# Lucid Dreaming > Dream Control >  >  Geography and Navigation in Dreams

## StephenBerlin

Navigating your way around in a lucid dream can be tricky, especially if you are new to the state.  With a little insight and a few proven techniques, you can be spared much of the time and frustration that inevitably accompanies learning it all on your own.  It is natural for beginners to attempt to impose the ways of the waking world upon their dreams.  But to the extent that you try, to the same extent will you fail.  Dreams are a realm, not a planet, and different rules apply.  This is why it is wise to consider the advice of those who have gone before you.  There is no need to be carrying your coals to Newcastle.

If you have a specific destination in mind that is _not within your current dream scene_, you should rule out all forms of ground transportation.  Walking or running, notwithstanding their cardiovascular benefits to your dream body, are exercises in futility.  Should you elect to traverse your dream terrain on foot, you will soon discover that ruffians will accost, ladies will allure, and your emerging dream surroundings will lead you astray from where you are going long before you don't get there.

Driving when dreaming made me start drinking.  Automobiles in dreams (manufactured in some alloy of anxiety) are notoriously undependable.  If your car hasn't been lost, stolen or vandalized, you'll be lucky if it starts.  And don't expect the instrument panel to be much help.  The gauges only indicate levels and degrees of mocking.  Consequently, car problems are a compulsory dreamsign, and the license plate is your registered reality check.

If you travel much in your waking life, you will also find yourself out-of-town in your dreams.  Leave your Triple A map on the nightstand though.  It doesn't show that New York borders Arizona, and that Mexico is just across the river from Quebec.  Our clever inner cartographer pulls destinations together by association.  I grew up in Binghamton, New York, but for many years lived in Nevada.  Hence New York, in one of my dreams was adjacent to Arizona, presumably because it shares "the designation I call home" with Nevada.  In another example, I have crossed the  St. Lawrence River to get to Quebec, and I have crossed the Rio Grande to get to Mexico,  Consequently, when I recently visited a "dreamed version" of Quebec City, I could see Mexico just across the river.  My dream slipped up and missed a suite correlation thought.  I should have been staying at the Old Quebec City L'Auberge Hotel.

Oneiric maps seem perfectly plausible in dreams and we verily accept any dreamed layout of land and sea as valid.  In this respect, the phenomenon has unmistakable similarities to false remembrance (see the posting on _False Remembrance_).  Oneiric maps are, obviously, false geography.

Next let's look at the prognosis for returning to a previous dream scene.  This is important for lucid dreamers because there are times we would like to "go back" to try a different option.  In one case, I was being chased by inmates in a jail, and even though their pants were still on, I sensed foul play.  Becoming lucid, I flew through the ceiling to escape.  As soon as my breech was safely out of reach and my panic abated, I immediately regretted that I had flown the coop.  I should have turned to confront the penal colony, and perhaps have resolved my angst for their intended antics.  But it was too late.  Despite my best effort, I was unable to find my way back.

In waking life, we can always return to a place, but we cannot return to our past.  In dreams, there is never a "physical place" to begin with, so its imagery dissolves behind us as we move forward.  There is no turning back.  In lucid dreams, being *lucid*, we should know this and consequently not waste our time trying.

All of this certainly seems a dismal foreast for navigating the sea of dreams.  Perhaps I should have titled this posting, "You Can't Get There From Here," since we can only, with a reasonable probability, reach the limits of our visual surroundings.  But take heart.  In oneironautics, our still pre-adolescent science of lucid dreaming, if we cannot find our way, we can at least set the stage for our _true will_ to find us.

For most lucid dreamers, flying is initially irresistible for its alpine appeal, but it also proves to be a practical technique.  Dream flight provides a constantly changing landscape and many opportunities for your dreaming mind to connect with something that either captures your interest or answers your call.  If you are looking for sex, scan the countryside below for pools or beaches.  If you want to meet "a master," you might look for a majestic mountaintop, or maybe a temple.  If you want to confront your demons, I'd look for places of darkness or an entrance into the earth, probably a cave.  If brilliant sunlight breaks through your overcast or a rainbow appears, the divine is trying to get your attention.  In this specific case, try your best to resist the human habitual.  Don't look down at those scantily clad girls waving up.  The possibilities are many and uniquely personal, so don't get too rigid in your expectations.  Trust the dream.  The fulfillment may be immediate or it may take awhile.  Just keep holding your desire in mind as you fly.  When you see it, you'll know it.

Flying is not, however, essential.  If it can't get you off the ground for some reason, you can apply the same techniques on land.  This is not a contradiction to what I said earlier about the futility of reaching a specific destination beyond your visual parameters on foot.  In this scenario, you are not fixed on a person, place, object or situation.  You are fixed on intent.  With _unfaltering anticipation_, you explore, you diligently watch and you wait.  Turn a corner, open a door, approach a crowd, walk from a field into the forest, climb a ladder, peer down into a well.  Again, remain focused on your desire, keep moving to generate new imagery, and give your dream time to bring significance forth.

There are more methods, most for me less reliable, and the outcomes of lesser merit.  And so my friends, for now, I leave you to the wisdom of the night.  /Stephen Berlin

----------


## DinoSawr

> If you have a specific destination in mind that is _not within your current dream scene_, you should rule out all forms of ground transportation.  Walking or running, notwithstanding their cardiovascular benefits to your dream body, are exercises in futility.  Should you elect to traverse your dream terrain on foot, you will soon discover that ruffians will accost, ladies will allure, and your emerging dream surroundings will lead you astray from where you are going long before you don't get there.
> 
> Driving when dreaming made me start drinking.  Automobiles in dreams (manufactured in some alloy of anxiety) are notoriously undependable.  If your car hasn't been lost, stolen or vandalized, you'll be lucky if it starts.  And don't expect the instrument panel to be much help.  The gauges only indicate levels and degrees of mocking.  Consequently, car problems are a compulsory dreamsign, and the license plate is your registered reality check.



I don't understand why you chose to include this in your post. With enough awareness, anything is possible in the dream world and everything can be under your control. Walking doesn't have to lead to the emergence of distractions, and cars don't have to be unreliable and have incorrect gauges. Even if these hindrances are a common occurrence, it seems to me that you are only planting these negative schemata into unsuspecting readers' brains, when truly anything can be possible in a dream. That being said, I think your post provides useful information, but my impression from the quoted paragraphs was that you were altogether ruling out the possibility of travel by foot or vehicle. As a final note, I think it is worth admitting that I am no expert, but rather I am just citing from Billybob's tutorial Mastering Your Dreams which I have taken to heart. I hope you will consider what I have said, and I would love to hear your opinion on this matter.

----------


## StephenBerlin

Hi.  Thank you for your response.  I've been lucid dreaming for many years now, and I obviously enjoy writing.  I just put it out there.  I'm not here to educate or convert DreamView readers.  If you have taken "somebody else's teaching to heart" and it works for you, that is definitely what you should do.

----------


## Ctharlhie

I only have one issue with this post and that is how the effect of expectation impacts on the content of your dreams.

Personally I have found running to be a viable manner of changing the dream scene, I run so fast that the scenery blurs and melds into my desired location. Likewise, I've found cars to be a reliable method of transportation with the dashboard displaying all the correct dials etc.

My point is that our expectations shape our experiences in our dreams. Had I not had these experiences, read your post, and then attempted to drive in a lucid dream, my experience would most probably conform to you prediction, based on how my expectations had been shaped by reading it. While the issue of oneiric driving may seem trivial and pedantic, this issue impacts on the whole spectrum of dream control, we are limited by reading how light switches don't work, you can't close your eyes, dream sex will wake you.

Give dream driving another go  :smiley:

----------


## Extremador

I've had a couple of dreams in the past few months that involved me driving. 

In one of them I was driving my moms Volvo that I'm always driving, and nothing looked out of place in the car (and I'm a person that notices every detail whilst driving), and the other I was driving a Lexus LFA. 

The only thing off with the second one is that the car seemed to only have only Park, Neutral, and Drive. Maybe it had reverse too but still, LFA doesn't even have an automatic transmission. It's god a paddle-shift system and doesn't use a shift knob.

----------


## Mzzkc

I like your writing.

----------


## StephenBerlin

> I've had a couple of dreams in the past few months that involved me driving. 
> 
> In one of them I was driving my moms Volvo that I'm always driving, and nothing looked out of place in the car (and I'm a person that notices every detail whilst driving), and the other I was driving a Lexus LFA. 
> 
> The only thing off with the second one is that the car seemed to only have only Park, Neutral, and Drive. Maybe it had reverse too but still, LFA doesn't even have an automatic transmission. It's god a paddle-shift system and doesn't use a shift knob.



Hi. Thanks for submitting this. Since yours in the third post pertaining to my comment on "driving when dreaming," I suppose I should include a disclaimer here. Cars - like watches - and virtually anything mechanical are indeed "notoriously" - not ALWAYS - faulty and unreliable in dreams. I simply chose to use a vehicle as a good example for this topic. I have driven successfully in dreams, and in some instances the car did "appear" to function "normally," but even in those cases, if I had chosen a specific destination (let's say a distant building) I rarely ever reached it. My explanation for this is that dreams move forward by association, pattern recognition and homologous variation. I've discovered (for myself only) that "flying and willing" are more effective in actually "getting somewhere specifically."

For a more in-depth presentation pertaining to what I've just said, you may want to watch my Lucid Dream Discourse videos #9 and #10 on YouTube (The Dynamics of Dream Emergence and Navigation in Dreams - each about 9 minutes in length). 

*******

And, while I'm here, I want to add this note for the previous posters. Yes, our "expectations" and "confidence" certainly do obviously play a key role in lucid dreaming. That being said - even with all of my years of flying and walking through walls in lucid dreams - and fully realizing "I can do it" - I occasionally have lucid dreams where I can't get off the ground or can't pass through a barrier. Every dream comes with its own potential and limitations for whatever inexplicable reason.

I never expect anyone to take anything I ever say as lucid dreaming gospel. We each have different experience, wide-ranging degrees of lucidity, variations in our brain chemistry, and even perhaps the influence of any of a multitude of prescribed medications. A huge number of factors are involved. Whereas we can learn from one another, we are each unique in this field. I place no limit whatsoever on your dreams.

----------


## Empedocles

> And, while I'm here, I want to add this note for the previous posters. Yes, our "expectations" and "confidence" certainly do obviously play a key role in lucid dreaming. That being said - even with all of my years of flying and walking through walls in lucid dreams - and fully realizing "I can do it" - I occasionally have lucid dreams where I can't get off the ground or can't pass through a barrier. Every dream comes with its own potential and limitations for whatever inexplicable reason.



Exactly. I experience the same thing, and not only with flying. Sometimes confidence and expectation just aren't enough. There is that "something" that prevents me sometimes from carrying out certain tasks.





> I never expect anyone to take anything I ever say as lucid dreaming gospel. We each have different experience, wide-ranging degrees of lucidity, variations in our brain chemistry, and even perhaps the influence of any of a multitude of prescribed medications. A huge number of factors are involved. Whereas we can learn from one another, we are each unique in this field. I place no limit whatsoever on your dreams.



We place no limits on our dreams, but I believe that dreams _do_ place limits on us. It isn't just a "virtual world" in which you can literally do anything. At least for me it isn't. And I arrived at this conclusion not because I tried to do something, "expecting" to fail, but rather the other way around. I was confident I could do it, but failed. Some things I was able to learn (flying, walking through walls, etc.) but other things I am not able to accomplish to this day. I could also do much better with flying. It also varies from dream to dream.

As you said, a huge number of factors are involved.

----------


## Empedocles

I'm not Stephen, but still I'd like to respond to your post.





> I don't understand why you chose to include this in your post. With enough awareness, anything is possible in the dream world and everything can be under your control.



That is an assumption, not a fact. I have had lucid dreams for years, and sometimes in some LDs I had such a high degree of lucidity that it was remarkable: recalling the current date (try it, it's difficult), what day of the week it is, what time I went to bed, what my activities were before bed, and completely aware that my surroundings are a product of my mind, and completely convinced that I am able to change everything and do everything. Despite all of that, not "everything" was in my control. I couldn't do certain tasks.





> Walking doesn't have to lead to the emergence of distractions, and cars don't have to be unreliable and have incorrect gauges. Even if these hindrances are a common occurrence, it seems to me that you are only planting these negative schemata into unsuspecting readers' brains, when truly anything can be possible in a dream.



When Stephen talks about walking, he doesn't mean walking from your living room to your bedroom, or from your apartment to the store across the street. He is talking about longer walking distances, perhaps something which would take 3 or 4 minutes by foot in real life. Those walking distances are, in my experience, more than 80% of the time unsuccessful. I just arrive someplace else, or I experience many distractions which prevent me from getting there, or even in some cases the dream turns into a non-lucid dream. And my experiences did not occur after reading Stephen's posts, or posts similar to Stephen's. They occured without influences, and without negative expectations.





> That being said, I think your post provides useful information, but my impression from the quoted paragraphs was that you were altogether ruling out the possibility of travel by foot or vehicle. As a final note, I think it is worth admitting that I am no expert, but rather I am just citing from Billybob's tutorial Mastering Your Dreams which I have taken to heart. I hope you will consider what I have said, and I would love to hear your opinion on this matter.



He is not ruling it out. He is simply saying it is not easy to accomplish. I believe that many lucid dreamers will confirm this. You might be an exception.

----------


## Empedocles

Stephen, please check your private messages when you have time.

----------


## Sageous

Mr. Berlin:

Though your post was nicely written, I am deeply troubled by much of what you say.  You tacitly imply great authority and seem to honestly wish to teach us, but almost everything you've written about dreamscape navigation seems to me to be incorrect or, dare I say, misguided. 

Here we go:





> If you have a specific destination in mind that is _not within your current dream scene_, you should rule out all forms of ground transportation.  Walking or running, notwithstanding their cardiovascular benefits to your dream body, are exercises in futility.  Should you elect to traverse your dream terrain on foot, you will soon discover that ruffians will accost, ladies will allure, and your emerging dream surroundings will lead you astray from where you are going long before you don't get there.



This is simply not true.  If you have a specific destination in mind, and have properly set that destination in your intentions and expectation,_ any_ form of transportation, including walking, running, or crawling on all fours, will get you there -- it is after all _your_ universe, and _how_ you get there does not matter; _that_ you got there does.  I have walked to some fairly amazing places, and those walks usually took only a few paces -- a LDer's terrain is exactly as large as she expects it to be; there is no need to walk miles to your next location, if you_ know_ it is around the next corner. 





> Driving when dreaming made me start drinking.  Automobiles in dreams (manufactured in some alloy of anxiety) are notoriously undependable.  If your car hasn't been lost, stolen or vandalized, you'll be lucky if it starts.  And don't expect the instrument panel to be much help.  The gauges only indicate levels and degrees of mocking.  Consequently, car problems are a compulsory dreamsign, and the license plate is your registered reality check.



 _You_ may not like or appreciate cars, or have some anxiety-based reason for producing them  poorly in your dreams, but that does not mean we all do. If summoned specifically as a tool for navigating your dream world, there is no reason a car can't work perfectly for you -- indeed, because of its archetypical independence and speed, a car is an excellent choice for scooting between dream scenes -- unless you don't like or trust them in waking life.  I can't say much about instrument panels or gauges because I rarely found reason to look at them, but I'm not sure they matter anyway, from a navigational perspective. 





> If you travel much in your waking life, you will also find yourself out-of-town in your dreams.  Leave your Triple A map on the nightstand though.  It doesn't show that New York borders Arizona, and that Mexico is just across the river from Quebec.  Our clever inner cartographer pulls destinations together by association.  I grew up in Binghamton, New York, but for many years lived in Nevada.  Hence New York, in one of my dreams was adjacent to Arizona, presumably because it shares "the designation I call home" with Nevada.  In another example, I have crossed the  St. Lawrence River to get to Quebec, and I have crossed the Rio Grande to get to Mexico,  Consequently, when I recently visited a "dreamed version" of Quebec City, I could see Mexico just across the river.  My dream slipped up and missed a suite correlation thought.  I should have been staying at the Old Quebec City L'Auberge Hotel.
> 
> Oneiric maps seem perfectly plausible in dreams and we verily accept any dreamed layout of land and sea as valid.  In this respect, the phenomenon has unmistakable similarities to false remembrance (see the posting on _False Remembrance_).  Oneiric maps are, obviously, false geography.



All true, I'm sure.  But it seems to me you're lending _limitation_ to your dream travel by associating it, apparently necessarily, with your experience, and not the other way around.  Sure, we will tend to map our dream worlds in direct association to familiar waking-life locales, but does it really matter that we leave out New Jersey when traveling from NY to DC? Isn't it more important that we know where we are, where we've been, and where we're going, period?  Seriously.  This is our own personal dreamworld -- are cartographical errors really that significant?





> Next let's look at the prognosis for returning to a previous dream scene.  This is important for lucid dreamers because there are times we would like to "go back" to try a different option.  In one case, I was being chased by inmates in a jail, and even though their pants were still on, I sensed foul play.  Becoming lucid, I flew through the ceiling to escape.  As soon as my breech was safely out of reach and my panic abated, I immediately regretted that I had flown the coop.  I should have turned to confront the penal colony, and perhaps have resolved my angst for their intended antics.  But it was too late.  Despite my best effort, I was unable to find my way back.
> 
> In waking life, we can always return to a place, but we cannot return to our past.  In dreams, there is never a "physical place" to begin with, so its imagery dissolves behind us as we move forward.  There is no turning back.  In lucid dreams, being *lucid*, we should know this and consequently not waste our time trying.



I won't say this bit is patently wrong, but I will say that I personally have returned to previous dream scenes many, many times, usually with little more effort than confirming my interest in returning, and very often with waking moments in between exit and return...and there is nothing special about my abilities.  If you have trouble returning to previous dreams, that does not mean it cannot be done...why are you telling us it is impossible?





> All of this certainly seems a dismal forecast for navigating the sea of dreams.  Perhaps I should have titled this posting, "You Can't Get There From Here," since we can only, with a reasonable probability, reach the limits of our visual surroundings.  But take heart.  In oneironautics, our still pre-adolescent science of lucid dreaming, if we cannot find our way, we can at least set the stage for our _true will_ to find us.



I'm not sure what you're saying here, but if you are asserting that we can only navigate as far as we can _see_ in a dream, you are remarkably incorrect (so hopefully you meant something else, and I just misunderstood).  Point-to point navigation of our dreamworld is limited by our_ imagination_, and not by what we "see" in front of us. These are our dreams, our _universes,_ especially when lucid -- navigation is limited by what we imagine, and not what we happen to allow ourselves to see at any particular moment.  To say that what we "physically" perceive is all we get is to severely underestimate the power of our imagination, and, yes, will... I think you might be underestimating the current level of oneironautic maturity!





> For most lucid dreamers, flying is initially irresistible for its alpine appeal, but it also proves to be a practical technique.  Dream flight provides a constantly changing landscape and many opportunities for your dreaming mind to connect with something that either captures your interest or answers your call.  If you are looking for sex, scan the countryside below for pools or beaches.  If you want to meet "a master," you might look for a majestic mountaintop, or maybe a temple.  If you want to confront your demons, I'd look for places of darkness or an entrance into the earth, probably a cave.  If brilliant sunlight breaks through your overcast or a rainbow appears, the divine is trying to get your attention.  In this specific case, try your best to resist the human habitual.  Don't look down at those scantily clad girls waving up.  The possibilities are many and uniquely personal, so don't get too rigid in your expectations.  Trust the dream.  The fulfillment may be immediate or it may take awhile.  Just keep holding your desire in mind as you fly.  When you see it, you'll know it.



All true again, but again I think you might be underselling the things that can be "found," the desires fulfilled, using flight as a scene-changing tool...but I may have misread.





> Flying is not, however, essential.  If it can't get you off the ground for some reason, you can apply the same techniques on land.  This is not a contradiction to what I said earlier about the futility of reaching a specific destination beyond your visual parameters on foot.  In this scenario, you are not fixed on a person, place, object or situation.  You are fixed on intent.  With _unfaltering anticipation_, you explore, you diligently watch and you wait.  Turn a corner, open a door, approach a crowd, walk from a field into the forest, climb a ladder, peer down into a well.  Again, remain focused on your desire, keep moving to generate new imagery, and give your dream time to bring significance forth.



  All true again, and it is indeed a direct contradiction to what you said earlier -- taking two steps to "walk' somewhere is still walking there, by definition.

If you're still with me, Stephen, I hope you understand my points and have opted not to take offense.  It's just that you wrote with a surety and eloquence that simply implied that everything you said was correct, and not just your opinion, and I'd really hate for dreamers new to the LD'ing game (of which there are very many on this forum) to get the impression that even the simplest navigation of dreams is as limited as you portray.  I hope you'll forgive if I came off as a bit harsh.

----------


## StephenBerlin

> Mr. Berlin:
> 
> Though your post was nicely written, I am deeply troubled by much of what you say.  You tacitly imply great authority and seem to honestly wish to teach us, but almost everything you've written about dreamscape navigation seems to me to be incorrect or, dare I say, misguided. 
> 
> Here we go:
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply not true.  If you have a specific destination in mind, and have properly set that destination in your intentions and expectation,_ any_ form of transportation, including walking, running, or crawling on all fours, will get you there -- it is after all _your_ universe, and _how_ you get there does not matter; _that_ you got there does.  I have walked to some fairly amazing places, and those walks usually took only a few paces -- a LDer's terrain is exactly as large as she expects it to be; there is no need to walk miles to your next location, if you_ know_ it is around the next corner. 
> ...




*******

Thank you. I love this. My only purpose is to stimulate input on important topics. Let's see what else we get . . .

----------


## Sageous

> *******
> 
> Thank you. I love this. My only purpose is to stimulate input on important topics. Let's see what else we get . . .



Not quite the response I expected; and quite condescending, too ... did you even _read_ the response I spent a good deal of time making? And on top of that, what I wrote and asked was apparently unworthy of reply, so we have to "see what else we get."  Nice.

----------


## StephenBerlin

> Not quite the response I expected; and quite condescending, too ... did you even _read_ the response I spent a good deal of time making? And on top of that, what I wrote and asked was apparently unworthy of reply, so we have to "see what else we get."  Nice.



*******

I very carefully read your response. Your opinions are as worthy as my own. Over time, I expect the readers of this thread will discover that we are both right and wrong - as dreams prove us to be. The "condescending" remark was unnecessary.

----------


## Sageous

> *******
> 
> I very carefully read your response. Your opinions are as worthy as my own. Over time, I expect the readers of this thread will discover that we are both right and wrong - as dreams prove us to be. The "condescending" remark was unnecessary.



Okay, I tried. 

You seem an experienced and thoughtful person, Stephen, so if and when you are ready to take part in an actual discussion, I'll be happy to exchange thoughts, ideas, and perhaps even arguments with you -- that is, after all, how we learn, and that is how the "readers" glean some truth from what I thought we were discussing.  Until then, I'll reserve my questions and thoughts for folks who are willing to respectfully address them.  

Best of Dreams,

Sageous

----------


## Ctharlhie

I'm going to strive on here as I think there are some important issues to be addressed.
This: 



> *"That is an assumption, not a fact. I have had lucid dreams for years, and sometimes in some LDs I had such a high degree of lucidity that it was remarkable: recalling the current date (try it, it's difficult), what day of the week it is, what time I went to bed, what my activities were before bed, and completely aware that my surroundings are a product of my mind, and completely convinced that I am able to change everything and do everything. Despite all of that, not "everything" was in my control. I couldn't do certain tasks."*



 I think is the crux of the matter. What Jakob has said amounts to a logical fallacy 'this is my experience and so it must be correct and apply to all. Everyone in this thread is guilty of it to some degree.
The trouble is that expectation in dreams not producing the desired effect in a dream does not discount the role of expectation in all dreams. We've all had dreams where we've flown, looked down at the sickening height, feared for our safety, and the dream responds according to our shifted expectations and we start to fall rapidly to the ground. But to take expectation and apply it to all experiences in an attempt to disprove it as a force in dream control ignores the possibility of other factors that can account for lack of control where expectation is present, focus, intent, and myriad other psychological mechanics of which we are not aware.
I think anyone who hasn't done so already should follow Dinosawr's advice and read Billybob's excellent thread on throwing off the limitations we place on our dreams.




> I am just citing from Billybob's tutorial Mastering Your Dreams which I have taken to heart. I hope you will consider what I have said, and I would love to hear your opinion on this matter.



And here I think is the most important, and potentially damaging statement, in the discussion.




> *We place no limits on our dreams, but I believe that dreams do place limits on us. It isn't just a "virtual world" in which you can literally do anything. At least for me it isn't.* And I arrived at *this conclusion not because I tried to do something, "expecting" to fail, but rather the other way around. I was confident I could do it, but failed.* Some things I was able to learn (flying, walking through walls, etc.) but other things I am not able to accomplish to this day. I could also do much better with flying. It also varies from dream to dream.



You apply your experience to everyone. Again you say there are other factors in dreaming... And yet you disregard expectation effect with no attention to other variables in dream control. 




> "We place no limits on our dreams, but I believe that dreams do place limits on us. It isn't just a "virtual world" in which you can literally do anything. At least for me it isn't"



. This statement is self-contradictory, you say you place no limits on your dreams and yet you've been telling us that there are things that cannot be done in dreams. You say "at least for me it isn't", don't you think you might be missing out on something in this amazing world of lucid dreaming without limits? It's ironic, you say that lucid dreaming 'isn't a virtual world', _when that's precisely what lucid dreaming is_. It's a virtual world generated by your mind's inner video graphics accelerator, running scripts based schemata (sets of unconscious expectations that you apply to every object in your life, for instance your schemata for a tree say it has green leaves, branches, but doesn't have wheels), and like a simulation or video game, you can play around with the code. In dreams, the action of gravity, and even the dimensionality of the dream space, is entirely dependent on the unconscious expectations you bring from your waking life of the world around you having gravity etc. 
In mental space there is no need for measurements of physical space, what use are miles and metres in a mental representation of a dimensional reality. In fact it could be said in dream navigation that the only true statement we can make is that the dreamer remains stationary while the dream moves around them. Any destination or action is only an act of intent away. As Robert Waggoner was told by a particularly perceptive dream figure in one of his early lucid dreams, 'Mister, in this place, any way is the right way'.

----------


## Mzzkc

Great.

Now my trees will have wheels.

Thanks Ctharlhie...

----------


## Ctharlhie

They will also be steam powered. And fly.

Also, as a general response to this thread:

----------


## Empedocles

> I'm going to strive on here as I think there are some important issues to be addressed.
> This:  I think is the crux of the matter. What Jakob has said amounts to a logical fallacy 'this is my experience and so it must be correct and apply to all. Everyone in this thread is guilty of it to some degree.
> The trouble is that expectation in dreams not producing the desired effect in a dream does not discount the role of expectation in all dreams.



It would appear that you have no clue what a logical fallacy is. Where have I said that my experience must apply to all? Nowhere. I am also not discounting the role of expectation, but rather stating that my own experience has been similar to Stephen's. I have been a lucid dreamer for a long, long, long time, have done my research on this subject, and have talked to many serious lucid dreamers about topics such as these. From what I have gathered, there are more lucid dreamers who would agree with Stephen's assessment of dream transportation, than yours. That has been my experience with this topic. Perhaps you are an exceptionally talented lucid dreamer who has absolutely no hindrances in his dreams. I can accept that there are such people, but I refuse to accept that this applies to the majority.

And to clairfy: By "serious" lucid dreamers I mean those who don't claim they can astral project, share dreams with others, and communicate with otherworldly beings. They have been lucid dreaming for many many years, they are above the age of 16, and they're not obsessed with Dragonball-Z.

I am specifically talking about lucid dreamers who participated in the old discussion forum on the Lucidity Institute website. I am also talking about associates of Stephen LaBerge, the author of Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming, who really knows lucid dreaming inside and out. Almost everyone there, yes, almost every single person, had major problems with ground transportation for longer (i repeat: LONGER) walking distances.





> We've all had dreams where we've flown, looked down at the sickening height, feared for our safety, and the dream responds according to our shifted expectations and we start to fall rapidly to the ground. But to take expectation and apply it to all experiences in an attempt to disprove it as a force in dream control ignores the possibility of other factors that can account for lack of control where expectation is present, focus, intent, and myriad other psychological mechanics of which we are not aware.



The issue is not "why" it happens. Stephen is simply saying that it has been his experience, and perhaps the experience of people he discussed this with, that ground transportation in dreams can be very problematic. He even himself said that there are a huge number of factors.





> I think anyone who hasn't done so already should follow Dinosawr's advice and read Billybob's excellent thread on throwing off the limitations we place on our dreams.



I'll take a look at it. But if it is of the same "substance" as the "Etiquette of Shared Dreaming" article, then I'll pass, thank you.





> You apply your experience to everyone. Again you say there are other factors in dreaming... And yet you disregard expectation effect with no attention to other variables in dream control.



Nonsense. I have not disregarded the expectation effect. I am simply saying that expectation is influenced by other factors, which "limit" the effects of expectation.





> This statement is self-contradictory, you say you place no limits on your dreams and yet you've been telling us that there are things that cannot be done in dreams.



Your understanding is way off. Here it is, in practice, what I mean by "I place no limits, but the dreams do.":

Me, in a lucid state: YES! Great. This is a lucid dream, I am lying in my bed asleep. None of this is real, I can control everything. This house isn't real, it's all a product of my mind. Blah blah blah, I am able to change everything. YAYYY!!

I wave my hand and attempt to generate a dream character, we'll call him "X". Nothing happens.
I try "calling" him, summoning him. Nothing happens.
I ask a dream character to lead me to him. Nothing happens.
Then I stand infront of a door, and fully expect person X to be in that room. Nothing happens.

There have been cases such as these in my dreams. Whereas in others, I am able to summon a dream character easily, without much effort. That is what I am saying this whole time. In my experience, being a lucid dreamer, reading about lucid dreaming, about dreamer's experiences, and so on and so forth, I was able to conclude, just as Stephen Berlin in this thread, that unless a lucid dreamer is exceptionally talented at this LDing, he will experience many difficulties, distractions, and obstacles.





> You say "at least for me it isn't", don't you think you might be missing out on something in this amazing world of lucid dreaming without limits? It's ironic, you say that lucid dreaming 'isn't a virtual world', _when that's precisely what lucid dreaming is_. It's a virtual world generated by your mind's inner video graphics accelerator, running scripts based schemata (sets of unconscious expectations that you apply to every object in your life, for instance your schemata for a tree say it has green leaves, branches, but doesn't have wheels), and like a simulation or video game, you can play around with the code. In dreams, the action of gravity, and even the dimensionality of the dream space, is entirely dependent on the unconscious expectations you bring from your waking life of the world around you having gravity etc.



Actually, the complete science on how dreams form and how they work, has not been scientifically "confirmed." There is not "one opinion" on dreams, but hundreds, if not thousands. And even in virtual worlds there are limits. Video games have their limits too.





> In mental space there is no need for measurements of physical space, what use are miles and metres in a mental representation of a dimensional reality. In fact it could be said in dream navigation that the only true statement we can make is that the dreamer remains stationary while the dream moves around them. Any destination or action is only an act of intent away. As Robert Waggoner was told by a particularly perceptive dream figure in one of his early lucid dreams, 'Mister, in this place, any way is the right way'.



You seemed to have completed missed the point of Stephen's post, and my post as well. Neither of us are saying it is impossible to do task X. We are simply saying that in our experience, and in the experience of many experienced lucid dreamers we associated with, that task X, in this case, ground transportation for *longer* walking distances, is difficult to achieve. 

Not impossible, but difficult nonetheless. Read the very first sentence of Stephen's post. He says: _"Navigating your way around in a lucid dream can be tricky."_

Not _must_ be tricky, but *can* be. There is a difference. He is not forcing his opinions/experiences on others, and neither should you.

Best wishes,
Jakob

----------


## Ctharlhie

> It would appear that you have no clue what a logical fallacy is. Where have I said that my experience must apply to all? Nowhere. I am also not discounting the role of expectation, but rather stating that my own experience has been similar to Stephen's. I have been a lucid dreamer for a long, long, long time, have done my research on this subject, and have talked to many serious lucid dreamers about topics such as these. From what I have gathered, there are more lucid dreamers who would agree with Stephen's assessment of dream transportation, than yours. That has been my experience with this topic. Perhaps you are an exceptionally talented lucid dreamer who has absolutely no hindrances in his dreams. I can accept that there are such people, but I refuse to accept that this applies to the majority.



I'm not saying that you or Mr. Berlin ever explicitly asserted your experiences over those of others, only that the tone of authority with which you said it seemed to imply so. Also, the rule of majority does not make a viewpoint correct (keeping track of the fallacies  :wink2: ). I'm sorry if I didn't express myself clearly enough earlier but I really haven't been attempting to attack or undermine what are clearly very educated and experienced views that both you and Stephen express. Rather, this discussion has thrown up an issue that I've seen often in discussions of lucid dreaming, self-defeating thoughts (more on this later), that prevents many oneironauts from achieving their full potential in induction and control.





> And to clairfy: By "serious" lucid dreamers I mean those who don't claim they can astral project, share dreams with others, and communicate with otherworldly beings. They have been lucid dreaming for many many years, they are above the age of 16, and they're not obsessed with Dragonball-Z.



I don't see why you feel the need to define lucid dreamers in such specific demographics :/ For my part, I'm fine with lucid dreamers believing in more esoteric elements of dreaming phenomenon as long as it doesn't get in the way of advancing actual scientific knowledge. And I think people below the age of 16 should have as much of an opportunity to lucid dream as the rest of us, many of the best lucid dreamers have done it naturally since early childhood. I've never seen Dragonball-Z, is it any good?





> I am specifically talking about lucid dreamers who participated in the old discussion forum on the Lucidity Institute website. I am also talking about associates of Stephen LaBerge, the author of Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming, who really knows lucid dreaming inside and out. Almost everyone there, yes, almost every single person, had major problems with ground transportation for longer (i repeat: LONGER) walking distances.



That must have been a great experience, learning from associates of Laberge, I love ETWOLD, every lucid dreamer should read it, if only since modern lucid dreaming practice owes such a debt to Laberge for introducing LDing to mainstream psychology.  :smiley: 





> The issue is not "why" it happens. Stephen is simply saying that it has been his experience, and perhaps the experience of people he discussed this with, that ground transportation in dreams can be very problematic. He even himself said that there are a huge number of factors.



This is the very issue I have with what you've said, imposing limitations without questioning what is causing it, ignoring other factors.





> I'll take a look at it. But if it is of the same "substance" as the "Etiquette of Shared Dreaming" article, then I'll pass, thank you.



Billybob didn't write that particular article, but I respect WakingNomad (the author of the thread you mention) as one of the most proficient oneironauts on the forum, he's achieved things most of us can only dream of (pun intended).





> Nonsense. I have not disregarded the expectation effect. I am simply saying that expectation is influenced by other factors, which "limit" the effects of expectation.
> 
> Your understanding is way off. Here it is, in practice, what I mean by "I place no limits, but the dreams do.":
> 
> Me, in a lucid state: YES! Great. This is a lucid dream, I am lying in my bed asleep. None of this is real, I can control everything. This house isn't real, it's all a product of my mind. Blah blah blah, I am able to change everything. YAYYY!!
> 
> I wave my hand and attempt to generate a dream character, we'll call him "X". Nothing happens.
> I try "calling" him, summoning him. Nothing happens.
> I ask a dream character to lead me to him. Nothing happens.
> ...



Ok here's the main issue. My problem is that the limitation is self-defeating attitudes (if you're familiar with cognitive psychology this should resonate with you). Essentially, we can establish negative thought patterns that directly impact our ability to control aspects of the dream (as with driving in dreams, long distance walking). These mental limitations don't need to be consciously thought expectations, remember we're dealing with the realm of unconscious material, dreams. As such you may consciously be confident in your dream control attempts, but your unconscious expectations prevent you from carrying out the action, either because of your own doubts or because people have said you can or can't do X. I wouldn't make a big deal of it, but it leads newbie lucid dreamers to have issues with not only simple control, but also in inducing lucid dreams in the first place. The healthiest assumption to have in dreams (and waking life) is that the possibilities are limitless. 





> Actually, the complete science on how dreams form and how they work, has not been scientifically "confirmed." There is not "one opinion" on dreams, but hundreds, if not thousands. And even in virtual worlds there are limits. Video games have their limits too.



Quite true, there have been many theories on dreaming, from Freud's psychodynamic and Jung's analytical theories to the more recent 'Activation-Synthesis' model put forward by Hobson, we can't discount any of these theories without a more thorough understanding of the actual mechanics of dreaming, lucid dreaming seems to present a tool to do so.





> You seemed to have completed missed the point of Stephen's post, and my post as well. Neither of us are saying it is impossible to do task X. We are simply saying that in our experience, and in the experience of many experienced lucid dreamers we associated with, that task X, in this case, ground transportation for *longer* walking distances, is difficult to achieve.



I'm saying that it's damaging to make statements over what and what isn't possible for reasons outlined above.





> Not impossible, but difficult nonetheless. Read the very first sentence of Stephen's post. He says: _"Navigating your way around in a lucid dream can be tricky."_
> Not _must_ be tricky, but *can* be. There is a difference. He is not forcing his opinions/experiences on others, and neither should you.



True, but people tend to cut past neat and polite qualifying statements such as 'can be tricky' and turn statements into more direct messages such as 'you can't drive in dreams.

Thanks for the interesting discussion, I appreciated hearing your opinions. Also, I have to say I liked your recent WILD guide, very simple but effective  :smiley:

----------


## Mzzkc

Edit: Ninja-ed by C-Dawg.

Don't worry guys. I got this.





> It would appear that you have no clue what a logical fallacy is. Where have I said that my experience must apply to all? Nowhere. I am also not discounting the role of expectation, but rather stating that my own experience has been similar to Stephen's.



Point conceded. Your argument was that of counterexample and was successful in supporting your assertion that extreme amounts of awareness do not always result in the ability to do anything. 

Good job. ಠ_ರೃ





> I have been a lucid dreamer for a long, long, long time, have done my research on this subject, and have talked to many serious lucid dreamers about topics such as these. From what I have gathered, there are more lucid dreamers who would agree with Stephen's assessment of dream transportation, than yours.



There are more people in this world that believe in a deity than those who do not. 

Your point here is invalid and serves only as a vessel to communicate an experience. Not an argument.





> That has been my experience with this topic. Perhaps you are an exceptionally talented lucid dreamer who has absolutely no hindrances in his dreams. I can accept that there are such people, but I refuse to accept that this applies to the majority.



Your loss, I guess. 

I used to have limitations, too. Then I figured out how dreams worked and achieved total control on-demand. No big.





> And to clairfy: By "serious" lucid dreamers I mean those who don't claim they can astral project, share dreams with others, and communicate with otherworldly beings. They have been lucid dreaming for many many years, they are above the age of 16, and they're not obsessed with Dragonball-Z.
> 
> I am specifically talking about lucid dreamers who participated in the old discussion forum on the Lucidity Institute website. I am also talking about associates of Stephen LaBerge, the author of Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming, who really knows lucid dreaming inside and out. Almost everyone there, yes, almost every single person, had major problems with ground transportation for longer (i repeat: LONGER) walking distances.



I'm an associate with a few of Stephen's (LaBerge) associates, if that means anything to you (hint: it shouldn't). However, I did most of my more intensive learning solo. As did BillyBob, and pretty much all the "best" LDers I know. I find it interesting BillyBob and I often came to similar conclusions independently.

I think Sageous might have something to say regarding this point, if he goes for the steak.





> The issue is not "why" it happens. Stephen is simply saying that it has been his experience, and perhaps the experience of people he discussed this with, that ground transportation in dreams can be very problematic. He even himself said that there are a huge number of factors.



That's exactly the issue. If you don't seek to understand the "why," you'll never be clear on the "how." Just look at Tesla and all the amazing stuff he discovered years before anyone else thought of "how" to use it. He focused on the "why" whereas greedy businessmen like Edison only cared about the "how" since that's what makes you rich if most people don't know the "why."





> I'll take a look at it. But if it is of the same "substance" as the "Etiquette of Shared Dreaming" article, then I'll pass, thank you.



I laughed pretty hard here. Not gonna lie.






> Nonsense. I have not disregarded the expectation effect. I am simply saying that expectation is influenced by other factors, which "limit" the effects of expectation.



I don't think anyone active in this thread right now will disagree with you here.





> Your understanding is way off. Here it is, in practice, what I mean by "I place no limits, but the dreams do.":
> 
> Me, in a lucid state: YES! Great. This is a lucid dream, I am lying in my bed asleep. None of this is real, I can control everything. This house isn't real, it's all a product of my mind. Blah blah blah, I am able to change everything. YAYYY!!
> 
> I wave my hand and attempt to generate a dream character, we'll call him "X". Nothing happens.
> I try "calling" him, summoning him. Nothing happens.
> I ask a dream character to lead me to him. Nothing happens.
> Then I stand infront of a door, and fully expect person X to be in that room. Nothing happens.



I could probably give you a decent diagnosis if you went into more detail and stepped me through your exact thought process. Knowing the material you read before having these sorts of lucids would also be helpful.

To be completely honest, the best way to research the caveats of dream control would employ the Delphi method to some degree. The less cross contamination, the better.





> There have been cases such as these in my dreams. Whereas in others, I am able to summon a dream character easily, without much effort. That is what I am saying this whole time. In my experience, being a lucid dreamer, reading about lucid dreaming, about dreamer's experiences, and so on and so forth, I was able to conclude, just as Stephen Berlin in this thread, that unless a lucid dreamer is exceptionally talented at this LDing, he will experience many difficulties, distractions, and obstacles.



Have you ever looked into the key differences between your state of mind and thought patterns between the instances you were able to do something successfully and the ones you weren't?

I imagine that might be a good place to start digging. But hey, what do I know?





> Actually, the complete science on how dreams form and how they work, has not been scientifically "confirmed." There is not "one opinion" on dreams, but hundreds, if not thousands. And even in virtual worlds there are limits. Video games have their limits too.



Oh gods. You brought up the video game thing.

Gotta ignore the strawman.

*breathes deeply*

Don't hold your breath for confirmation any time soon. The best anyone can do is combine introspective anecdotes with what we _do_ know about the brain and how it operates. Most theories only approach the issue from one school of thought, but without better measuring equipment the best model will be the one that considers _all_ the evidence, no matter how...sketchy. 

*un-breathes deeply*





> You seemed to have completed missed the point of Stephen's post, and my post as well. Neither of us are saying it is impossible to do task X. We are simply saying that in our experience, and in the experience of many experienced lucid dreamers we associated with, that task X, in this case, ground transportation for *longer* walking distances, is difficult to achieve.
> 
> Not impossible, but difficult nonetheless. Read the very first sentence of Stephen's post. He says: _"Navigating your way around in a lucid dream can be tricky."_
> 
> Not _must_ be tricky, but *can* be. There is a difference. He is not forcing his opinions/experiences on others, and neither should you.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Jakob



Yep, the "can" qualifier definitely absolves you guys from potentially implanting that idea into the heads of newbies. They'll just think it's the norm, and thus applicable to them. Since...you know...you claim it is.

----------


## Intfere

> And to clairfy: By "serious" lucid dreamers I mean those who don't claim they can astral project, share dreams with others, and communicate with otherworldly beings. They have been lucid dreaming for many many years, they are above the age of 16, and they're not obsessed with Dragonball-Z.



If somebody has believes that aren't similar to yours, his or her lucid experience should be completely disregarded?

The level of this discussion is disappointing. So much anger here, or should I rather say pride. Absolutely ungrounded pride, too, and pretty blind. When somebody is telling you he or she has had a different experience, it becomes obvious that your previous assumptions were wrong. Nobody dies from admitting that they were wrong.

----------


## Ctharlhie

Thanks for leaping into the fray there, Mzzkc, to be honest a link to your thread on dream control could have saved you typing all of that out http://www.dreamviews.com/f14/unifyi...ontrol-117900/ It also helpfully provides links to Billybob's and Cusp's thoughts on the subject.  :smiley:  





> Have you ever looked into the key differences between your state of mind and thought patterns between the instances you were able to do something successfully and the ones you weren't?



This is an important point, complex psychological drives play a pivotal role. For instance, my palpable fear of heights confounded many of my early attempts at flying. But not for a second did I simply assume that flying is 'tricky' in dreams. Why would I deny any experience in a world that is the construct of my mind alone and not bound by physical boundaries. Let me put it to you, Jakob and Berlin, that the only barriers in dreams are psychological.

Here's why this is important to discuss, while most people seem to think it's fine to say that you can't read or switch on lights in dreams, and that dream sex wakes you up (it should be self-evident why these statements are damaging), I don't think either of you would claim that you shouldn't fly in dreams, and yet I have seen some members of the forum instructing individuals without any lucid dreaming experience of their own that they shouldn't fly 'or do exciting things' in lucid dreams in fear of waking up.

Why bother lucid dreaming at all?

----------


## Mzzkc

> Nobody dies from admitting that they were wrong.



No, but their genes do. ^.^

----------


## Ctharlhie

@Jakob and Stephen; You may be wondering why I have such a strong conviction that the only boundaries are psychological and not physical. Taking the example of dream sex, in my early days of lucid dreaming I read so many opinions on this forum expressing that dream sex is impossible that the very thought of it in a dream woke me. What reason for this is there? The accepted view is that sex causes too much physiological arousal and you 'lose the dream'. Well, studies by Laberge found that dream sex corresponded with activity in the genitals but with no raise in heart rate. Furthermore the are plenty of experiences in dreams that cause physiological arousal (non-lucid dream sex, nightmares) that do not lead to awakening.

Where did these limiting views start? Just look at the psychological baggage of sex. Freud may have been onto something with the whole repression thing.

----------


## Mzzkc

Also, to Stephen (Berlin):





> Hi. Thanks for submitting this. Since yours in the third post pertaining to my comment on "driving when dreaming," I suppose I should include a disclaimer here. Cars - like watches - and virtually anything mechanical are indeed "notoriously" - not ALWAYS - faulty and unreliable in dreams. I simply chose to use a vehicle as a good example for this topic. I have driven successfully in dreams, and in some instances the car did "appear" to function "normally," but even in those cases, if I had chosen a specific destination (let's say a distant building) I rarely ever reached it. My explanation for this is that dreams move forward by association, pattern recognition and homologous variation. I've discovered (for myself only) that "flying and willing" are more effective in actually "getting somewhere specifically."
> 
> For a more in-depth presentation pertaining to what I've just said, you may want to watch my Lucid Dream Discourse videos #9 and #10 on YouTube (The Dynamics of Dream Emergence and Navigation in Dreams - each about 9 minutes in length). 
> 
> *******
> 
> And, while I'm here, I want to add this note for the previous posters. Yes, our "expectations" and "confidence" certainly do obviously play a key role in lucid dreaming. That being said - even with all of my years of flying and walking through walls in lucid dreams - and fully realizing "I can do it" - I occasionally have lucid dreams where I can't get off the ground or can't pass through a barrier. Every dream comes with its own potential and limitations for whatever inexplicable reason.
> 
> I never expect anyone to take anything I ever say as lucid dreaming gospel. We each have different experience, wide-ranging degrees of lucidity, variations in our brain chemistry, and even perhaps the influence of any of a multitude of prescribed medications. A huge number of factors are involved. Whereas we can learn from one another, we are each unique in this field. I place no limit whatsoever on your dreams.



You get it.

<3

Sorry we nitpicked at what was merely an example. =(

I'm glad you understand our concerns, though. ^.^

----------


## Sageous

Okay if I chime in, Ctharlhie?  I hope so, because I can't resist this invasion of elderly LaBerge disciples! [_Edit:  just noticed everyone else already "chimed in," I hope this post still makes sense!]_

Jakob:

First, if I can be snarky for a moment:




> It would appear that you have no clue what a logical fallacy is. Where have I said that my experience must apply to all? Nowhere. I am also not discounting the role of expectation, but rather stating that my own experience has been similar to Stephen's. I have been a lucid dreamer for a long, long, long time, have done my research on this subject, and have talked to many serious lucid dreamers about topics such as these.* From what I have gathered, there are more lucid dreamers who would agree with Stephen's assessment of dream transportation, than yours.* That has been my experience with this topic. Perhaps you are an exceptionally talented lucid dreamer who has absolutely no hindrances in his dreams. I can accept that there are such people, but I refuse to accept that this applies to the majority.



For what it's worth, the bolded line is _also_ a syllogistic logic error; it even has a name: bandwagon.  Just because lots of people are doing it or saying it doesn't make it, or you, right.  You might want to grab a book about this stuff before you tell people they're wrong about your logic fallacies...sorry about that, but it had to be said; I hope you'll read on....





> And to clarify: By "serious" lucid dreamers I mean those who don't claim they can astral project, share dreams with others, and communicate with otherworldly beings. They have been lucid dreaming for many many years, they are above the age of 16, and they're not obsessed with Dragonball-Z.



Oh, snap!  Way to piss off nine-tenths of the people using this forum, Jakob! _Tha_t bandwagon assessment aside, I am, by your definition, a serious LD'er:  why then did I find myself troubled by almost everything in Stephen's opening post?  





> I am specifically talking about lucid dreamers who participated in the old discussion forum on the Lucidity Institute website. I am also talking about associates of Stephen LaBerge, the author of Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming, who really knows lucid dreaming inside and out. Almost everyone there, yes, almost every single person, had major problems with ground transportation for longer (i repeat: LONGER) walking distances.



Okay. _ I_ not only participated in LaBerge's forum, I _moderated_ it for two years. I also attended _three_ of his Hawaii "Dream Camps." So I suppose I actually _was_ one of those associates (though I never think of myself as one).  I also, obviously, was very familiar with all of the conversations on the Lucidity Institute Forum.  And do you know what? If I remember correctly, not only was ground transportation almost _never_ talked about, when walking or, more often driving, were discussed, they were discussed in a positive vein, as just another tool for exploring -- and creating -- the dream.  I have no idea from where you got this "statistic," but it was not from the Lucidity Institute Forum.  Somewhere else, perhaps? 

You should be careful about the references you use, because you never know what other old farts might be out there who literally _are_ one of those references -- and they might beg to differ.

And for what it's worth:  I've had many conversations with Chtarlhie on this forum, a few of them very in-depth, requiring substantial knowledge and experience just to participate, and I have always been impressed by Chtarlhie's knowledge and credibility.  The mere fact that he posts on this forum and dares to differ with your curious interpretations of LaBerge's doctrines should not reduce his credibility, so please knock it off.

Enough of the nonsense, back to the conversation:





> The issue is not "why" it happens. Stephen is simply saying that it has been his experience, and perhaps the experience of people he discussed this with, that ground transportation in dreams can be very problematic. He even himself said that there are a huge number of factors.



Stephen may have used a deprecating word or two, but the general fabric of his post was that "this is the way it is, period, because I am an expert." I caught some of that wind as well, and, if you note above, tried to take issue with it. In total, he did not say that ground transportation was problematic; he clearly announced it could not -- and should not -- be done.  That kind of blanket statement, under the guise of authority, ought to be questioned, as Ctharlhie rightfully did.  In retrospect, I think Stephen might not believe any of this himself:  he may have written that opening post specifically to spur this conversation.






> I'll take a look at it. But if it is of the same "substance" as the "Etiquette of Shared Dreaming" article, then I'll pass, thank you.



 Nice...trash the contributors again, without even a glance at the content.  Are you taking condescension lessons from Stephen too?





> Nonsense. I have not disregarded the expectation effect. I am simply saying that expectation is influenced by other factors, which "limit" the effects of expectation.



Here you are mistaken, I think.  Their is no "expectation effect," there is _expectation_.  What you do with expectation, how far you go to allow it to influence your dream, or not, is a factor of your own LD'ing skills and mental openness. 

Here's your previous post about this:





> We place no limits on our dreams, but I believe that dreams do place limits on us. *It isn't just a "virtual world" in which you can literally do anything*. At least for me it isn't. And I arrived at this conclusion not because I tried to do something, "expecting" to fail, but rather the other way around. I was confident I could do it, but failed. Some things I was able to learn (flying, walking through walls, etc.) but other things I am not able to accomplish to this day. I could also do much better with flying. It also varies from dream to dream. 
> Your understanding is way off. Here it is, in practice, what I mean by "I place no limits, but the dreams do."



That is indeed completely wrong, and patently misguiding -- I am amazed that someone who speaks of such vast experience in lucid dreaming would even write such a thing (LaBerge sure wouldn't have)! Let me repeat Ctharlhie in saying that *LD'ing is literally a virtual world, in which a well-trained dreamer can do anything, period.* To say otherwise is to have a deep, deep misunderstanding of the very nature and purpose of lucid dreaming.  Perhaps you meant something else? Given the bizarre "expectation effect" statement you offered as explanation for saying LD'ing has limits and is not a virtual world, I'm guessing you did not.  That you have found apparently severe limits in your LD'ing experience does not mean that everyone must have done the same.  Please don't apply still more flawed logic on us -- we are not all 16.





> Me, in a lucid state: YES! Great. This is a lucid dream, I am lying in my bed asleep. None of this is real, I can control everything. This house isn't real, it's all a product of my mind. Blah blah blah, I am able to change everything. YAYYY!!



 Huh?  Do you even_ like_ LD'ing?





> I wave my hand and attempt to generate a dream character, we'll call him "X". Nothing happens.
> I try "calling" him, summoning him. Nothing happens.
> I ask a dream character to lead me to him. Nothing happens.
> Then I stand infront of a door, and fully expect person X to be in that room. Nothing happens.



Again, because nothing happened for you does not imply that nothing will happen for anyone else.  That you failed to produce a dream character can be sourced in any number of factors, from lucidity level to concentration, to some need deep in your unconscious to avoid that dream character -- _it can not be sourced in potentiality_: because you and apparently a bunch of folks I never met on the LI Forum couldn't do it does not mean it can't be done. Again, Chtarlhie was talking about the potentials of LD'ing, which I find much more pleasant than imagining limits.





> There have been cases such as these in my dreams. Whereas in others, I am able to summon a dream character easily, without much effort. That is what I am saying this whole time. In my experience, being a lucid dreamer, reading about lucid dreaming, about dreamer's experiences, and so on and so forth, I was able to conclude, just as Stephen Berlin in this thread, that unless a lucid dreamer is exceptionally talented at this LDing, he will experience many difficulties, distractions, and obstacles.



 No, what Stephen's initial post stated was that, geographically speaking, even accomplished LD'ers will "experience many difficulties, distractions, and obstacles," and those obstacles will be insurmountable.  To speak so firmly on a thing that many of us have been disproving for decades is disingenuous at best, and intentionally misleading at worst (which is why I took issue in that post Stephen opted not to address). To say things like you cannot return to a previous dream, or that your entire dream world ends at the the limits of your vision (I don't even know what that means), or that cars cannot serve as a metaphor for transportation or change in a dream because their instrument panels won't work, or_ his_ cars don't start, is to say things that are flat-out wrong.  Stephen may have had a reason for saying them, but he failed to mention it.  To defend these absurd limits, that I have defeated uncounted times (and, yes, I have had confirmed from other dreamers over many years that they've done the same) simply does not make sense.  To blindly defend the opening post with bandwagon arguments and nods to LaBerge without assuming people who know the man might be here is disturbing indeed.

Oh, and for what it's worth:  I have had several direct conversations on this very subject with LaBerge and his people, arguably some of the most accomplished LD'ers I have ever encountered.  None of them -- not one -- would agree with anything Stephen or you have stated here.  Please don't use him as a reference.





> Actually, the complete science on how dreams form and how they work, has not been scientifically "confirmed." There is not "one opinion" on dreams, but hundreds, if not thousands. And even in virtual worlds there are limits. Video games have their limits too.



 So basically we have barely entered the world of lucid dreaming, knowledge-wise, yet you are already confident in imposing limits to it?  Why?






> You seemed to have completed missed the point of Stephen's post, and my post as well. Neither of us are saying it is impossible to do task X. We are simply saying that in our experience, and in the experience of many experienced lucid dreamers we associated with, that task X, in this case, ground transportation for *longer* walking distances, is difficult to achieve.



 No, he got the point, and I think you know that -- sticking the occasional "in my experience" into a post that clearly and repeatedly pronounces that "this is the way it is; this is the truth," does not get you off the hook. If you believe these limits in geography are true and real, then defend them, and try to do so with something other than these crowds of experienced lucid dreamers you associate with, because I've never met them.

----------


## Mzzkc

Was the steak yummy, Sageous?

It seemed like you did a lot of chewing there.

----------


## Sageous

^^ Yeah, yeah...I guess I'm nothing if not predictable!  Funny; I just don't feel sated!

----------


## Mzzkc

I think that's why booze was invented.

----------


## Empedocles

> For what it's worth, the bolded line is _also_ a syllogistic logic error; it even has a name: bandwagon.  Just because lots of people are doing it or saying it doesn't make it, or you, right.



Rofl. If so, then you are using the exact same "fallacy". I not once said it makes it "right" because lots of people are doing it. I am simply saying that I have learned, from personal experience, that the majority of lucid dreamers I've spoken to, share Stephen's views. keywords: *Personal* experience, *personal* research, People I have *personally* spoken to. Discussions I have *personally* read, and/or participated in. All of these are compatible with *my experiences*, and with Stephen's views. I repeat: *I*.

It is my personal belief, that there are limits in dreams which have to be overcome by time and practice. Some will manage to do it faster, some slower, some perhaps never. This subforum "dream control" wouldn't have much of a point, if it were as easy as simply jumping and immediately flying like superman. Just take a look at the threads for crying out loud. "I can't do this, I can't do that."





> Oh, snap!  Way to piss off nine-tenths of the people using this forum, Jakob! _Tha_t bandwagon assessment aside, I am, by your definition, a serious LD'er:  why then did I find myself troubled by almost everything in Stephen's opening post?



There was no bandwagon. I was talking from experience, as is Stephen. None of us are saying it is the truth because we believe the majority does it. To answer your question, you found yourself troubled because you falsely assumed that Stephen is presenting his views as facts.





> Okay. _ I_ not only participated in LaBerge's forum, I _moderated_ it for two years. I also attended _three_ of his Hawaii "Dream Camps." So I suppose I actually _was_  I was one of those associates (though I never think of myself as one).  I also, obviously, was very familiar with all of the conversations on the Lucidity Institute Forum.  And do you know what? If I remember correctly, not only was ground transportation almost _never_ talked about, when walking or, more often driving, were discussed, they were discussed in a positive vein, as just another tool for exploring -- and creating -- the dream.  I have no idea from where you got this "statistic," but it was not from the Lucidity Institute Forum.  Somewhere else, perhaps? 
> 
> You should be careful about the references you use, because you never know what other old farts might be out there who literally _are_ one of those references -- and they might beg to differ.



You can beg to differ all you want, but it was from the lucidity institute. There was always much talk about distractions and obstacles, and some of those included problems with ground transportation.





> And for what it's worth:  I've had many conversations with Chtarlhie on this forum, a few of them very in-depth, requiring substantial knowledge and experience just to participate, and I have always been impressed by Chtarlhie's knowledge and credibility.  The mere fact that he posts on this forum and dares to differ with your curious interpretations of LaBerge's doctrines should not reduce his credibility, so please knock it off.
> 
> Enough of the nonsense, back to the conversation:



The only nonsense is the one you are putting forth. It is comical that someone says "there are no obstacles in dreams", yet the subforum he is posting in has hundreds of threads with dreamers having problems doing certain tasks. Hilarious indeed.





> Stephen may have used a deprecating word or two, but the general fabric of his post was that "this is the way it is, period, because I am an expert."



Nowhere does he say he is an expert. Where do you get this stuff from? But FYI, Stephen does know more about lucid dreaming than you may think. Don't underestimate people that easily.





> I caught some of that wind as well, and, if you note above, tried to take issue with it. In total, he did not say that ground transportation was problematic; he clearly announced it could not -- and should not -- be done.  That kind of blanket statement, under the guise of authority, ought to be questioned, as Ctharlhie rightfully did.  In fact, In retrospect, I think Stephen might not believe any of this himself:  he wrote that opening post specifically to spur this conversation.



1.) He never said it is impossible to do, only difficult, in his experience.
2.) He does believe it, and even has a video on YouTube about this topic.

Himself, myself, and the majority of people we have conversed with, agree with us.
You, and the individuals you conversed with, have different experiences.

Where is the problem?





> Nice...trash the contributors again, without even a glance at the content.  Are you taking condescension lessons from Stephen too?



He was not condescending in any way, shape or form.





> Here you are mistaken, I think.  Their is no "expectation effect," there is _expectation_.  What you do with expectation, how far you go to allow it to influence your dream, or not, is a factor of your own LD'ing skills and mental openness.



It would appear that you are getting hung up on stuff that isn't related to the topic at all. What I said was that expectation does not always work the way the lucid dreamer intends for it to work, and many discussions on this forum agree with me. What's the problem, I ask again?





> That is indeed completely wrong, and patently misguiding -- I am amazed that someone who speaks of such vast experience in lucid dreaming would even write such a thing (LaBerge sure wouldn't have)! Let me repeat Ctharlhie in saying that *LD'ing is literally a virtual world, in which a well-trained dreamer can do anything, period.*



And with that sentence you say what I have been saying all this time: Well-trained. That is the key word. These lucid dream tasks have to be trained. They have to be learned. This doesn't take away from the fact that there are limits. They are limits which must be overcome through practice and training. I have never said that it is impossible to overcome them. Some will learn faster, others slower, and for some, certain tasks will be impossible. It just is that way. Some will never be able to fly "this way" but only "that way". Some will only be able to summon a dream character through method A, because method B doesn't work for them. That is what I am talking about. That is the whole subject of dream control. If dreams were just a place where everyone immediately does everything they intended, then there would be absolutely no discussion of dream control. Perhaps only about the slightest things such as stabilisation etc, but not flying, magic powers, and so on and so forth.





> To say otherwise is to have a deep, deep misunderstanding of the very nature and purpose of lucid dreaming.  Perhaps you meant something else? Given the bizarre "expectation effect" statement you offered as explanation for saying LD'ing has limits and is not a virtual world, I'm guessing you did not.  That you have found apparently severe limits in your LD'ing experience does not mean that everyone must have done the same.  Please don't apply still more flawed logic on us -- we are not all 16.



I haven't found severe limits, but limits nonetheless. And this subforum confirms that there are limits. Some will be able to overcome them with easy, some with much more practice, and some... perhaps never. It's just the way it is. I've spoken with people who LD for more than 10 years and still don't have the PERFECT dream control that they desire.





> Huh?  Do you even_ like_ LD'ing?



Of course I do. What makes you think otherwise? You have obviously, as usual, misunderstood my statements.





> Again, because nothing happened for you does not imply that nothing will happen for anyone else.



Right back atcha. And just because you have perfect dream control and face no obstacles in your dreams, doesn't mean everyone else has this luxury.  





> That you failed to produce a dream character can be sourced in any number of factors, from lucidity level to concentration, to some need deep in your unconscious to avoid that dream character



And... how does that go against what I've been saying? Didn't I say like 10 times that many factors are involved?





> _it can not be sourced in potentiality_: because you and apparently a bunch of folks I never met on the LI Forum couldn't do it does not mean it can't be done. Again, Chtarlhie was talking about the potentials of LD'ing, which I find much more pleasant than imagining limits.



I don't know what forum you participated in. The LI Forum had many discussions on this subject, with people having difficulties.





> No, what Stephen's initial post stated was that, geographically speaking, even accomplished LD'ers will "experience many difficulties, distractions, and obstacles," and those obstacles will be insurmountable.



Where did he say that? LOL





> To speak so firmly on a thing that many of us have been disproving for decades is disingenuous at best, and intentionally misleading at worst (which is why I took issue in that post Stephen opted not to address).



There is no "disproving" anything when these things are concerned. There is only my experience vs. your experience.





> To say things like you cannot return to a previous dream, or that your entire dream world ends at the the limits of your vision (I don't even know what that means), or that cars cannot serve as a metaphor for transportation or change in a dream because their instrument panels won't work, or_ his_ cars don't start, is to say things that are flat-out wrong.  Stephen may have had a reason for saying them, but he failed to mention it.  To defend these absurd limits, that I have defeated uncounted times (and, yes, I have had confirmed from other dreamers over many years that they've done the same) simply does not make sense.



You have defeated nothing. He is talking from experience. You are either calling him a liar, or me a liar, or the both of us liars.  





> To blindly defend the opening post with bandwagon arguments and nods to LaBerge without assuming people who know the man might be here is disturbing indeed.



I am sorry for "disturbing" you, but Stephen LaBerge doesn't seem to share your views.





> Oh, and for what it's worth:  I have had several direct conversations on this very subject with LaBerge and his people, arguably some of the most accomplished LD'ers I have ever encountered.  None of them -- not one -- would agree with anything Stephen or you have stated here.  Please don't use him as a reference.



Yes, I am sure they told you these things. Rofl.





> So basically we have barely entered the world of lucid dreaming, knowledge-wise, yet you are already confident in imposing limits to it?  Why?



Because it is a fact that there are limits in lucid dreams which one has to learn to overcome. If what I am saying is not true, then there wouldn't be the subject of dream control. Once a dreamer became lucid, he would be able to control every single aspect, from A to Z, the complete 100% of the dream structure.

But he can't. He has to practice, and practice, and hope he will become better at overcoming these limits.





> No, he got the point, and I think you know that -- sticking the occasional "in my experience" into a post that clearly and repeatedly pronounces that "this is the way it is; this is the truth," does not get you off the hook.



Where have I said "this is the way it is."? 





> If you believe these limits in geography are true and real, then defend them



Because technology is not that advanced, and dreams can't be recorded in .avi or .mov format, I won't be able to satisfy your demands.





> and try to do so with something other than these crowds of experienced lucid dreamers you associate with, because I've never met them.



Then you are being dishonest. These things have been thoroughly discussed at the Lucidity Institute. Dream control is a problem, for many many lucid dreamers. *This is a fact.*

Jakob

----------


## Mzzkc

The only people who have issues with dream control learned things the wrong way and now must overcome self-imposed barriers.

This happens when impressionable newbies read convincing material that suggests there are well-defined limitations to dreaming.

Hence why this sub-forum exists.

But you're right. 

It's not funny; it's tragic.

----------


## Empedocles

Taken from the DreamViews website: Dream Control

_"Finally, keep in mind that controlling dreams is like any other skill: practice is essential. Furthermore, there are those who possess an innate talent for lucid dreaming and will achieve faster success than others, as well as those who will be more adept at dream control right from the start. Of course there will also be those who simply will always have trouble at dream control, for various reasons that make us individuals and set us apart from others."_

Exactly what I have been saying all along.

----------


## Mzzkc

That's probably one of the worst citations you could have made.

The folks that wrote that guide (while awesome and hardworking) have arguably less credibility than most of the people conversing in this thread. They're just passing down age-old rhetoric, some of which is based on BillyBob's early work. Really, that particular guide hasn't been updated to keep up with most of the new theories and knowledge floating around.

They did a great job updated the new WILD Guide, though. But getting that changed was a battle in and of itself. Trying to get people to understand dream control is much harder, since some rudimentary knowledge of neuroscience is required.

----------


## Empedocles

So what are we fighting over?

----------


## Mzzkc

We were fighting?

Huh. 

I was just practicing my exposition and argumentation. Swords get rusty if you don't oil them regularly.

----------


## Empedocles

It just seems that this discussion has turned into a series of "your sources aren't reliable", "this article is wrong", "my experience has been the opposite," and so on and so forth.

----------


## Sageous

> It just seems that this discussion has turned into a series of "your sources aren't reliable", "this article is wrong", "my experience has been the opposite," and so on and so forth.



... And don't forget the part about rolling on the floor laughing at someone's honest statements.  Nice.

I'm tired of your "I'm rubber, you're glue" attitude, Jakob.  I'm tired of your relentless defense of a man who won't join the discussion himself.  And I am especially tired of idiots who, when faced with someone who actually spoke with LaBerge and moderated his forum, choose to call that person a liar rather than listen to what he says (or dare be "called" on their claims).  That transcends pathetic, as does changing pretty much everything you stated in your initial posts, just to make yourself sound reasonable (you failed).  

This was potentially an excellent subject, well worth a very long discussion and you Jakob, with the possible assistance of Stephen's absence and my own willingness to take your bait, have trashed it.  Thanks.

I will add you to my list of people not to bother with on this forum, you are not worth my (or anyone's) time.

And I will ask Mr. Berlin once more to come back and have a rational chat about this stuff, rather than letting loose his lackeys...

----------


## Sivason

I may be over simplifying the subject, but it seems to me to be matter of how much skill and training does the dreamer have.

I remember a few LDs from back in the day, say 1990ish, where I had every sort of prroblem traveling as mentioned in the OP.

Sageous again may be forgetting what it was like years before his  current skills were in place. I know Sageous does not want mis-information spread, and that is why he wanted to clear things up.

In the thread it should have stated that each obstical can be handled if you stick to LDing for years.

I do not need any form of map. In a dream a couple months back I was telleporting easily to locations around the world.
If I choose to use a vehical, I would not ever focus on the gages. Vehicles respond exactly as I want them to. If I decide to drive a jet ski up onto land the dream lets me do it.
I find walking any distance and keeping the roads correct is a challenge, so walks across town takes me rearranging streets and buildings. However, if I am walking or flying, it is because I enjoy it and want to interact with the dream.

----------


## Ctharlhie

> It just seems that this discussion has turned into a series of "your sources aren't reliable", "this article is wrong", "my experience has been the opposite," and so on and so forth.



No, I think you just missed the point of what we're trying to say here, and responded with the same line you've been stating from the beginning (which we got), since then we've been trying everything to make you see things from our perspective. But you reacted as if we were insulting your intelligence, and proceeded to basically attack us as people (protip, insulting someone you're debating with is basically forfeiting your side of the argument), we haven't made any remarks about you as a person, and yet so far you've implied that I'm 16 (which I'm not, though I fail to see how that would prevent me from taking part in this thread), I'm obsessed with dragonball Z (again, irrelevant), and that I believe in astral projection or shared dreaming (are you a Christian? Muslim? Jewish? Hindu? Let's just restrict anyone with any kind of esoteric ideology by your logic).





> Rofl. If so, then you are using the exact same "fallacy". I not once said it makes it "right" because lots of people are doing it. I am simply saying that I have learned, from personal experience, that the majority of lucid dreamers I've spoken to, share Stephen's views. keywords: Personal experience, personal research, People I have personally spoken to. Discussions I have personally read, and/or participated in. All of these are compatible with my experiences, and with Stephen's views. I repeat: I.



Again with the disregarding tone, are you someone really important? Mind you, Stephen's 'your opinions are as valid as my own' didn't score much higher.
I think you've misunderstood the general aims of this sub-forum. Personal experience vs personal experience does precisely nothing for establishing actual knowledge over dream control. This forum aims to establish some universal effects of dream control, to avoid precisely those situations where someone may have total control in one dream and none at all in the next. The personal experience of 30 people is no good compared to a single theory. When you have legal problems you go to your lawyer, not the local bar.
If you're saying that what you bring to the table amounts to 'my word against yours', what exactly are you contributing here? You should recognise that people's experiences that go against your ideas calls those ideas into question, not the other way round. And let me tell you, Sageous is probably more qualified than you, he's moderated the Lucidity Institute forums you seem to try to use as a counterargument (again no evidence, show us some actual discussions you've had), replying with 'lol' and 'rofl' to his responses only further undermines your own position. Would you act this way to someone you met in person?

Well anyway, that's all I'm going to address of that big ol' post up there as most of it is just messy assertions and evidence you didn't bother to understand my original point.

Again, it's a shame as this could have been a really cool discussion, I was initially excited that an experience lucid dreamer, as Mr. Berlin seems to be, started making threads on big topics in dream control as I thought it would generate actual conversation in the dream control forum as a change from 'can't control the dream, help (self-limitations)' 

Good luck on your oneiric journey.

----------


## Sageous

> Sageous again may be forgetting what it was like years before his  current skills were in place. I know Sageous does not want mis-information spread, and that is why he wanted to clear things up.



That is probably true, Sivason...I have a bad habit of forgetting that I've been at this for well over 30 (gasp!)  years, and I also have trouble getting out of my head the thought that if an idiot like me can do it, anybody can.  Assuming everybody is just like me is a true human error, I suppose.

Still, my initial reaction to the OP was about _potentiality_, and I think that was valid.  The OP was positing (albeit perhaps in tone only) that certain things, like walking or driving a car to new destinations, or returning to previous dreams, had real limits, or were impossible.  I disagreed, and still do, because if one person -- just one -- can succeed at doing a thing, it is no longer impossible.  Limits certainly exist with ability and experience, but they're certainly not physical or insurmountable.

That is where I was going with this, and the crux of the first questions I asked StephenBerlin, before all the nonsense erupted.  I hope they get addressed now, so that this thread can get back on track and be the interesting exchange it should have been.

----------


## TheForgotten

> That's exactly the issue. If you don't seek to understand the "why," you'll never be clear on the "how." Just look at Tesla and all the amazing stuff he discovered years before anyone else thought of "how" to use it. He focused on the "why" whereas greedy businessmen like Edison only cared about the "how" since that's what makes you rich if most people don't know the "why."



Oh snap, screw all the important points and I have but one thing to say and it's on the topic of this amazing man: Tesla.

That genius man, who came up with alternating current, radio, radar, xrays, resonant frequency, BALL LIGHTENING! ... and there was more to his awesomeness.  

But!  There is always a 'but!'

Guess who loved a white pigeon who came at his beck and call... wherever he was... and the bird.. the magnificent bird it was, she shot beams of light from her eyes.... and he loved that pigeon.

Yeah, you go ahead and bring that crackpot into make your valid point... you go right ahead...  :tongue2:  

Just kidding though, Telsa fucking rocked.  Crazy people normally do; guess I shouldn't be surprised.  Not sure he would be a role model though... he didn't function all that great in waking life.  Sorta let it all slip through his fingers didn't he.  Letting everyone get credit for his work :\

Didn't bother reproducing either.  It's a shame really.

----------


## Mzzkc

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

----------


## Sivason

> And to clarify: By "serious" lucid dreamers I mean those who don't claim they can astral project, share dreams with others, and communicate with otherworldly beings. They have been lucid dreaming for many many years, they are above the age of 16, and they're not obsessed with Dragonball-Z.



Wow Jakob, where did that line of reasoning spring from? I will not brag myself up, but I think, I am considered a good source of info on the forum. I also am one who has extensive experience going back 25ish years with everything mystical. I have interacted with otherworldly beings hundreds of times, and have spent much time on an astral realm.
I am also by every normal standard an upstanding and valuable member of my community, having a high degree of success in the areas people bother to measure about other people. Oh, can I add humble after a rash of egotism like that?  :smiley: 
*So, with that said, you have basically called me anything but a "serious" lucid dreamer.* Pretty big thing to claim. A bit insulting, if I was young enough to take offense at general statements. *Care to express why I do not count as a "real" source of info?*In fact, feel free to totally ignore my whole post.

On the subject of dream control. My personal experience has been that control increases with practice and a strong wish to believe does not always equal ability. I train my skills in LD sessions because I get better with practice. Perhaps some members have ultimate control right away, but I suppose that is rare.

My ability to teleport at will and virtually flawlessly did not reach that level for about 20 years. I had already been seriously into LDing for at least 12 years, before walking through walls became easy and common place.

The crazy thing about this post is that everyone seems to agree, but are still finding reasons to insult each other. The origanal OP should have used a more "In my experience" tone, but what ever. No one here is claiming an advanced dreamer can not overcome travelling issues with time.

*Anyone care to get back on topic? I will try.* Navigation in dreams. For those who have trouble picturing travel outside the feild of vision, here are two tricks to help. Believe that you can see much further than makes normal sense. With your long distance vision you can choose to see hundreds of miles, and focus in on the spot using a eagle vision kind of focus. Another option is to go to a high place, knowing you will be able to see your goal from "up there."
I will also travel on foot or even wing and make it take a few moments to get somewhere to cause an illusion of far travel. How far is the moon? Well, I can teleport flawlessly, so if I am "flying to the moon" it is for the fun or challenge. How far of a flight is it? I will fly to some area I can see like the clouds, then I will fly for a while until I am bored. Then, I will just decide,"I am almostr there." Now I create the moon and land on it. If I want to travel on foot in a city, I just do the same thing. I do not care usually if the roads shift, I just wander and head in the direction that I think seems right. When I get bored, I know that it is around the next corner.

----------


## Mzzkc

Something new I've been playing with, mostly for funsies and its potential for mainstream use: satellite navigation.

Zoom out, enter your destination, zoom in. Done.

Takes a few moments and can take you anywhere in the word without much issue so long as you've got plenty of well-built Google map archetypes.

----------


## Sivason

> Something new I've been playing with, mostly for funsies and its potential for mainstream use: satellite navigation.
> 
> Zoom out, enter your destination, zoom in. Done.
> 
> Takes a few moments and can take you anywhere in the word without much issue so long as you've got plenty of well-built Google map archetypes.



Very nice, new ideas! That sounds like a good wy to get anywhere.

----------


## StephenBerlin

Just to clear up a recent interaction above, I was one of the "two original moderators" for the Lucidity Institute Forum prior to the millennium.  One of our primary functions was to post new topics to provoke intelligent conversation.

Since the Forum shut down, my hardcopies of those "long lost posts" have just been collecting dust.  So, very recently, I decided to look them over - (make a few very minor revisions to bring them a bit more up-to-date) - and post them on Dreamviews.  I'm confident they'll never completely disappear again thanks to Homeland Security and Internet Marketing gathering and storing every word we write.

*******

My so-called "authoritative" writing style (and speaking style in my videos) is admittedly an earned criticism.  It was (and remains) an intentional choice (for better or worse) since a timid teaching approach has less thoughtful and less responsive value.  It's fairly obvious, I'm sure we can all agree, that few of you here are the timid type.  And, since I can only attach a B.A. to the end of my name - with the lack of additional alphabetics - perhaps I have deeply seated "legitimacy issues' and overcompensate.   :smiley: 

*******

This experiment with Dreamviews has been almost fun, and a worthwhile "remembrance" of why I don't do this anymore.  Thank you everyone for your input, and I hope you keep it coming.  In my next lucid dream, I'm going to take a taxi to a car dealership on the other side of town.  I'll post if I get there.

----------


## Sivason

Stephen, I have seen you get hammered on two threads in a row, and I do not know why it is happening. I am sorry it happened and twice to the same member. 
Please give the forum a chance. This odd behavior from members is not common. I do not blame you for refusing to get drawn into a heated conversation that critcizrs you. I have enjoyed reading your stuff and we need long term highly experienced hobbiest, like YOU and SAGEOUS. 
I hope to see you posting amd making threads. If the critical nature some have treated you in is a new-blood issue, it will surely pass sone. Thanks for all your thought provoking threads.

----------


## Empedocles

> Stephen, I have seen you get hammered on two threads in a row, and I do not know why it is happening. I am sorry it happened and twice to the same member.



He's getting hammered because his threads are actually thought-provoking, insightful, and present something new to the forum. His threads are not of the same substance as those talking about ridiculous "new methods" such as FILD, CILD, XILD, ZILD, KHILD, etc. 

If this thread was about past lives, astral beings, or dream guides, he would not get hammered, but would have probably received around 20 "likes".





> Please give the forum a chance. This odd behavior from members is not common.



This is not true. Whenever someone even remotely questions the reality of shared dreaming, astral projection, or OBEs, they will get hammered. This is common.





> I do not blame you for refusing to get drawn into a heated conversation that critcizrs you.



It's not criticism. They simply hate the fact that he disagrees with them on the subject of dream control. It's simply "You're wrong, I'm right!", and then they criticize him for being arrogant or something.





> I have enjoyed reading your stuff and we need long term highly experienced hobbiest, like YOU and SAGEOUS.



I have never underestimated Sageous. He might be a great lucid dreamer, but unfortunately he has completely missed the point of Stephen's post.





> I hope to see you posting amd making threads. If the critical nature some have treated you in is a new-blood issue, it will surely pass sone. Thanks for all your thought provoking threads.



I hope to see him post as well, but it is probably not going to happen. He has not been treated with respect.

----------


## Empedocles

> ... And don't forget the part about rolling on the floor laughing at someone's honest statements.  Nice.



So? People laughed at some of my statements, too. I don't get all pissed off.





> I'm tired of your "I'm rubber, you're glue" attitude, Jakob.



And I'm tired of your "everyone has perfect dream control and that's a fact" attitude.





> I'm tired of your relentless defense of a man who won't join the discussion himself.



And I'm tired of your ridiculous criticism of this man.





> And I am especially tired of idiots who,



Ad hominems are a sign of great debating skills.





> when faced with someone who actually spoke with LaBerge and moderated his forum, choose to call that person a liar rather than listen to what he says (or dare be "called" on their claims).  That transcends pathetic, as does changing pretty much everything you stated in your initial posts, just to make yourself sound reasonable (you failed).



I repeat: just because you "might" have perfect dream control, doesn't mean jack. Hundreds, thousands of lucid dreamers are faced with obstacles in their dreams that they have to overcome. It is a matter of practice. Some will able to overcome them, some won't. How else would you explain a dreamer who after many years still has difficulties doing something? He's probably not "doing it right", correct? Lol.





> This was potentially an excellent subject, well worth a very long discussion and you Jakob, with the possible assistance of Stephen's absence and my own willingness to take your bait, have trashed it.  Thanks.



The only ones who have trashed it are you and the other guy, who attacked Stephen and accused him of being condescending.





> I will add you to my list of people not to bother with on this forum, you are not worth my (or anyone's) time.



And I care, why?





> And I will ask Mr. Berlin once more to come back and have a rational chat about this stuff, rather than letting loose his lackeys...



Mr. Berlin has done more with lucid dreaming than you will ever hope to do.

----------


## Sageous

> Stephen, I have seen you get hammered on two threads in a row, and I do not know why it is happening. I am sorry it happened and twice to the same member. 
> Please give the forum a chance. This odd behavior from members is not common. I do not blame you for refusing to get drawn into a heated conversation that critcizrs you. I have enjoyed reading your stuff and we need long term highly experienced hobbiest, like YOU and SAGEOUS. 
> I hope to see you posting amd making threads. If the critical nature some have treated you in is a new-blood issue, it will surely pass sone. Thanks for all your thought provoking threads.



Sivason:

In all honesty, Stephen never got hammered at all, because he did not participate in the chat.  Perhaps if he did, this conversation, and his time here, would have gone much better.  Respect, after all, goes in both directions.

----------


## Sageous

Jakob:

Two final questions for you:  When did I ever, even once, say, intimate or remotely suggest that everyone has perfect dream control? That resembles absolutely nothing I think, much less would say here or anywhere else.

Show me the times I wrote LOL or "rotfl" anywhere in my posts to you-- or on any other of my posts on the site. I do not do that, ever... Did you think I might have forgotten that? Why do think I was laughing at you?

Oh, and aside from my "condescension" comment, which Stephen sort of admitted to above, he was never attacked, because he opted not to join the conversation -- unless you consider the sincere questions I originally posited "attacks," which would be very sad.

If you have absolutely nothing nice, comstructive, or at all mature to say, it would be really nice if you kept to yourself.  You may worship the man, but I'm betting your posts here are thoroughly embarrassing Mr. Berlin.

Now we're done.

----------


## Empedocles

> Jakob:
> 
> Two final questions for you:  When did I ever, even once, say, intimate or remotely suggest that everyone has perfect dream control? That resembles absolutely nothing I think, much less would say here or anywhere else.



And where did Stephen or I ever, even once, say, intimate or remotely suggest that perfect dream control is impossible to achieve?





> Show me the times I wrote LOL or "rotfl" anywhere in my posts to you-- or on any other of my posts on the site. I do not do that, ever... Did you think I might have forgotten that? Why do think I was laughing at you?



I just said that it doesn't piss me off. You haven't done it to me, but your buddy Mzzkc did laugh at my comments. Look on page one, you can see it. It's irrelevant though because I really don't mind if I make someone laugh. If you took offense at my LOLs then I apologize, really.





> Oh, and aside from my "condescension" comment, which Stephen sort of admitted to above, he was never attacked, because he opted not to join the conversation -- unless you consider the sincere questions I originally posited "attacks," which would be very sad.



Well, you called someone condescending, who really wasn't trying to come off as condescending. Maybe you don't see that as an attack, but your repeated assertions that he is somehow forcing his views upon all lucid dreamers could also be interpreted as an attack.





> If you have absolutely nothing nice, comstructive, or at all mature to say, it would be really nice if you kept to yourself.



I believe that I have said some nice, constructive, and mature things on this forum. This is not the only thread I participate in. Although I believe my posts in this particular thread have also been nice, constructive, and mature.  ::D: 





> You may worship the man, but I'm betting your posts here are thoroughly embarrassing Mr. Berlin.



We'll let Mr. Berlin be the judge of that.





> Now we're done.



Whatever floats your boat. I personally have no problem with you, or with anyone who has different views/experiences. As I said, I really don't get pissed off that easily.

----------


## StephenBerlin

"There is no such thing as bad publicity."   -  Liberace

"Everybody please keep posting."  -  Stephen Berlin   :smiley:

----------


## Sivason

> "Everybody please keep posting."  -  Stephen Berlin



On topic perhaps if we can.

----------


## Empedocles

This should also be interesting: http://www.dreamviews.com/f14/what-y...ontrol-133070/

----------


## The Cusp

I hate jumping into a discussion this late into things, but the OP was insightful and well written.





> If you have a specific destination in mind that is _not within your current dream scene_, you should rule out all forms of ground transportation.  Walking or running, notwithstanding their cardiovascular benefits to your dream body, are exercises in futility.  Should you elect to traverse your dream terrain on foot, you will soon discover that ruffians will accost, ladies will allure, and your emerging dream surroundings will lead you astray from where you are going long before you don't get there.



Ha!  Ain't that the truth!  Lucid time is a precious commodity, and the more time you waste, the more likely you are to get distracted by something.  Yes, you can learn to ignore these attention traps, but nobody is perfect.  





> Driving when dreaming made me start drinking.  Automobiles in dreams (manufactured in some alloy of anxiety) are notoriously undependable.  If your car hasn't been lost, stolen or vandalized, you'll be lucky if it starts.  And don't expect the instrument panel to be much help.  The gauges only indicate levels and degrees of mocking.  Consequently, car problems are a compulsory dreamsign, and the license plate is your registered reality check.



The problem with cars is that they have baggage so to speak.  THe archetype or probability waveform for motor vehicles has associations with all kinds of unhelpful things like running out of gas, flat tire, engine trouble, traffic jams, road blocks, accidents, all kinds of stuff.  Maybe none of those things will happen, and some people may be more likely to experience those outcomes than others.  But the fact is those outcomes are inherently linked to motor vehicles.





> If you travel much in your waking life, you will also find yourself out-of-town in your dreams.  Leave your Triple A map on the nightstand though.  It doesn't show that New York borders Arizona, and that Mexico is just across the river from Quebec.  Our clever inner cartographer pulls destinations together by association.  I grew up in Binghamton, New York, but for many years lived in Nevada.  Hence New York, in one of my dreams was adjacent to Arizona, presumably because it shares "the designation I call home" with Nevada.  In another example, I have crossed the  St. Lawrence River to get to Quebec, and I have crossed the Rio Grande to get to Mexico,  Consequently, when I recently visited a "dreamed version" of Quebec City, I could see Mexico just across the river.  My dream slipped up and missed a suite correlation thought.  I should have been staying at the Old Quebec City L'Auberge Hotel.



The human brain does not store data like a computer does.  It's a neural network, and neural nets store patterns.  These patterns can be thought of as archetypes.  Every house you've lived in will be stored in the "home" pattern.  This goes for anything, schools, cities, rivers.  So if you are familiar with 2 cities that have rivers, you could be in one city, walk to the river, and find yourself in the other city that you know has a river.  First city has a link to river, river has a link to both cities, so from the river you could come out in either city.

The collective of Russian dreamers known as the Dream Hackers came up with this solution to dream mapping.  Unfortunately the website with their translated work is no longer up and running.  Pretty sure I quoted the relevant sections here on DV somewhere, but dammed in I can find it now.

The dream landscape may seem unstable and ever changing, but that's only if you think of it in terms of real world maps.  The real dream map is actually the totality of your interconnected archetypes.

----------


## Ctharlhie

@ The Cusp; I like this interpretation of the dream world as actually quite constant, as it it reflects your neural networks. It's funny, my neighbourhood always looks a very certain way in my dreams, it substantially different from reality, and yet it is consistently the same. I wonder what connections cause it to appear that way.

----------


## Empedocles

> This should also be interesting: http://www.dreamviews.com/f14/what-y...ontrol-133070/



And the results so far, are pretty interesting. They confirm my belief that perfect dream control is not easy to achieve.

----------


## Sivason

> And the results so far, are pretty interesting. They confirm my belief that perfect dream control is not easy to achieve.



LOL! No, it is not easy to achieve. I have not reached it. I can not claim perfect dream control after a life largely devoted to this. Let's see. I can teleport very well and that is handy, but DCs still get in my way trying to drag me into little dream plots. I can not usually shrug them off and erase them. I also still have some random events derail my plans. Less distraction now then 25 years back, but the dream still is not completely at my control. I guess we will see what skills ten more years leads to. I assume if we gain total control, the dreams would get to predictable and boring.

----------


## Sageous

> LOL! No, it is not easy to achieve. I have not reached it. I can not claim perfect dream control after a life largely devoted to this. Let's see. I can teleport very well and that is handy, but DCs still get in my way trying to drag me into little dream plots. I can not usually shrug them off and erase them. I also still have some random events derail my plans. Less distraction now then 25 years back, but the dream still is not completely at my control. I guess we will see what skills ten more years leads to. I assume if we gain total control, the dreams would get to predictable and boring.



_Or_, perfect dream control is a _transcendental_ event. In other words, it might not be predictable and boring, but something else altogether! 

I too, have never achieved perfect dream control -- I haven't even tried very hard to do so.  This is because whenever my dreams approach "perfect" control, they tend to head off into directions that leave any interest in control (or the dream itself) far behind.  I guess the levels of awareness, focus, and energy needed to control _every_ aspect -- "physical," emotional, intellectual, spiritual -- of dream life are so high that maintaining control of anything, much less everything, becomes very unimportant.  

I'm not sure if that makes sense; but I hope it at least made my point.

That said:  Perfect dream control is not necessary to navigate a dream, or else none of us would even be able to discuss doing so!  Indeed, independent exploration of the dreamscape can be done with minimal control:  you could even be "going with the flow" of a dream, letting your dreaming mind do all the work, yet still, with appropriate expectation and awareness, move yourself around that "provided" dream at will.

----------


## Mzzkc

> I just said that it doesn't piss me off. You haven't done it to me, but your buddy Mzzkc did laugh at my comments. Look on page one, you can see it. It's irrelevant though because I really don't mind if I make someone laugh. If you took offense at my LOLs then I apologize, really.



Come now, don't tell me you didn't chuckle a bit when reading back over it, too. After all, someone with such great understanding of how this forum operates would know why comparing BillyBob's work to MoSh's is highly amusing and bound to spark giggles from people who've been here awhile.





> I'm not sure if that makes sense; but I hope it at least made my point.



It did, and you did. However, I don't think most people will really get what you're saying. 

You know, lack of a decent point of reference and all.

----------


## Sageous

> It did, and you did. However, I don't think most people will really get what you're saying. 
> 
> You know, lack of a decent point of reference and all.



Well that sort of sucks, I think...

----------


## Ctharlhie

Can I suggest then that 'ultimate' dream control (as a transcendental event) lies not in misguided attempts at establishing a ego-driven mastery over dreaming, but in working with the dream and recognising the transitory (and yep, I'm going to say it) illusory nature of the ego.
Robert Waggoner makes the analogy 'no sailor controls the sea', as sailors on the turbulent oceans of the dream, we can only direct our small and fragile craft, the ego. I would say from there it is the dreamer's choice to try to conquer the storms of the sea or sail on a calm ocean. The fruition of a dreamer's potential cannot be realised with the realisation that the unconscious mind is more powerful and creative than the waking mind.

I say that limits to dream control lie with the self rather than the dream.

----------


## Sageous

> Can I suggest then that 'ultimate' dream control (as a transcendental event) lies not in misguided attempts at establishing a ego-driven mastery over dreaming, but in working with the dream and recognising the transitory (and yep, I'm going to say it) illusory nature of the ego.
> Robert Waggoner makes the analogy 'no sailor controls the sea', as sailors on the turbulent oceans of the dream, we can only direct our small and fragile craft, the ego. I would say from there it is the dreamer's choice to try to conquer the storms of the sea or sail on a calm ocean. The fruition of a dreamer's potential cannot be realised with the realisation that the unconscious mind is more powerful and creative than the waking mind.
> 
> I say that limits to dream control lie with the self rather than the dream.



Nicely said, Ctharlhie, and I agree that "limits to dream control lie with the self rather than the dream." No question.  

Mind if I mix and match your sea metaphor with my earlier post?  What if, instead of sailing upon the calm sea or (arguably but not necessarily worse in the context of your metaphor) fighting the surrounding storms, why not _stop being a sailor_ and _become_ the sea: don't navigate, but unite with the water and learn to absorb (and understand) the energy of the storm?  It is all, after all, collectively _You_, right?

I think that to assume that your unconscious -- and whatever other unknowns there are swirling in the depths of that sea -- must always flow beneath your "hull" is to set illusory limits, based on ego, that might not need to exist.  And, mix-and-match continuing, the act of surrendering some or all ego to swim in that sea -- or dissolve into it -- does indeed transcend what we believe we know of  control, the dream, and waking consciousness itself.  Illusion is swept away.

So yeah, ego, and its innate, illusory, assumption that the "You" attempting to control circumstances and conditions in the dream _must_ be the same sort of "You" that exists in waking life,  is a truly limiting thing.  To try to form your entire Self (aka the sea/dreamscape) into something that resembles -- but can never be -- your brief time in the waking world seems, from that perspective, a very small and egotistical thing to do indeed!

But then again, if you become the sea, will there even be a _need_ to navigate, or establish a geography at all, since, as the sea/total dreamscape, you know all points of your self (conscious, unconscious, whatever) at once?

----------


## Ctharlhie

I think you've very poetically expressed what I was trying to grasp at, removing the distinctions between the ego and dream to go beyond control, almost like the aims of dream yoga in some ways. Do you think that achieving this in one dream would cause a lasting impact on all subsequent dreams (if not in action then attitude at least), and would aid in the more 'mundane' (if we can indeed call it that) aspects of control such as changing the scene, manifesting objects/characters etc?

----------


## ace55

I had a LD (very vivid, very real to the point when I woke up I couldn't tell the difference between the real world and that LD). In that dream I tried to transport myself to a far location. I live in California. I couldnt do it though. I find mental mind transportation from A to B at least right now almost impossible when I trying hard to focus on it. Im researching techniques lolol on how to do it. Here is from my diary:

June 16th, 2012:

Around 1PM I took a nap. I tried testing a new mental relaxation exercise for about an hour, but it didnt work. I let myself drift to sleep for a short time after this failed mental exercise. I did not take G&C before my nap or any suppliments. I fell instantly into a fast Lucid Dream around 2PM. I was downstairs in my living room. I was originally sitting at the island style kitchen table, and then it dawned on me after I got up from the chair that I was dreaming. I said out loud Im dreaming" to confirm. Everything look the same as in my non-dreaming real time kitchen except a little out of frequency which is how I knew I was dreaming but it came into focus. But still so very vivid and real feeling even daylight outside. I immediately tried to focus on a location and a person. I was going to try to transport myself. to a distant real life/time location but not too distant.. A test which I said I would do next time I LD for a certain reason. So I focused on fields and ranches in Montana. However instantly I started to fade black, and knew it as if I couldnt or was prohibited from leaving my present scenery. I was like I lost the dream now and woke up instantly. I couldn't even try and fade back in and hold the dream. It could have also been I wasnt fully tired and only in a soft sleep so I didnt have the consciousness to transport but as soon as I tried transportaing to a new location it drained me. The whole dream lasted only around about five minutes. I did not return back to napping, and got up from my bed, and continued with my normal day. End of Entry.

----------


## Sivason

> I think you've very poetically expressed what I was trying to grasp at, removing the distinctions between the ego and dream to go beyond control, almost like the aims of dream yoga in some ways. Do you think that achieving this in one dream would cause a lasting impact on all subsequent dreams (if not in action then attitude at least), and would aid in the more 'mundane' (if we can indeed call it that) aspects of control such as changing the scene, manifesting objects/characters etc?



In my experience the state of "trancendence" is a good goal, but in the end is not overly exciting, at least  not "The Clear Light of the Mind" thing. Here is a quote from my recent DJ entery about it """Yawn" some yogis may fantasize that this state is the ultimate level, but I think it is that they either want the 'goal' to be attainable, or they want to feel that because they can do this, that they have reached an end. I find it just one more state of awareness."""
Here is the link if you want to read the entry.05/26/12 Clear Light of the Mind-Yawn - Dream Journals - Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views

I think we all would like to imagine that there is some goal, that when reached, means, you did it, your at the end. That is just not how it works.


Now, to your questions. Acheiving this state in even one dream will have a lasting effect on you in the ego filled waking world; you just 'understand' in a new way. Will it impact dream control? It is like any LD in that practice improves your skills in general, *but there is a very very powerful way this can be used to reach extream levels of dream control*.
The average Buddhist monk may be appaulled that I am teaching "Transendence" as a useful tool in a hobby, rather than the ultimate end. However, I am not concerned with what anyone may think.
Remember the scene in "The Matrix" where they appear in a world that is all white except for them? In that place the charectors could be free of the Matrix and its dangers while training in a world they choose. Ok, that is a sci-fi movie, but clearly whoever consulted on the LD aspects added in the flick knew about this trick. You must first get to the "Clear LIght of the Mind" phase. In that phase you are not seperate from anything, you are free of thought, form, ego, and there is no sceenery except a magical clear whiteness.
*Fine, now what? We can bask in the "oneness" we can free ourselves from "duality", but so what? I mean "what then"?* Spiritual growth is wonderful, but you never reach an final end goal. *So you can eventually reach this state, why not use it for something?*


Here we go. *I call this trick "White Room" dreams.* (The background can actually be grey sometimes) I get to the state of egoless trancendence, and then I pull back just enough to start to remember my own ego and self. I create a dream body to my liking and work on stablizing it. At this point no scenery exists except for my body. You can then, free from DCs and such, begin to create any scene you want. The background only fills in as you wish, so it can be you and a table, or you and a cottage that is floating in a feild of white.
Here is how this creates stunning and amazing dream control,,, you only bring a tiny portion of your ego and sub-concious mind back, so you are free from the distractions normal LDs have.
Pro's: you cn have ultimate control such as shape shifting, levitating a mountain, anything! No distractions.
Con's: All independant aspects of dreaming are gone. This means no DCs unless you create thenm on purpose. The said DC will be very robotic, only moving if you focus on it. Nothing interesting ever happens unless you think it up and cause it to happen.

This advice is probably not much use to most dreamers as you must first reach a state some believe is "the ultimate" so many will never get there. I really just offer it up as an interesting side note on dream control. I enjoy this "White Room" dreaming if I want to practice skills, but the lack of plot and randomness takes all the "Dream" out of it.

----------


## Sageous

> Do you think that achieving this in one dream would cause a lasting impact on all subsequent dreams (if not in action then attitude at least), and would aid in the more 'mundane' (if we can indeed call it that) aspects of control such as changing the scene, manifesting objects/characters etc?



Yes and yes.  I would say more, but Sivason beat me to it, and did a much better job than I would have anyway, save for one small bit that I'll mention to him in a second.

----------


## Sageous

> In my experience the state of "transcendence" is a good goal, but in the end is not overly exciting, at least  not "The Clear Light of the Mind" thing. Here is a quote from my recent DJ entry about it """Yawn" some yogis may fantasize that this state is the ultimate level, but I think it is that they either want the 'goal' to be attainable, or they want to feel that because they can do this, that they have reached an end. I find it just one more state of awareness.



I'm not so sure about that, Sivason...

Yes, "The Clear Light of the Mind," does seem sort of dull on its face, but that may only be because of how much is left out of its description.

Instead of thinking of reducing/abandoning ego as the ultimate level, period, perhaps you might think of it as the ultimate level that our human consciousness -- as currently "programmed" -- can understand.  The yogis may have that Clear Light etc. as a goal _not_ for the sake of reaching it, but for the sake of _being able to reach it_.  Perhaps they sense that in the process of learning to reach that goal, they also learn to _step beyond_ that ultimate level of human experience, to the true transcendental experience that comes with a final unification of all the parts of their mind and -- yes, I know they hate this word -- their soul.  

That unification, in non-religious terms, could simply be exposure of your awareness to the full expanse of your unconscious, and of course whatever else might be "swirling in that sea."  That to me doesn't seem very dull at all. Dangerous, overwhelming, and spiritually transforming, maybe, but certainly not dull.

So next time you're in your white room (mine's a gray mist, BTW, but to each his own, I suppose), instead of forming a body, or doing anything remotely anthropomorphic, consider doing the opposite: build a unique metaphor that might encourage that "white" to release its secrets and allow you to insert your awareness into the complete being that is _You_. Don't worry about creating.  Instead, _become_ creation.  I would bet that it is not very dull at all.

I know that all sounds a little hokey, but think about this -- in the Matrix, that white room wasn't _just_ a white room.  It was a "supply room," offering up whatever the characters needed to know or have for their various (and extremely hokey) adventures.  The white room was in a sense the "unconscious" of the Matrix, and our heroes were able to tap its resources at will -- without being bored!  Indeed, the whole "Neo seeing the code" bit at the end could stand as a metaphor for a transcendent dive into the sea of his unconscious (at least in the first movie, before it all went south).  Damn, that's deep... Hey, maybe the Wachowsky Bros _were_ trying to tell us something important after all, and really _weren't_ just a couple of over-amped  comic book fan-boys channeling Philip K. Dick to make a cool fists-of-fury movie ... Nah!

Now the real answer to Ctharlhie's question, I think, would be: achieving this in a dream (literally after a dream, I suppose, or after death, if you're a sleep yogi) would likely make that "perfect" dream control and navigation a snap but, having achieved this ultimate goal, and stood on the steps of real transcendence, why bother with the dream?

Okay.  It's 2 am, I'm tired, and this is getting weird.

----------


## Mzzkc

Wtf is a Yogi?

*two seconds later*

Oh. Okay.

Why does everyone talk about this stuff like it's a big deal? You'll just confuse people into thinking it's hard.



/me wonders if anyone saw what he did there...

----------


## Sageous

^^ For me it's not so much a big deal as an easy reference for context's sake.

The Dream and Sleep yogis have spent centuries accumulating a handy set of terms for things that otherwise might not have them.  So, if I wind up in a conversation with Sivason -- who is well versed in this stuff -- it is easier to reference the yogis, and everything Sivason immediately draws from that reference, rather than root around for words and pictures to otherwise state my case.

In all honesty, I'm not much of a fan of the whole yoga thing, and all its associated doctrine and tenets -- sorry Sivason!  Indeed, it turns out I was practicing dream and sleep yoga for years before I ever even stumbled into the Tibetans and their terms.  That these guys were doing it all along was both encouraging and very handy for turning my thoughts into words someone might understand.  Although Ctharlhie's Sea metaphor worked okay, too...

Now that I think of it, the basis of what the dream and sleep yogis are doing _is a big deal_. Big enough for them to have attached a religion to it, I suppose.  Some of it is pretty hard, too, though none of that has much to do with LD'ing, I think.

So I hope you'll bear with us ( for what it's worth, I do try to avoid the terms as much as possible, mostly because I'm probably misusing them half the time anyway)

----------


## Mzzkc

It's fine.

I'm finding out much the same thing, myself; I just wonder why people claim some things are so difficult. Sure, everyone's path might take a bit of traveling, but you're fine if you don't stray too much. It also helps if you can manage to hitch a ride.

But that's neither here nor there. Just an implicitly interesting parallel between the former discussion and the current...

----------


## Ctharlhie

As for the clear light being the 'ultimate' I'd like to think there's no 'end' in this crazy world of lucid dreaming we know and love.




> Here we go. I call this trick "White Room" dreams. (The background can actually be grey sometimes) I get to the state of egoless trancendence, and then I pull back just enough to start to remember my own ego and self. I create a dream body to my liking and work on stablizing it. At this point no scenery exists except for my body. You can then, free from DCs and such, begin to create any scene you want. The background only fills in as you wish, so it can be you and a table, or you and a cottage that is floating in a feild of white.
> Here is how this creates stunning and amazing dream control,,, you only bring a tiny portion of your ego and sub-concious mind back, so you are free from the distractions normal LDs have.



This is pretty awesome and it's funny that when I first learned of lucid dreaming I wanted to go into the 'construct' from the matrix and spawn things in it, unaware of the metaphysical implications of existing in a void unified with your unconscious.
But like Sageous I think you might be discounting the experience a somewhat lightly.




> Indeed, the whole "Neo seeing the code" bit at the end could stand as a metaphor for a transcendent dive into the sea of his unconscious (at least in the first movie, before it all went south). Damn, that's deep... Hey, maybe the Wachowsky Bros were trying to tell us something important after all, and really weren't just a couple of over-amped comic book fan-boys channeling Philip K. Dick to make a cool fists-of-fury movie ... Nah!



I did, and still do, get hair standing on the back of my neck when I first saw the scene in which Neo realises he is 'The One' and sees the matrix clearly for the first time, before I had any idea of the Buddhist/Taoist subtext.




> I'm finding out much the same thing, myself; I just wonder why people claim some things are so difficult. Sure, everyone's path might take a bit of traveling, but you're fine if you don't stray too much. It also helps if you can manage to hitch a ride.



It would defeat the purposes of drawing up a complex and prescriptive set of doctrines dating from thousands of years ago, only to say that goals are ultimately easy and for everyone to find their own way.  :wink2:

----------


## Ctharlhie

I just remembered something really quite interesting. In my first lucid dream, at the instant of attaining lucidity I suddenly found myself hanging in a white void without a dream body, and this was before I read anything about dream yoga.

Does this mean that the results of dream yoga don't simply arise from expectation from the teaching and have a basis in some underlying mechanism of lucidity, is the 'base reality' of tibetan buddhism simply a state of consciousness where one is inherently connected with the unconscious, past the egoic duality?

----------


## Mzzkc

> It would defeat the purposes of drawing up a complex and prescriptive set of doctrines dating from thousands of years ago, only to say that goals are ultimately easy and for everyone to find their own way.



Exactly my point. ^.^





> I just remembered something really quite interesting. In my first lucid dream, at the instant of attaining lucidity I suddenly found myself hanging in a white void without a dream body, and this was before I read anything about dream yoga.
> 
> Does this mean that the results of dream yoga don't simply arise from expectation from the teaching and have a basis in some underlying mechanism of lucidity, is the 'base reality' of tibetan buddhism simply a state of consciousness where one is inherently connected with the unconscious, past the egoic duality?



That would seem to follow...at least loosely.

After all, these mountains of doctrine and terminology had to start _somewhere_ universally attainable. Right?

This is another one of those cases where understanding why these things happen is more important than following the how to. In my experience, anyways.

----------


## Sageous

> Does this mean that the results of dream yoga don't simply arise from expectation from the teaching and have a basis in some underlying mechanism of lucidity, is the 'base reality' of tibetan buddhism simply a state of consciousness where one is inherently connected with the unconscious, past the egoic duality?



Why yes, yes it does.

Most sincere religions follow a phenomenon, they don't invent it.  So I'd say the thing the Tibetans are chasing existed long before they did, and they have since spent a thousand years investigating it, categorizing it. and, often, way over-complicating it. 

I think that there were probably _cavemen_ who once questioned, no doubt in a series of grunts, their egoic duality.  This stuff is not new, or unique to some old guys in Tibet. As you noticed, anyone who delves deeply and lucidly into their dreams (likely in the process abandoning duality and some ego in the process, just because it works better that way) could find themselves sampling the tenets of Buddhist, Hindu, American Indian, and even Catholic mysticism without ever having read a word from of any of those religions' dusty texts. Kind of makes it all a bit more real, I think.

... Now I can only hope that the growing LD Nation doesn't codify all these established "techniques" and "mysterious" natural noise like SP or hypnagogia into the tenets of its own religion... I wonder what Dr. LaBerge would think of the title "Holy DreamFather?"

----------


## Sageous

> I just wonder why people claim some things are so difficult. Sure, everyone's path might take a bit of traveling, but you're fine if you don't stray too much. It also helps if you can manage to hitch a ride.
> 
> But that's neither here nor there. Just an implicitly interesting parallel between the former discussion and the current...



Ah, Mzzkc, you may be betraying your innate abilities in that statement.  "Hard" is very much a relative term, especially with as elastic a skill as LD'ing.  For some, it's a piece of cake, for others, it'll never happen.  Maybe hard is the wrong word?

Indeed, to re-twist that parallel to the beginning of this thread (wasn't I accused of saying it's all easy back then? I can't remember -- it's all a blur now): Perhaps the things we're discussing: Chtarlhie's Sea, Sivason Clear Light etc and the white room, aren't so much "hard" as they are harbingers to the literally _impossible_ goals the Buddhists and Hindus set for themselves. As Sivason noted, the goals themselves -- calm sea, clear light, white room, etc, seem kind of dull (as does that Western goal: heaven), but if the Tibetans et al have set their sites on _what lies beyond_ all that, then what they seek may well be beyond the reach of human fingers, or minds.  That to me seems pretty hard.  

But in the end what does any of this have to do with navigating dream geography?

----------


## Mzzkc

> Ah, Mzzkc, you may be betraying your innate abilities in that statement.  "Hard" is very much a relative term, especially with as elastic a skill as LD'ing.  For some, it's a piece of cake, for others, it'll never happen.  Maybe hard is the wrong word?



It's just a matter of overcoming self-built, psychological barriers. Anyone can do it if they work to understand themselves. Sure, I might have the advantage of getting a head start on most of the population (I've pretty much been doing the spirituality and self-reflection thing since I was old enough to speak [6 months, if you're curious]), but I wouldn't say the process is difficult. Just time intensive.





> Indeed, to re-twist that parallel to the beginning of this thread (wasn't I accused of saying it's all easy back then? I can't remember -- it's all a blur now): Perhaps the things we're discussing: Chtarlhie's Sea, Sivason Clear Light etc and the white room, aren't so much "hard" as they are harbingers to the literally _impossible_ goals the Buddhists and Hindus set for themselves. As Sivason noted, the goals themselves -- calm sea, clear light, white room, etc, seem kind of dull (as does that Western goal: heaven), but if the Tibetans et al have set their sites on _what lies beyond_ all that, then what they seek may well be beyond the reach of human fingers, or minds.  That to me seems pretty hard.



At that point you exit the realm of physicality and reach a point where current scientific understanding can't help you sort it out. So, yeah, 'harder'...assuming you get no assistance.





> But in the end what does any of this have to do with navigating dream geography?



White rooms and oceans count as geography. Weren't you paying attention in middle school?

XP

----------


## Sageous

> White rooms and oceans count as geography. Weren't you paying attention in middle school?



Okay, okay.. nice to know we're staying on topic then!  :wink2: 

... attention in middle school?  I think it was during all those mid-afternoon history desktop naps that my dream work began!

----------


## Sivason

> Okay, okay.. nice to know we're staying on topic then! 
> 
> ... attention in middle school?  I think it was during all those mid-afternoon history desktop naps that my dream work began!



Oh, that is awesome. I did alot of my first dream work on a desk top too!

So, back to how it relates to navigation. The dreamer who can erase the entire scene and eliminate the distractions faces a new concept in navigation. That of bringing a place to you, instead of travelling to a place. I one time had decided to demonstrate my telepot skills to myself in a personal challenge. One part is to teleport to famous locations.

I did not go to these places. I dreamt that I  teleported there. In order to say i teleported to Eygpt, I erase the white room (which was almost a bit purple that time) and made the visuals shimmer, then I created a pyramid. To me in the dream it had the effect of me appearing suddenly on top of the great pyramid. I do not know where I am going with this, but maybe some one else will use the thought to go somewhere in this discussion. I would play a little more now, but have to take my wife to lunch.

----------


## Ctharlhie

> So, back to how it relates to navigation. The dreamer who can erase the entire scene and eliminate the distractions faces a new concept in navigation. That of bringing a place to you, instead of travelling to a place.



So in mental space you are only as far as a thought away from any destination. Throw away all conventional measures of distance and space, they don't apply.

----------


## Sageous

^^  That to me, Ctharlhie, is the foundation of lucid dream navigation -- and creation, since we're talking geography as well!

----------


## Sivason

> It's just a matter of overcoming self-built, psychological barriers. Anyone can do it if they work to understand themselves. Sure, I might have the advantage of getting a head start on most of the population (I've pretty much been doing the spirituality and self-reflection thing since I was old enough to speak [6 months, if you're curious]), but I wouldn't say the process is difficult. Just time intensive.



How can I tie this in with navigation? Ok, is navigation (or all mystical LD stuff) easy? Of course my take on the universe is just mine and no one needs agree with me here. Both Mzzkc and Sageous, as well as myself have all stated at various times something more or less like this,,, "I discovered this stuff before anyone told me about it,,, it is almost like I always knew how to do such and such but just had to work it all out a bit,,, or if people could just realize such and such and stop limiting themselves"

We all three seem to have skills above and beyond the average. Here is how it would be explained in my version of reality. Reincarnation. How many life times would you think the average human has had? Well, this one universe has been able to support life for so long, that if someone was created even 1/10 of the way back to the beginning (?1.3 Billion years) and incarnated in forms that lived 100 years (for quick math) they may have been in over 10 million bodies so far. So, let's not go that far back, let's just say some of us have been kicking around a good long time. Humans who have been exposed to Dream Yoga teachings or through self study work to reach odd new states of reality. The theory being that good Dream Yogis gett more direct control on what happens to them after death. That kind of training would stick with you.

Mzzkc, I, like you was clearly an odd little spiritually aware child very early. Even raised in a normal setting I freaked out when i was 5 and saw Wonder Woman sitting lotus style and doing a mantra on TV. People always commented on the odd spiritual intrests I was showing. So here is my conclusion. Me, you, and Sageous have been exposed to LD type teaching before in prior life times. It gives us a clear advantage when compared to any one who has not.

Now I think about humility as a good virtue to cultivate. The simple fact that any of us have an advantage due to our past, does not make us special, we simply have this one skill in our past. However, it is a risk we all three must face, that we may frustrate students who do not have the same advantage. If we come across like "come on, this is so obvious" it will make perfectly good student feel inferior which is no good thing.

So, cheers to any one who has this wonderful advantage, and here's to anyone who needs to crawl before they can run. Back to the topic! Anyone who has a hard time moving around in the LD world, don't get discouraged, it actually is a hard thing to figure out. Take your time and ignore people who say they can teleport at will  :smiley:  You will get where ever you are going if you train your skills and don't spend every LD trying to get laid.

----------


## Sivason

> Why yes, yes it does.
> 
> Most sincere religions follow a phenomenon, they don't invent it.  So I'd say the thing the Tibetans are chasing existed long before they did, and they have since spent a thousand years investigating it, categorizing it. and, often, way over-complicating it.



Bravo! I like that. Well spoken.

----------


## Sageous

> Me, you, and Sageous have been exposed to LD type teaching before in prior life times. It gives us a clear advantage when compared to any one who has not.



And to think I felt old _before_ I read this!   :wink2:

----------


## Mzzkc

> We all three seem to have skills above and beyond the average. Here is how it would be explained in my version of reality. Reincarnation. How many life times would you think the average human has had? Well, this one universe has been able to support life for so long, that if someone was created even 1/10 of the way back to the beginning (?1.3 Billion years) and incarnated in forms that lived 100 years (for quick math) they may have been in over 10 million bodies so far.



Of course, this assumes only one body at a time can be 'occupied,' as it were. Which itself is a limitation, don't you think?

To contribute to the topic at hand, however, I present a straightforward "how to" that anyone can follow with a bit of introspection: http://www.dreamviews.com/f14/archet...t-tool-104409/





> And to think I felt old _before_ I read this!



Heh.

I keep forgetting how long you guys have been poking at the wasp nest. XP

----------


## Sivason

> Of course, this assumes only one body at a time can be 'occupied,' as it were. Which itself is a limitation, don't you think?



So off topic so real quick,,, A saying goes roughly like this. "For an advanced soul it is like the moon being reflected in a pool. There is only one moon in the sky, but it may appear on earth many places at the same time."

Of course one body one soul is a crazy limitation, however, I just told every one they may have had 10 million bodies, which is too much to start with, much less if you get into what advanced souls can pull off. No limit.

----------


## Mzzkc

It must suck to be a DG when you're engaged in an interesting and worthwhile conversation that skirts the "off-topic" bounds. XP

Sorry to have kept pushing; I think I'll retire from this thread for now.

----------


## Sageous

> It must suck to be a DG when you're engaged in an interesting and worthwhile conversation that skirts the "off-topic" bounds. Sorry to have kept pushing; I think I'll retire from this thread for now.



Too bad...the off-topic stuff was getting fun.  And we _were_ at least saying words like "geography" and "navigation" now and then.

So, back to navigation?  Anybody have any excellent dream-drive stories?

----------


## Mzzkc

Test drove a Smart Car in a nap today. The steering was awful, the brakes barely worked, and I almost got hit when the car failed to stop at an intersection. I told the salesperson flat out that no matter how good the price was, driving it to and from work every day would suck...hard.

Then I got out and walked home.

Pretty gorram excellent, if I do say so myself.

----------


## Sageous

Wow. Sometimes dreams just imitate life, huh?

But could you read the gages?

----------


## Mzzkc

Yeah, I used the speed gauge to point out that it shouldn't take 100 yards to stop when you have the brake fully depressed and are only traveling 20mph.

----------


## Ctharlhie

Haha, no it's not just you, and it wasn't the Liberace quote, it seems a user has found a way to hack the forum to make the forum font pink. At least that's what I've heard.

----------


## Sivason

> Haha, no it's not just you, and it wasn't the Liberace quote, it seems a user has found a way to hack the forum to make the forum font pink. At least that's what I've heard.



No, I do not think it was a user. Mindgame was showing how she could change her text back, by using the change text color feature in the market place. Someone thought Mindgame was saying she had caused the pink issue, and Mindgame never corrected the idea. Another person pointed out that today is a National HIV testing day. The thought being that the text may be in support of that event.

----------


## MindGames

> No, I do not think it was a user. Mindgame was showing how she could change her text back, by using the change text color feature in the market place. Someone thought Mindgame was saying she had caused the pink issue, and Mindgame never corrected the idea. Another person pointed out that today is a National HIV testing day. The thought being that the text may be in support of that event.



Nope! It was really me.  :smiley:

----------


## StephenBerlin

I may once again be opening old wounds about cars and other vehicles not performing properly in dreams.  I acknowledge and appreciate all opinions that differ from my own.  Every dreamer has a personal experience, and I wouldn't presume to dispute it. 

I am, however, here attaching a recent review of my video "Navigation in Dreams" which can be viewed or downloaded on iTunes and YouTube.  My only purpose is to emphasize that we are all served by learning from each other:

*******

I had my first lucid dream, Thanks to this podcast  :smiley: 
by perIIII

I found this podcast after becoming interested in the subject and then my journey went from there. I was a bit skeptical about having a lucid dream or the possibility of if I would/could have one, and one night I fell asleep while watching this on my iPad. I arrived in a dream in a quarry desert and my car for some reason would go in reverse...and I instantly remembered Mr. Berlin's discussion about issues with complex machinery in the dream world, and voila!!! I woke up in the dream world. It was without a doubt one of the most amazing experiences i have EVER witnessed thanks to this podcast.

----------


## Sivason

Congrats Stephen, it is a great feeling, helping others.

----------

