posted 10-10-2001 09:37 AM            

Always dream in color, didn't know people dream in black and white..do they? Does anyone here? You can see how little interest in the past this subject has been to me or I'd probably know the answers to such fundemental questions. Never thought much about UFO's or aliens either, except that it is pretty arrogant to believe of all the stars out there we are the only intelligent life forms. I've never seen anything anomalous in the skies except Chems.

In no way have I ever felt "psychic" or even believed, looked in to, or was much interested in the subject. Understand guys, that when most kids were dreaming of being on the cover of Rolling Stone (in the 70's when I grew up) I was dreaming of the cover of Forbes. I felt no time for such "foolishness" that wasn't directly related to my business goals. (I am NOT calling anyone here foolish!) That was just my "mode" then. I own an Internet broadcasting company and the haven't played a computer game since Pong! Haven't made the cover of Forbes yet but made page 43 of FL Trend (business mag here).

Since I became chem aware over eight months ago, my first reaction was pissed off (What the hell are they spraying up there?) not so much that I couldn't convince others of what I was seeing as so obvious but because it was cutting in to my "brain" and blowing a great deal of my work concentration. Got a better grip on it now. Especially since I found others that don't think I just need a vaction because I see "spray planes" and watch as they turn our blue sky to muck.

Anyway, one more thing for those of you who are so much more learned on this type of thing. I've always had a great deal of dejavu instances (more than most, say two three times per month) Now I'm having them two or three times per day. What's up with that? Does it have to do with dreams?

I know this is OT for this thread but does anyone have a decent pic of one of those little puffy, oily looking brown chem clouds...you know the ones that seem to move so low and fast overhead like in a movie? That type are rare at least here but are definitely not normal, and I really need a good pic of one. (I just know Del's turned in to quite the shutterbug and thought she might have one) Checked her site, but didn't see posted what I'm looking for. Therms image database is so huge thought someone could narrow it down for me.

posted 10-11-2001 01:16 AM            

What I'm calling post-cognition is realizing that I've DREAMED something before -- and that it is now happening to me as I remember it.

Usually these moments are just odd, everyday events with something unusual about them. I'll hear something or say something, and then realize that I have recently dreamed this very thing, in this way, though often I can't recall more than a few details of the specific dream itself.

Some folks probably call that deja vu, though my experience of deja vu is a little different.

For me, deja vu leaves me wondering if I'm not actually spending that moment over again in time (and not having merely having dreamt it in the astral);so the obvious question arises, "If I'm living this over again, then when was the first time?"

posted 10-11-2001 01:38 AM            

Keep on dreaming. It's seems obvious to me that your subconscious is trying to help you break through whatever fear it is you feel you "can't face", and it also sounds like it has other more positive (more resourceful, more encompassing?) things waiting for you -- but you need to break through these first. I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on that matter.

For the record, I have died before in my dreams. In one instance which I cite in an earlier post here (I described my conscious mind as "packing its bags" for this one, while my dreaming mind stayed and faithfully recorded) I was brutally murdered and watched the last images of the dream recollection play out from my battered and motionless corpse.

I know several other people who have "died" while in a dream, and I also know of one person who has died, reached the afterlife, and then returned -- all within a dream.

While it's not always "pleasant", a dream is a place where one can explore worlds completely without "rational" bounds -- and the "rules" in dreams don't mean the same things they do here. Quite literally, one can learn to be "fearless" while dreaming, and this WILL carry over with you into your waking life.

Certain tribes of the American Indians used to have a favorite saying. Generally before a great battle, someone would remind themselves:

"Today is a good day to die."

posted 10-11-2001 07:40 PM            

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents here. This particular paragraph above describes my situation to a tee. I've been having the most vivid and detailed dreams here lately. Though I don't have many experiences with deja vu I had one experience with it the other day and it's really amazing how it makes a person feel like they've lived this experience already. I might have these experiences once every 6 months or so that's how rare they are. One other thing... those experiences tend to freak me out a bit.

I envy those of you who can get by with as little as 4-5 hours of sleep. If I don't get at least 8 or more hours a night I'm a total grouch and can hardly do anything productive in my day. Course I hate to admit it but I really do enjoy sleeping. My dream world adds variety in my life. (yes my life can be a bit boring).

I've had dreams about UFO's and ET's even had an in depth conversation with an ET once about the origins of the universe. Sad to say, when I woke up I couldn't remember a thing about that particular conversation, but I do remember other details about that dream.

Then there was the time I dreamt about a hybrid ET human individual who was trying to teach me something about perpetual energy using magnetics. The next day I went out and bought some magnets and actually learned a thing or two about the very topic that individual was trying to describe. Afterwards I got on the computer and learned there is actually such a thing as a magnetic engine.

posted 10-11-2001 09:31 PM            

Neither were they "lucid" in any sense of the word (even while they were quite vivid) and again, neither was this a directed action on my part. I most heartily do NOT recommend such as an intentional "dreaming practice" -- as that would be incredibly morbid, and likely very counterproductive.

THAT BEING SAID -- each of these dreams was very instructive to me.

I thought very long and carefully before typing out the Indian quote. For some more background on this, rent and watch the classic film Little Big Man (an excellent film to watch anyway). Just in case I'm being misunderstood, I'll offer a suggestion as to the meaning:

As we "live" (exist), surely we shall some day "die" (pass from this form).

It happens to planets, stars, plants and mountain ranges. So why not us? Surely we're also part of the natural world.

Personally then, I believe one should not irrationally fear what is natural. Neither should one necessarily seek anything merely because it is "natural". As grown, conscious beings, life is our "option" -- and to choose it is the only rational decision for a fully sentient being.

If we are unafraid to live, then we will not ponder "death" so readily -- as we've been "programmed" to do by repetitive media imagery and the like -- or take it so lightly if the need to address it arises. In fact, it was only a few short years ago that family deaths AT HOME were PART OF THE "FAMILY EXPERIENCE" -- this was a part of what made the family home what it was. That's all been replaced by tremendously expensive out-of-home Medical Care, so now we can all handily avoid the "messy details" of being human (and the cost: guilt).

Fact:
Whatever we fear can (and will) be used against us -- you can count on that.

Likewise, living full and unafraid, one CAN learn to "walk through the valley of the shadow of death, and fear no evil".

posted 10-12-2001 08:58 PM            

Del: I'll take the puffy brown oily pics anyway you want to send them, I'm pretty good with PaintShopPro for resize. If you could find them with the chemhaze white out background those would be best for contrast. I don't want to monkey with the images much because of credibility issues. You can email them to me, I'll give you the addy if you don't have it from any previous correspondence, or you could send to my box here I think.

Your hard working Joanne. Wish I'd had you beside me today taking pics as I ran my errands around Brevard county. Pray for you by name as I do 3T3 daily. I've been blessed with good health in spite of our daily soup dose. Of course, I've been eating dozens of supplements for years. Feel better my friend.

I do have a scanner, if you wish to snail mail me hard copies. You can reach me at my business..address is in the about us section link on the front page at SurfGuru.com. No plain brown envelopes without return addresses stamped from St. Petersburg will be opened! Pray for me on my business trip to Anthrax city (Boca Raton, we used to call it Rat's Mouth, FL...literal translation), I'm being interviewed for the biz by media there, not the tabloids, and have requested an outdoor interview.

Are you ready for this? Record breaker for us here...34 discernible trails the "ole fashioned" horizon to horizon kinds in various states of disperment today. The "fog" rolled in with that weird even kind of edge by early evening, just under them as they turned to that cottage cheese looking stuff. Never saw that many before ever at least that were still well formed enough to count. They were layering them under the first cirrus crap.

The smog/chem fog seemed to roll in from Orlando area...left overs from their deluge? There has to be many recipes for this soup to provide so many different end results.

They hit us all day starting before dawn. Many of them had the curly q's and many were vertical types too. It was as though they didn't care how... just get that sky covered! Also many more east west lines, as ours traditionally run the most N to S with a few E to W cutting across for ye ole grid pattern.

DJ: Thanks again for dream and dejavu input. Also what you called "post cognition" have that too, and I'd say my personal definition of both are as yours. Could you explain in a little more detailed way the "traditional" yet probably wrong explanations for such phenomena? Also, what other schools of thought are on those supjects. Is this a topic you've been interested in always to gain such insight or do just calls them like you sees them?

I apologize for "using" you this way, but other than taking up a whole new study (not feasible)You are now my reference of choice.

Spreading love to all. Who know's how much longer we'll have the freedom to communicate here. Thank you again Thermit if you happen to be lurking around this thread.

posted 10-13-2001 12:10 AM            

FYI, I greatly depart from the dominant paridigm when it comes to issues of "mental health". For instance, I feel there are certain situations in which if a person ISN'T either frightened, depressed, horrified, ambivalent, or even just plain in shock, then there's something definitely wrong.

Some life situations seem to demand this of us -- if we are to remain human and to remain in touch with our inner selves, then it is inevitable that we are, from time to time, going to need to experience these psycho-emotional states.

On the contrary, that "terminally happy, chemically-induced state" which our current pharmacological model of mental health seems to readily employ more resembles traditional pathology to me, both in being virtually improbable via "normal" means, and also practically inattainable without the right pharmaceutical "props".

As well, I don't buy the psycho-babble notions of "It's all good", or "Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger". In the first instance, things are very clearly NOT "all good" (this notion was likely put forward by people who would rather not think about anything "unpleasent" -- and likely during pleasent times). In the second instance, there are PLENTY of things which, while they may not physically kill a person definitely do make them weaker, less resourceful, or less capable in some way.

My advice (hey, for free!) is to take all the psycho-babble sloganeering with a grain of salt. Sure, there's some truth in it. But at the end of the day, you still have to get out and live your own life for yourself -- and your experience will likely be different, if not just your own.

As such, one can recognize that ALL of these things -- the pleasent, the unpleasent, the "so-so" and the "in-between" -- are merely mental states, even every bit as much as some (or all) of them CAN CARRY SURVIVAL VALUE to us, as a culture and as individuals.

The negative states tell us, without doubt, that something is "wrong" (usually via an "external" source), and that it should be addressed. The positive states help release pent feelings and emotions, and allow energy to move through our minds and bodies more freely (and hence we SHOULD learn to laugh more!). And the "so-so" or in-between states give us an impasse, the ability to enjoy creative down time, to empty our minds of endless pictures, ideas and verbiage if we so choose so that we can "make room" for new thoughts, people and expereinces.

Where we run into "problems" with these states is when we become fixated and begin "operating" emotionally within a very narrow range of possible responses -- something which roughly equates to "inflexibility".

When this happens, we might characterize it as "depressed" or down; sad, or listless; "constantly driven", or maybe "marginally productive." But no matter how we describe it, the personal context and connotation that we give it is usually "negative".

When this happens, it is not our friends who have failed us, nor our family -- not society, nor ourselves, nor even circumstances (no matter how these may be at the time). Rather, during these times of "fixation" or inflexibility, we likely need a much broader philosophy, a new definition of "life" if you will. New experiences, a new way of looking at things, or new people to discuss them with -- perhaps even a new "therapy" (drug related or otherwise).

In any case, during such times a critical "impasse" has been reached, and this requires some conscious effort on the part of the individual in order to "break through" the impasse.

The "greater point" I'm trying to illustrate is this:

The THINGS WE HAVE BEEN "TAUGHT" TO FEAR are not necessarily "fearful" in and of themselves. It doesn't mean that the things we're concerned about are not IMPORTANT -- they usually are -- it just means that our personal response, at that moment, has likely been "programmed" into our psyches via a repetition of stories, verbiage or images -- and therefore, our fixation is occurring BECAUSE THE IMAGES AND "MEMORIES" WE HAVE OF THESE "EVENTS," AT THIS TIME, ARE NOT OUR OWN -- NOR ARE THE "EVENTS" WE'RE CONVINCED THAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT (or very rarely so).

During such times, WE NEED NEW "ASSOCIATIONS" with which to replace these very-much "defective" cultural implants -- for OUR MINDS CANNOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AN ACTUAL EVENT AND THESE CULTURALLY INDUCED "MEMORIES" - and hence, indeed, we're feel very personally affected during these times -- by these words and images, which are very much not "ours"!!

In contrast, should we by chance experience the "real deal" events ourselves (that being whatever it is we fear), we might be very surprised by what transpires within us personally. You'll have to trust me on this -- I've been shot before, a gunshot, entirely haphazard and "randomly", and yet it all happened so fast that I didn't even realize that fact for several minutes; had it been fatal, I would have had no time whatsoever to "worry" about it -- it would've been "over" very quickly.

posted 10-13-2001 12:37 AM            

I've been studying thought, the human mind, perception, etc. avocationally now for several decades. I'll say this, it's quite an expansive field of study and one can get themselves into a lot of very heated "theoretical" discussions regarding various aspects of the same. My preference is to identify common traits, themes, etc., and then let people build their own theoretical base over that, since so much of what we know about the mind has to be deduced from within that same "subjective" state itself -- it's much as if the physical Universe were trying to "discover itself" on it's own terms. Certainly there are limitations inherent within the process, if not our perceptions.

Within the broad strokes of this realm of possible inputs, we have:

"consciousness" (that collective group of thoughts which individuals feel they largely can and do "direct" within their own minds -- though that now appears to be a mild perceptive illusion);

"dreams" (worthy of their own full-time field of study);

"thoughts" (which are consciously directed, though often highly over-rated in importance);

"impressions" (usually not directed by the conscious mind, though often experienced by individuals "as if" this were so -- otherwise, almost "involuntary" in nature);

the "subconscious" mind (generally only directly accessible to the conscious mind during highly charged states of awareness, perception, dreaming, meditation, or specific types of inibriation -- again, well worthy of its own field of study);

"feelings" (an admixture of conscious thoughts, impressions and subconscious exressions);

and "emotions" (raw states of human physiological experience -- which may occur with or without accompanying "thoughts", and can be characterized as "somatic").

Forgive me if I've missed any, and anyone should please feel free to help expand the list.

As for our basic means of gaining information from the outside world -- or otherwise, our means of communicating with it -- that breaks down into three general categories:
1. Visual. By means of what we see, or what we imagine we are seeing (or could see).
2. Verbal. Usually in the form of conversations, either actual or imagined.
3. Physical. Somatic experience, both actualized and remembered, encompassing the realm of the physical senses.

Oddly enough, of these three means of obtaining information, only the "physical" is a first-order, direct (non-extrapolated) experience.

I say this because as Westerners we are trained from a very young age to believe that our "thought processes" are our principal means of "information" gathering, and are somehow "superior" to physical experience -- even as we may sit in the stands at a football game, wildly cheering for the "home team" and wondering why we're "Feeling so good about that touchdown!" -- which is an excellent example of a vicarious, second-order response to someone else's pure, physical, first-order actions and experience.

Knowing this, which would you rather have -- the actual touchdown (the experience), or the vicarious thrill (the extrapolation)? Most of us, oddly enough, seem to prefer the "extrapolation." Why? Well, if we press this matter, it's because of the FEELINGS we get from watching it -- which yet again ties us directly to a physical sensation (somatic)!

Are we thoroughly confused yet?

Well, these being the "terms" and ideas I tend to use, here's my take on the "paranormal thingie":

Déja Vu. The distinct and often fleeting sense of having previously lived or physically experienced a contemporary moment in time -- whether it be an event, conversation, etc. Usually felt as a physical sensation that triggers a response very similar to "memory". Quite possibly, the actual physical sensation of a "warp" in local spacetime having just been experienced (much as a "wave" of water might lap at you twice in a pool -- once on the way out, then again on the way in).

Pre-Cognition. Literally "fore knowledge". Definitely within the realm of psychic perception -- though honest psychics are often famously wrong about future events. In order to qualify, a pre-cognitive "feeling", image, perception or dream needs to carry with it a definite sense that "this thing is going to come to pass"; second qualification being that the overall sense is that of a DIRECT REPRESENTATION of a coming event. Drawback to these is that they can only be proven true by time and events themselves (ask Nostradaemus if you don't think this is a sticky issue). As I understand it, sometimes even trained psychics have difficulty telling pre-cognitive experiences from those of mere "impressions" (which can take the form of "characterizations" of a probable person, event or experience, rather than a direct representation of a coming event).

Post-Cognition. These occur within the realm of everyday experience, and are only realized as having been truly pre-cognitive "after-the-fact". Proof from events in everyday life is offered that a particular "feeling", image, perception or dream was indeed "pre-cognitive" (as in foretelling of a specific future event). The dream I described earlier involving a jet airliner flying low and at full airspeeds just a few hundred feet over Manhattan is a good example: If someone had told me three months ago that this dream was "pre-cognition" -- that a planeload of passengers was going to experience this in virtually the same place, in some similar fashion -- I would have laughed in their face in disbelief. Late during the evening of September 11th, when it finally dawned upon me that "pre-cognition" was indeed what this dream was, I again found myself in disbelief.

Impression. A thought, feeling, or image which while not a concrete representation of a specific person, place or event is definitely a "characterization" carrying (as yet unrealized or unknown) qualities of the same. Oftentimes, "impressions" are later determined to have been pre-cognitive. As well, dreams are often blendings of concrete representations, pre-cognition, psycho-emotional associations and impressions.

And on a lighter note:
Vuja Dé. This is the feeling that you've never been here before.

posted 10-28-2001 10:22 PM            

I never said one should or should not discuss their dreams with a counselor. Or with a friend, neighbor, or their relatives for that matter. In fact, they likely should. Why did I not mention this? Because that is a personal decision. I basically said one shouldn't base their interpretations of dreams on any sort of "standardized" type of dream material or particular "school of thought", as dreams are far too personal for this ("Freudian interpretation" would be one bad example).

Second, I do not give "medical advice". Nor would I ever charge for advice, were I ever to offer any. (This alone sets one apart from so-called "professionals".)

Lastly, persons -- "physicians" in fact -- with perfectly good and valid "educations" and medical diplomas on their walls have, in the past, both killed (through ill-advised "treatment") and nearly killed (through botched prescriptions, botched diagnosis, botched surgeries, etc.) several members of my immediate family. This is not conjecture -- it is based on research, direct experience, and the opinions of better qualified physicians. That's not much of a track record for "modern medicine", one must admit.

You have your religion ("medicine"), and I have mine (that becoming properly "informed" replaces traditional "religion" and doctrine in all its forms).

That being said, anyone who has a medical problem -- mental, physical, or emotional -- should seek a QUALIFIED physician of some sort. Don't take their "word" for it that they're "qualified -- ask questions, lots of them in fact. Do your own research. And learn how to spot quacks. Learn how to ask other doctors which doctors THEY would go to if they found themselves in your situation.

They don't call it "practicing medicine" for no good reason -- it's actually a legal disclaimer (ask any good lawyer if you don't believe this).

posted 10-29-2001 09:14 AM            

This has always been true, dj, but it's even more true in the era of managed care. Doctors may have gone into the profession with the best of intentions, but now they are powerfully motivated to get patients in and out of their offices as efficiently as possible. Two of the downsides: (1) they don't have the time to consider the full range of possible diagnoses and treatments. (2) they don't have time to answer very many of your questions in the detail you deserve.

Try to get as many questions as possible answered for yourself on the net. If there is a support group for the disease or condition you have, go to them for information. If you're able, go to a medical library and read the literature on your condition.

This won't give you a medical education (that requires at least 11 years post-high school), but it will help you understand what is going on, and will help you participate intelligently in your own medical management.

posted 10-30-2001 11:11 AM            

Also, all the instances I mentioned happened during the era BEFORE managed care -- when doctors were reputed to be more caring, concerned, and less overburdened by "insurers".

posted 11-12-2001 08:34 PM            

One of the most incredible animated films to date has just been released, Richard Linklatter's feature "Waking Life". Anyone interested in dreaming in any fashion should place this film at the top of their "must see" list -- no exaggeration.

Linklatter's early work included the highly acclaimed feature "Slackers", though in my estimation this new film far surpasses anything he might've achieved in Slackers.

Best as I can tell, the philosophical underpinnings of the dialogue are quite solid, and the scope of material covered is boggling. The entire film was rotoscoped (shot traditionally first, and then animated from the edited images) and is set as a dream.

The animation alone is imaginative and quite innovative, but the many dialogues about "dreaming" (obviously written from the points of view of active and lucid dreamers themselves) are absolutely incredible. There is little to compare this film with except perhaps "My Dinner With André", and then only if it had been made 20 years later -- and also if both André and his companion were lucid dreaming, describing various world philosophies, and continually shape shifting throughout the film.