Geography and Navigation in Dreams

Also, to Stephen (Berlin):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenBerlin

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. ^.^

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jakob

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....

Quote:

---

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! That 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?

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Was the steak yummy, Sageous?

It seemed like you did a lot of chewing there.

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

I think that's why booze was invented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sageous

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."

Quote:

---

Oh, snap! Way to piss off nine-tenths of the people using this forum, Jakob! That 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Huh? Do you even like LD'ing?

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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."?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

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.

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.

So what are we fighting over?

We were fighting?

Huh.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jakob

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jakob

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sivason

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.

Quote:

---

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... :P

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.

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

Quote:

---

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? :)
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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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. :)

*******

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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".

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sageous

... 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

And I am especially tired of idiots who,

---

Ad hominems are a sign of great debating skills.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.