The lucid dreaming analogy Pavlina used seems weak. I have had lucid dreams, and I have had non-lucid dreams. If the dream-world and the real-world are equivalent, why have I not had lucid experiences in the real-world? One world appears to be harder to self-inspect than the other, ergo, they are different. Even an SR type would have trouble explaining that without getting silly. Speaking of which, he admits that the OR type grants SR to the dream-world, then later says that the OR types don’t grant SR at all.

awareness=ability to perceive, does not entail being aware of being aware. Example; you perceive sensory stimulus in your sleep but are not conscious of it.

consciousness= the perception of perception, entails an awareness of being aware. Example; you recognize you are awake.

thought=mental dialog function, can occur without being conscious of it. Takes upon itself a structure form of relevance.

You could argue then from these points that consciousness is mental awareness, and that thought is mental function, and that awareness precedes mental states. This relates to the topic at hand because awareness is not subjective in the same way thought and consciousness is.

So to say that subjective reality exists cannot possibly undermine objective reality, because otherwise it would be self subject and subjective-subjective reality is meaningless.

In my experience philosophy of the academics and scholars tends to border on the meaningless due to their conflations of the nature of subjectivity. This being true for some professors who were quite brilliant people.

Besides, not everything could be explained with words even by Steve Pavlina himself because it takes pure self-experiencing to feel it. Words merely point you the way, they do not define it.

Thanks for your thought!

If anything ail a man so that he does not perform his functions, if he has a pain in his bowels even, he forthwith sets about reforming–the world.

(whereas)

I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it.

So. Physical limitations. I’m not sure if people have already touched on this in other topics already, but might as well just throw this out here for now: What kinds of ‘limitations’ are there, really? Are physical limitations really limitations, and how can we get past these ‘obstacles’ to get ourselves on track and to get in control of our lives?

In class we have talked about first Transcendentalism then the ideals it has that we can apply to our situations and more; I learned that all people have unlimited potential and that by being aware of this and believing that we can do it, what we want will come true. Which brings me back to my question–if so, then why are there physical limitations? Can’t we just throw them away from our sight and get to what we want? Apparently in most cases this is not so. So what does this mean?

I’d like to hear some replies~. Thanks for your time!

Please visit http://transparency.phpbb9.com/forum.htm for more info!

“You are not the only agent in this universe. You are a small, relatively insignificant player on a grand stage. Just as another person’s flesh and bones may oppose yours, their intentions may counter your own will.”

I think you misunderstood. It is nor me, you, Steve Pavlina, or the tramp in the street that is the agent. It is US. Understand?