Does the proof of 'god-hood' lay in our dreams?
This was the topic that started my whole philosophical endeavor. Namely, if we can be aware in our dreams, that we are dreaming, does that imply some sense of godliness? The apt term is called lucid dreaming, and most of us at least experience it once in our lives. The phenomenon entails that we are aware of the fact that we are dreaming, and can manipulate the 'substance' of the dream world.
So, does the fact that you can feel like god, in your dreamworld, and create, fly, or do pretty much anything you want some roundabout proof that the concept of 'God-hood' is actual? I'm not sure if my ideas have changed on this topic for some 15 years or so. It seems on face value to imply god-hood to some degree or manner or fashion.
So, does the fact that you can feel like god, in your dreamworld, and create, fly, or do pretty much anything you want some roundabout proof that the concept of 'God-hood' is actual? I'm not sure if my ideas have changed on this topic for some 15 years or so. It seems on face value to imply god-hood to some degree or manner or fashion.
Comments (67)
Never experienced that but the point is dreams seem so real and we have to wake up in the real world to realize we were dreaming.
In other words we can't distinguish a dream world from the real world. This leads to the question ''is the world we assume to be real also a dream?''
Lucid dreams feel more real than reality. That much is true from experience. Where do we go from there?
It could be. One wonders.
What do you think it implies?
One might ask, within the context of meta-thought can one be aware that one is aware that one is dreaming? Within this apparently infinite expansion one approaches Schopenhauer's 'Will to Will'.
Here is an example of the freedoms that are maintained within a super determined universe. The process of transition from thought to meta thought to meta-meta thought and so on, is the fundamental essence of meditation, both ancient and modern. This process attempts the impossibility of a union with pure consciousness and "god" by all definitions is 'pure consciousness'. God in this sense resides outside of the determined nature of a predictable material universe. God as such is pure thought AND pure freedom. In keeling with Buddhism and other proponents of a meditative approach to God, is the disciplined aspiration beyond the material and towards pure reason and pure consciousness.
M
Indeed, thanks for sharing.
I do know that Buddhism treats dreams with a sort of negative connotation of arising due to the undisciplined mind; but, what about lucid dreams? I do know that the Hindu scriptures have another take on the matter; but, am not well read enough to comment on their conception of transcendence or whatnot to the matter.
At the risk of being laughed off the forum, I'd say that it suggests that the real world is less than we make it out to be. A dream can sometimes say more than a real world situation can say. The psychological explanation is nice, but it's just the technicality of the spiritual reality.
I have a lot of vivid dreams. I had a dream awhile ago that my brother was standing about a stone's throw away from me. But he was unreachable. Why? I don't know. It was just a dream. But was it? Whatever the psychological explanation is is fine, but it won't satisfy the emotions that accompanied the dream. When I think back to that dream, it's twilight setting, and the love that my brother was sending, and yet his inaccessibility...it's a feeling more powerful than any feeling I've felt in waking life in years. So what does that mean?
I'm not entirely sure. I feel as though, lucid dreams are the pinnacle of spirituality due to the holistic aspect of the mind unifying with all other aspects of the mind. One is, so to speak, in total immersion with all the aspects of the mind (ID, ego, super-ego?) instead of an artificial separation or suppression of the animistic aspects during meditation and such.
Good psychoanalysis will provide the reasoning for the dream itself. However the process dreaming is the practical experience of freedom in that it is independent of the materially determined universe. You may not be free to influence the material nature of his and your existence, however you are free to dream and to feel, and to contemplate upon dream thought.
I agree lucid dreams ...,
"the pinnacle of spirituality"
Nice phrase.
I think we are in agreement.
There's a few grammatical errors in your post, but I actually like how poetic it sounds as it is. :up:
I've had some psychoanalysis; was it good? Eh, I would say not so much. The result is that I'm pretty pessimistic about psychoanalysis. That's both my loss, and psychoanalysises loss. Whatever. Psychology is constantly changing. What my therapist of two years ago thought was wise is probably no longer thought to be wise. There's no wisdom in psychotherapy. The psyche needs more than physical therapy.
I can relate. I feel as though the mind is much more compartmentalized during waking reality, whereas during a dream everything has the chance to emerge into one's conscious aspect of the mind.
I have a certain amount of reverence for dreams. I had a profound dream a long time ago about getting lost on the trip to the peak of the "mountain", whatever that may mean to you. In my opinion this mountain, from which I got separated from my family was a sort of journey in life. I found myself wandering in a forest filled with strange ghosts, plants, and whatnot.
What I gathered from that dream was that the shortest way around the mountain was through it, actually tunneling through it. I still have no idea what that could possibly mean. Quantum tunneling?
Quoting Noble Dust
At risk of misinterpreting you here, and that's just a given, I think it's maybe your dream telling you that you're growing distant from him?
Quoting Noble Dust
No, it wasn't *just* a dream. That's what I hate about reality. It demeans and treats these almost lifelike experiences into something trite or illusory, which they aren't. Dreams are magical.
Quoting Noble Dust
I really wish I knew the answer to this question. These are highly individualistic and personalized messages from the deep-end of your conscious being.
Please excuse the grammar I am using one of these ludicrous not-so-smart-phones
Can you expand on this Marcus?
Oh it's not a problem at all; I'm sorry if my comment was offensive. I just literally found your use of grammar to be somewhat artistic and interesting. I'm sorry if that's out of line.
Hurrah, solipsism!
I prefer Spinoza to solip ism.
What does that mean?
Yup. I haven't done hallucinogens, but what friends have told me about the experience sounds similar to an experience of clear-mindedness that also corresponds to the lucidity of a dream that feels very real.
Quoting Posty McPostface
These personal dreams are so precious and interesting. When I read your account, I'm interested, but I know that the account you're describing is something so deeply personal and almost weird; even to you yourself. This is the thing that gives such an elegant beauty to dreams; this embarrassing quality.
Quoting Posty McPostface
It's true that we've grown distant in terms of physical space; but we remain essentially best friends; or, he remains my best friend. He's married, though, so she's his best friend now, I guess. But the emotion of the dream had nothing to do with that at all. It was way, way deeper than that. It was something foundational.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I agree. Dreams feel more real than waking life.
No problem at all; I on the other hand am very easily offended, and am often unkind. It's nice to have a moment on TPF where we can commune a little; lay back! Nice.
Never really done them also. Just tried a mushroom once and that was too overwhelming. Dreams allow me to relax and just let things go as they do. There's nobody judging me or thinking if I will do something stupid and such. My experience with hallucinogens (albight once), was in some sense a realization of how limited and unfree, as I human being, that I am.
Quoting Noble Dust
Since we're talking about dreams, I also had a special dream about depression. I had a dream that a giant sea creature or some octopus was in this lake I was visiting. It was a strange lake because everything seemed to be black and white. I approached this lake, and the monster grabbed me and was trying to drag me down into the deep with it. I realized that the only way to overcome this monster or 'defeat' it, was through waiting until the water evaporates and 'suffocates' the octopus. Yeah, deep indeed. Nowadays, I throw some food at the monster from a safe distance, and we kind of live happily together. :mask:
Quoting Noble Dust
I guess, dreams can guide you. It sounds like the dream was affirming what was inevitable, that your brother now has another family that he has to tend to... Not sure, just my gibberish on the matter.
Quoting Noble Dust
Sometimes, I intentionally sleep more than 10 hours a day, because I like my dreams so much, haha.
I'm interested in hearing more about this. Is it some inverted infinite regress? Or knowing the limits of one's world and then stepping forward?
I shall respond tomorrow.
Here's the almighty flower for good dreams: :flower:
Posty
I suspect that you know your monster(s) very well. Certainly you are wise to keep them at a distance, but you have to confront them now and again, even for the simple pleasure of reminding yourself that you are alive... and of course you are right, the water will eventually dry up and the monster will shrivel and die... but the real question is ... what if anything of you will remain?
Shopenhauer's will to will ..anon
M
But, doctor, I get along with my monsters just fine. We have a pact of truce. I leave them alone and they leave me be too. I've accepted my disagnosis. :lol:
I don't think that's entirely true Posty.
I can be a bit monstrous in my own opinions here on this forum at times and you do seem to enjoy breaking a lance with me and other monsters.... And you do seem to have a predilection to joust with monstrous ideas and occasionally monstrous individuals, here on this forum... which I hope (for the sake of my own existence) is outside of your dreams.
You do appear to avoid the 'shoutbox' which appears to be the place where the monsters like to roar at their roars.
M
I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that I should take things more seriously? I have no monsterous ideas for the matter.
Why would you be concerned about your existence on these forums? Now, I'm somewhat afraid of some conspiracy...
Also, I think the whole notion of "lucid dreaming" is mistaken. Technically speaking, once you "wake up" then you're NOT dreaming. So, it doesn't make sense to describe this awakened stated as "lucid dreaming" because you've woken up and once that happens what you experience is your imagination at play. Not dreaming.
What would you call that state of being then?
Yes, I'm considering not participating in the Shoutbox anymore. I'm too sensitive for the roughhousing in there.
But your still dreaming, no?
Solipsim is true in dreams: the first principle of dream interpretation is 'everything in the dream is you.' Especially the monsters. That is the difference between dream and reality, that the monsters of reality have taken on a life of their own, and post stuff you would never think of.
Let's stop talking about monsters. I'm getting scared...
How can we dream when we're awake? How can we be awake if we're dreaming?
It doesn't make sense.
All I'm willing to give to the idea of "lucid dreaming" is it's somewhere between actual dreaming and day-dreaming and I feel it's much closer to the latter than to the former
I'm scary? Jesus, that can't be even true, can it?
Mad
The assumption of a self the "you" here is problematic. Which form of thought or the infinite array of meta-thoughts are you referring to as 'a' pure self?
Who is the self who is thinking about the self, and the self who is thinking about the thinking self... and so on? In an even simpler sense who is the self-thinking and who is the self-doing? I
Indeed they might all be assigned to a oneness, but the assignation is outside of the empirical function of the thinking process or processes.
This 'self' is a bit like Heisenberg's Uncertainty in that as soon as it is fixed, it tends to disappear.
M
I disagree. Be scared of being scary or being scared.. in one respect you are free, in the other you are unfree.
Freedom is everything!
M
What I want to point out is that in dream, if one is scared, one is scared of oneself (no one and nothing else is there). Which is to say that being scared simply is being scary, so being scared of being scary is a bind that holds one to being scary and being scared.
In the real world, it comes to the same thing; to be scared of being scary is to bind oneself - the opposite of freedom - it is also to be scared of oneself.
So I want to say very firmly and clearly that there is no escape from oneself, absolutely none. So this fear cannot act, except to run in circles trying to get away from itself like a dog running away from its tail. If that is seen very clearly and completely, it is the end of fear.
You're probably right on this account. I would think the brain wave patterns of a lucid dreamer might resemble that more of an awake person than one deep in REM sleep. Interesting stuff.
What next then? Reaching out to the world? Becoming a cosmopolitan or socialist? You have led the fly out of the bottle; but, often the fly reminisces about how comfortable a life it had in the bottle.
Oh, how does this sound similar to Plato's analogy of the cave. Hehe.
I don't see how having meta-thoughts lead to the self multiplying. Two mirrors parallel to each other have infinite images but there are still only two mirrors.
It's interesting though to think the self can multiply like you suggest. Imagine what that would mean!
Several years into the research I had a dream where I was conscience in that dream, but that particular dream was a nightmare. Rather then deal with a lucid nightmare, I tried to wake myself up, only to find that the dream was still partially going on while I was awake. I was in a sweet spot, where both sensory reality and dream reality were overlapping. It was not exactly psychotic, but a do-able place for further research.
This was a variation of unconscious projection, where we see reality through our eyes, but overlapped with an unconscious projection. If one is not aware of this, then the composite image appears to define your reality. A social anxiety disorder sees reality but overlapped with an intense anxiety that is projected onto even friendly reality.
As an analogy, say you had a movie projector attached to a hat you are wearing. The movie projector shines a jungle landscape onto the walls of your room at the same time you are looking at the objects on the wall. If you were not aware of the projector on your head, your mind would get used to the composite image and see this as your reality. Metaphysics sort of deals with the projectors.
That being said, part of my later research into dreams was to learn to differentiate the subtle overlay using a technique based on synchronicity; meaningful coincidence. The physical environment is fixed, but the overlay will participate in synchronistic experiments. It can synchronize because it comes from the unconscious center, which is attempting to get the attention of the ego.
The way that might work was me becoming aware of certain details in the environment, such as a bird flying from left to right. I am not controlling the bird in terms of any physical reality connection. Rather I am being made aware of this particular bird, because its color and direction off motion has a dream type parallel, that was appropriate to the occasion. I would analyze this as a dream symbol. This was an early way to develop an interactive rapport with the unconscious mind. It led to a dissociated state that made it easier to map out the psyche from its projection.
Indeed: one physical mirror containing infinite images of itself, each very slightly different from the next (in space and time) .
Quoting TheMadFool
One of my 'selfs' is typing my response to you, another is smiling at how smart I think I am, whilst another is telling me that only foolish people think they are really smart.
Which one do you prefer... I love them all ad-infinitum.
M
I find it odd that dreams are so easily forgotten, except the most emotionally intense or moving ones. Do you know why this is?
I used to keep a dream journal, that significantly helped me recall and analyze my dreams; but, no longer do that anymore. It's very tedious trying to write down what happened in your dreams if you have experience with this.
You don't believe that do you?
It depends upon whether I am considering the analogous material mirror itself, or that which it contains (my thoughts).
But in essence yes I believe it to be true on the basis of my own interface with 'the real'.
What do we read here on the forum, only thoughts that are reflective of some aspect of a self. I am currently at work and am also here interfacing with your thought. These words are not an 'entire me' they are a temporally fixed aspect or reflection of the infinite potential of my thought.. .nothing more.
M
Doesn't the necessitate the problem of agency? After all this is "you" speaking and "me" replying.
These words are not "me" speaking. This is a vague concept that is useful in daily dialogue, like Newtonian physics is useful in the context of driving cars or getting from A to B.
In a deeper more real sense these words are not "me speaking" they are merely temporal fixations of aspects of my thought. The process fixation is rendered by other aspects of my thought, and I may be lying so the entire communication might well not be in the least way reflective of my thought.
They (poor words) do not reflect my thought entirely and indeed are only an archaic evolutionary mechanism towards my biological function, like the yelping of a dog or the singing of a bird.
The issue at hand returns to Schopenhauer's notion of the origin of Will. The will to will and the infinite reduction of : will to will to will... etc. Pointing to an origin of 'Will' and or 'self', from an entirely infinite space, unrelated to the act of physical communication (words: typed or spoken).
M
This is confusing. I think I'm speaking with someone called @Marcus de Brun, am I not mistaken in your identity?
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Well, then you might be lying but some part of you knows what the truth is. So, even if your lying or bullshitting (a Frankfurtian term), then at least you still have some narrative or the truth hidden in deceit or lies as guiding the conversation.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
That could be true but how could I know otherwise?
Quoting Marcus de Brun
So, then where does the will originate from? Educate me as I'm not that well read in Schopenhauer's philosophy, although I should be.
Not as you understand it at least. It's not power over something external, rather internal.
That is my name.. but obviously not the totality of my identity which encompasses the totality of my thought.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Not necessarily, as I might be 'lying to myself' believing what I desire to believe rather than a more painful truth that I do not 'know that I know' (a Donald Rumsfelt phrase). The I and the self are dependent upon what consciousness 'decides' to make of the deeper Will.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I don't understand the question.Quoting Posty McPostface
I would not be so presumptive as to think I can educate anyone other than myself. Even my kids are relatively oblivious to my influence.
I will review my Schopenhauer and return with the appropriate reference.
M
Oh, cool. We're on the same page then. Posty is me, and Marcus de Brun in you, haha.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Ahh, Rummy with the known knowns, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns. Epistemically we are bound to known knowns and known unknowns, unknown unknowns aren't entertained by us, not in dreams at least. There is one last category though, they are unknown knowns.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Too deep. For clarity sake, let's assume that we can only be aware of what we are aware of.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
I mean to say that I have nothing to go about what you are referring to here.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Oh, well, OK. :(
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Thanks!
You might like:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2000/known-knowns-known-unknowns-and-unknown-unknowns
I've had lucid dreams and I don't know if I'd say I felt like a God. In a lot of ways my lucid dreams were very much bound up with my desire and the play of my imagination. And, as remarkable as it may sound to be able to change the experience of the world I'm in, I could always tell it was a dream ,and the dream always mirrored things I'd already seen.
Nothing was ex nihilo.
Furthermore I'd say that there is something about dreaming which is deeply personal and semi-spiritual, as has been discussed already. But these are human needs.
The dreamworld, as I've experienced it at least, seems to be so thoroughly human that I don't think it proves the concept of "God-hood" as something which is actual, or even coherent. Not that this is a disproof, either -- I just don't think it's related.
The not-so Mad fool, used the interesting analogy of a mirror containing an infinite array of reflections in dispute of the possibility of a material self containing an infinite number of potential-selfs vis: thought meta thought meta-meta-thought and so on.
Quoting TheMadFool
Schopenhauer approaches this notion in respect of 'will' which is the antecedent or initial 'form' of thought.
Schopenhauer writes:
"Now if we ask whether the will itself is free, we are asking whether it is in conformity with itself; and this of course is self evident, but it also tells us nothing. As a result of the empirical concept of freedom we have: I am free if I can do what I will, and the freedom is decided by this 'what I will'. But now since we are asking about the freedom of willing itself, this question should accordingly be expressed as follows: 'Can you also will what you will?' This appears as if the willing depended on yet another willing lying behind it. And supposing that this question were answered in the affirmative , there would soon arise the second question: Can you also will what you will to will?' And thus it would be pushed back to an infinity..."
The actuated will, the final thought that emerges as 'me' or 'my thought', has an infinite array of antecedent wills, a infinity of 'selfs' that culminate in the temporal but transient fixation of the pleasing and precious delusion of an 'I' singular.
M
Well it's nonsensical to talk about feeling like God. But for all intents and purposes you were tantamount to being a god, at least. That's what I meant.
Quoting Moliere
Is that important in some way? Dreams are self generated content, at least to the highest degree possible.
Quoting Moliere
Why not related? You have something tantamount to the power of a deity in a lucid dream. How is that not related?
Nice!
The will, it seems is a question of the ability to make choices and choosing or willing does seem to lead to infinity.
But...
If the infinite regress is to make sense the choices too must make sense. Does it?
Can we make sense of ''I want to want to want... ''?
There is a possibility there but is it actual? Could it just be an illusion?
What's the difference such that being a God is sensical, and feeling like God is nonsensical?
Quoting Posty McPostface
I suppose it depends on what one means by God. If we mean something akin to Zeus then maybe not. It just seems like everything depended on their being a world I have no control over -- that the real world is always first anyways, and the dreamworld is secondary to it.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I don't see it like that, I suppose. Just because experience changes doesn't mean I'm the creator of reality. I know it is a dream, after all, and not real. Or, the reality that it has is that of a dreamworld, in the way that my imagination has a kind of reality but it doesn't change the world I live in. Further, the dreamworld is bound to both my desires, which are part of the world, and even the experiences themselves are derivative of having the sort of experience that humans have, of a world where I have no control. I can change the scenery, so to speak, but it is always of the world I actually live in.
The will, in its capacity as the initiator of motivation MUST come before the "I" . therefore it is incorrect to speak of an "I want" there is a 'want' and THEN there becomes a thinking 'I'.
This is also the basis of Schopenhauer's determinist view. If we accept his view here, it follows that we cannot escape a determined universe. It is interesting that Bell reconciles his inequality and quantum behaviors, through an application of determinist or "super-determined" philosophy in accordance with Schopenhauer.