Path: isis!not-for-mail From: piotr5@unet.univie.ac.at (Gander) Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid Subject: Re: Spazzmodicus gifts Gander with wooden stake, nails coffin shut!! Date: 15 Nov 2001 19:31:48 GMT Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 916 Message-ID: <9t1574$4h9$1@gander.coarse.univie.ac.at> References: <9s2m7q$uve$2@news.chatlink.com> <3be6fcdc$0$53844$3b214f66@news.univie.ac.at> <9s7mfv$gfd$1@news.chatlink.com> <9s7msj$gg0$2@news.chatlink.com> <3be97074$0$190322$3b214f66@news.univie.ac.at> <9sc84o$jgf$1@news.chatlink.com> <3bec1443$0$251874$3b214f66@news.univie.ac.at> <9si1m0$h87$1@news.chatlink.com> <9slknp$1u9$1@gander.coarse.univie.ac.at> <9snosa$d3l$1@news.chatlink.com> Reply-To: gander.in.this.group@usenet.net NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gander.coarse.univie.ac.at Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: gander.coarse.univie.ac.at 1005852708 4649 127.0.0.1 (15 Nov 2001 19:31:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.univie.ac.at NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Nov 2001 19:31:48 GMT X-Newsreader: knews 1.0b.1 X-Face: .(hJ*$gnz!gL7S)ciU?rB*Tg|sz{}MdzWfqd5#:s2s`LTILQ[dugluS-PSjh&JPr..wBic<}).Y):6XPTrhuR\aqVvGHd#D*W\C~&~X}Mry+^8/x$t2aA%R51x2u[A5*&uXtx>`bm.BrJl2GL#>m^A-)S}st3.mLc/v)IhCMoR;h below it. so, for example below the bracket denoting my snipping there is a "> " and after this space there is my actual reply. it doesn't go to the very beginning of this thread, but I think it does show the context quite well. In article <9snosa$d3l$1@news.chatlink.com>, Spazzmodicus writes: > I began with your final statement first to settle one fact right away. > > Gander verbalated the following: > >> However, as I said, only the topic of lucid dreams is >> something where I'm at least understandable by people >> who too have at least 1 LD per week (at least I don't >> remember any complains from them). so, if you wish >> some serious discussion with me then evade any other >> topic, as my whole thinking-process is optimized for >> lucid dreams only, and thereby communication does only >> work relieably there... > > Now you're a liar, besides being a nutcase who enjoys the I was a liar all the time, except that now this has been stated without further explanation. However, down there in the quoted parts I've put enough evidence to show that I am a liar and a nutcase... > negative attention like some kind of neglected child, you talk > about a number of subjects in a number of newsgroups under > numerous identies. No optimization....just another lie from Gander. yes, many subjects and many newsgroups, but neither many identities (I always did keep my compface, my bogus eMail addy, the "gander" in the reply-to header and of course my nutty way of talking was used sooner or later) nor any real experience which was not in some way caused by a lucid dream I had. It's just that the farther away I did get fro the subject of lucid dreams, the more offensive and lying I did become, as without any real experience to talk about I had to make up some real experience. In reality I only have maths, LDs and the life of my friends as "real experience" and maybe some things I did experience on the way between those. my non-real experience is based on hear-say of my friends, the internet, some films and tv-series and a few books. the optimization can only be noticed by counting the amount of dream-related postings -- including those which utilisize fantasy to make up some lies. The point is that lucid dreams are always lies and never direct truth! > > Identity: P (Piotr5@unet.univie.ac.at) > Group: rec.games.roguelike.adom a very early posting, This group is simply too sacred to be spoiled by my OT-postings > > Identity: Caspar The Unfriendly Ghost (piotr5@unet.univie.ac.at) > Group: alt.acme.exploding.newsgroup I love this group, and I wish sometimes I could contribute something worthwhile there. For now I'll have to train my twisted sense of humour to match theirs... > > Identity: p@gander.coarse.univie.ac.at (Running Gander) > piotr5@gander.coarse.univie.ac.at > Group: Xpost - alt.aol-sucks, alt.usenet.kooks, alt.music.hardcore this must have been a really early posting, as here my local mail-addy is used, which is totally useless for any attempt to reply. > > Identity: Piotr Sawuk (piotr5@unet.univie.ac.at) > Group: alt.test, at.univie.edv, microsoft.public.vc.mfc.docview, on usenet outside of the alt-hierarchy it's preferable to post with the real name, as at least in europe people don't have the sense of humour to laugh at some silly nick-name people did assume for themself... > > Identity: Gander (piotr5@unet.univie.ac.at) > Group: Xpost - talk.religion.newage, talk.religion.misc, > alt.dreams.castaneda, alt.paranormal.reincarnation > > Identity: Gander (piotr5@unet.univie.ac.at) > Group: Xpost - alt.politics.yugoslavia, alt.alien.visitors, > uk.politics.misc, alt.prophecies.nostradamus adl is still my "home", and sometimes I go to adc, as there people share my pov on reality -- even when they express it differently, I still agree with their posting's meaning. some people perceive adc as offensive, I do not. maybe that's also why I am perceived as offensive without seeing myself this way... > > > > > You even have the name of a nutcase....Piotr Sawuk. Thanks, did you know that Piotr transliterated into russian, further translated into "austrian", and finally "transliterated" into english would be "Caspar"? But it would be interesting to learn more about the nutcase with the name "Piotr Sawuk" you did mention, as I accidentally have exactly the same name. did you find this name in some files in your local nuthouse? Sorry for making fun of your own kind of lies... > > [ >> Subject: Re: Gander runs his mouth and gets nuked by Spazzmodicus - Film at Eleven. >> ] >> In article <9si1m0$h87$1@news.chatlink.com>, >> Spazzmodicus writes: >>> Gander went nutz and verbalated the following: >>> >> Wow, this Subject-header you did choose is hilarious, >> are you sure you don't read alt.dreams.castaneda? >> maybe I already did warn you not to talk about >> any topic other than Lucid Dreams with me? > > Um...yeah...I'll do another "funny" for ya'otherwise, > ...see the above. thanks, I really suck! > > >>In article <9si1m0$h87$1@news.chatlink.com>, [ >> Spazzmodicus writes: ] >>> Gander went nutz and verbalated the following: [ >>> [ >>>> In article <9sc84o$jgf$1@news.chatlink.com>, >>>> Spazzmodicus writes: >>>>> Gander, I guess my thoughts just operate at a different frequency >>>>> than yours. I think we both make valid points as well as erroneous. >>>>> Every once in a while I'll run into somebody whose thought process >>>>> (for lack of better description) just doesn't mesh well with mine. >>>>> Guess what. You're the one this time. Not saying there's anything >>>>> wrong with your presentation, which may actually be 100% right on >>>>> target, but that's not the point. The point is more along the lines >>>>> that I find it difficult to follow along with what your saying. >>>> >>>> Sorry, that's actually my fault. I'm not very good with the >>>> human language, but I'm trying to learn it. I've experienced >>>> worse discussions than this one, and maybe after some postings >>>> we would have actually managed to start some communication. >>>> At least my motivation for the discussion was your comment >>>> of increasing RL-awareness for an increased dream-lucidity. >>>> I was merely trying to point out that RL-awareness can be >>>> trained on much more levels than just in the aspect which >>>> is interesting for the millitary, and that some experiences >>>> and tricks for increasing one part of awareness can get >>>> re-used for another. IMHO this is the reason why you get more >>>> lucid dreams when you train RL-awareness, although I think >>>> that especially you would be able to increase the efficiency >>>> of this tec, if you would try my methods of increasing my >>>> in-dream awareness I did describe in this thread... >>>>> >>>>> I could've resonded to your reply the "regular" way, point by point, >>>> >>>> that's pointless, as this way you would continue to miss >>>> my point that perception is subjective, and that external >>>> beliefs only put another layer over this subjective pov >>>> while hiding the underlying own perception. If you think >>>> that answering point by point is useless, then just tell >>>> me about your overall emotionless opinion. IMHO this way >>>> of discussion does fit you much better, as you don't seem >>>> to pay much attention to my choice of words but rather >>>> receive what I'm talking about subconsciously... >>>> >>>>> but I don't think we'd get very far because I'm just as sure of my >>>>> views as you are of yours. So rather than having a long drawn-out >>>> >>>> if you would be able to pointz out one such disagreement, >>>> then we both could try to talk without touching this topic, >>>> the problem is just to keep this disagreement as small as >>>> possible or else there would soon be nothing to discuss >>>> anymore. Of course this isolating of disagreement is a >>>> process which requires high awareness of both people, as >>>> misunderstandings could easily be interpreted as disagreement. >>>> >>>>> debate over our non-aligning POV's, I think I'm just going to go >>>>> make a cup of coffee....and disagree with you in a different thread. :^} >>>> >>>> well my attempt of isolating our disagreement is: >>>> >>>>>> Maybe you believing in some kind of "subconsciousness" >>>>>> does have something to do with this difference? :-) >>>> ] >>>> and aligning a pov does require sorting out such things >>>> after it has been agreed upon what they are. IMHO you did >>>> very well understand what I was talking about, or else >>>> you wouldn't have reacted this way -- i.e. no answer does >>>> mean that your curiosity on this topic has been satisfied... >>> >>> Gander, You'll have to trust me here when I say "my curiosity wasn't >>> satisfied"...I freakin' gave up and tried to bow out gracefully. >> ] >> you're right, nobody can say about anybody else if the >> person's curiosity has been satisfied. So, I have to >> thank you for gracefully following my request of >> elabourating your comment. Just like you do not understand >> me, so also I have problems with understanding such postings >> like the one I did reply to. > > I doubt it. You're actually a very intelligent person who > understands yourself and everybody else too. You're by no Sorry, I actually meant that I can't imagine being in your position and saying such things, as I can't figure out the reasons for you saying these. Here not intelligence, but real contact with real people is important to understand eachother. people who like you perceive "truth" as the highest value are seldom on usenet, and I really appreciate this posting I'm responding to, as it is a vital piece in the puzzle towards understanding people like you. because of my lack of experience in this area I've put this posting up on my webspace instead of trying to express the same in my own words. > means a nutcase, crazy,ect....although you thrive under the > attention gained from such a facade. I call you a nutcase for > my own satisfaction, not yours. And in my (minor) experience this attitude is something I can only recommend to people. I do not thrive under the negative attention I get through this, I only thrive from useful hints towards understanding other people and myself. Negative attention is bad, as most often it's combined with mindless accusations lies and curses, but in this case you are free to call me a nutcase all you want, as I still get something out of your truthful reports. It seems that people like you hesitate to tell the truth about some other person when they don't perceive this person as something "different" from others. you might call this attention, but for me it's just a tool created only for truth-loving people to abuse and utilisize their truthfulness for learning more about them, myself and how I am perceived by them... > > [ >>> >>> What part of "don't understand" do YOU not understand? >>> I'm no liar nor am I misled of myself. I stated it very clearly. >>> Anything else you "recieved" was on a subconcious level or something. >> ] >> actually you only said you didn't understand my babblings, >> but your actions did show me that you did apply exactly >> what I tried to say with my posting: your high awareness >> did allow you to see the insane structure behind my words. > > Nope. Didn't see it at all. My "high awareness" failed me as > I saw no insane structure.....rather no structure at all. Well, insane per definition is the antonym of sane, so when you didn't see any structure at all, then of course it follows naturally that you didn't see any sane structure too, so if I did perceive a structure in my words, then this structure must have been insane according to you, as you wheren't able to perceive it. the only error your "high awareness" did do was to miss me saying that I do see a structure behind my words, and that this was honest. However, I suspect it wasn't the fault of your high awareness, but rather the prejudice that liars always lie... > > >> of course again nobody can say about someone else if he >> did "understand", but I was talking about you applying >> what I said, and not about mental cognition. Of course >> I assumed that "you do understand" is an oxymoron of >> some sort, and thereby has absolutely no meaning, and >> thereby a "you did use what I suggested" would need >> to take over the meaning of my words. obviously I was >> wrong, sorry. I'm just not experienced enough with this >> whole communication-thing... > > Lying again, are you Gander? You do "this whole communication-thing" > quite well for someone speaking English as a second language. the ability to communicate is independant from the ability to speak a language. there are lots of people who where born with the english language, who maybe even have a very big vocabulary and know how to use it, but still don't know how to communicate without using their fists and lots of swearwords. Maybe I'm more eloquent than them, but I am still lacking the compassion, humility and understanding of other human beings to talk without drifting away into semantic arguments. Further I didn't say that I where not good with the communication-thing, I merely said that I'm lacking experience in this area. maybe I'm good at it in the sense of some occasional smart comment, but because of my lacking experience I do simply choose the wrong words most of the time. you are talking about my best results in this communication-thing, while I'm talking about my worst. What I actually tried to say is that regardless of my talent and knowledge in that area, I still talk like a small neglected child (who did accidentally read the dictionary)... > I would've thought you would be hanging around in German newsgroups. > Are they not intellectual enough for you? in english the variety of people on the net is much bigger, and here I have a greater chance to learn coping with the different types of personality. further, german is not my first language, and polish (which is) I can't even read or write. I'm not in search for intellect, but rather in what you called "attention" even if it's a negative one. I wish to learn here, and not to "relax". I have certain goals, and once they are reached I will leave usenet completely. for relaxing I think chat is much better anyway, as there you can choose who is sitting on the receiving end... > > BTW, since you're into "free" newsreaders you should take a look at > http://xnews.3dnews.net/ > > Xnews will do everything your Knews will do, including decode binaries, > which Knews seems to choke on. for me Knews does do: show messages in a threaded manner, allow me to see other people's comp-face, display a message at the whole height of the schreen (instead of just the whole length which is pointless as messages on usenet are limited to 75 characters anyway), it's extremely customizable, open-source and fast (without any gtk or even gnome- or kde-bindings), further it does allow color-coded killfiles with reg-exp filter, and I can edit my messages in any editor I choose with full access to the headers I'm sending, thereby allowing me to turn off and on X-No-Archive at will... > > [ >>> >>> To put it bluntly I find anything you say laborius to understand >>> and just plain unrealistic. You seem to believe what you want to >>> believe regardless of any existing fact and then you have to >>> create your own exoctic theories as to why you believe what you >>> believe so it all doesn't fall apart on you and cause you to lose >>> your mind. Hmmmm? why do I say that? >> ] >> I don't know why you are saying that. I can only guess that >> you perceive "truth" as the highest value and thereby you >> feel offended with my slacky use of words and my disinterest >> in checking if my beliefs reflect what you call "truth". > > Yup, that's me. Truth is it...period. > > >> you're right with your observation that my beliefs are not >> based on facts, but on decisions of what I wish to believe. >> It's also true that I keep inventing obscure explanations >> of why I did what, so my mind doesn't fall apart with all >> these inconsequent and totally insane behaviour. I simply >> don't have such a coherent and stable character as you, >> and I just don't wish to get one. my instable character >> does simply provide too many advantages in my lucid dreams. >> (Here! I'm doing it again!) > > What? Lying?....yeah, I can see that. It's all a front. > I'm sure try your best to put together incoherent strings of > babble, then sit back with glee and laugh yourself a hernia as you > actually get people to discuss your idiotic ideas. You probably > consider it a trophy when someone says: "Hmmm, I see your point" no, I laugh at people before posting, and when the response does get distracted from the things I said. investigating other people's reactions to my babblings is too serious for me to spoil it with laughter. the mechanisms behind communication are too interesting for me to get distracted into any kind of feeling superior for causing the reaction (of course it's really not me causing the reaction, the mechanisms of life did never get handled by any human, but rather by the human collective -- just look at "revolution" and the rare stories of its success), as distraction could cause me to miss the workings of the mechanism... > > [ >>> >>> I did a google search after wondering why I had a problem >>> understanding you, to see what all you had to say. Guess what? >> ] >> sorry for that, google is certainly not the right place >> to see what I have to say because of my X-No-Archive: yes >> in the headers. luckily you didn't have to wade through >> many postings because of this. for a proper research > > Wrong again...nice evasive maneuver though. You apparently haven't > always "X-archived"(See top) nor does it prevent the searcher from > seeing your posts through somebody else's reply, ....like mine I turn it off consciously, so it only works just like a normal kill-filter which hopefully too will only kill the postings by the killfile-d person and not replies to them. but when you choose to perceive aiming at being killfile-d a nice evasive maneuver, then I thank you for noticing this... > > >> you would need my out-box folder. do you wish me to send >> it somewhere or to put it up on some webspace? It did >> already grow up to 3M meanwhile (20M when uncompressed), >> as apart from usenet I usually don't do much communication... > > Yeah, go ahead and post it on a webpage...although I know you won't. > 20megs huh?.....well being that nobody can read compressed text, that > would put you just about out of space since the University only allows > you 20megs web space....you'd have to delete stuff....like you're really > going to do all that. Yeah....right. More lies. I meant for you to download, extract and read locally. maybe through some script I could put it into a file hierarchy according to the References-header, and maybe I could compress each file with gzip, but I didn't say that, I only proposed to offer you new material for your investigations if you wish them... however, it's a good idea you had here. for others to do a proper research I will now put them into monthly batches for downloading. maybe I will get some of the freely available webspace for storing them... > > [ >> >>> I found that about every other person you talk to has a problem >>> understanding you and seems to think you contradict yourself. >>> I myself just simply think your full of shit...oops! Did I say that? >> ] >> That's why I keep saying that not other people have a problem >> with understanding me, but rather I have a problem with >> communicating in a language which is possible to understand >> at all. it's not that I have a problem with expressing myself, >> or that I get misunderstood, My thoughts simply work in a >> way which can't be transfered into the human language. > > What are you from the Romulan Nebulas or something? More gobbledygook. > Google provides ample reference of your not being understood. only I can judge of I was correctly understood, and according to me I was. here I'm only talking about the fact that my attempts to convey my thoughts have the major drawback that people interprete a bit too much into my words. for example to you I did merely cry for help in understanding your actions, but you did interprete it as me calling you a liar, which I didn't do until this posting... > > >> Not that >> this would make me special, or "intelligent", it actually makes >> me insane and "stupid" instead. But somehow people (other than you) >> just don't have an awareness high enough to notice that what >> they call "intelligence" on me is actually just a result of >> my insanity, and that just because people do not manage to >> understand me doesn't mean that I'm too smart for them. > > No, you're basically entertaining yourself, and anybody you can > get to listen to you. Your older posts illustrates an OK guy that > doesn't exhibit any of the above nonsense. these "older" postings are only seperated by a few months from the non-ok postings. I live in phases of different thought-patterns, and sometimes I talk more coherently than other times. I would wish to learn controlling this... further you didn't pay attention to whom I did show this strange behaviour. where I did grow up the behaviour similar to mine (but more violent) did usually show me that this person just wanted to be my friend. In fact most of my friends did originally attack me in some way, and so I'm used to search friendship this way... > > >> In short, you're right that I'm full of shit... > > I do really believe this. For once, you're telling the truth. > > [ >>> >>> Now, if you don't seem to understand my point in all this, I'll be glad >>> to post a big fat juicy article full of references to verify what I say. >>> If it comes to that, please feel free to do the same. I speak the truth >>> and have nothing to hide in this regard. >> ] >> I would be happy if you would do that, as this would allow >> me to put up some kind of faq on some webspace, and to >> point to this gander-faq from my sig along the lines of >> "before you complain read this and killfile me". it could >> serve as a warning for others and maybe even protect them >> from any damage (like for example wasted time) I might cause. > > I think I've done enough in this post, which after this, you'll > need to find somebody else to help you build your fan club. I know, I owe you something for your help and my rude forcing you to help me... > > >> However, I do understand your point, and re-posting old >> comments won't help me to change anything, as it didn't >> help in the past. you have such a high awareness, maybe >> you could find out what I need to change in order to >> be understood by others? > > You need to concentrate on your studies so you can get the hell > out of College. If you're not a Senior there at the University > of Wien, then your probably part of the staff....or maybe you're > just somebody from maintenence sneaking computer time. Or are you > just a party animal "living" at College since your rich daddy is > paying for it?...after all, not everybody gets to go to school in > Austria. in austria education is quite cheap, and especially among politicans it's not unusual to study for 10 or more years. I did start studying in '97 and I now start thinking about the end. maybe I will just start some new area for studying afterwards, or maybe I will change my life completely -- I don't know what I'm able to do. Other than usenet I now do not have many social contacts. neither am I in some staff nor in any other group of community, I'm just studying for my own... > > Who knows....you may be a psychology major trying to apply what > you've learned. At any rate, in order to be "understood by others" > you have to want to be understood by others, which you don't. as I said, not being understood is my problem -- I always did reach my goals of getting others to act the way they should according to my knowledge -- but my real problem is being perceived as part of the community without being part of the community. it's the faking to be normal which is a bit too difficult for me -- I only have a problem with hiding that my only purpose in life are lucid dreams and applications of them... > You've found a snappy little act that you enjoy, which is trying > to gain attention in whatever form it comes, positive, negative, > doesn't matter as long as it's directed at you. So, for that reason, > just as I said in the last post, I'll stick around to see what you > have to say then you get to move to Plonkville with Mr. Eldridge. > Since you've basically said nothing more than you've said before, > you cease to exist once I hit "add this user to killfile". that's what I wished you to do as soon as you mentioned that you have some kind of problems with talking with me. you're right that usenet is a danger for me, as I could get addicted to this little game and forget my original goals, but as long as it doesn't interfere with my studies and doesn't hurt others (at least not more than once), it's much better than any RL-discussion group, as there people have to live with me or beat me up... > > >> That's actually what I did ask >> you to do in my previous posting. partly you did fulfill >> my request by pointing out that I keep defending my beliefs >> no matter how worthless they really are, in that I explain >> their existence with some made-up purpose they might serve. >> I'll try to shut up about the reasons for my beliefs, maybe >> that will make me more understandable. > > Doesn't matter now. yes, now that you did call it "lying" it really doesn't matter that I make things up. I rather should learn a method of fast identifying people who perceive truth as valueable and to evade my usual lies towards them. so far I did only manage to keep discussion flat and shallow for them to be not confronted with my lies. but even that is a bit too difficult for me, as I keep falling back into the old habit of deep nonsensical discussions which get understood by neither of us... > > >> thanks for your effort, but I somehow suspect that this is not enough. > > Hmmmmm....displaying "high awareness" of your own..... > > [ >> thanks for your effort, >> but I somehow suspect that this is not enough. ] >> do you have >> some other ideas of how I could improve my weak communication >> abilities? I'm happy to hear any critique I can get, as most >> people prefer to evade telling me what they perceive as bad >> on me, with the old cop-out called gracefulness or politeness, >> which I actually hate, as it does defy the kind of honesty >> I try to achieve (I don't like being truthful, but I perceive >> honesty as extremely valuable for human communication)... > > More gobbledygook. yes, according to the dictionary honesty and truthfullness are kind of synonymous. what I tried to say here is that I tell my thoughts without censorship even if they happen to be lies, and that I keep promises... > > [ >>> >>> The bottom line is you're a nutcase running away from reality as fast >>> as your little legs will carry you all the while filling the air with >>> words of grand illusions, that makes up you belief system...... >>> ...oh...all in my own honest opinion of course. >> ] >> very true, that's probably why I'm interested in lucid dreams... > > No, it's probably that you're a freakin' hyper-nerd who's too socially > inadept to get laid in real life, so you have to take what you can get > in LD's. oh, "socially inadept" was the word I was looking for. please replace all instances of "communication-thing" with "socially" and instead of each "unexperienced" I did use in this context put an "inadept" afterwards... however, nearly all my wet dreams are non-lucid or merely semi-lucid. I do still know how to sustain the dream and the dream-character, but once I get fully lucid I simply walk away and do other things. But you're right, I'm a virgin in the area of sex, and it doesn't look like there would come any change in this area, as I simply have no girfriends. also you're right that I use my dreams for things which are too difficult for me in real life, but not sex with other people (I really have no experience at this, so how could my LD ever manage to teach me anything there?) but meditation and deep thinking is what I'm lacking in reality and which I do more or less exclusively in my lucid dreams. for me reality is just a re-living of the new findings I did experience in some lucid dream -- just like for others dreams are just a re-living of reality... > > [ >>> >>> I have a feeling this isn't the last time you're going to hear this >>> particular message as I'm sure somebody else doing a google search will >>> be delighted to bring it to your attention. >> ] >> somehow I doubt there will be many people in my future who >> will take up the burden of doing such an intense research >> as you, usually people just killfile me. Thanks for your >> extra work. > > I like to be accurate. The killfile will come. > > >>> Oh yeah,...I wait around to see what you have to say before giving >>> Mr. Eldridge a new friend on my plonklist. >> >> as you wish, I always assumed that the advantage of >> communication over usenet over other kinds of communication >> is that you can killfile a person. > > Yeah....and what a great advantage it is. Unlike Mr. Eldridge, > I regret having to killfile you because you are indeed an intelligent > person...and I draw towards intelligent persons....however, it's > a lot better than trying to wade through your gobbledygook, being > a victim of your twisted sense of humor. that's the right attitude! > > My mailbox remains open though should you miss me and want to beg me > to come back....heh heh...I'm making myself laugh now. You can respond to > this post if you wish to attemt to redeem yourself in the event you feel > exposed, but I'll never know it. doesn't really matter who does read this, it's an ongoing discussion I have with many people who don't even know of eachother. this is a good representation of the current state. anybody wishing to add something can do so through mail. even though I will send a link to Spazzmodicus, I don't believe he would have much to add, as already in this posting he did slack off. However, I will only take any continued discussion seriously when I see that the other person does share his high awareness and his love for truth... > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Spazzmodicus > > Signing Off - Plonk! [ >> the only exception are >> the poor people reading through google. that's why I prefer >> to default to being killfiled for them and only respond to >> them upon explicit request in the form of someone answering >> a quoted part originally written by me... >> >> However, as I said, only the topic of lucid dreams is >> something where I'm at least understandable by people >> who too have at least 1 LD per week (at least I don't >> remember any complains from them). so, if you wish >> some serious discussion with me then evade any other >> topic, as my whole thinking-process is optimized for >> lucid dreams only, and thereby communication does only >> work relieably there... [ [ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> Spazzmodicus >>>>> >>>>> "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gander verbalated the following: >>>>> >>>>>>In article <9s7msj$gg0$2@news.chatlink.com>, >>>>>> Spazzmodicus writes: >>>>>>> Gander verbalated the following: >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> most people don't notice that this dream-less stage before >>>>>>>> falling asleep is actually full of dreams and black-outs, they are >>>>>>>> just not perceived as images, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most people refer to it as hypnogogia. Others like myself have >>>>>>> full fledged dreams while entering stage 1 sleep. As for mine, >>>>>>> they're not quite the same variety I get as in later REM sleep... they >>>>>>> usally last only about 5 seconds more or less and are complete with >>>>>>> dialogue and story line all intact. They don't seem to be "real time" >>>>>>> either. While the dream only last a few seconds, they seem to take >>>>>>> longer than that to dream, I guess because of the "instant" storyline, >>>>>>> but like you say, I've done the looking at the clock thing for >>>>>>> verification. >>>>>> >>>>>> I get those too, but that's not what I was talking about. >>>>>> somewhere after the first hour I realize that even though >>>>>> I only remember thinking intensely, there is no difference >>>>>> between these thoughts and an imageless dream, as both >>>>>> are drifting off from topic to topic in the same interactive >>>>>> way, and both are lacking the knowledge of where I really am. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but the black-outs can be measured by looking at the clock from time >>>>>>>> to time. It's true that before such dreams start I usually become >>>>>>>> void of all thoughts, and the real sleeping-state is only reached >>>>>>>> when I loose the ability to say where I am and what I'm doing in this >>>>>>>> thought-less stage, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, by that definition, "the real sleeping-state" is when you >>>>>>> become void of all thought, not when you loose any ability to >>>>>>> ascertain any conscious local data because then it would require >>>>>>> thought. Maybe >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't understand. what would require thought? >>>>>> what "real sleeping-state"? I did give "thought-less stage" as a >>>>>> point of time of when I do loose these abilities, and not as a >>>>>> description of when I don't know where I am. I can become void >>>>>> of all thought without loosing the memory of "local data", it's >>>>>> just that in order to fall asleep it does help to create a drowsy >>>>>> state in which the whole world seems to change to something >>>>>> completely different, and when this drowsy state is set as >>>>>> a goal for the mind, then I will become void of all thoughts >>>>>> automatically in order to reach this goal. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm just misunderstanding your description here. Anyway, this state >>>>>>> you're refering to is commonly known as stage 1 sleep. Not awake but >>>>>>> not quite asleep. >>>>>> >>>>>> no, even inside of a lucid dream I do not really know where I am. >>>>>> maybe some slight memory of "I'm in bed" does prevail, but even >>>>>> though upon waking up I clearly remember that my sleeping-position >>>>>> was always changed consciously, inside of the dream I am completely >>>>>> unable to remember the position my physical body is in while asleep. >>>>>> it's as if the responsible brain-regions where turned off, and in >>>>>> fact I've heard about a mental state (measureable) in which they are. >>>>>> >>>>>> further I wouldn't really say that any sleep-stage would be >>>>>> void of all thoughts (except maybe hypnagogic imagery itself), >>>>>> as thought-lessness can only be kept up for a very short time >>>>>> by me before I fall back into intensive thinking again. maybe >>>>>> if you wish to believe in a subconsciousness, then you could >>>>>> say that at some stage all thoughts are subconscious, but in >>>>>> my experience I can very well control these non-existant >>>>>> thoughts, and sometimes I can even reconstruct the path my >>>>>> thoughts did take to arrive at a particular dream, no matter >>>>>> if I can actually formulate them into conscious words... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but the dream thereafter is not some kind of awakening, but rather >>>>>>>> compareable to the black-outs within the dream or in the time before >>>>>>>> falling asleep. it's not a real awakening, but a continuation of the >>>>>>>> previous action as in task-switching like for example in sports where >>>>>>>> you continue your exact thoughts just after concentrating on the >>>>>>>> physical activity... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, the dream thereafter most likely occurs a good 60 minutes >>>>>>> later when in REM sleep, so I can't really see how it could be a >>>>>>> continuation of the previous action, especially when considering that >>>>>>> you've come to this point from stage 4 sleep, when your brain is >>>>>>> operating with almost no activity at about 2 htz. You might be talking >>>>>> >>>>>> didn't you hear about this report from someone recording his >>>>>> dream-descriptions noticing that sometimes the description >>>>>> does apruptly end in mid-sentence, and some hour later the >>>>>> unfinished sentence is continued as if no time did pass? >>>>>> just because the brain-activity does slow down doesn't >>>>>> mean that it is non-existant at all! also when I concentrate >>>>>> on some physical exercise, then after I'm finished I do >>>>>> continue my last thought even if 60 minutes did pass. >>>>>> it's just a matter of concentration... >>>>>> >>>>>>> about NREM Stage 2 sleep, which many are beginning to believe dreams >>>>>>> do in fact occur at that stage, but I would venture a guess and say >>>>>>> from that level, they couldn't possibly be dreams that one could >>>>>>> recall, even with any amount of effort.....heh heh, not my dreams >>>>>>> anyway. I could be wrong though. >>>>>> >>>>>> why? where from did you get the idea that memory is >>>>>> written only in more active brain-states? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that's not true, the reconceptualization is clear, it's just the >>>>>>>> mental inability to understand what this dream is talking about >>>>>>>> (i.e. the fact that you son't remember where you are and what you >>>>>>>> are doing, which according to some people does correlate with certain >>>>>>>> brain-acivity labeled with some greek letters) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, if I don't understand it, it just ain't clear, no matter how >>>>>> >>>>>> with this definition you would need to add from which >>>>>> pov something is or isn't clear. I was talking about >>>>>> the pov of the waken state (I assumed this was the >>>>>> default for talking about "absolute truth"), but you >>>>>> only did not understand it from the pov of the dream. >>>>>> if you where drunk, and someone would explain you some >>>>>> extremely simple thing, would you then too say that >>>>>> his description is not clear just because he didn't >>>>>> tweak it towards your current state, or would you >>>>>> take over the responsibility for not understanding >>>>>> that which is easily understandable when not drunk? >>>>>> >>>>>>> you slice it. One would lose their mind in a hurry under the >>>>>>> assumption that all dreams were secret coded messages and it's our >>>>>>> responsibility to figure them out or face the perils of ignorance. >>>>>>> Like it or not, some dreams are nothing more than the subcounscious >>>>>>> mind throwing out the garbage. As for myself, I'm not much of a >>>>>>> garbage collector or dumster diver. >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn't say anything different, and I wasn't talking about >>>>>> symbolism or whatever. all thoughts are as full of symbolism >>>>>> as dreams, and IMHO people who are searching for a hidden >>>>>> meaning in their dreams could save a lot of time by doing >>>>>> the same for conscious waken thoughts during the day too. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was talking about the clear kind of meaning behind dreams, >>>>>> about the garbage it does contain, and certainly not about >>>>>> some secret patterns in this garbage. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You lost me on the greek letters part. >>>>>> >>>>>> alpha-waves, beta-waves, gamma-waves and so on. when talking >>>>>> about those binaural beats people keep mentioning these >>>>>> greek-letter words, and also sleep-stages and paranormal >>>>>> activity does have something to do with those letters... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> which does make it impossible to see the correlation within the >>>>>>>> dream. As you said, reading your dream journal does bring back >>>>>>>> the feelings within the dream, and you realize that they are >>>>>>>> just mere thoughts. it's a matter of recapitulating what you did >>>>>>>> dream about and not as you did theoretisize a matter of >>>>>>>> reconceptualizing back into a dream-description. Just my own >>>>>>>> experience, YMMV... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the sake of accuracy, I said nothing about "feelings within the >>>>>> >>>>>> just an example of how broadly I interprete the word "feelings". >>>>>> >>>>>>> dream" but I know what your trying to say, but one does wonder if a >>>>>>> person could so esily overlook or misinterprets this simple item, how >>>>>>> could one accurately form much more complex theorums? >>>>>> >>>>>> which "simple items" are you talking about? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyways.. reading a description in a dream journal and seeing a direct >>>>>>> correlation to a situation from a previous date, which has also been >>>>>>> reduced to a simple description, doesn't really bear any resemblance >>>>>>> to the exalted cognitive sensationalism like that of which you >>>>>>> provided. I'm quite sure my milage does vary. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe you believing in some kind of "subconsciousness" >>>>>> does have something to do with this difference? :-) ] ] ] -- Better send the eMails to netscape.net, as to evade useless burthening of my provider's /dev/null... P