Stephen LaBerge

For general lucid chat - ask questions, share advice, set lucid dream challenges and explore the lucid realm together.
User avatar
taniaaust1
Posts: 2990
Joined: 07 Feb 2013 15:32
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: Stephen LaBerge

Postby taniaaust1 » 12 Jan 2014 23:24

Summerlander wrote:He's the man and a man of reason. We are not talking about some author's beliefs here. Science is involved. His methods have been tested and verified. And where applicable, the theory is impeccable.



yes I know we are talking about someone experienced in LD and the opinions he's formed also be others experiences (probably lots of them started out as students of his). That doesnt mean he's still not learning new things or may end up having to correct something he's said.

LD is a tricky thing.. probably more tricky then the study of other things as we are dealing with subconciousness here and peoples own personal beliefs greatly affect this.

Groups of people studying something together.. one can experience something and then others if they now believe it too will all start having the same kind of experience when it comes to beliefs and how they affect subconsciousness and hence LD.

eg For example (im making this example up) say someone who is well respected in the LD field and has lots of people who admires him and his work goes and starts saying.. "you cant read during a LD". Suddenly all these others who read his stuff and are new to this and dont know better.. start trying to read in their LDs and find they cant.. as they believe they cant so they wont.

Anyway.. that's the kind of observation I made with him.. he said something which wasnt true and which only then causes blocks for others as they now will believe the same and what belief is very important when it comes to LD as it certainly will affect what you can do.

Of course, cause I havent read his book all I have got is a few quotes here and there to go on of what he teaches about this but it put me off to read something which I knew wasnt true based on my own experiences (so that proves to me he must have some "mental blocks" which is making his experiences not as open as they could be to things.. blocking certain things from him). That being said.. we all probably have mental blocks around LD stuff so this post isnt certainly about knocking him down.

Im not saying his books are bad as most likely they would have a lot of good info in them, bound to do so if he has been in LD field for years but just saying those books may not be right for me and that shouldnt be taken as like gospel truth. I suggest people to not just read a book and think that must be how everything must be but to check things out for yourselves to find out how things work for them, not based on how another says it has to be or goes.

Anyway..cause of how much beliefs affect LD, this area isnt an easy study, due to dealing with the subconciousness different results will come up according to beliefs. Different cultures etc may have quite different experiences with it. (I myself didnt learn LD throu books so was doing this with no programming on how its supposed to be).
The only thing to fear is the fear itself

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3650
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Stephen LaBerge

Postby Summerlander » 13 Jan 2014 19:12

taniaaust1 wrote:yes I know we are talking about someone experienced in LD and the opinions he's formed also be others experiences (probably lots of them started out as students of his). That doesnt mean he's still not learning new things or may end up having to correct something he's said.


Nobody's said that he's not learning new things or that he is not correcting material. But so far his findings can be verified. You also keep referring to what the author has published as "his opinions" but the practical stuff, in terms of techniques, can be demonstrated and the dream psychology is pretty much feasible. He also not only mentions his subjects, but also, renowned experts who conducted their own studies and are in perfect agreement with his findings. You really need to read his books before dismissing him. Going by posted quotes, especially ones that you have trouble remembering, isn't being very open in my opinion. Just sayin' ;)

taniaaust1 wrote:LD is a tricky thing.. probably more tricky then the study of other things as we are dealing with subconciousness here and peoples own personal beliefs greatly affect this.


This is not news to anyone. Of course your beliefs will tend to manifest in the dream world. Now, what does this tell you about the nature of lucid dreaming itself?

taniaaust1 wrote:Groups of people studying something together.. one can experience something and then others if they now believe it too will all start having the same kind of experience when it comes to beliefs and how they affect subconsciousness and hence LD.


That's why during scientific experiments subjects from different backgrounds are used, the experimenters do not influence them with opinions, and double-blinds are conducted. :D

taniaaust1 wrote:eg For example (im making this example up) say someone who is well respected in the LD field and has lots of people who admires him and his work goes and starts saying.. "you cant read during a LD". Suddenly all these others who read his stuff and are new to this and dont know better.. start trying to read in their LDs and find they cant.. as they believe they cant so they wont.


Stephen LaBerge never said anything remotely like this. In fact, if you read "Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming," LaBerge recounts reading a book whose author claims it is impossible for a dreamer to recall his or her name. LaBerge put this to the test and found the contrary. Even Robert Waggoner, whose views are somewhat New Age, is in agreement, too.

The "reading in dreams" argument is also very weak because it's still possible to see things that make sense in a lucid dream simply because the mind has been exposed to such things. If a dream can produce the illusion of a recognisable object, then why not a written word? :!:

taniaaust1 wrote:Anyway.. that's the kind of observation I made with him.. he said something which wasnt true and which only then causes blocks for others as they now will believe the same and what belief is very important when it comes to LD as it certainly will affect what you can do.


But what is this thing that he's supposed to have said? If he gave you such a negative impact how comes you can't remember?

taniaaust1 wrote:Of course, cause I havent read his book all I have got is a few quotes here and there to go on of what he teaches about this but it put me off to read something which I knew wasnt true based on my own experiences (so that proves to me he must have some "mental blocks" which is making his experiences not as open as they could be to things.. blocking certain things from him). That being said.. we all probably have mental blocks around LD stuff so this post isnt certainly about knocking him down.


I'm sorry, dear, but, you do in fact come across as someone who is knocking him down and you still haven't provided a good reason. :?
I think you need to read his books before making a sound assessment...

taniaaust1 wrote:Im not saying his books are bad as most likely they would have a lot of good info in them, bound to do so if he has been in LD field for years but just saying those books may not be right for me and that shouldnt be taken as like gospel truth.


In that case, your argument comes down to personal taste. His book is not about spreading gospel either, it is based on experiments and observations. Science does not have gospels. It may establish facts when it's justified. And it may also have theories that are open to change - which is why they say a theory is strong if it stands the test of time.

taniaaust1 wrote:I suggest people to not just read a book and think that must be how everything must be but to check things out for yourselves to find out how things work for them, not based on how another says it has to be or goes.


I speak for myself when I say I take everything with a degree of scepticism. Everything I read in his literature checks out (as opposed to someone like Robert Bruce or Sylvan Muldoon). It's not about picking favourites with me, tania. :)

taniaaust1 wrote:Anyway..cause of how much beliefs affect LD, this area isnt an easy study, due to dealing with the subconciousness different results will come up according to beliefs. Different cultures etc may have quite different experiences with it. (I myself didnt learn LD throu books so was doing this with no programming on how its supposed to be).


I can tell you that some things are universal when dealing with humankind. For one, we all possess brains, albeit, granted(!), differing slightly in size, shape and biomechanics. I can also tell you that science has a way of overcoming the aforementioned difficulties. I can definitely assure you that many of us have also started lucid dreaming way before we picked up any books about it. You are certainly not alone on that one in this forum. There is also nothing wrong with checking out what others have found on the subject and the most credible sources will tend to be scientific - especially when they provide scientific data.

Moreover, double blinds, and non-double blinds with a sceptical approach to rumours about what can and can't be done in the dream world (for that matter), can easily overcome the problems you have just outlined above.
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

lovetodream
Posts: 2
Joined: 17 Jan 2014 05:36

Re: Stephen LaBerge

Postby lovetodream » 17 Jan 2014 06:04

Hi, I read the book a couple of months ago and had a lucid dream just after...I would tell anyone who is going to use it as a guide that there seems to be a lot of "homework" in the book. I took the attitude right away that although the book was making it sound difficult to lucid dream (as it gives so many methods and steps), that lucid dreaming is not in fact a difficult thing to do...that it's already in you to do it...and so instead of studying the book I just read it with interest. This way of thinking seemed to do it for me...good luck to you~

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3650
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Stephen LaBerge

Postby Summerlander » 17 Jan 2014 12:18

I completely agree with that. In his first book, "Lucid Dreaming" he does state that it can be easy and one may have a lucid dream by simply reading on the subject. A lot of the long-winded methods are there if all else fails. The meditative exercises certainly serve to put certain individuals at ease and relaxed in order to help them drift easily into lucid dreamland.

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

abart65
Posts: 13
Joined: 29 Dec 2013 08:14

Re: Stephen LaBerge

Postby abart65 » 20 Jan 2014 09:49

It's pretty awesome read. I've recently just finished it not a week ago. The reading really helped me prolong my LD's and even helped me have my first WILD without waking up straight away. It lasted at what seemed 20 minutes in the dream, but time is weird in dreams. He had some really helpful techniques that helped me create a scene within the dream even before i went to sleep. La Baerge is awesome and very inspirational. Thanks to the guy I now can have LD's that last longer than half an hour/hour which to em is a long time.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3650
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Stephen LaBerge

Postby Summerlander » 20 Jan 2014 11:20

Cool! What I found interesting was his thesis on dream schemas. LaBerge is certainly commendable.

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
JonSnowLD
Posts: 199
Joined: 28 Dec 2013 22:08

Re: Stephen LaBerge

Postby JonSnowLD » 23 Jan 2014 23:01

I've found the LD workshop a really cool idea! I think mine would be a late 50s jazz club where I can talk to all my favourite musicians about ideas ;)
Target number of Lucid Dreams this month: 3
Lucid Dreams this month: 2

User avatar
taniaaust1
Posts: 2990
Joined: 07 Feb 2013 15:32
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: Stephen LaBerge

Postby taniaaust1 » 25 Jan 2014 11:15

Summerlander wrote:Stephen LaBerge never said anything remotely like this. In fact, if you read "Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming," LaBerge recounts reading a book whose author claims it is impossible for a dreamer to recall his or her name. LaBerge put this to the test and found the contrary. Even Robert Waggoner, whose views are somewhat New Age, is in agreement, too.

The "reading in dreams" argument is also very weak because it's still possible to see things that make sense in a lucid dream simply because the mind has been exposed to such things. If a dream can produce the illusion of a recognisable object, then why not a written word? :!:


Note.. I said in my post to that example.. "eg For example (im making this example up) say someone who is well respected in the LD field and has lots of people who admires him and his work goes and starts saying.." I said I was making the example up.. I could used anything at all for that example.. you took my made up example literally thou. I never said he said that (or I woldnt said it was a made up example).

I just was trying to say that "something" it could of been anything as I cant remember, but he did something as fact which didnt match what I've experienced and to my own experience was wrong. Just one thing (or maybe two) cant remember now.

But what is this thing that he's supposed to have said? If he gave you such a negative impact how comes you can't remember?


I remember impact of the statement as it put me off of reading his stuff and I remember why. Anyone is put off of reading something if the author is writing things which isnt true by ones own experience.

I cant remember "what" exactly as my memory is bad.. I have a severe illness which gives me memory issues so I cant remember 'the details". I wish I did as then I would be given you the actual example and I wouldnt be giving a vague post like this. Sorry I cant provide you with the specifics right now, till I come across whatever it was being said again.

I think you need to read his books before making a sound assessment...


I prefer to learn things by my own experiences and testing things out for myself, what is possible and what isnt (once way has perceived notions from another.. this can affect ones own experiences esp as far as LD goes). I try not to get percieved notions on things until Ive experimented in areas first.


In that case, your argument comes down to personal taste. His book is not about spreading gospel either, it is based on experiments and observations. Science does not have gospels.


oh maybe I have misjudged this author as this thing coming from him was stated thing as being truth so I assumed the author had put it that way in his book.

I could and may read the book some day if I feel bothered.. but having Aspergers Im rather black and white about things and already have a dislike for this book due someones example (unless what I was told was in it wasnt true). I hate the idea of someone saying something which is wrong and then others going arou for me and and then preaching that same thing then as gospel truth just cause "Stephen LeBerge" said it ..one thing wrong in a book, spoils it for me and then makes me doubt very much other things that person is saying even if they are things I dont know myself. (from the past... I know I dont usually enjoy reading a book which doesnt "call" to me, that strong drawing one gets towards needing to read a certain book. I usually choose my books based on intuition)

I speak for myself when I say I take everything with a degree of scepticism. Everything I read in his literature checks out (as opposed to someone like Robert Bruce or Sylvan Muldoon). It's not about picking favourites with me, tania. :)


yeah it checked out for you. What is interesting is that my experiences match Robert Bruces (thou I dont like his techniques on how to do OBE..Im talking about his experiences).. experiences I had before I even read any of his stuff. So interesting that you bring up Robert Bruces stuff doesnt match your experiences. Even downloading of info into the brain and other very weird stuff.eg Astral parasites on various vibrations .. Robert Bruces stuff.. I had same experiences.

I know you think LD and OBE are the same..but maybe that is where things are being different. I was doing OBE when I had the same experiences Robert Bruce had.. and robert bruce does OBE. How would we both experience the same very weird things??? coincidence? (yes of cause it could be but its still strange that some of my weirder experiences were in his book). I was completely blown away by how our experiences tallied. (same with me and Dion Fortune's experiences ..well known wiccian occultist.. Im sure you wouldnt relate to those either but once again.. I experienced the same kind of astral stuff before I knew anything about it or had read the book).

taniaaust1 wrote: Moreover, double blinds, and non-double blinds with a sceptical approach to rumours about what can and can't be done in the dream world (for that matter), can easily overcome the problems you have just outlined above.


How many double blind LD studies are there out there? Those who are probably in most LD studies would probably be being taught how to LD first or following someones info to do so (so just in the act of learning it, preconcieved ideas can occur). How many subjects with no influences from other sources.. been involved in double blind under scientific conditions LD studies?

I cant see LD as a field which has been highly studied by western scientists...

I guess we will have to agree to disagree (and hopefully in the future I will have those details). I cant even see it mattering much thou as it will be a case of me giving the example, you just saying you agree with it and me saying... it doesnt match my own experience. (that's probably part of why I forgot it in the first place.. it didnt matter to me).
The only thing to fear is the fear itself

User avatar
taniaaust1
Posts: 2990
Joined: 07 Feb 2013 15:32
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: Stephen LaBerge

Postby taniaaust1 » 25 Jan 2014 12:04

summerlander..I just noticed a reply on yours which is very different from my own experiences http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14331&p=37436#p37436 and that may of reminded me of something which may??? of come from something you said about Stephen LaBerge's info. Did you ever mention him saying at all about how different senses enter into a dream? the order???

It could of been that?? (you tell me, Im guessing with a vague possible recollection of what was said here). My senses can enter into dreams at different rates and he may of said that happens in a completely different order? to how I experience it. My sight is often my very last sense to enter into a dream.
The only thing to fear is the fear itself

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3650
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Stephen LaBerge

Postby Summerlander » 25 Jan 2014 12:39

I'm not denying Robert Bruce's experiences, nor Robert Monroe's. I'm more concerned about the way these men interpreted them. Monroe himself stated to novices that they must believe that consciousness exits the body when OOBEs occur and that this is proof of life after death. But this is mere speculation. The scientist can see that when something such as the thalamus is stimulated in the human brain, all sorts of illusions and alterations in proprioception can emerge.

I have also had experiences like Bruce's and Monroe's, but, wouldn't you say that perhaps you have taken their interpretations at face value rather than deriving your own from scientific fundament?

I strongly disagree with Sylvan Muldoon's view on the subject, too. But I don't deny the author's experiences. He calls it "astral projection" and assumes the objective existence of an astral body and a matching plane of existence. But sometimes he is caught describing what appears to be nothing other than lucid dreaming:

"...construct before yourself, mentally, a definite scene, which you must hold firmly in mind. Then, as you are falling asleep, hold this scene before you, and at the very last moment - before you fall asleep - consciously transfer yourself into the scene - in other words, step into the picture; and, if you have developed yourself to the requisite point, you will be enabled to carry over an unbroken consciousness into the dream state; and in this way you have perfect continuity of thought; there is no break in the consciousness; you step into the dream picture and go on dreaming consciously."

- Sylvan Muldoon & Hereford Carrington; "The Projection of the Astral Body"

You see, I happen to own some esoteric literature, too. When I first started my practice I hadn't even read anything about OOBEs and lucid dreams by any author. The out-of-body sensations were striking and they led me to look for answers and I started with Robert Monroe. I thought, "Could this be proof that spirits exist and there is an afterlife realm after all?" But the more I practised the more I came across inconsistencies and I wanted to hear all sorts of opinions, and, also, where science stood. Stephen LaBerge was pragmatic and employed science to analyse the phenomenon. He showed that there is no need to call upon the belief in the paranormal in order to derive conclusions.

Lucid dreaming is a natural phenomenon which uses the same cerebral mechanisms that are necessary for the organism to perceive the real world. The qualia-based, reality-model makers which are restricted by day to interpret what the body captures from the external world; and, by night, unrestricted to produce whatever phantasmagoric illusion from memory, creativity and imagination.

Did you ever mention him saying at all about how different senses enter into a dream? the order???

It could of been that?? (you tell me, Im guessing with a vague possible recollection of what was said here). My senses can enter into dreams at different rates and he may of said that happens in a completely different order? to how I experience it. My sight is often my very last sense to enter into a dream.


No, that's not it. :D

LaBerge's doesn't mention any specific order. Sometimes sounds come first, sometimes vision, sometimes haptic sensations. It doesn't matter. Sometimes what seems like a gradual exit from a lucid dream is false , too, and that dual perception phenomenon may arise. That's why I advised the oneironaut to move at the initial stages when the brain is still close to the lucid dream state. The longer you leave it, the more you connect with reality and the higher the chances of actually moving physically.

The advice is from Michael Raduga's pragmatic approach at the School of Out-of-Body Travel, but I'd already stumbled upon this solution from practice ages ago. The source is reliable and derived from scientific study.
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava


Return to “General Lucid Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest