Chat
07-13-2016, 05:41 PM
Interesting take on 'dreams', DLP, but in saying what you have, the 'pessimistic' take away on what you are saying is, 'dreams don't really matter, they're just great stories to share' (a very Hollywood-esque viewpoint, I must say).
You propose the 'Freudian' approach, that dreams are nothing but perception tests, that they do not carry more significance than this. This then, discredits the sharing of them; you do realize this? If they are nothing more than for my personal review, then I already keep an excellent journal of 'what I've seen'...and if they are 'open to interpretation', then this would be a personal interpretation, as they were only given to me, no one else (any other take on that, indicates you would believe in a 'shared dream state' which would be akin to remote viewing in group, with group-individual awareness active).
While not proposing that I am, by any means, a 'visionary', a 'seer', or a 'prophet'; what then, defines any of these? Are you saying they are dreamers with high-percentages of accuracy that 'chose to go public'? This in itself refutes any higher power, that the dreams were given as a 'warning to the select', and instead merely declares that they are 'entertainment for all'.
Interesting perception, I must say. You say 'your dreams are not inconsequential', and yet then go on to expound on why that they are 'off', 'a possible miss', or 'unclear'. Actually, my dreams weren't off - my conscious decoding-application of them was, but this is mincing words on my behalf.
I do understand why I've seen other things that I've been told in dream-state to 'not disclose'. Not to be arbitrary or combative, but I think I'll keep the rest to myself. I'm not really big on just 'telling stories', and I already keep my journal for my own clarity. After all, it isn't my loss. The dreams are quite terrible and I have them far to frequently anyhow.
Thanks for your input though, DLP, it did allow me to see it from an external perspective better, and while everyone on the board does like to reference Eagle1's '10-percent rule', I often have privately wondered about that 'rule', compared to how statistics really work. Is that 100-percent of the people are accurate 10-percent of the time, or is that 20-percent of the people are accurate 50-percent of the time, or is that 10-percent of the people are accurate 100-percent of the time? Carrying this forward, if you remove one of the 10-percent'ers, I wonder if a statistician can expound on what the new population accuracy number becomes?
Oh, well, it's just entertainment. (I really must get my tuning adjusted, I seem to be stuck on the horror channel, while everyone else seems to dream of nice houses, puppies, and passed-relatives - none of which I ever see. I want the good dreams for a change, so I'm in protest against my tuning-provider).
You propose the 'Freudian' approach, that dreams are nothing but perception tests, that they do not carry more significance than this. This then, discredits the sharing of them; you do realize this? If they are nothing more than for my personal review, then I already keep an excellent journal of 'what I've seen'...and if they are 'open to interpretation', then this would be a personal interpretation, as they were only given to me, no one else (any other take on that, indicates you would believe in a 'shared dream state' which would be akin to remote viewing in group, with group-individual awareness active).
While not proposing that I am, by any means, a 'visionary', a 'seer', or a 'prophet'; what then, defines any of these? Are you saying they are dreamers with high-percentages of accuracy that 'chose to go public'? This in itself refutes any higher power, that the dreams were given as a 'warning to the select', and instead merely declares that they are 'entertainment for all'.
Interesting perception, I must say. You say 'your dreams are not inconsequential', and yet then go on to expound on why that they are 'off', 'a possible miss', or 'unclear'. Actually, my dreams weren't off - my conscious decoding-application of them was, but this is mincing words on my behalf.
I do understand why I've seen other things that I've been told in dream-state to 'not disclose'. Not to be arbitrary or combative, but I think I'll keep the rest to myself. I'm not really big on just 'telling stories', and I already keep my journal for my own clarity. After all, it isn't my loss. The dreams are quite terrible and I have them far to frequently anyhow.
Thanks for your input though, DLP, it did allow me to see it from an external perspective better, and while everyone on the board does like to reference Eagle1's '10-percent rule', I often have privately wondered about that 'rule', compared to how statistics really work. Is that 100-percent of the people are accurate 10-percent of the time, or is that 20-percent of the people are accurate 50-percent of the time, or is that 10-percent of the people are accurate 100-percent of the time? Carrying this forward, if you remove one of the 10-percent'ers, I wonder if a statistician can expound on what the new population accuracy number becomes?
Oh, well, it's just entertainment. (I really must get my tuning adjusted, I seem to be stuck on the horror channel, while everyone else seems to dream of nice houses, puppies, and passed-relatives - none of which I ever see. I want the good dreams for a change, so I'm in protest against my tuning-provider).