyone. Reading literature on what it's like to be a compassionate person, both from the scientific and personal experience sides, will not equate to being compassionate. Not everyone can acquire and apply knowledge in a productive manner.





> Also, are there going to be "course requirements?"  Ways of measuring progress?  Will there be ways to improve success rates?  If all we can really say is, "No, that wasn't  it," or "yeah, seems like you got it," then I think that is fine, too.  When something is that experiential and subjective in nature, determining whether or not someone "got it," is going to be more or less impossible.



Yeah, there will be something resembling course requirements. The only true requirement is the willingness to engage, but I'll mention the other features which are supportive of shared dreaming. To measure progress requires dreaming activities, which will be included, and the progress itself will depend on whatever the activity is designed to highlight. One thing to keep in mind is that measuring progress may be complex. Example: if a dreaming exercise is to find another person (imagined or real) and describe them objectively, and the waking description included subjective observations--that could be considered a failure of the exercise. Yet, when those failures are pointed out--and if that individual understands the failures and corrects them--then the failure becomes a success. It should be a fun experience and "getting it" or "not getting it" isn't so much a concern. There are ways to modify exercises to make them accessible to most.





> ^^ Again, and I'll shut up about it after this:
> 
> I wasn't talking about discussing the theoretical framework of shared dreaming, its existence, belief about it, or anything else like that.  What I was saying is that students will want to know, _functionally_, how the physical SD process works relative to their own efforts: what is going on during their SD attempt that they should attend to in order to make it work better for them.



Your reminders and suggestions are very helpful--I ask you NOT to shut up when you notice things that require the additional attention. If I ever don't seem to understand something, please mention it again, I don't mind the repetition especially when I'm missing something or misunderstood you. In fact, I'm using these discussions to improve upon what eventually winds up in the class. 

Yes, I agree--explaining what occurs at a physiological level is important. For example, select antipsycotic drugs are HELPFUL to lucidity, which can be indirectly helpful for shared dreaming. Definitely an aspect to be included.





> Sounds like an interesting class. Do you plan on making a single or multiple threads with the lessons and also have student workbooks? I suppose students will be given some exercises to perform to apply the knowledge. Also, it may be a good idea to set some rules regarding discussions about shared dreaming. For example, one thread could be dedicated to solely discussing the theory behind the whole matter and address related concerns people may have, while another thread or the workbooks could be dedicated to reporting one's experiences.



Thanks, and I don't know how the class will be set-up. I'm still waiting on Ophelia to confirm I'm able to teach the class (alongside other instructors, ideally). I was planning on asking her if DVA has a preferred set-up for classes (to keep all the classes similar in functionality, creating a more user-friendly experience). If not, then I'll decide on a more detailed outline for the course and then create an environment supportive of what's to be taught. I love the idea of workbooks (and those seem to work well for the other courses) and there will have to be threads for theory and general inquiries that may not be related to lessons, but are general curiosities. 

Rules though? Heh, I've never been too excited about rules. Though, for the sake of the other learners, a decent environment will be necessary but the rules for the general forum will likely be all that's required.

I'll plan to PM you about suggestions when I eventually have the go ahead and finalize the outline since you brought this up  :smiley:

----------


## FryingMan

> I'd hate to go further into the diet and shared dreaming comparison, as not all things will translate equally...but...generally speaking:



But it allows discussion of important points, so along those lines...




> Every body responds differently to nutrients. Macro- and micro- nutrients are assimilated to varying degrees by the body. Some people respond very well to smaller amounts of protein, while others struggle to develop mass on a higher protein intake. It's not all about what is eaten, it's about other components within the diet, in addition to exercise, in addition to individual biology. So while, yes, most can agree what a healthy diet is, there's no guarantee that the "healthy diet" will be healthy for every body. Some people have allergies, limiting what they may consume, which may deviate from what is recommended as healthy. What is healthy for one person, or even the masses, is not healthy for all.
> ...



Of course one person's requirements may differ from another based on their specific situation, but what is important is that person's ability to accurately measure/evaluate experience and determine their progress towards an objective goal from that.   A dozen donuts a day to 3 can only be seen as an improvement or progress if there is a stake in the ground somewhere that says "less donuts is better" for a healthy diet, and if a practitioner is even able at all to determine how many donuts a day they've eaten.





> Going back to shared dreaming, not everyone is suitable for shared dreaming. Shared dreaming requires allowing others access to personal mindspace. This availability can be threatening to people who have things about themselves they don't want revealed or spoken about. How we speak about others can be abrasive too, so being aware of the sensitivities of our dreaming partners should be addressed. It's important to feel relatively comfortable with oneself, before venturing into shared dreaming because people will perceive all sorts of things and then want to talk about those things. This has lead to many awkward conversations. I've been asked by a good friend recently, "Why did you look like you were on crack, tweaking out, and f*cking men behind restaurants in dreaming?" I laughed, because I have a pretty solid grasp on who I am and am comfortable enough to hear things which may seem like an unkind reflection on my character. It takes maturity to be able to hear others speak of us in ways which contradict our own sense of self. Too, I sometimes do prefer to engage in coitus in odd locations and I can see how she may perceive my attitude as being in a state of withdrawal or addiction. Having an awareness of others and ourselves supports honest communication. Those who lack that maturity may want to delay their shared dreaming exploration until they're more comfortable.



This is orthogonal to allowing for clarity of measuring experience against an unambiguous goal (which is what I see as the point of the diet thing).   But it is very important.   This sounds like somewhat of a prerequisite (ala what ThreeCat requested), or at least, "what one should be prepared for" that I didn't see mentioned in your syllabus.  What else are among the prereq's and "you should knows"?   And is one's ability to detect a sharing experience determined by one's preparedness to hear what other's have seen?

 I'm curious, is belief in mind to mind communication required in order to experience shared dreaming?  May a current skeptic or an agnostic follow your course, open to the possibility of proof by experience, and "see for themselves?"   Or does a skeptical or agnostic point of view prevent the experience in your view?

I see it somewhat analogous to lucid dreaming itself: many people disbelieve it is possible, but those who have experienced it themselves know the reality of it in their bones.   LDing however has it relatively easy compared to shared dreaming, because while the experience itself of LDing may be subjective and lucidity itself is on a spectrum just like how you say the shared-ness of a dream may be, the goal post is unambiguous and easy to state: "know you're dreaming while in a dream."  It is of course possible to have experiences that leave one semi-doubting, but there is inevitably (in those who persist) that "AHA!" dream where it all becomes clear.   Also, a skeptic could read "Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming," follow what LaBerge recommends, and subsequently very likely experience vivid dreams and quite probably eventually a LD for themselves, and thus become convinced through the experience.   I'd hope the same would be true for this course you're proposing.





> I know you're saying it's important to not lead people to false beliefs as it sends a confusing message. What's I'm saying is we'll send a single message, but what people do with that message is beyond our control.



It's that and giving people the ability to measure progress via feedback.   I think that specifying concrete, but staged for experience, goals or definitions will allow for *less* student frustration rather than more, than if they were completely left to their own means to determine just what "shared" or "same" means.

----------


## RedKali

> A dozen donuts a day to 3 can only be seen as an improvement or progress if there is a stake in the ground somewhere that says "less donuts is better" for a healthy diet, and if a practitioner is even able at all to determine how many donuts a day they've eaten.



Sure, and the working definition Sageous offered does well in this regard.  For a class, progress is determined with self-reporting; this is the same method the monthly tasks require before handing out those wings.  





> This is orthogonal to allowing for clarity of measuring experience against an unambiguous goal (which is what I see as the point of the diet thing).   But it is very important.   This sounds like somewhat of a prerequisite (ala what ThreeCat requested), or at least, "what one should be prepared for" that I didn't see mentioned in your syllabus.  What else are among the prereq's and "you should knows"?   And is one's ability to detect a sharing experience determined by one's preparedness to hear what other's have seen?



I haven't created the lesson plans yet, so I can't say for sure what the preqs will be or even the other "you should knows".  First the class needs to be approved--then I'll devote hours to lesson plan creation.  Briefly, there are a lot of things going into the "you should knows" and I'd like to avoid overwhelming people with information.  I want to really sit down, plan it out in its entirety, then make adjustments and focus on the most important aspects.  To address the basic concern, the goal is to experience a shared dream.  Detecting shared dreams should be done by the individual, with feedback from the instructor(s).  Example, a student doesn't think they had a shared dream, but the instructor does.  The instructor points to specific events and brings those into focus.  Events may meet the requirement for a shared dream, but if the student still doesn't agree, that's for them to decide.  It was their dream.  I cannot tell them what they did or did not experience as I wasn't the individual having the experience.  I can reflect on their experience, but at the end of the day it's the student's responsibility to determine their experience.  Detecting a shared experience can be related to how open an individual is to hearing what others have to say.  This gets into the "Proof" portion of my outline.  In the beginning students will likely need feedback from others.  Once students gain confidence in recognizing shared experiences, then that feedback doesn't have to be a part of their experience.  This confidence is achieved by having multiple shared dreams, so this is unlikely to come up within the scope of the class.  At a basic level, yes, detecting shared dreams will require being receptive to feedback from others.





> I'm curious, is belief in mind to mind communication required in order to experience shared dreaming?  May a current skeptic or an agnostic follow your course, open to the possibility of proof by experience, and "see for themselves?"   Or does a skeptical or agnostic point of view prevent the experience in your view?



Nah, no one needs to believe in shared dreaming to experience shared dreaming.  Skeptics and agnostics certainly can follow the course and make a personal attempt to "see for themselves."  I'm very open to have skeptics and non-believers come and experience for themselves.  Forcing people to believe in something is always a terrible idea.  I prefer to gently lead people in the direction and allow them to come to their own conclusions based on their personal experiences.  I don't pressure people either, I want people to do what they're comfortable with and if this course causes distress, dysfunction, or places anyone in danger then the recommendation to stop will be made.  Based on my personal experience, most of those I've had shared dreams with have been firm non-believers.  The rest were already sharing dreams when I met them.  This isn't a new concept xD it's just very strange and foreign.  It's particularly exciting to see the excitement snowball for people when they have their first shared dream.  Many curiosities are awakened by that first experience.  





> I see it somewhat analogous to lucid dreaming itself: many people disbelieve it is possible, but those who have experienced it themselves know the reality of it in their bones.   LDing however has it relatively easy compared to shared dreaming, because while the experience itself of LDing may be subjective and lucidity itself is on a spectrum just like how you say the shared-ness of a dream may be, the goal post is unambiguous and easy to state: "know you're dreaming while in a dream."  It is of course possible to have experiences that leave one semi-doubting, but there is inevitably (in those who persist) that "AHA!" dream where it all becomes clear.   Also, a skeptic could read "Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming," follow what LaBerge recommends, and subsequently very likely experience vivid dreams and quite probably eventually a LD for themselves, and thus become convinced through the experience.   I'd hope the same would be true for this course you're proposing.



Yes, this is similarly true for the course I'm proposing.  Obviously, lucid dreaming is much easier to achieve than shared dreaming.  I don't know why that is exactly.  Maybe because some people don't have interest in others.  Being able to interact genuinely seems like an important feature of shared dreaming.  Reaching that level of authenticity seems to be helpful for sharing dreams.  Genuine and authentic desires to share in experiences with others.  Some people really don't want to connect--it makes some uncomfortable to engage in that type of intimacy.  I'm not saying the experiences which occur during shared dreaming are intimate; but the connection to make that communication possible, is intimate.  






> It's that and giving people the ability to measure progress via feedback.   I think that specifying concrete, but staged for experience, goals or definitions will allow for *less* student frustration rather than more, than if they were completely left to their own means to determine just what "shared" or "same" means.



I agree.  There will be a concrete definition and personal goal setting  :smiley:   I want to make this as achievable as possible--because it's mind-blowing and people should really have their minds blown xD There's so much potential in this and I want as many intelligent and passionate people involved in the experience as possible.

----------


## RedKali

Update:

I'm aware it has been awhile since this topic has been discussed.  I've responded to Ophelia's PM and a couple afterward to follow-up, but haven't heard anything since the first request for more information.  It seems there's no movement on the course and there are currently no plans or communication occurring on an administrative level; so I assume it's not going to happen anytime soon.

I have received kind and creative requests to host a shared dreaming course via Skype or Google--and that may become a possibility, but I hesitate to do that because of the lack of support from others.  I can't be a one-(wo)man show; there's just not enough time available for that sort of intense and complex discussion and instruction--I need the help from other instructors and shared dreamers and that's most easily achieved here in DV Academy.  

On the other hand, perhaps the admins are simply overwhelmed with other issues and they plan to approve it at their earliest convenience.  I'll keep this thread updated should I hear anything new.  I appreciate the interest and curiosity in the topic  :smiley:

----------


## DawnEye11

> Update:
> 
> I'm aware it has been awhile since this topic has been discussed.  I've responded to Ophelia's PM and a couple afterward to follow-up, but haven't heard anything since the first request for more information.  It seems there's no movement on the course and there are currently no plans or communication occurring on an administrative level; so I assume it's not going to happen anytime soon.
> 
> I have received kind and creative requests to host a shared dreaming course via Skype or Google--and that may become a possibility, but I hesitate to do that because of the lack of support from others.  I can't be a one-(wo)man show; there's just not enough time available for that sort of intense and complex discussion and instruction--I need the help from other instructors and shared dreamers and that's most easily achieved here in DV Academy.  
> 
> On the other hand, perhaps the admins are simply overwhelmed with other issues and they plan to approve it at their earliest convenience.  I'll keep this thread updated should I hear anything new.  I appreciate the interest and curiosity in the topic



Glad to see you post an update. I was thinking about this thread recently. I doubt they would just leave it up in the air after the attention this thread gained. It's most likely that their busy or distracted by other things. Hopefully they will respond to you soon. I'm still interested in seeing it as a class and the results that might come from it. Also, I do think it would be better if the class was here than google too. I don't see a reason to keep it seperate if it could grow more with a group of knowledgeable dreamers.

----------


## EbbTide000

⚘⚘⚘
It happened to me (BANG!!!) 
out of the blue
Saturday March 1, 2008 
(see thread link at bottom)

After that

A shared dream 
caused the one I shared dreamed with
to send me the link to a 
"dream remote viewing experiment" thread
They were up to Target 30.
That was in July 2008

Folks (including, occasionally, "Meee" !!!)
were "Hitting" the target in dreams.

I thought
"They must be cheating"
"Ringing each other up"

So

I asked if any one would play if "I" opened a thread

They said "yes"

They started Slam Dunking my targets (???)

I asked myself 

"How the hell are they doing this ???"

"Maybe they got someone here in Adelaide Australia 
following me around"

Or

Maybe one of them have brocken into my phone
and can see my latest target photo.

So I out foxed them.

I would wake-up with an hipnopompic or hipnogogic image.
A waking-up or going to sleep dream image.

Then I would get up and go out 
And find a metaphor of that image and snap a pic

But

I would snap at least 5 pics
So
No one watching 
would know which pic was the dream.

They still "HIT"

AM A NOT A LUCID DREAMER 
AM A NOT A SENDER

BUT it still works

What works?

Dream Remote Viewing 
And
Share Dreaming.

The bible said
He uses the "Foolish"

1 Corinthians 1:27*King James Version (KJV)

27.) -*But God hath chosen the foolish 
things of the world 
to confound the wise; 

and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

I am a foolish thing.
Meeeee !!!

I don't give a dam if people 
don't PUBLICLY participate
Because 
rvdc (Robert Van De Castle) 
only getted 50 participants 
for his last 3 
iasd online conferences competitions. 
And he began 50 years ago.
And Dr Robert Leon Van De Castle was a big wig
Rvdc was the biggest Wig there Was.

He died in January 2014

Im starting a 
Dream Remote Viewing Experiment  (a drve)
Here
On his 91st birthday 2018

Here is that thread I mentioned at the top

↘️↘️↘️

https://www.dreamviews.com/beyond-dr...nes-story.html

↗️↗️↗️





> Before you start the process for establishing your class, RedKali, you might want to consider an important aspect of DV courses: credibility.
> 
> Though your class outline is already impressive enough to me that I'd be interested in following it, there is one thing missing that I think must be addressed:
> 
> In order to teach a course on shared-dreaming, I think that you need to have the confidence of your students not only that you are a successful shared dreamer, but also that the things you are teaching might pass that success onto them, if they follow the course properly.  I'm not seeing that.
> 
> Are you suggesting instead that we have a class _about_ shared dreaming, sort of a survey of popular theories and potentials (which would be fine by me, BTW), or are you suggesting a class for advancing the actual art of shared dreaming, assuming there is one?  I thing DVA tends to lean toward the "art" camp, in that they want to offer "how-to" classes, rather than theoretical classes, so we would really need to have an accomplished dream-sharer as instructor, one who can confidently transfer his ability to willing students... would that be you?  
> 
> On the other hand, I could be wrong; DV might be open to a well-presented theoretical class _about_ dream-sharing.  As I said, that would be fine with me too, but by offering such a class you might run the risk of "students" spending their time arguing about whether dream-sharing exists at all, and demanding proof of that from their professor before discussing anything else about the subject, to the point that the interesting and valuable stuff you suggest teaching gets ignored.
> ...




Edit Edit:  

Earworm 

Started after I wrote that:

Rvdc is the "biggest Wig there Was"

Rvdc was the biggest Wig there Was.


We're Off to See the Wizard

Judy Garland

Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow, follow, follow, follow
Follow the yellow brick road

Follow the rainbow over the stream
⚘Follow the fellow who follows a dream⚘
Follow, follow, follow, follow
Follow the yellow brick road

We're off to see the Wizard
The wonderful Wizard of Oz
We hear he is a whiz of a wiz
If ever a wiz there was
If ever, oh ever a wiz there was

The Wizard of Oz is one because
Because, because, because, because, because
Because of the wonderful things he does
We're off to see the Wizard
The wonderful Wizard of Oz

We're off to see the Wizard
The wonderful Wizard of Oz
We hear he is a whiz of a wiz
If ever a wiz there was
If ever, oh, ever a wiz there was

The Wizard of Oz is one because
Because, because, because, because, because
Because of the wonderful things he does
We're off to see the Wizard
The wonderful Wizard of Oz

Songwriters: E.Y. Harburg / Harold Arlen

We're Off to See the Wizard lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC



↘️↘️↘️

https://youtu.be/Mm3ypbAbLJ8

↗️↗️↗️

----------

