Conference hydra::dejavu

    
    hmm... "Now, all three of these examples are true:" I wouldn't say
    that.
    
    	but anyway.. I think there is only one level of dreaming but
    many many many different levels/ways to find meaning in our dreams.
    
    	We receive our dreams in one way... however how we believe we
    got them will influence our actions/behaviors/response.
    
    	Craig

    In my opinion, I would have to sway more towards the multi-level
    dream states.  We know of subconscious induced dreams.  Through
    these we relive past events, relieve stress/tension, provide ourselves
    with answers to problem (if we only interpret them correctly), etc.,
    etc..  Knowing what, if anything, these dreams are telling us opens
    us up to (to quote .1) "many many many different levels/ways to
    find meaning in our dreams".  So here we have 1 type or stage of
    dreaming.
    
    Level 2?  If you believe in ESP and the likes it's easy to believe
    in a level 2.  Dreams not derived from the subconscious mind but
    ones picked up from the psychic airwaves (or however you want to
    phrase it).  I myself have had "dreams" that, to this day, I don't
    believe came from the inner reaches of my mind.  We're told that
    we all have the potential at one time or another to have a psychic
    experience in our life.  So if all this is true then we now have
    a 2 level potential.
    
    I believe that there is a God.  It would stand to reason then that
    there must be an opposite, so why not a Devil?  Many people have
    made claims of seeing one or the other of these beings.  Throughout
    history we're told of prophets.  Once again if this is true,
    communications or visions would have more than one method of
    accomplishment.  Look out!  Level 3 potential is looking good now.
    
    Who can say whether or not this is true?  It's all up to our individual
    beliefs and views.  We can't prove or disprove the multi-level
    philosophy, but it gives us something interesting to think about.
    
    
    >> David <<

    re: .2 (David)
    
         I don't like doing dream interpretation (or tarot or
    astrology or lots of other things, either) so mostly I avoid
    these topics and I'm not really going to respond to this
    one.  However, as I was skimming through your reply, I noticed
    you expressing a belief in God.  That's perfectly okay, of 
    course.  What I want to comment on is the next sentence wherein
    you state that there must be an opposite to God as some sort
    of logical conclusion.  I disagree totally.  If God is ALL-THAT-IS,
    the opposite would be NOTHING-EVER-HAS-BEEN or some such.  How
    can there be an opposite to everything that isn't nothing?  On
    the other hand, if you are stating that you believe God is this
    supernatural human-appearing Old mean-looking guy (kind of like
    the Ayatollah) that is somehow benevolent and friendly, then, yes,
    I can agree that there is probably some sort of opposite.  
         
    Frederick
    

    Yeah.  What he said.  
    
    You beat me to it Frederick. :-) 
    
    
    Guy

    Re: .3
    
    Without turning this into a religious debate of some sort (since
    that wasn't the starting point of this note) I would just like to
    clarify my view of God.  It goes to the Good vs. Evil view.  God
    being all that is Good in the world not All That Is.  In this, there
    must then be a Being for the all that is Evil in the world.  I'm
    no expert on the Bible but isn't it mentioned somewhere that an
    angel fell from God's grace and became what we know today as the
    Devil? (This is basically a rhetorical question so as to avoid a
    religious debate)  My original point was made to enforce the possiblity
    of more than one state of dreaming.  What are your views on that
    topic?
    
    >> David <<

RE: .5 (David)

    > God being all that is Good in the world not All That Is.  In this, 
    > there must then be a Being for the all that is Evil in the world.  

    I'm not into another bible debate either, but I do have a question
    about your hypothesis.  If there is a 'good' force and an 'evil'
    force inherent in the universe, does that mean there is the possibility
    that one may overtake the other?  If so, what do you think the ramifications
    may be.  If not, what 'force' may be prohibiting it from happening?  If
    there is a third force powerful enough to do this, who/what is it?

    Terry

    Perhaps the Good versus Evil subject deserves its own topic.
    The arguments could get a bit lengthy.
    
    Guy
    
    
    

    
     Turn to the back of the bible, and you will see which one was
    over-thrown and which one gained the victory. The only power that
    satan (The Devil) has, is what GOD allows him to have.
    
    Lorenzo
    

    RE: .5 (Terry)
    
    Since we are told that God exiled the angel who fell from his grace
    from heaven, I would say that He (God) is the more powerful of the
    two beings.  Perhaps this falls in with what .8 (Lorenzo) had stated
    about the Devil having only the power that God provides him.  I
    myself don't agree with that.  If the Devil's power is only as strong
    as God will allow, why would he allow him to have any power at all?
    Evil in the world is spreading, as is apparent through the increase
    in cults, crime and violence.  Even with all of this occurring, I
    still believe that the Good is still the stronger force.  We still
    have the ability to make the world better.  What if the Evil gains
    the upper hand?  Well, I guess we're all in big trouble.
    
    
    >> David << 

RE: .9 (David)
    
    > If the Devil's power is only as strong as God will allow, why would
    > he allow him to have any power at all?
    
    This *is* off the subject, and perhaps outside the bounds of this
    conferences charter but...
    
    This has been a major point of discussion for Christian scholars and
    philosophers for at least 1500 years (probably longer).  It is known,
    simply enough as "The Problem of Evil".  Essentially the question is:
    it is considered a given that God is perfectly Good and is
    all-powerful, if he is all powerfull than he could, obviously eliminate
    evil, so, since he is good why doesn't he?"
    
    There have been two basic answers, to the question.  The first is: "God
    is also ultimately mysterious, so shut up and go back to tilling the
    fields -- and don't forget to tithe."  The second is that the existence
    of Evil serves an *ultimate* good.  Exactly how varied from philosopher
    to philosopher.  The most common answer was that the greatest good
    occurs when a person freely decides for on Good.  To freely choose
    Good, there must be an alternative; hence Evil.  This frequently
    endorsed belief has not apparently prevented anyone from doing their
    best to use civil or religious force to *make* people act "good"
    (convert, renounce heresy, keep the Sabbath, not drink wine, not engage
    in unapproved of sexual activity, not read the "wrong" things, not
    write the "wrong" things, not say the "wrong" things, etc., etc. etc.)
    and therefore to somehow *be* good.
    
    						Topher

    
    .9 
    
    You mention "evil is spreading..."  Isn't good spreading with just
    as much intensity?
    
    Suz
    
    

    
    Re. 11 (Sullivan)
    
    Yes, Suz, good point.  It is so easy to see the bad as we have been
    so conditioned to seeing it.  It is my belief (and that of someone
    else I know) that love makes the world go around, for if there were
    no love in the world, the world would come to a screeching halt.
    Yes, the argument for MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) could be put 
    forth, however I don't believe that it is because of this that we are 
    still living.                                                
    
    RE.others
    
    As for some reading recommendations on the nature of good and evil
    from a religious and psychological standpoint, here are my favorite
    references, all written by M.Scott Peck:
    
       1. The Road Less Travelled - A New Psychology of Love, Traditional
                                    Values and Spiritual Growth
       2. People Of The Lie - The Hope For Healing Human Evil
       3. The Different Drum - Community-making and Peace
                                 
    It's best if you read them in this order - the order that they were
    written in.  If you're interested in the tables of contents, search
    for the topic on "M.Scott Peck", and for excerpts from book #3, check 
    out the 'Religions and World Peace' topic.
    
    Cindy  (who_has_this_hope_that_Love_will_someday_conquer_all)
             

    
         On the subject of whether or not Evil is an entity apart from
    from God:
    
    From _Man_and_His_Symbols_ by C.G.Jung
    
    (this section written by M.-L. von Franz)
    
    "...this raises the question whether it is possible to detect a general
     trend in all the religious dreams of contemporary people.  In the man-
     ifestatins of the unconscious found in our modern Christian culture, 
     whether Protestant or Catholic, Dr. Jung often observed that there is
     an unconscious tendency at work to round off our trinitarian formula
     of the Godhead with a fourth element, which tends to be feminine,
     dark, and even evil.  Actually this element has always existed in the 
     realm of our religious representations, but it was separated from the 
     image of God and became his counterpart in the form of matter itself
     (or the lord of matter - i.e., the devil).  Now the unconscious seems
     to want to reunite these extremes, the light having become too bright   
     and the darkness too somber.  Naturally it is the central symbol of 
     religion, the image of the Godhead, that is most exposed to uncon-
     scious tendencies toward transformation."
    
    
    
    Guy

    Hi folks,
    
    	I just recently read this topic and there are a few things that
    I would like to point out.  First of all, I thought it was quite
    interesting how a few people mention that if this topic is going
    to turn into a "religious" discussion/debate, that maybe that part
    of it should be moved to a new topic.  Yet, the religious
    discussion/debate seems to continue in this topic.  I just thought
    I would point this out.
    
    	Secondly, in reference to the very beginning of this topic,
    I like the way you define "dream levels".  It seems interesting
    to me because I have discussed "dream levels" of a different sort
    to other people.  I'm not too sure as to how this might fit into
    this topic, but my definition of dream levels is different.  I would
    say that while we are "conscious", we are in dream level 0.  When
    we go to sleep and we are dreaming, we are in dream level 1.  If
    in the dream, we dream that we are dreaming, then we are in dream
    level 2, and so on.  This definition can be extended to say things
    like when we are sitting in our offices (or where-ever) staring
    off into space, daydreaming, that we are someplace between dream
    level 0 and dream level 1.  This is definitely a different approach
    to classifying types of dreams.  Comments about this are welcome!
    
    	-Tod Monroe-

    
    I was reading an article from an issue of New Age Journal over the
    weekend on OOBE's (out of body experiences) and in the article I
    read about Bob Monroe and some of his own experiences (for another
    sampling of Monroe's work, check note 558 in this conference).
    
    He said that he had encountered what he thought to be 3 levels of
    experiences (different places) in his own 'travels'.  He also said
    that if you don't make it to Level 2, then there is no way to know
    of the existance of Level 3, etc.
    
    Just thought this might be of interest in this note.
         
    Cindy

    Finally!  We're back on the subject that we originally started with.
    Don't get me wrong, I had a great time in our good/evil debate.
    But had I known that one little statement was going to start up
    all of that I would have found a more appropriate note.  I'm glad
    that Tod and Cindy got us back to where we belong here.  Thank you,
    Thank you and, once again, Thank you. 
    
    Incidently, I liked what you had to input on our dream topic.  There's
    no way to say that someone is right or wrong in this area, which
    is why it is fun talking about it.  I like the different philosophies
    that are brought up.  So come on all you Dejavuer's, let's keep
    this rolling a bit longer if we can.
    
    
    >> David <<