[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference hydra::dejavu

Title:Psychic Phenomena
Notice:Please read note 1.0-1.* before writing
Moderator:JARETH::PAINTER
Created:Wed Jan 22 1986
Last Modified:Tue May 27 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:2143
Total number of notes:41773

1965.0. "is it real or the mind?" by ROMEOS::TREBILCOT_EL () Wed Jun 22 1994 06:22

    I've written several notes in here in different topics and I am
    constantly searching for "answers" and theories, and this file has been
    a great source of input...
    
    So I ask this...
    
    I have often had dreams where deceased friends and relatives have come
    to tell me things, and sometimes these things come true...
    
    And when I had an aneurysm, I had a NDE ( I think th term is)
    
    Now there has been a "common link" if you will between head injury
    patients and NDE's.  We have not begun to understand all the powers of
    the human mind ...
    
    My question is this:
    
    Are the experiences real or were they related to the head injury?  Do I
    relly have contact with the deceased or is that my own mind's way of
    getting a message to me?
    
    For example, when I was going through a tough time about a year ago my
    grandmother came to me in a dream and reassured me I was doing the
    right thing.
    
    Did she really or was that my sub-conscious using my mind to get the
    message to me that I needed?
    
    Maybe it isn't so important HOW I get the messages as long as I get
    them, but I wonder about it.
    
    I know I'd like to believe they really come to me...
    
    what does my heart tell me?  They were real
    
    The logic, however, is working overtime...
    
    Just wondering your thoughts...
    
    
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
1965.1HOO78C::ANDERSONCat's eyes on the Info Highway.Wed Jun 22 1994 10:466
    Head injuries and NDEs are not necessarily linked. My NDE was not
    related in any way to my head. However (I assume that your aneurysm was
    in your head) there may have been some minor changes to your brain
    tissue, which might explain it. 
    
    Jamie.
1965.2My feelingsDWOVAX::STARKKnowledge is good.Wed Jun 22 1994 13:3949
    It's part of the unanswered problem of the nature of consciousness,
    I think.  I don't think anyone can claim to have a definitive answer to 
    where "psychic" impressions come from.  Some (I'd say the vast
    majority) are demonstrably of our own making, creating an impetus for us 
    to act in a way that is personally meaningful to the individual.  
    Kenneth Ring does a good treatment of this aspect in his Omega Project
    where he studies the predispositions and aftermath of hundreds of
    people with extraordinary experiences, particularly the NDE.
    
    Other impressions seem to have sources which are unknown or highly 
    speculative.  The vast majority are associated with sleep, indicating
    that they have something to do with the way the brain functions
    differently during sleep.  Some of the most bizarre experiences,
    such as nightime psychic visitations in the form of sexual assault
    have been found related strongly directly to a combination of
    sleepers paralysis (waking partially but being unable to move yet)
    and vivid hypnopompic or hypnogogic imagery.  Ron Seigel does a 
    particularly interesting treatment of this in his "Fire in the Brain."
    
    Berievement hallucinations are also very common.  In fact most people
    who have suffered a recent loss probably experience some form of this.
    The classic case was the man who lost a beloved dog, and everyday at
    the dogs meal time for several months after the loss, he would
    get fleeting images of the dog running toward his bowl.  
    
    If you believe in disembodied consciousness, then you could also see
    how this would be the most sensitive period for contact by such an
    influence.  
    
    When we deal in areas that are so speculative, we can choose to view them 
    with uncertainty (which is psychologically uncomfortable) or we can try to 
    fit them into existing frameworks, depending on whether our
    interest is personal/spiritual or academic/intellectual.  
    
    As someone who is basically a realist by habit, I'd say that most
    psychic impressions seem to me to come from known physiological
    mechanisms and that most of the rest come from the mundane but 
    incomprehensible workings of the neurons in the brain.  But as someone who 
    has also read a fair amount of the parapsychology research, I'd say that 
    there are several big unanswered questions and anomalies left to explore, 
    some cases where impressions or influences have no reasonable conventional 
    explanation at this time other than simply rejecting them outright
    purely out of implausibility.
    
    My hope is that we continue to explore them realistically and not give up 
    simply because it is uncomfortable to be uncertain or because the mystical 
    philosophies are so intuitively attractive.
    
    							todd
1965.3 SWAM2::REUTTER_CAWed Jun 22 1994 18:1834
    I have so many thoughts on this subject that it is very difficult to
    express them.  My own experiences leads me to believe that "dreams" or
    thoughts of deceased loved ones are real.  
    
    Here is just one of my experiences:
    
    16 years ago, a very close family member passed away. At the exact time
    of his passing all of his siblings had "bizarre" dreams.  One dreamed
    he was on an operating table, one dreamed of headlights coming at them,
    one dreamed they were in their home at a reception where all were in
    tears.  All awoke at precisely the same time.  At the funeral the
    siblings were talking and realized that they all had been notified of
    his death during their sleep.  
    
    Their mother who was very close to her son, could not accept his death
    at all and wandered around confused during the wake and funeral.  A
    month passed and she still did not accept that her son had passed on. 
    The family tried to confront her with the facts of his death, but she
    would not listen or accept.  A month later, she had a "Dream".  In this
    dream he spoke to her and told her he was very happy and that she
    should not be upset anylonger.  She conveyed this "dream" (she insist
    she was awake during the time of his visit)to me and said that he was 
    as real to her as I was when he came to visit her.  I
    believed her because I had felt his presence for quite some time.
    
    I later had a psychic tell me that he wander amongst the family, going
    where he felt he was needed.  
    
    Somehow I told more about this than I had intended, but less than I
    could.  The bottom line is that it does not matter what other people 
    believe you are experiencing.  If you believe that you are 
    having a visit from a loved one, you probably are.  
    
    
1965.4Weird modern view of dreamsDWOVAX::STARKKnowledge is good.Wed Jun 22 1994 18:3612
    Surprisingly (to me), the growing consensus in neuroscience in recent
    years has been that dreams are considered random noise, most of
    which none of us even remembers, and that we build our 
    elaborate interpretations of them upon waking, at which time
    we read meaningful things into them and retroactively 'remember'
    them as making some sense.   I guess I find that a little hard
    to swallow, but I can't find any really convincing observation
    that disproves it, and a lot of observations seem to support it.
    
    Sometimes the world seems stranger than we can imagine.
    
    							todd
1965.5GOODIE::KEEFERWed Jun 22 1994 21:2244
    .0
    
    logic?  what is logic?  cause and effect?  
    is it knowing that if place A is stimulated in one's brain tissue, then
    one will envision one's grandmother transending time and predicting a
    future event in one's life?  is that more logical than believing people
    are other than a pound of tissue?  (pound and a half?--not sure)
    
    didn't mean to equate mind with brain, however.
    
    mostly i'm wondering what you think the subconscious is.  and why you 
    made it possessive --my subconscious.  and why the message wasn't really
    granny's consciouness if it came from your subconscious.  i sincerely
    wonder.   the last time i saw a subconscious it was in a psychology
    flow chart, below consciousness --there was a clear pecking order in
    the chart.  it had all that directional-type thinking: stuff at the top
    was more important than stuff at the bottom, up and down, left to
    right, etc.   i forget where the collective unconscious fell and
    whether that had anything to do with what some call the universal mind. 
    
    are you and she as separate as you think?  deceased and alive?  
    there are so many thoughts on the separation between the so-called
    physical world and the --what?-- non-physical world?  spiritual world?
    so many people in this conference know that expertly --thoughts
    on whether the physical world is or isn't separate from other
    dimensions.  sometimes it seems a blessing that the so-called physical
    world is just an illusion, sometimes it seems a blessing that it is not
    separate from anything else.
    
    i think anyone who tells me that audio/visual media is the only way to
    communicate is out of his tree.  anyone who tells me watching
    electricity make letters on a screen is the most advanced way to 
    communicate is nuts.  if all i have to look forward to is puching
    plastic keys with my fingers in a effort to communicate, then i'm
    throwing in the towel right now.  all of the time, energy, money spent 
    stringing cables, fueling power plants, making telephones, spending 
    billions on those new video phones --supposedly for reasons of 
    communicating  --makes me want to vomit.  why do people think you need a 
    stinking video phone to talk to or see someone?  
    
    i don't believe any of my thoughts are only mine, or that my mind is
    mine, or that my subconscious is mine.
    
    
1965.6SWAM2::REUTTER_CAWed Jun 22 1994 22:063
    I agree with all but the last statement of .5.  "free Choice"...  
    
     
1965.7searching to understandROMEOS::TREBILCOT_ELWed Jun 22 1994 22:4850
    Re: .4
    
    Sometimes the world seems stranger than we can imagine...
    
    I wholeheartedly agree
    
    Re:  .5
    
    I really agree with you.  In my heart there is so much more than what
    we see and feel every day.
    
    I have kept a dream journal for years now.  I have had extraordinary
    experiences and maybe in my quest to try and control what happens to me
    or when it happens, this is what I get...
    
    It isn't that I want to have hte power, but to be able to talk to
    deceased loved ones when I feel I need them as opposed to when they
    feel I need then...
    
    Anotherwords, why do they pick such times to show up?  So I begin to
    try and call them to me, but I am unable.  Then many months go by and I
    hear/see/feel nothing and I may forget...then they will come.  I have 
    (other than this notesfule) and small handful of people I can talk to
    who don't tell me it's me, my brain, wahtever
    
    Yes,I know, why should I listen to them,etc etc
    
    The point is I was just trying to understand what everything is, and
    maybe I should not try and understand.  I guess I might be better off
    just accepting things as they are and not questioning.
    
    Thankfully I swept all the religious background out so I can see them
    for what they are...not some devil's message or whatever, which was how
    the nuns wanted to classify anything they couldn't explain/understand
    
    I wish I could control it a bit...that's all...
    
    It's weird when it happens in a dream because sometimes I don't know if 
    it was just a regular dream or was there something I was supposed to
    get from it.
    
    Also, time...
    
    I heard that after a certain amount of itme the loved ones move on...
    however, I had a "visitation" recently by someone who died nearly 9
    years ago and I wonder...(since I was awake) 
    
    I'm just searching for an understanding really...
    
    
1965.8some thingsTNPUBS::PAINTERPlanet CrayonThu Jun 23 1994 04:23106
    
Re.0

You might be interested in the following book by Grof (excerpt below).  
It is a classic in the field of transpersonal psychology.  It may 
contain the answers you seek, presented in the way you are seeking them.

Some other good books on the subject are:

  "The Eagle's Quest" and "The Dreaming Universe" by Fred Alan Wolf
  "The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying", by Sogyal Rinpoche
  "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot

I was in a weekend seminar with Fred Wolf and Nicki Scully back in
April, and a lot of the seminar was on dreams and death.  For the
death stories...it was Saturday night, we extinguished all lights 
except for the fire in the woodburning stove (;^), and Fred and 
Nicki shared some of their stories.  Quite incredible...mindblowing
even.  Then Nicki was going to take us on the death shamanic journey, 
but changed it to the Cobra journey instead.  Ah well...maybe next
time.

Anyway, the chances are very good that what you experienced is quite
real, as opposed to being a product of your mind.  Eventually you
will get some kind of confirmation that will remove all doubt.  One
amusing conversation that Cherokee wisdomkeeper Dhyani Ywahoo had
with her deceased grandmother was when her husband picked up the 
phone, recognized her grandmother's voice and handed Dhyani the phone
saying, "Uh oh...it's for you."  And it really was her deceased 
grandmother!  The story appears in "Profiles In Wisdom", by Steven
    McFadden.  So...be ready...(;^)

Not too long ago, I had a dream about the father of a friend of mine 
who lives in Europe.  Absolutely no reason to dream of him either,
since I'd never met him.  I didn't see his face so much, but rather
felt his presence.  A few days went by, and I exchanged a few emails 
with my friend.  He mentioned that he felt his father trying to 
contact him a few days ago...felt his presence.  I told him of my 
dream, and then he said that his wife had also had him appear in a 
dream on the very same night.  So, it was a confirmation for him
that his feeling was right...that it was his father and not his mind.

He and I are also telepathically linked, but that's a whole 'nother
set of stories and experiences altogether!

Cindy

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "The Holotrophic Mind", by Stanislav Grof, M.D., p.141-142

Beyond A Shared Reality

      Myths do not come from a concept system; they come from a
      life system; they come out of a deeper center.  We must not 
      confuse mythology with ideology.  Myths come from where the 
      heart is, and where the experience is, even as the mind may 
      wonder why people believe these things.  The myth does not 
      point to a fact; the myth points beyond facts to something 
      that informs the fact."
 				    - Joseph Campbell

There is a large category of transpersonal experiences that goes 
beyond both the time-space continuum and the reality we know in our 
everyday lives.  Here we experience the world of myth, apparitions, 
communication with the dead, and the ability to see auras, chakras, or 
other subtle energies not generally recognized or verified by modern 
scientific methods.  Here we might also experience meetings with 
spirit guides, "power animals", and various superhuman or subhuman 
entities, or we might go on fantastic journeys to universes other than 
our own.

The late Aldous Huxley made the observation that the extraordinary 
world we encounter here is not to be too quickly dismissed as purely 
mental fabrications with no particular purpose.  He said:

      "Like the giraffe and the duck-billed platypus, the 
       creatures inhabiting these remoter regions of the mind are 
       exceedingly improbable.  Nevertheless they exist, they are 
       facts of observation; and as such, they cannot be ignored by 
       anyone who is honestly trying to understand the world in 
       which he lives."

In this chapter, we will be exploring these remoter regions of 
consciousness in some detail, drawing from descriptions of 
experiential sessions by a variety of people.  We will begin with one 
of the more controversial areas in this realm - communication with the 
dead.

Spiritualistic and Mediumistic Experiences

In this category, we include spiritualistic seances, research into the 
possibility of survival of consciousness after death, telepathic 
communication with deceased relatives and friends, contacts with 
discarnate entities, and experiences in the astral realm.  In the 
simplest form, people see apparitions of deceased people and receive 
messages from them.  For example, the day following her husband's 
death, a woman saw her deceased husband sitting in his favorite chair 
in the living room.  He greeted her and asked her how she was doing.  
She answered that she was okay.  Then he told her where to find some 
legal papers she would need for finalizing his estate.  She had not 
known of their whereabouts and the information he gave her was useful, 
saving her many hours of searching.  Experiences of this kind have 
been reported by clients in experiential psychotherapy, and 
psychedelic sessions, in the work of psychics, and by people who have 
had near-death experiences (NDEs).
1965.9GOODIE::KEEFERThu Jun 23 1994 15:062
    aren't your loved ones the same as your mind?
    just wondering....
1965.10TNPUBS::PAINTERPlanet CrayonThu Jun 23 1994 16:348
    
    Re.9
    
    Not sure who your question is for, however my response would be that it
    depends upon what level of consciousness one is operating on at any
    given moment.    
    
    Cindy
1965.11More on modern view of dreamsDWOVAX::STARKKnowledge is good.Thu Jun 23 1994 16:35193
    re: .4 (on weird modern view of dreams)
    
    Of course, a consensus doesn't mean unanimous agreement.  I found
    this recently from my files from the PSYCHE mailing list talking
    about a different view of dreams --  as "off-line" processing of
    information we would otherwise be overloaded with...  (Hope someone
    finds it as interesting as I did).  I tried to keep the essential
    attributions.
    
From:   Kurt Wallen <RKWallen@aol.com>

I am interested in knowing why a model of dreaming proposed by Jonathon
Winson has never generated any real interest.  What follows is a rough sketch
of his model, as interpreted by me and without the supporting evidence that
he presented in his book.
I then provide, for comment, some possible reasons why it may have been
poorly received.

In 1985 J. Winson at Rockefeller University published _Brain and Psyche_.  In
it he argued that dreaming was *off-line processing*. His argument went
something like this:

1. When memory consolidation is interfered with due to hippocampal damage
(e.g. Korsakoff's syndrome) there is a three year "blank" that preceeds the
onset of damage, suggesting that three years is the amount of time it takes
new information to work its way through the system.

2.The hippocampus recieves input from neocortex and limbic (amygdala) areas.
Suggesting that its function is (in part) to integrate facts with emotions,
i.e. what it is with what it means.

3.Monotremes (e.g. the echidna) have an extremely large neocortex. They also
do not exhibit REM sleep leading Winson to argue that monotremes are able to
process new information into the memory system in *real-time*. The large
forebrain coupled with a so-called primitive system was not overwhelmed by
the task.  Winson argues that for mammals to pursue such a strategy would
require that our neocortex be transported in a wheelbarrow.

4.Thus, we adopted a strategy other than *real-time* processing to integrate
new information into the memory system.  This process is what we experience
as dreaming.

Over half of the book is given over to description and analysis of Freud's
model of dreaming. Winson argues that the characteristic nature of dreams
were misinterpreted by Freud.  E.G. Freud saw the distortion of dreams
(displacement, condensation, etc.,) as the work of a *dream censor* actively
scrambling the latent meaning and disguising it so  that the manifest content
would be acceptable to the ego.  Winson argues that distortion in dreams is
not result of a *disguising* mechanism but rather, is the way that the
preconscious handles information.

Much of Winson's arguement rests on a (to me) complicated argument about
neural gating in the hippocampus that is intended to demonstrate that
*dreamed experience* is in fact coupled with the lived experience on which it
is based.  While the neurophysiological evidence may make his model more
rigourous, it doesn't seem to me to figure in the idea that dreaming is
off-line processing.

Winson's ideas seem to have had no impact.
    
From:   IN%"dbaldwin@decoy.uoregon.edu"  "David Baldwin"  7-JUN-1994 13:31:31.03

I'd like to second Kurt Wallen's questions about Jonathan Winson's ideas
about dreaming.  I've read much of Winson's stuff, and found it
interesting. Unfortunately, I'm in a rush to get out of town now and
can't respond in detail in this post.

But for those who may not want to read his 1985 book, there are newer and
shorter descriptions of Winson's work.  I will list some of these below,
with occasional and very brief notes on content (since its been awhile...):

   Winson, J.  (1990)
      The meaning of dreams.
      Scientific American, Nov., 86-96.

   Kinoshita, J. (1992)
      Dreams of a rat.
      Discover, 13 (7), July, 34-41.

[These two (above) are very accessible and brief summaries of Winson's
stuff. They will provide more details than Kurt's summary (which seemed
OK to me) without the detail of the book.]

   Winson, J. (1992)
      The function of REM sleep and the meaning of dreams.
      IN: JW Barron, MN Eagle & DL Wolitsky (Eds.) Interface
      of Psychoanalysis and Psychology, 347-356. Wash DC: APA.

[A more academic treatment by Winson, contrasting his hypothesis with
Hobson's and Crick's ideas about dreams.]

   Winson, J. (1993)
      The biology and function of rapid eye movement sleep.
      Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 3, 243-248.

[I forget what's in this one, and can't look it up just now.]


When I come back Thursday evening, I look forward to seeing more
information about this, since I think Winson's ideas deserve more
consideration than I've seen about them. Perhaps they just don't fit with
the current zeitgeist?

                                David Baldwin, PhD

From:   IN%"bbuck@itsa.ucsf.EDU"  "Robert A.Buckley"  7-JUN-1994 13:37:18.07

I was very interested in your posting on Wilson's model
of dreaming, and I'll be interested to follow the whole
thread.

I hadn't been familiar with this model before, so I can't
comment on its lack of acceptance. However, if I'm not mistaken,
Francis Crick (when he first turned his attention to the problem
of how brain gives rise to consciousness, several years ago)
proposed a similar model. Whether or not he based it on
Wilson's model I don't know.

[ I'm sorry, but I don't have the reference for this paper. It was
probably published in _Nature_, maybe 10 or more years ago now.
If I get a chance, I'll run a search on this. ]

But I believe that Crick explored the hypothesis by writing a
computer program that simulated brain function in a crude way
by taking in "perceptions" which could then be associated in
various ways to form a sort of model of "reality". The perceptions
were thrown in willy-nilly, and associations could happen at
random as well as, I believe, according to certain rules of lawful
association.

He then formed an analogue of "dreaming" by allowing off-line
processing to occur, which had the effect of randomly forming
associations and then dropping out those which seemed unlawful.

One of the conclusions he drew from this was that the forgetting
of dream material soon after awakening is not due to some sort
of unconscious censor as analysts have held, but is a physiological
discarding of faulty associations. This would also "explain" why
dream material, when it is remembered, seems so bizarre.

Personally, I think that something like this makes sense, but
I think that whatever model we finally accept would have to
explain why _some_ dreams are so richly expressive of the central
conflicts in our lives.

Bob Buckley, MD
bbuck@itsa.ucsf.edu

From:   IN%"ronse@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr"  7-JUN-1994 18:24:06.68

>In 1985 J. Winson at Rockefeller University published _Brain and Psyche_.  In
>it he argued that dreaming was *off-line processing*. His argument went
>something like this:

Several theories of the function of dreaming are discussed in Hobson's
books ("The dreaming brain", Penguin books, & "Sleep", Scientific American
Library). Information-processing theories are mentioned (including variants
of "sorting" or "garbage collection"). He argues that no theory excludes
another, since dreams may have functions at several levels (physiological,
neurological, psychological, ecological, behavioral, cognitive, ...).

>1. When memory consolidation is interfered with due to hippocampal damage
>(e.g. Korsakoff's syndrome) there is a three year "blank" that preceeds the
>onset of damage, suggesting that three years is the amount of time it takes
>new information to work its way through the system.

My students take less time to learn...

>3.Monotremes (e.g. the echidna) have an extremely large neocortex. They also
>do not exhibit REM sleep leading Winson to argue that monotremes are able to
>process new information into the memory system in *real-time*. The large
>forebrain coupled with a so-called primitive system was not overwhelmed by
>the task.  Winson argues that for mammals to pursue such a strategy would
>require that our neocortex be transported in a wheelbarrow.

Dolphins have an extremely large neocortex; humans too. But they dream.
Reptilians have small brains, but do not dream. It is thus not a matter of
size, but rather that primitive brains don't dream.

>Over half of the book is given over to description and analysis of Freud's
>model of dreaming. Winson argues that the characteristic nature of dreams
>were misinterpreted by Freud.  E.G. Freud saw the distortion of dreams
>(displacement, condensation, etc.,) as the work of a *dream censor* actively
>scrambling the latent meaning and disguising it so  that the manifest content
>would be acceptable to the ego.  Winson argues that distortion in dreams is
>not result of a *disguising* mechanism but rather, is the way that the
>preconscious handles information.

He is right to do so. Hobson also demolishes Freud, showing that it is an
ideological construction inspired by a wrong model of brain function.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Ronse                          ronse@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr
1965.12An ancient Aboriginal view of dreamsTNPUBS::PAINTERPlanet CrayonThu Jun 23 1994 19:00240
               <<< SCHOOL::LARRY_BIRD:[NOTES$LIBRARY]UU.NOTE;1 >>>
                         -<  Unitarian Universalism  >-
================================================================================
Note 193.1                    Aboriginal Dreamings                        1 of 2
AIRPRT::PAINTER "Back from OZ, and the Wizard said" 233 lines  14-JUN-1989 18:57
                      -< Book contents about the Secret >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "The Secret Of Dreaming", by Jim Poulter
----------------------------------------------

Foreward:

This is the story of why the Land is sacred and why Man must be its Caretaker.

In celebration of the Australian heritage.

	150,000 years of human society
	200 years of political identity

- to know the past is to see the future

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Text of book:

	"Once there was nothing.  
	Nothing but the Spirit of All Life

	For a long time
	there was nothing.
	
	Then
	in the mind of the Spirit of Life
	...A Dreaming began.

	In the empty darkness
	there was a Dreaming of Fire.
	And the colour of Fire burned brightly
	in the Mind of the Great Spirit
	
	Then came the Dreaming of Wind,
	and the fire danced and swirled 
	in the mind of the Spirit of Life
	
	Then came a Dreaming of Rain
	
	For a long time
	the battle of Fire Wind and Rain
	raged in the Dreaming
	
	And the Great Spirit liked the Dream.
	So the Dreaming continued.

	Then, as the battle waned
	between Fire Wind and Rain

	There came a Dreaming 
	of Earth and Sky
	and of Land and Sea.

	For a long time
	this Dreaming continued.

	The Great Spirit began to grow tired
	from the Dreaming,
	but wanted the Dream to continue.

	So life was sent into the Dream
	to make it real,
	and for Creator Spirits
	to continue the Dreaming.

	So the Spirit of Life
	sent the Secret of Dreaming
	into the world
	with the Spirit of the Barramundi.

	And Barramundi
	entered the deep still waters,
	...and began to Dream

	Barramundi Dreamed 
	of waves and wet sand,

	But Barramundi 
	did not understand the Dream
	and wanted to Dream 
	only of the deep still water.

	So Barramundi
	passed the Secret of Dreaming
	to the Spirit of the Currikee,
	which is the Turtle.

	And Currikee
	came out of the waves 
	onto the wet sand
	...and began to Dream.

	Currikee Dreamed
	of the rocks and warm sun.

	But Currikee
	did not understand the Dream,
	and wanted to Dream
	only of the waves 
	and wet sand.

	So Currikee
	passed the Secret of Dreaming
	on to the Spirit of the Bogai,
	which is the Lizard.

	And Bogai
	climbed onto a rock 
	and felt the warm sun on his back
	...and began to Dream.

	Bogai Dreamed
	of the wind and the open sky.

	But Bogai 
	did not understand the Dream
	and wanted to Dream
	only of the rocks
	and warm sun.

	So Bogai 
	passed the Secret of Dreaming
	onto the Spirit of the Bunjil,
	which is the Eagle.

	And Bunjil
	rose into the open sky
	felt the wind in his wings
	...and began to Dream.

	Bunjil Dreamed 
	of the trees and the night sky,
	
	But Bunjil
	did not understand the Dream
	and wanted to dream 
	only of the wind
	and open sky.

	So Bunjil
	passed the Secret of Dreaming,
	onto the Spirit of the Coonerang,
	which is the possum.

	And Coonerang
	climbed high into the tree,
	looked at the night sky,
	...and began to Dream.

	Coonerang Dreamed
	of wide plains and yellow grass.

	But Coonerang 
	did not understand the Dream,
	and wanted to Dream 
	only of the trees and the night sky.

	So Coonerang
	passed along the Secret of Dreaming
	onto the Spirit of the Kangaroo.

	And the Kangaroo
	stood tall,
	looked across the plain of yellow grass
	...and began to Dream.

	Kangaroo Dreamed
	of music, and song and laughter.

	But Kangaroo 
	did not understand the Dream
	and wanted to Dream 
	only of the wide plains
	and yellow grass.

	So Kangaroo
	passed the Secret of Dreaming
	onto the Spirit of Man.

	And man
	walked across the land
	and saw all the works of creation
	He heard the birdsong at dawn
	and saw the red sun at dusk,
	...and began to Dream.

	Man Dreamed
	of sharing the music of dawnbirds,
	the dance of the emu
	and the red ochre of sunset

	And he Dreamed also 
	of the laughter of children

	And man understood the Dream

	So he continued to Dream
	of all the things
	that had been dreamed before.

	He dreamed 
	of the deep still water,
	of the waves and wet sand,
	the rocks and warm sun,
	the wind and open sky,
	the trees and the night sky,
	and the plains of yellow grass.

	And Man knew through the Dreaming,
	that all creatures
	were his spirit cousins
	...and that he must protect their Dreaming.

	And he Dreamed
	of how he would tell these secrets
	to his child
	who was not yet born.

	Then the Great Spirit knew at last
	that the Secret of Dreaming was safe.

	And being tired
	from the Dreaming of Creation,
	the Spirit of Life entered the land
	to rest

	So that now,
	when the spirits of all creatures
	become tired
	they join the Spirit of Life in the Land

	So this is why the Land is sacred
	and man must be its Caretaker.
1965.13I don't think it's quite so scientificROMEOS::TREBILCOT_ELSat Jun 25 1994 05:5845
    Re: .12
    
    That is beautiful.  I've never seen that before.
    
    The note referring to the scientific theory which did not catch on is
    interesting, the theory of off-line processing.
    
    I am not certain I agree with the fact that we do not remember things
    because we "discard what is not lawful" so to speak, and keep what is
    bizarre.
    
    Haven't we had dreams that made absolutely zero sense?  That we could
    not tie in to our lives somehow?  Is everything we dream related to
    what is going on in our lives?
    
    I'll admit that most of what I remember seems to make sense if I
    consider what is going on in my waking hours but I do not think that
    every single thing is tied...(who knows, maybe it is?)
    
    I feel that there is so much more to our dreams, so much of ourselves,
    that we cannot clasify the dreams as b eing purely scientific.  I think
    that a lot of who we are goes into them, or maybe the super-natural,
    and that cannot be analyzed.
    
    For example, when my deceased relatives/friends come to me and show me
    things of the future, and I tell people about them upon waking, and
    then tye come to pass...how can you categorize that scientifically?
    
    I guess I may be answering my own original question here...that the
    dreams and things are not my mind, but that they happen.
    
    See, something I may not have mde totally clear...this kind of thing
    has happened while I've been awake,before I've entered a dream (or even
    pre-dream) state...meaning, I'm wide awake.
    
    I think the brain is connected...because, for instance, I notice a
    significant increase in dejavu incidents when I'm tired/over-tired, but
    I am trying to close the gap as to how the brain is involved...
    
    I will definitely get a hold of the reading material because it's of
    great interest to me, and again, I thank all for their input...
    
    I value it...
    
    
1965.14My responseDWOVAX::STARKKnowledge is good.Mon Jun 27 1994 13:4035
    
|    I feel that there is so much more to our dreams, so much of ourselves,
|    that we cannot clasify the dreams as b eing purely scientific.  I think
|    that a lot of who we are goes into them, or maybe the super-natural,
|    and that cannot be analyzed.
    
    There is a difference though between not wanting to have something
    explained because it seems to take the richness and meaning out of it and 
    claiming that it cannot be explained in other terms.  For some people,
    understanding something better in terms of natural processes doesn't take 
    the meaning out, it makes it that much more remarkable.  Where do these
    natural processes come from, and why are they in the form they are in ?
    
    No, reducing the supernatural to the natural doesn't trivialize the
    universe, it makes it that much more incredible.
    
    	There's a tendency in serious study of nature toward reducing real 
    	things into two dimensional images.  Yes, they lose some of their
    	life, like observing insects which are mounted on pins instead of 
    	observed in the process of living their lives.  
    
    	But for every bit of meaning removed by study, another bit
    	is also gained, because we come closer to understanding with
    	our eyes less clouded by wishful thinking and we can observe
    	the aspects of nature that are *truly* awesome, and not just
    	appearing to be awesome.  
    
    	Most of the meaning in dreams is real, but I think it is meaning
    	we imbue them with ourselves.  To me that's much more interesting
    	than believing that some cosmic hierarchy of characters brings
    	meaning to our lives and destiny.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd
1965.15TNPUBS::PAINTERPlanet CrayonMon Jun 27 1994 15:2712
    Re.14
    
    >believing that some cosmic hierarchy of characters...
    
    Todd,
    
    When one has direct experience of such things, 'believing' is no 
    longer necessary.  
    
    (;^)
    
    Cindy
1965.16IE: Off-Line ProcessingNPSS::CREEGANMon Jun 27 1994 17:2415
    I had a good example of an "Off-Line Processing" dream.
    
    
    While I was in college I took a course in Statistical Package for the
    Social Science (SPSS).  I was over my head and in a bit of a panic.
    When I am very tired I tend to get more vivid, wild, colorful dreams,
    but during a bout of anxiety about the class I had a helpful dream. 
    
    In the dream I was in a classroom.  All the chairs were full of
    students.  All of the students were me (ironic, since I am an identical
    twin).  The teacher/professor was me, too.  I remember feeling
    entertained.  On the blackboard was the very problem I was experiencing
    in the class.  AND THEN I PROCEEDED TO TELL MYSELF WHERE THE PROBLEM
    WAS AND HOW TO FIX IT.  And "I" was right.  When I woke up and checked
    my program, the error was right where "the professor" showed me.
1965.17The value of the remembrance itself ...DWOVAX::STARKKnowledge is good.Mon Jun 27 1994 17:4719
    re: .16,
    
    Yes, I agree with you that unconscious problem solving during 
    sleep or relaxation is possible support of the off-line model.
    
    An important question that poses itself in the off-line model 
    is whether the solution of the problem requires _remembering_ the dream, or 
    whether the dream symbolism is just shorthand for the already completed
    processing, and that the solution would be available to us later whether 
    we were later cognizant of the dream or not.
    
    That's a big question when we think of how the off-line model relates
    to the Freudian model of dreams, or to the Aboriginal view, or that
    attributed to the Senoi, or Tibetan Buddhists, or other cultures 
    considered to value the remembrance of dreams to an extraordinary degree.  
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd
1965.18I think we can learn in dreams!ROMEOS::TREBILCOT_ELMon Jun 27 1994 23:1121
    Re: -1
    
    When you mention whether the solution of the problem requires
    remembering the dream...
    
    When I was in high school I was studying French very seriously.  I was
    going to be going to Paris and wanted to be fluent.  I began to make
    tapes and listen to them before I slept at night.  Before I knew it I
    was dreaming in French and when I remembered my dreams, I understood
    them.
    
    I became more fluent and when I went to Paris I had no trouble
    conversing with the French (except in Paris they didn't like Americans
    trying to "ruin" their language...)
    
    ;^)
    
    So I think that there is something to learning in dreaming, but as for
    whether or not we have to remember...I wouldn't guess so...
    
    
1965.19Dr. Moody from Many Hands MagazineADVLSI::SHUMAKERWed Jul 06 1994 12:34253
   Interview in 'Many Hands' magazine with Dr. Raymond Moody on "Reunions:
   Visionary Encounters with Departed Loved Ones." Copied without permission.

   MH: Your research ranges over several different topics but seems to
   have a focal point in death and dying. Let's start with your first
   book, "Life after Life." What originally sparked your interest in near
   death experiences (NDE's)?

   RM: Well, actually my work does *not* necessarily revolve around death
   and dying. I can see why people see it otherwise, but I am most
   interested in human consciousness and altered states of awareness.
   Within that category, people really get fascinated by near-death
   experiences. Sometimes as a result, the interests I have in altered
   states of awareness generally don't get that much attention. For
   example, I'm also very much interested  in the psychology of the humor
   and the more exotic psychiatric syndromes - the really odd things like
   when people claim all their relatives have been replaced by exact
   duplicates, or the one where people have the delusion that a movie star
   is in love with them. So what I'm really most interested in are the far
   reaches of human consciousness, but I'm willing to talk about whatever
   people want me to talk about.

   I had grown up a non-religious person; it wasn't until I was about 12
   that we started to go to church with some regularity. I had just grown
   up assuming that when you die, there's an obliteration of
   consciousness. Then in 1965, when I was an undergraduate student at the
   University of Virginia studying philosophy, one of my professors told
   me about a psychiatrist in town who had had an amazing experience with
   death.

   Several years before, he had been pronounced dead from double pneumonia
   and had an NDE. The interesting thing to me was that even beyond the
   point where the physicians say you're dead there's an active
   consciousness going on. So I became very interested. Four years later
   by coincidence I ran into another case. I realized that if I had come
   across two cases in four years, without even seeking them out, this
   experience had to be fairly common. By the time I went through medical
   school I had more cases. When I heard that a patient had been
   resuscitated I would go and talk to them.

   MH: Your most recent book "Reunions" stretches the farthest parameters
   of credibility by claiming that we can actually invite an apparition to
   appear by staring into a mirror. Do people really see the dead?

   RM: Well, first I want to tell you that so far nine other psychologist
   and psychotherapists have worked with me and gotten the same results.
   Diane Arcangel is one of them (see sidebar). She read an article I had
   written for Near Death Journal, got interested in it, and came to my
   place in Alabama in late July. She has had spectacular success with it.

   MH: What is a psychomanteum and how is it used?

   RM: In the ancient world a psychomanteum was a place where people
   allegedly went to visit with the spirits of their departed relatives.
   They are mentioned by Herodotus, who was the first historian of the
   western world; also by Strabo, the first geographer; by Homer in the
   "Odyssey;" and Plutarch who talks about the Oracle of the Dead. Since
   the descriptions of what happened at the Oracle are so unbelievable,
   scholars had always said they had to result from fraud or that they
   were entirely literary creations. They assumed Homer merely wanted to
   take us on a startling adventure. That's where it rested for about 2000
   years. 

   MH: so you decided to construct one?

   RM: I had heard about the Oracle of the Dead for many years. About
   three years ago, I was sitting in my office just thinking. We in
   medicine have known that a high percentage of bereaved people will have
   experiences of being in touch with the departed. This just happens all
   the time. And there have been several medical studies including the
   "British Journal of Medicine" that show very clearly that this is true.
   This journal, as well as one in the U.S., also suggests that two-thirds
   of widows have this experience. Similar studies have been done at the
   Chicago Institute of Public Opinion and the Gallop Poll. Widows have
   been used as subjects because they comprise the largest bereaved group
   and they are more available for study, but what we know from clinical
   experience is that this is also true of other bereaved groups.
   Siblings, parents, children and friends of the deceased also talk about
   these experiences. The reason science has remained silent on them is
   because it has been assumed that we can not reproduce them at a given
   time and place.

   As I was sitting around thinking about this, I realized that if so many
   people have these experiences, we must be highly predisposed to them. I
   asked myself why we couldn't rearrange circumstances to increase the
   likelihood that a given person would have this experience at a given
   time and place so that we could monitor it. If we could, that would
   obviate a major scientific difficulty in studying experiences like
   these. First, since we assume that these experiences are simultaneous
   and only happen unpredictably, we can't be there on the spot with EEGs
   to monitor them while a person is going through them. Secondly it
   follows that there is always a time lag between when the experience
   occurs and the time it's reported to an investigator. In that time
   interval, the experience could be subconsciously distorted or altered
   by the memory. 

   Herodotus named the river the Oracle of the Dead was located on. I
   looked it up in a book published in 1964 by H. W. Parks, the standard
   scholar on the Greek Oracle, and it turned out that the actual Oracle
   had been rediscovered in 1957 by a Greek classical archaeologist. This
   man had simply trusted Homer. He went to the location Homer described
   and found a huge subterranean complex with corridors, dormitories, and
   a winding labyrinth at the exact spot. 

   All of this was under the ground and appeared to be in utter black
   darkness. As the archaeologist wound his way through the central part of
   it, he came to the remnants of an enormous bronze caldron. He concluded
   that in all probability the guards would pretend to be the spirits of
   the departed that the seekers had come to see. With all due respect to
   this particular archaeologist, I thought of a different possibility.

   I had found with my work in mirrorgazing over a considerable length of
   time, that highly-polished cauldrons, metal bowls and metal cups filled
   with water or wine, have been used throughout history to provide an
   optical clear depth. This has been a way of gazing at an infinite
   distance. The example that we've all read about is Joseph in the
   "Bible" who had among his possessions a silver cup which he used as a
   divination tool. They still do this today in the Middle East. It hit me
   like a ton of bricks that that's what the Greeks were doing.

   So I set it up in a chamber in my house that provided an optical clear
   depth and called about ten of my graduate students in psychology -
   older people who had been out in the field for a while, and whom I
   regard as a little more mature and polished. I described the project
   to them. We got started and immediately we just started having results
   far beyond what I could imagine.

   MH: Do you stare right into the mirror at your own image?

   RM: No. I mount my mirror 32 inches off the floor. I have an easy chair
   so that when you sit in the chair you do not see your own reflection.
   you're gazing at an upward angle and all you see is a clear optical
   depth; you do not see your own reflection.

   MH: Again I have to ask you if you literally see an apparition or do you
   see something in your mind's eye. I know that you're not trying to
   prove the existence of anything, but what, for example, was your
   experience? Can you reach out and touch what you're seeing?

   RM: As a matter of fact, a number of our subjects have reported being
   hugged and touched. And here's another really wild thing about this. It
   was totally unanticipated. Four, about 10 to 15 percent of my subjects,
   the apparition appears first in the depth of the mirror, but then it
   emerges from the mirror and comes right out into the room with them. At
   this point, I think about the story of Aladdin, not the children's
   version which has been expurgated, but the Arabian Knights original.
   What you'll find is that the lamp is made out of brass. Aladdin and his
   mother decide they're going to sell the lamp for money so Aladdin's
   mother takes fine sand and polishes it. What she's doing is making a
   mirror with the abrasive. Then they see the genie in the depths of the
   lamp and he comes out of the mirror and talks to them in an audible
   voice. No doubt about it. That happens a lot. It happened to me.

   MH: Can other people see the apparition?

   RM: Yes indeed. We've had a number of collective accounts at this
   point. 

   MH: You saw your grandmother, someone you weren't expecting to see. Why
   do you think that happened?

   RM: Well 25% of the people who have been through it here have seen
   someone other than the person they set out to see. I imagine that
   happens because for some intrapsychic reason, you will see the person
   you *need* to see, not the person you may *want* to see - perhaps to
   smooth over that relationship, finish the unfinished business or
   receive some communication that you need to hear. 

   MH: Now, just to go back for a second, as you're looking into the mirror
   or whatever you're using for this purpose, what is your mental state?
   Is it one of those things where if you try too hard. I won't happen?

   RM: I have found that it is. The most common reason that people don't
   have one of these experiences is that when people are really focused
   and go in with a lot of expectations, really trying to force it, it
   doesn't work. I try to subvert that by getting people to relax first.

   MH: How?

   RM: Basically by telling them to sit back and get into as relaxed a
   state as they can.

   MH: does hypnosis work?

   RM: Hypnosis seems to work pretty well, but you know, so does a good
   walk. It's my impression that when I take people for a walk in the
   countryside first, that seems to enhance the experience.

   With regard to the experience in the psychomanteum, people will ask,
   "is this hypnosis?" I will give you my considered opinion based on the
   fact that I have been interested in hypnosis since 1972 and have
   hypnotized hundreds of people, and am an excellent hypnotic subject
   myself. Whatever this was in the psychomanteum was different than
   hypnosis or anything else I have experienced. so it's my opinion that
   the images you get from mirrorgazing are distinct from the kind of
   phenomena that are reported from hypnosis. Hypnosis itself is not
   clearly defined. It deals with not one, but a number of different
   levels of altered consciousness.

   MH: Were you startled when you saw the apparition? Were you surprised
   when you actually saw someone?

   RM: Oh, yes! It was quite astonishing. It was one of the most amazing
   events of my life. And the thing that was most astonishing to me about
   it was that even though I had heard hundreds of accounts of apparitions
   from people who would come up to me after my lectures over the years. I
   still could hardly believe it myself. My image of an apparition was a
   wispy, see-through thing and I imagined actually seeing one was a very
   weird experience. But my grandmother looked completely solid and I
   heard her audible voice quite loudly. I was fully awake. I was more
   awake than in normal waking reality and it did not seem weird.

   MH: Does it have to be dark to do this? Can it be done during the day?

   RM: Well, dark helps simply because you get a better image. The more
   light you can exclude the better.

   MH: I know that one of the reasons you wanted to do this was because of
   the transformational value of NDE's. Do you find that people achieve
   the same peaceful transformation through reunions with the deceased?

   RM: I believe so. I certainly did. It was a highlight of my life. It
   changed my view of reality.

   MH: Does it change your fear of death?

   RM: I don't know. In my case, I have not been afraid of death for a long
   time so I can't really say what it would be like for other people. I'm
   basically a person who likes to plow up new stuff. That's what I enjoy
   doing, so I'm already moving on to something else at this point.

   MH: As a pioneer in the frontier sciences, someone right there on the
   front lines, do you think progress is being made in understanding the
   paranormal?

   RM: Yes, we are going to see some changes, I'm fully confident. I'm not
   a biblical doomsday kind of person - that's not what I'm about. As I
   look at the world situation, it's plain to me that everything is coming
   to a head. There is going to be a major change and whether these
   altered states of consciousness will have anything to do with it, well
   it's my suspicion that they will.

   MH: Let's hope they do.

   RM: Havel spoke to Congress several years ago and it's amazing to me
   that his speech was not more widely appreciated in the US. He made the
   remark that as he surveyed the world, it struck him that if we are to
   be saved the only thing that's going to do it is what he calls a
   worldwide revolution in consciousness. So we have to open up to
   other levels of consciousness if we are to survive in my opinion,
   because it seems to me that if we are to be saved, we have to start
   loving each other. How are you going to do that? Well, it may take a
   mystical consciousness to do it. It's the best way I can see.
1965.20:)TECRUS::DEMARSEEnjoy beingThu Jul 07 1994 17:171
    Great article!
1965.21TNPUBS::PAINTERPlanet CrayonThu Jul 07 1994 18:416
    
    Indeed!  Thanks, Wayne.
    
    Especially liked the reference to Aladdin and mirrors.
    
    Cindy
1965.22TNPUBS::PAINTERPlanet CrayonThu Jul 07 1994 21:1672
                                        
    Here is a repost of a note that was deleted (by the author, so I
    removed his name and kept the text.)
    
    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1638.9                    Dreams and voices.                        9 of 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have seven bodies and each has its own type of dream:
    1] the physical, 2] the etheric, 3] the astral, 4] the mental, 
    5] the spiritual, 6] the cosmic, 7] the nirvanic.
    
    1:
    99% of our thousands of daily/nightly dreams are just garbage. the
    "cache" gets flushed. the brain cells are cleared of trivia.
    
    2:
    In the second, the etheric, one can travel. (flying, obe)
    gurus revealing themselves before their disciples is nothing but
    etheric travel. it is called the vital body, the energy body.
    
    After a death, the etheric body will "usually" "stay around" the
    earth plane for 13 days. (if it refuses to leave its attachment to
    the world, it becomes a ghost. that is why the body is cremeated:
    to shock the etheric soul.)
    
    If the dreamer is in the etheric body, then those recently departed,
    or those who wish to be here to deliver a message, will be heard.
     
    Sufis have used perfume and colour to enter the second body.
    
    3:
    In the third, astral, you go into your previous births.
    
    4:
    In the fourth, the mental, one can travel into the past and into the
    future -- your own future only.
    
    A person who is practicing fasting, loneliness, darkness, will create
    mental dreams -- they will be so real, more real than the reality that
    is surrounding us. the mind is totally creative -- unhindered by
    anything objective, unhindered by material boundaries. all art is
    produced in the fourth because the mind is so powerful, so crystal
    clear.
    
    5:
    In the fifth, the spiritual, you cross the individual and time: you are
    in eternity. the dreamer & the real become one. every type of duality
    is cast off. there is no question of awareness now. even if you are
    unaware, you will be aware of your unawareness.
    
    6:
    In the sixth body, the cosmic body, you cross the borders of
    matter/mind, conscious/unconscious. if one dreams here, one will most
    probably create great systems or great religions. you can't have any
    beliefs, philosophy, scriptures, any gurus: you are totally alone;
    not loneliness but aloneness.
    
    You are no more. the dreamer is not. whatever is known, is KNOWN. it
    becomes your knowledge. you are not, but the total is dreaming.
    
    7:
    In the seventh body, the nirvanic, the positive jumps into nothingness:
    dreams of nonexistence, dreams of nothingness, dreams of the void.
    there are no symbols, no forms. there is no sound, but the soundless.
    there is absolute silence.
    
    There is neither dream nor reality. dreams and reality have become one.
    only nothingness remains. there is no possibility of dreaming.
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
1965.23have you tried mirror gazing???POWDML::RAMSAYFri Jul 08 1994 15:403
    re .19 on mirror gazing
    
    Has anyone tried this?  I'd be interested in hearing about it.
1965.24WMOIS::CONNELLI will do thee mischief in the wood.Fri Jul 08 1994 16:0418
    I own what is called a "Dark Mirror" and have attempted some gazing
    with it. I usually use a candle off to one side for light. It isn't
    actually close enough to see it in the mirror (the candle) as the
    mirror is of a size to hold in one's hand and the candle to close might
    singe my hair a bit. :-) The candle is not the focus, my eyes are. I
    haven't attempted this to often for a couple of reasons. The only
    images I've seen are dark, flittering shadow forms, not necessarily
    demonic or anything, just that I can't get them any clearer. I get the
    same effect from staring into a clear night sky without any moon. I may
    just be concentrating to hard and if I try to relax to much, I actually
    come close to falling asleep. :-) The other reason is that I have a
    slightly irrational, but not dysfunctional fear of mirrors and tend to
    not look into them. :-) I won't go into the why's of this here. I've
    always suspected that it was C. L Dodgsons' fault anyway. :-)
    
    Bright Blessings
    
    PJ
1965.25POWDML::RAMSAYFri Jul 08 1994 17:351
    Thanks, PJ.  Anyone else???