"Mental" Illness: The Future of Treatment

How did you teach yourself lucid dreaming? This sounds like Aldous Huxley’s “hypnopedia” in “Brave New World” (1933). In that work dream indoctrination of children wasthe purpose of manipulating what dreams reveal.

There was nothing on lucid dreaming when I started. I was not even aware of it, as it was in the late '50’s

I reasoned this way, Life is often too demanding for most people to learn to do the right thing. So, can they practice in dreams?

I decided my best chance at learning the answer would be to try to do the simplest thing in a dream. I would tell my mother, in the dream, simply that I was dreaming.

The third night, I found myself in our kitchen, My mother was at the sink doing dishes, but I was not lucid. Simple awareness is not lucidity.

I was about to leave when she turned around and said, What do you want, Jay? Then I remembered, then I understood. I spread my arms and said, all this is a dream.

That started my many years of exploring the dream state while dreaming.

I would experiement, for example, if I were playing, as a sword fight, I would see what it was like to be the winner, then turn it around to see what it was like to lose.

Once I wanted to see how fast I could wake myself up from a lucid dream, I put a lot of effort into it and woke up so fast I got a headache, never did that again.

I would rate my awareness, by how well I could reason, and plan my actions.

I left off lucid dreaming when I learned that it was linguistically based to start my studies of the principles of reasoning itself.

Along the way, I did learn communication was involved. I got to the point where I could see things to come, if I wanted to. I reasoned that we live by our own ability. That it was our own ability that needed to improve. There is life in the Universe, much more advanced that we can imagine, however, we have a job to do, and whatever they are, they are not going to do it for us–because they cannot think for us, live for us, or do for us–these are wholly counterproductive expectations.

We are tested in the lucid dream state for cognitive and associative functions. Recurring dreams have something to do with this.

My life has been saved twice, from what people call visions. I would be dead over thirty years ago if I were wholly left to my own stupidity.

As one is responsible for their will in the waking state, so too in the lucid dreamstate, Lucidity is a function of productive will in either state. It cannot be stressed enough, [size=150]lucidity itself is a function of productive will in either state.[/size] The function of the human mind is to produce human will that maintains and promotes its life. This is true in any state of mind.

If we do not have standards for language itself, it is not possible to have psychological standards of man, because the human mind is linguistically functional or dysfunctional. So, you see, you can call me delusional, but in so doing you would have to deny the factual.

As there is a great deal of rubbish as to what constitutes rationality, which is a joke because they don’t know the principles, nor can they maintain them in the waking state, there is more than enough rubbish about lucid dreaming. We are evolving, but no animal evolves over night. However, there are points in evolution where survival becomes questionable.

How can anything think that psychology should be aimed at the fringes of obvious irrationality, but not at the core itself?

Every environmental acquisition system of a living organism is responsible for crafting specific products that maintain and promote the life of that organism. The human mind is not different. Its product is human will, and its tool is language. Logical and analogical.

There is a book for man, it is a series of psychological tests. The Judeo-Christian Scripture. As it is read, how one responds to the words produces testable results. I do a couple demo’s in the vid, I Am Principles of Self Realization. When it was indicated I should read it, I tossed it across the room as rubbish. First responses are not always correct.

Man has been looking for first contact situations, never dreaming that the slower was not the one who arrives first, but that the loudest was the one with the better hearing.

Thanks for that edifying post.
Here’s where I got into trouble arguing philosopy. I assumed that analogic preceeds logic, due to the notion that our dream narratives and our creative endeavors are metaphoric. Monkey see; monkey do.–at least on the ontological level of knowing. The waking narrative is not different in kind from the dream narrative; it appears to me to be an extension of “I” possibilities in further states of consciousness. So I do get accused of reification when talking about logic as existing prior to the narratives. Call this precursory logic or preverbal logic. In any event I don’t like Pinker’s distinctions as given in his “Mind” book.
I’m looking for process, progression, dynamics of growth and development, etc.
On metaphoric narrative see Julian Jaynes’ work. This may need to be the type of argument you need to substantiate any evolutionary changes in logic/analogic.
The distortions of meaningful, in the sense of human well-being, is what we’re discussing mainly in this thread.

I do video presentations on reasoning. I have even discovered and am posting developments in a new analogic which demonstrates the identity between 2 logics and 2 analogics.

The principles of reasoning, I am developing on my own because it is clear that there is no other I know of capable.

Please cite where these videos can be found.

Push the button --------------->

Maybe. That’s a ton of material, much of which, even in abbreviated description, does not fit in here. Methinks you should start your own thread about this material. I’m old school, believing that if a work cannot be presented in a single descriptive paragraph, it could be a waste of your and our time to see or read it all.
In this current thread, please let us know how this work involves the problem of MI.

Well, so much for your curiosity. I bet you ask your spouse, should you have one, to get you a cup of coffee.

This year I’ll be 70. Our general family longevity is 82. You should have caught me at 25 when my curiosity was unbounded. Now it’s simply conserved. Don’t have a wife or significant other.
So, how does your work resolve any of the problems we’ve discussed here about MI & therapy?
Do a thread in philosophy. I’ll read it.

When the mind becomes different from the mind, I will let you know.

Apparently, being polite doesn’t work. Please avoid this thread. I’ll respond to you elsewhere.

Who in the hell do you think you are to tell me to avoid a public thread, and when I answer your questions you bitch? You have a very warped idea of polite.

It is HIS thread based on HIS thesis.

He hasn’t the right to demand or force you to leave, but he does have the justifiable and semi-authoritative right to ask you to (or me or anyone else). You seem to keep espousing things that despite our efforts, seem to be irrelevant or disconnected to the topic at hand.

Well excuse me, this is a philosophy forum, it is for the investigation even of opposing views, now you can add your stupidity to his, but it does not change the facts.

I have just as much right to my say as anyone, so you can piss off as well.

Neither you nor I make the rules here, one of which is to stay on topic as much as possible.
This is NOT a federal public forum. It is privately owned and managed.

I am on topic, I don’t care if you agree or not.

And when the public is invited to a forum, it is public, or can’t you even reason that much?

In case you have not noticed, there are private areas of this forum. Duh.

I think the rule is about trolling. I could be wrong. I did ask, not demand.

The term “ad hom” refers to addressing the person making statements rather than the topic of the discussion. Look back at how often you initiate an ad hom exchange. Then discuss it with a moderator, not me.

Yes!!!

Then why are you opening your mouth? As you say, it is the mods choice.