I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that I should take things more seriously? I have no monsterous ideas for the matter.

Why would you be concerned about your existence on these forums? Now, I'm somewhat afraid of some conspiracy...

I'm just a very timid, whimsical, and shy piglet. You have no reason to be afraid of anything I say.

It could be. One wonders — Posty McPostface

Also, I think the whole notion of "lucid dreaming" is mistaken. Technically speaking, once you "wake up" then you're NOT dreaming. So, it doesn't make sense to describe this awakened stated as "lucid dreaming" because you've woken up and once that happens what you experience is your imagination at play. Not dreaming.

What would you call that state of being then?

Awake and imagining things

You do appear to avoid the 'shoutbox' which appears to be the place where the monsters like to roar at their roars. — Marcus de Brun

Yes, I'm considering not participating in the Shoutbox anymore. I'm too sensitive for the roughhousing in there.

But your still dreaming, no?

Hurrah, solipsism! — Posty McPostface

Solipsim is true in dreams: the first principle of dream interpretation is 'everything in the dream is you.' Especially the monsters. That is the difference between dream and reality, that the monsters of reality have taken on a life of their own, and post stuff you would never think of.

Let's stop talking about monsters. I'm getting scared...

Don't be scared of being scary.

But your still dreaming, no? — Posty McPostface

How can we dream when we're awake? How can we be awake if we're dreaming?

It doesn't make sense.

All I'm willing to give to the idea of "lucid dreaming" is it's somewhere between actual dreaming and day-dreaming and I feel it's much closer to the latter than to the former

I'm scary? Jesus, that can't be even true, can it?

Also, I think the whole notion of "lucid dreaming" is mistaken. Technically speaking, once you "wake up" then you're NOT dreaming. So, it doesn't make sense to describe this awakened stated as "lucid dreaming" because you've woken up and once that happens what you experience is your imagination at play. Not dreaming. — TheMadFool

Mad

The assumption of a self the "you" here is problematic. Which form of thought or the infinite array of meta-thoughts are you referring to as 'a' pure self?

Who is the self who is thinking about the self, and the self who is thinking about the thinking self... and so on? In an even simpler sense who is the self-thinking and who is the self-doing? I

Indeed they might all be assigned to a oneness, but the assignation is outside of the empirical function of the thinking process or processes.

This 'self' is a bit like Heisenberg's Uncertainty in that as soon as it is fixed, it tends to disappear.

M

Don't be scared of being scary. — unenlightened

I disagree. Be scared of being scary or being scared.. in one respect you are free, in the other you are unfree.

Freedom is everything!

M

I disagree. — Marcus de Brun

What I want to point out is that in dream, if one is scared, one is scared of oneself (no one and nothing else is there). Which is to say that being scared simply is being scary, so being scared of being scary is a bind that holds one to being scary and being scared.

In the real world, it comes to the same thing; to be scared of being scary is to bind oneself - the opposite of freedom - it is also to be scared of oneself.

So I want to say very firmly and clearly that there is no escape from oneself, absolutely none. So this fear cannot act, except to run in circles trying to get away from itself like a dog running away from its tail. If that is seen very clearly and completely, it is the end of fear.

All I'm willing to give to the idea of "lucid dreaming" is it's somewhere between actual dreaming and day-dreaming and I feel it's much closer to the latter than to the former — TheMadFool

You're probably right on this account. I would think the brain wave patterns of a lucid dreamer might resemble that more of an awake person than one deep in REM sleep. Interesting stuff.

So I want to say very firmly and clearly that there is no escape from oneself, absolutely none. So this fear cannot act, except to run in circles trying to get away from itself like a dog running away from its tail. If that is seen very clearly and completely, it is the end of fear. — unenlightened

What next then? Reaching out to the world? Becoming a cosmopolitan or socialist? You have led the fly out of the bottle; but, often the fly reminisces about how comfortable a life it had in the bottle.

Oh, how does this sound similar to Plato's analogy of the cave. Hehe.

The assumption of a self the "you" here is problematic. Which form of thought or the infinite array of meta-thoughts are you referring to as 'a' pure self? — Marcus de Brun

I don't see how having meta-thoughts lead to the self multiplying. Two mirrors parallel to each other have infinite images but there are still only two mirrors.

It's interesting though to think the self can multiply like you suggest. Imagine what that would mean!

I did dream research many years ago and became an expert in collective human symbolism, so I could analyze my dreams. Dreams have meaning if you know how to translate. It is similar to listening to a foreign language you do not know. It makes no sense and is like a bunch of arbitrary sounds, until you know how to translate. Then it has more meaning to you.

Several years into the research I had a dream where I was conscience in that dream, but that particular dream was a nightmare. Rather then deal with a lucid nightmare, I tried to wake myself up, only to find that the dream was still partially going on while I was awake. I was in a sweet spot, where both sensory reality and dream reality were overlapping. It was not exactly psychotic, but a do-able place for further research.

This was a variation of unconscious projection, where we see reality through our eyes, but overlapped with an unconscious projection. If one is not aware of this, then the composite image appears to define your reality. A social anxiety disorder sees reality but overlapped with an intense anxiety that is projected onto even friendly reality.

As an analogy, say you had a movie projector attached to a hat you are wearing. The movie projector shines a jungle landscape onto the walls of your room at the same time you are looking at the objects on the wall. If you were not aware of the projector on your head, your mind would get used to the composite image and see this as your reality. Metaphysics sort of deals with the projectors.

That being said, part of my later research into dreams was to learn to differentiate the subtle overlay using a technique based on synchronicity; meaningful coincidence. The physical environment is fixed, but the overlay will participate in synchronistic experiments. It can synchronize because it comes from the unconscious center, which is attempting to get the attention of the ego.

The way that might work was me becoming aware of certain details in the environment, such as a bird flying from left to right. I am not controlling the bird in terms of any physical reality connection. Rather I am being made aware of this particular bird, because its color and direction off motion has a dream type parallel, that was appropriate to the occasion. I would analyze this as a dream symbol. This was an early way to develop an interactive rapport with the unconscious mind. It led to a dissociated state that made it easier to map out the psyche from its projection.

I don't see how having meta-thoughts lead to the self multiplying. Two mirrors parallel to each other have infinite images but there are still only two mirrors. — TheMadFool

Indeed: one physical mirror containing infinite images of itself, each very slightly different from the next (in space and time) .

It's interesting though to think the self can multiply like you suggest. Imagine what that would mean! — TheMadFool

One of my 'selfs' is typing my response to you, another is smiling at how smart I think I am, whilst another is telling me that only foolish people think they are really smart.

Which one do you prefer... I love them all ad-infinitum.

M

I did dream research many years ago and became an expert in collective human symbolism, so I could analyze my dreams. — wellwisher

I find it odd that dreams are so easily forgotten, except the most emotionally intense or moving ones. Do you know why this is?

I used to keep a dream journal, that significantly helped me recall and analyze my dreams; but, no longer do that anymore. It's very tedious trying to write down what happened in your dreams if you have experience with this.

One of my 'selfs' is typing my response to you, another is smiling at how smart I think I am, whilst another is telling me that only foolish people think they are really smart.

Which one do you prefer... I love them all ad-infinitum. — Marcus de Brun

You don't believe that do you?

You don't believe that do you? — Posty McPostface

It depends upon whether I am considering the analogous material mirror itself, or that which it contains (my thoughts).

But in essence yes I believe it to be true on the basis of my own interface with 'the real'.

What do we read here on the forum, only thoughts that are reflective of some aspect of a self. I am currently at work and am also here interfacing with your thought. These words are not an 'entire me' they are a temporally fixed aspect or reflection of the infinite potential of my thought.. .nothing more.

M

Doesn't the necessitate the problem of agency? After all this is "you" speaking and "me" replying.

Doesn't the necessitate the problem of agency? After all this is "you" speaking. — Posty McPostface

These words are not "me" speaking. This is a vague concept that is useful in daily dialogue, like Newtonian physics is useful in the context of driving cars or getting from A to B.

In a deeper more real sense these words are not "me speaking" they are merely temporal fixations of aspects of my thought. The process fixation is rendered by other aspects of my thought, and I may be lying so the entire communication might well not be in the least way reflective of my thought.

They (poor words) do not reflect my thought entirely and indeed are only an archaic evolutionary mechanism towards my biological function, like the yelping of a dog or the singing of a bird.


The issue at hand returns to Schopenhauer's notion of the origin of Will. The will to will and the infinite reduction of : will to will to will... etc. Pointing to an origin of 'Will' and or 'self', from an entirely infinite space, unrelated to the act of physical communication (words: typed or spoken).

M

These words are not "me" speaking. — Marcus de Brun

This is confusing. I think I'm speaking with someone called @Marcus de Brun, am I not mistaken in your identity?

and I may be lying so the entire communication might well not be in the least way reflective of my thought. — Marcus de Brun

Well, then you might be lying but some part of you knows what the truth is. So, even if your lying or bullshitting (a Frankfurtian term), then at least you still have some narrative or the truth hidden in deceit or lies as guiding the conversation.

They (poor words) do not reflect my thought entirely and indeed are only an archaic evolutionary mechanism towards my biological function, like the yelping of a dog or the singing of a bird. — Marcus de Brun

That could be true but how could I know otherwise?

The issue at hand returns to Schopenhauer's notion of the origin of Will. — Marcus de Brun

So, then where does the will originate from? Educate me as I'm not that well read in Schopenhauer's philosophy, although I should be.

So basically a power trip then.

So basically a power trip then. — StreetlightX

Not as you understand it at least. It's not power over something external, rather internal.

These words are not "me" speaking. — Marcus de Brun


This is confusing. I think I'm speaking with someone called Marcus de Brun, am I not mistaken in your identity — Posty McPostface

That is my name.. but obviously not the totality of my identity which encompasses the totality of my thought.

Well, then you might be lying but some part of you knows what the truth is. So, even if your lying or bullshitting (a Frankfurtian term), then at least you still have some narrative or the truth hidden in deceit or lies as guiding the conversation. — Posty McPostface

Not necessarily, as I might be 'lying to myself' believing what I desire to believe rather than a more painful truth that I do not 'know that I know' (a Donald Rumsfelt phrase). The I and the self are dependent upon what consciousness 'decides' to make of the deeper Will.

They (poor words) do not reflect my thought entirely and indeed are only an archaic evolutionary mechanism towards my biological function, like the yelping of a dog or the singing of a bird. — Marcus de Brun


That could be true but how could I know otherwise? — Posty McPostface

I don't understand the question.

The issue at hand returns to Schopenhauer's notion of the origin of Will. — Marcus de Brun


So, then where does the will originate from? Educate me as I'm not that well read in Schopenhauers philosophy, although I should be. — Posty McPostface

I would not be so presumptive as to think I can educate anyone other than myself. Even my kids are relatively oblivious to my influence.

I will review my Schopenhauer and return with the appropriate reference.

M

That is my name.. but obviously not the totality of my identity which encompasses the totality of my thought. — Marcus de Brun

Oh, cool. We're on the same page then. Posty is me, and Marcus de Brun in you, haha.

Not necessarily, as I might be 'lying to myself' believing what I desire to believe rather than a more painful truth that I do not 'know that I know' (a Donald Rumsfelt phrase). — Marcus de Brun

Ahh, Rummy with the known knowns, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns. Epistemically we are bound to known knowns and known unknowns, unknown unknowns aren't entertained by us, not in dreams at least. There is one last category though, they are unknown knowns.

The I and the self are dependent upon what consciousness 'decides' to make of the deeper Will. — Marcus de Brun

Too deep. For clarity sake, let's assume that we can only be aware of what we are aware of.

They (poor words) do not reflect my thought entirely and indeed are only an archaic evolutionary mechanism towards my biological function, like the yelping of a dog or the singing of a bird. — Marcus de Brun


That could be true but how could I know otherwise?
— Posty McPostface

I don't understand the question. — Marcus de Brun

I mean to say that I have nothing to go about what you are referring to here.

I would not be so presumptive as to think I can educate anyone other than myself. Even my kids are relatively oblivious to my influence. — Marcus de Brun

Oh, well, OK. :(

I will review my Schopenhauer and return with the appropriate reference. — Marcus de Brun

Thanks!