--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > This is true. Dreams are good indicators of things to come. > > > If the dreams are enjoyable then the near future should be > > > good as well. For example, if you dream of someone just before > > > you wake up, there's a good chance you will meet this person > > > during the same day. > > > > I think this is an example of one of our mind's cognitive > > pitfalls called "shaping." We tend to remember things that > > fit patterns and forget those that do not. > > It's also a view shaped by what I call "slacker > spirituality," one that sees dreams as a passive > experience that "happens" to you, not as another > state of consciousness that you have as much > control over as you do the waking state.
Yet another example of Barry "expressing his opinion" while putting down those who disagree with him. Why is it that he has such difficulty saying anything positive and just leaving it at that, without adding a bunch of negativity? <snip> > Personally I have as little respect for John's > "dreams as prognosticators" as I do for Western > science's or Maharishi's "dreams as stress release," > but that's because I get to *participate* in my > dreams in ways that they do not seem able to do. > > Does this make me any "better" than anyone else? > Nope, just different than the mainstream dream > slackers. They're slackers and you aren't, but that doesn't make you any "better" than they are. R-i-i-i-i-g-h-t. <snip> > If John's theory were correct, > I should have run into Basho and the Sixth Dalai Lama > and Oscar Wilde on the street today. Actually, what he said was that there was a "good chance" that you would. Tough luck it passed you by.
