Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > alt.dreams.castaneda > #21243

WILDs Versus DILDs by daniel love?

Show all headers | View raw

### - someone called scott robertson posted this article on fb, asking for  
a review of it, by said d.love; someone who apparently wrote a few  
well-known books on lucid dreaming: the dild-way hah! :)

https://www.thelucidguide.com/post/wild-vs-dild-the-clash-of-the-preferences?fbclid=IwAR15clVwdnl4fAjO5gV7alndNvRo-ta-NZo-zf3_zeenHmipBSsLglCt_4g

***

and this was what i wrote back to scott about it:

Haha, well I like what 'you' wrote but not what he wrote heh, he's out of  
date for a start and, apparently, desperately trying to reserve dilds as  
being the method of choice for the many, not because that's necessarily  
the best all-round option (he prevaricates all over the place about that)  
but because he simply wants everyone to be different and/or to fall into  
neat little convenient/identifiable categories we can then hang a label  
on...

It's thus not an honest debate on his part imho, and is just that guy  
giving his own biased opinion based of what he personally likes/dislikes  
and prefers, even though he then goes on to pour scorn of such  
preconceptions & beliefs like he doesn't include himself in that?

Basically, from his pov, it comes across as though he's under threat from  
the advent of WILD, he wants radical change and upgrades for the  
community, and even dreams of them existing in the future, just so long as  
it's not WILDs? (he thus defers to the future and says he doesn't know?)

His information is also dated: WILDs do NOT, for example, require using  
wbtb for instance, they're also not at all difficult or disorientating as  
he suggests they are; rather the opposite actually (he says he WILDs but  
doesn't like them 'coz it makes him feel dizzy? And no one has ever  
described them like that to my knowledge, so this makes me doubt he's  
actually done it...)

Nope, his debate is actually a dishonest one, singularly designed in this  
instance to put people off rather than to contrast & compare the subject  
matter; he's not being impartial here and yet is accusing others of being  
precisely that...

I dunno why, perhaps because he's so heavily invested in dilds,  
personally, that to change streams now would seem like undermining  
everything he's stated and stood by to date, which, as it goes heh, is  
precisely what understanding WILDs does! It blows the lid off of lucid  
dreaming and reveals it for what it really is!

I mean, so what if everything people 'thought' about dilds was/is wrong?  
Wouldn't that still represent a great advance?? I guess some people might,  
with hindsight, then feel a bit silly for having put all their eggs in the  
one basket with such zeal (like Laberge did) and then preaching such a  
gospel to all & sundry as being the final word & say, i can see that could  
be fairly embarrassing i suppose, especially if one is not given to change  
and/or doesn't relish the prospect...

imho, he's got nada to be ashamed of (and neither does Laberge), for it  
was these people's job to first bring lucid dreaming to the publics  
attention, and yes it was all about dilds, probably because that made the  
most sense (dreams happen in your sleep so waking up in them is what it's  
all about: very logical... albeit it a little shortsighted?)

Only, of course, it's got nothing to do with logic and never did!  
Scientific principles create that illusion, that everything easily all  
adds-up & makes clear sense, only every time they peer out into the  
universe it's completely different to what they ever expected?

Well ditto with our dreaming stuff too; dilds are a part of it for sure,  
but are not the whole equation... And while dilds have been exhaustively  
researched the same cannot yet be said about WILDs?

Fortunately for all of us though, quite a few people are now having good  
success with WILDing that goes way beyond any previous + limiting  
descriptions of them, and just this very success is posing the questions  
that will ultimately have to be answered and a real + genuine debate on  
WILDs Versus DILDS with then ensue and no doubt illuminate us all :)

(just my 2-cents heh)

***

and which, i suggest, is bloody accurate! ;)

Back to alt.dreams.castaneda | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

WILDs Versus DILDs by daniel love? slider <slider@atashram.com> - 2019-12-20 13:41 +0000
  Re: WILDs Versus DILDs by daniel love? sparkygriswold <allreadydun@gmail.com> - 2019-12-20 07:10 -0800
    Re: WILDs Versus DILDs by daniel love? slider <slider@anashram.com> - 2019-12-20 15:39 +0000
      Re: WILDs Versus DILDs by daniel love? sparkygriswold <allreadydun@gmail.com> - 2019-12-20 07:49 -0800
        Re: WILDs Versus DILDs by daniel love? slider <slider@atashram.com> - 2019-12-20 16:28 +0000
        Re: WILDs Versus DILDs by daniel love? slider <slider@atashram.com> - 2019-12-22 11:03 +0000
          good to be king shit sparkygriswold <allreadydun@gmail.com> - 2019-12-22 06:01 -0800
            Re: good to be king shit slider <slider@atashram.com> - 2019-12-22 14:17 +0000
              Re: good to be king shit sparkygriswold <allreadydun@gmail.com> - 2019-12-22 09:07 -0800

csiph-web