Lucid Dreaming (Aristotle)


Accordingly, just as if a finger be inserted beneath the eyeball without being observed, one object will not only present two visual images, but will create an opinion of its being two objects; while if it [the finger] be observed, the presentation will be the same, but the same opinion will not be formed of it; exactly so it is in states of sleep: if the sleeper perceives that he is asleep, and is conscious of the sleeping state during which the perception comes before his mind, it presents itself still, but something within him speaks to this effect: 'the image of Koriskos presents itself, but the real Koriskos is not present'; for often, when one is asleep, there is something in consciousness which declares that what then presents itself is but a dream. If, however, he is not aware of being asleep, there is nothing which will contradict the testimony of the bare presentation.
~Aristotle, On Dreams


Aristotle seems to be talking about lucid dreaming in this passage: the act of becoming conscious of a dream while dreaming. Supposedly lucid dreaming was only "confirmed" by science in the last decade or two, most notably by Stephen LaBerge, whose Lucidity Institute is in association with Stanford University. I first read LaBerge's book Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming about 8 years ago, and experimented with it myself. Fantastic as it may sound, the phenomena is very real and his techniques work. I lent the book to several friends over the years, some of whom flat-out refused to believe it, or simply couldn't wrap their head around the concept. 

LaBerge often would talk about how Tibetan Monks engage in lucid dreaming as part of their meditative practice. He never mentioned that Aristotle knew about it, though I am not too surprised. Aristotle talks about how once we become aware that the dream is in fact a dream and not reality, it changes our perception of that dream. Much in the same way that when pressure is applied to our eyeball we see two images, but knowing this, we do not incorrectly assume that we are looking at two object - we know we are merely seeing a double-image of one object.


As I write this, I have just recalled that I gained a brief moment of lucidity in a dream last night, which I will briefly relate: 


The entire ground had about a foot of snow and I was next to a hill. I had set a jug of water in the snow, and some of the water splashed out onto the snow. This began a chain reaction, whereby the entire ground of snow began to split and jut-out, and the chain-reaction traveled up the hill, and it looked as if an avalanche was about to begin. At about this time, it occurred to my dreaming self that these events were quite fantastic, is it possible that I am dreaming? (This is a habit of thought that I have developed over the years: when anything out of the ordinary happens, I will often question whether I am dreaming). I soon realized that I was, and thus willed myself to float upwards. Soon I was floating is a vast fuzzy greyness, and then I awoke with sleep-paralysis which lasted about 5 seconds. 


Sleep paralysis is sometimes (for me) a side effect of lucid dreaming. When you are dreaming, your body paralyzes itself so that you don't act out the dream in real-life. Sleep paralysis occurs when you wake up, but your brain hasn't yet turned off the paralysis mechanism, so you can't move - which can be disconcerting. When you lucid dream, you are using your mind in a way that it probably wasn't evolutionarily designed to do: you are hacking it. (Push the limits of your mind and consciousness at your own risk!)


What Next?

Talented Actors Should be Banished (Plato)

This idea is from The Republic, by Plato, written in about 360 BC. The Republic is probably the most famous book in all of philosophy. Read my mini-review and overall impressions of Plato's The Republic.



And therefore when any of these pantomimic gentlemen, who are so clever that the can imitate anything, comes to us, and makes a proposal to exhibit himself and his poetry, we will fall down and worship him as a sweet and holy and wonderful being; but we must also inform him that in our State such as he are not permitted to exist; the law will not allow them.
~Plato, The Republic (Book III)

I guess Jim Carrey and Robin Williams wouldn't be allowed to exist in Plato's State! They would be worshiped (for their talents are to be commended), but then quickly sent on their way to corrupt another city. Plato's reasoning is that when these men so perfectly imitate a sad or angry or unvirtuous man, they communicate some of that imitated nature to the audience, who are then more likely to act that way themselves.


Even if Plato's reasoning is correct, I think we need a better solution than this. If we are to build a state or society, we are going to need to figure out a place for all natures. Plato is constructing an ideal city in his mind, so he just assumes that he will ship theses “pantomimic gentlemen” to the next city. In the near future, it will be necessary to build a Global State, and there won't be another Globe to send undesirable natures to.


However, there is another way to interpret this idea. If (like me), you regard Plato's Ideal State as an allegory of how we ought to order our own personal lives, then his ideas regarding censorship may make more sense (and be less controversial). Throughout The Republic Plato is a big proponent of censorship. In addition to the above censorship (talented mimics), he wants to censor melancholic music, any mention of Hell, and any fictional stories that involve characters acting unvirtuously. He even specifically mentions the works of Homer.


I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that we should self-censor ourselves from a great many things, if it is to our advantage to do so. Most people never try drugs like crack-cocaine or heroin. They are afraid that the drugs will corrupt them. They are afraid that it will lead to addiction and corruption of their bodies. Why do we not similarly fear certain forms of information which might corrupt our brains and souls?


I can see you there. Of course you don't want to give up your favorite kind of music or your favorite violent TV show. I know you can come up with a hundred justifications. It is so good to you; makes you feel good. I'm right there with you. Interesting, though, that the heroin addict would say the exact same about his favorite drug: feels so good. And he could come up with a bunch of justifications as well. That doesn't mean that it's good for his life as a whole. If we can self-censor ourselves from melancholic music, violence on TV or in the news (as good as it feels in the moment), it's possible that it may lead to a happier and more peaceful life in the long run.



What Next?
See more ideas from The Republic
See more ideas from Plato
Read The Republic for free Online
Learn more, read reviews at Amazon

No One Will Ever Understand You (Descartes)


Though I have often explained some of my opinions to persons of much acuteness, who, whilst I was speaking, appeared to understand them very distinctly, yet, when they repeated them, I have observed that they almost always changed them to such an extent that I could no longer acknowledge them as mine.

~Rene Descartes, 
Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences




This point by Descartes seems right on to me (assuming I understand his idea correctly!)


I have found that the words we use in speech to be extremely limiting to the transfer of thoughts and ideas between two people. This is especially true with words like 'god', 'soul', 'love', ''morality', 'jesus', etc. Everyone has a deep associated meaning about what each of these words mean to them. If you are using the word "god" to mean The Mystery of the Universe, and I am trying to explain a different concept (eg. the unconscious mind), but am using the same word, then we will never get anywhere. 


For any sort of intelligent conversation to take place, the two participants need to be both extremely earnest in their desire for understanding, and they must have a lot of patience. Patience, because we will probably need to stop every few minutes to define what we mean by each word. Earnestness, because without a sincere desire to truly understand the other person, the patience will not ensue. 


I have found lately that no one understands anything that I say anymore. To make a point, I might alternatively quote either Darwin or Jesus, or even both in the same breath. But who will understand me? I have been derided as an unthinking Christian for quoting Jesus. And this arises from a difference in our understanding of what the word "Jesus" actually means. Jesus to one person may be a philosopher whose ideas are worth consideration. To another he may be a symbol: an ideal that we should strive to become. To another he is the one and only true son of God. To another he is 'that bogus mythological character that only idiots believe in'. 


So often, we fall into the trap of assuming that other people see things the way we do. We assume that when we say the same word, we are thinking of the same thing. When you speak, people will nod and smile and it will look as if they understand what you are saying, but they are never actually hearing the same message that you are speaking. 




What Next?

Hack at the Root of Evil, Not at the Branches (Thoreau)

This idea is from Walden, by Henry David Thoreau, published in 1854. Walden is a book about a man who spends 2 years and 2 months living alone in a cabin in the woods next to a pond. Read my mini-review and overall impressions here.








There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.
~Henry David Thoreau, Walden




Whilst discussing how we might improve the human condition, a friend recently asked me: If you wish to help humanity, why don't you abandon these intellectual pursuits and instead become an EMT? He said that EMTs are actually out there in the world making a tangible difference.

An EMT, I said, is a noble profession, and there is no doubt that we need them, but that I was not suited for it. There is a place for everyone in society, and my strengths would be better utilized elsewhere. And as Thoreau would say, EMTs are merely hacking at the branches of human suffering, rather than striking at the root. What if Jonas Salk (inventor of the Polio vaccine) had become an EMT? Perhaps he would have temporarily given relief to thousands of people, but by creating the polio vaccine, he saved the lives of millions. What if Thoreau had become an EMT?

Thoreau was harshly criticized by even his mentor Ralph Waldo Emerson for not being "ambitious" enough: for spending his time living in cabins and cultivating beans. From his eulogy address at Thoreau's funeral:

"Had his genius been only contemplative, he had been fitted to his life, but with his energy and practical ability he seemed born for great enterprise and for command; and I so much regret the loss of his rare powers of action, that I cannot help counting it a fault in him that he had no ambition. Wanting this, instead of engineering for all America, he was the captain of a huckleberry party. Pounding beans is good to the end of pounding empires one of these days; but if, at the end of years, it is still only beans!"

Thoreau's works were largely considered unremarkable during their time, and it was only after his death that they grew in popularity and influence. Today, his works reach across the centuries and continue to touch people's lives. Perhaps if Thoreau had become an EMT he would have appeared more ambitious to his contemporaries, but he wouldn't have had the effect that he still continues to exert.


What Next?
See more ideas from Walden
See more ideas from Henry David Thoreau
Read Walden Online for Free
Learn more, read reviews about Walden on Amazon


Prove That Your Enemy Did You Good (Nietzsche)





When, however, you have an enemy, then do not requite him for good or evil: for that would shame him. Instead, prove that he did some good for you.

~Friedrich Nietzsche, 
Thus Spoke Zarathustra










This is similar to yesterday's idea from Shakespeare. When your enemy does harm to you, ask yourself what good came from his actions, and then tell him. Thank him for it. You must be sincere. When he sees that no matter how hard he tries he can only benefit you, his actions will cease. 


This reminds me of an article I read recently by the psychologist Izzy Kalman who has spent his career studying bullying. The advice was to children who are victims of bullies: children who are relentlessly teased, taunted, laughed at, and pushed around. 


He said that the difference between kids who are bullied and those who aren't is their reaction. Everyone gets teased about their shortcomings, but the kids who get relentlessly bullied are the ones who get upset or indignant about it. A child thinks he gets bullied because he is fat, or wears glasses, or stinks at sports. But the real reason he gets bullied is because the other kids get a kick out of his reaction. Kalman has shown that if the bully victim can learn to just shrug it off or even get a laugh out of the taunts of his classmates, then the bullying will soon die off (usually within a week - though it gets worse before it gets better in a last ditch attempt to get a reaction). 


So Nietzsche may be on to something. If someone does evil to you, prove that he actually did you some good.


What Next?
More ideas from Nietzsche
More ideas from Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Read Thus Spoke Zarathustra online for free
Learn more about Thus Spoke Zarathustra at Amazon

Don't Mourn the Past (Othello)


To mourn a mischief that is past and gone
Is the next way to draw new mischief on.
What cannot be preserved when fortune takes
Patience her injury a mockery makes.
The robb’d that smiles steals something from the thief;
He robs himself that spends a bootless grief.


~William Shakespeare, Othello


Shakespeare says that mourning past mischiefs is the surest way to bring new mischiefs upon yourself. So you feel you've been wronged in some area of your life? So what? Everyone has, that's part of being human. 


You have a couple choices now. You could whine and complain and grieve about it. This isn't really that fun. Worse, though, is that you signal to others that you are a "victim" of sorts, and there are people out there quite willing to help you continue in that role. Or, you could choose to let it go: to smile about it. Maybe you learned a lesson from it, and will henceforth be wiser. 


There's always an easy way to put a positive spin on something: you just ask yourself what's good about this situation, and your rationalizing brain will without fail provide an answer - asketh and you shall receiveth. 


So if someone robs you of something, will you rob yourself further, or rob something back from the thief?


What next?

Medicine Will Produce Wiser Men (Discourse on the Method)

New Feature! To kick off 2010, I am adding the ability for readers to write comments at the bottom of each idea. If you agree or disagree with the idea or my interpretation of it, you will now be able to have your voice heard.



Preservation of health, which is without doubt, of all the blessings of this life, the first and fundamental one; for the mind is so intimately dependent upon the condition and relation of the organs of the body, that if any means can ever be found to render men wiser and more ingenious than hitherto, I believe that it is in medicine they must be sought for.

~Rene Descartes, 
Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences


Now this is an interesting idea. Descartes is saying that the field of medicine will produce wiser men. That the operation of a healthy mind depends on a healthy body. If ever a technology were created that could keep us healthy, in both mind and body, then we would not spend so many wasteful hours lamenting our health with less than optimal brains.


I would add a second reason that improved medicine may make us wiser. If we could figure out how to markedly increase the human lifespan, then humanity would, over time become filled with much wiser men. As it is, a man doesn't even begin to become wise until his later years. Wisdom can only arise from a life filled with the accumulation of knowledge and experience: a wise youth is an oxymoron.


So if a man could be said to be wise at the age of 80, what would he look like at the age of 160? Would he be twice as wise? I think that he would be even more than that - maybe ten times as wise. The 80 year old man spent his 80 years beginning at ignorance: the 160 year old man will have begun his next 80 years from a much firmer starting point. 


What next?