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.
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.