🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jan24.032217.2084@leland.Stanford.EDU> clint@matia.Stanford.EDU (Jennifer Dole) writes:
>In article <1992Jan11.180836.22698@leland.Stanford.EDU> slab@matia.Stanford.EDU (Stephen LaBerge) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan11.065132.29911@leland.Stanford.EDU> clint@matia.stanford.edu (Jennifer Dole) writes:
>>>Go ahead... make my day!
>>
>>OK, if you make my night.
>>;)
>>
>You axed for THAT! (id)
>
>

Despite whether or not youUve met Dr. LaBerge or discussed lucid dreaming with him, have you read his books?
While I admit I am partial to LaBerge's material, I don't believe 
anyone should accept any book as the bible-- there's always more 
research to be done. But, look in any scientific book or article on 
lucid dreaming (I recommend you go as far back as Frederick van 
Eeden, who coined the term "lucid dreams"), and you'll find that lucid 
dreaming, per se, indeed does not by definition include control.
That's fine if control is what you want to do with your lucidity, I am 
not arguing this point at all, but know that by using the term in a 
manner that is contrary to scientific belief, you are perhaps causing  
further confusion to people seeking advice or information here on  
alt.dreams. To my thinking, there's too much of this nonsense 
already!
At the very least, why not heed Dr. Charles Tart's advice:
"...we can be reasonably clear in our initial definitions in our 
writings...and thus eliminate some unnecessary confusion. This is a 
plea...use "lucid dreaming" the way van Eeden used it, and use some 
distinct term(s) for other, interesting dreams that do not meet that 
definition of lucidity. Otherwise we will waste a lot of time..." 
Tart, C.T., "Terminology in lucid dream research," LUCIDITY, 10(1&2), 
1991.

Jennifer