More Lucidityishness

Oh man, second time...ish. This time, I'd been having a dream that I was hiking Zion Nat'l Park with Maw, and we'd hiked up a mountain called "Lords of the Rings". Ha ha! It was a perilous, multi-peaked mountain full of amazing structures, and we watched a couple of people slip and fall into log rolls and go rolling right off the cliff. Fortunately, there were non-scalding paintpot-style puddles just a few feet below, which they safely splatted into. We were looking at a rotating, 3-sided ski hill style map to decide which way to go next, and then we were driving. Sidney was at the wheel, and my grade school friend Nate and I were in the back. Being in the back was slightly odd because in most road trips, I'm driving, but not as odd because during a recent family trip, I spent a lot of time in that same passenger-side back seat. I forget where we were driving, but I had a moment where I thought, "Wait, I was just hiking Zion with Mom. How did we end up driving with Sid and Nate?" I asked the others in the car, and they couldn't tell me how we'd gotten there from Zion. This was, I think, a thought planted by watching Inception. At that point, I again realized, "Huh...yep, I'm dreaming. Sweet. What now?" But this time, I wasn't so keenly conscious of my sleeping body in which I was dreaming. It was more like I was there, living it, aware I was dreaming but still very much inside the dream world rather than seeing it projected like the last time and knowing what I'd be looking at if I opened my eyes. But I was only able to briefly make the car go where I wanted and adjust the surroundings before I lost it, got frustrated that I wasn't really "feeling it", and woke up.

This is kind of a fun and fascinating twist for me on dreaming, but I'm not sure I want to consciously control my dreams...or at least believe I am doing so (I do wonder whether I'm only dreaming that I'm consciously controlling them, having had that very concept planted by readings and movies, but that gets into layers of "what the @#$%?" I'm not sure I care to wrestle with right now). There's something exciting about being caught up in the dream, being taken where it leads, letting the subconscious run wild, rather than thinking I've been determining it.

I don't have scary dreams, by the way. I have thrilling ones here or there. Tonight's involved some harrowing hiking, for example. But not scary ones--at least none that I remember--except once every couple of years, maybe. I wonder what it'd be like to realize you're dreaming during a scary dream. Any less scary? Hm...now just wait: in a few nights, I'll have a scary dream and "realize I'm dreaming". *shrug*

I knew I was dreaming...

Wow, I just had an experience I don't think I've ever had before. I was dreaming about playing something like Bananagrams but where we're both working on the same board, like Scrabble, and some tiles had pictures...anyway, that's irrelevant. I was playing this game, and I went to make a change to a word, which my opponent (I don't know if it was anyone in particular but was male) said was a violation of the rules and declared himself the winner. I was so P.O.'d at having had the game ended so abruptly and without discussion or prior explanation of the rule I'd broken that I yelled and violently shoved all of the pieces off of the table at him.

As soon as this happened, I remember thinking, "I wouldn't do that. That's not like me. Even if I did somehow do that, I'd bend down and help pick up pieces while talking things through and explaining my frustration, and I'm not doing that." But the dream sort of froze there as my opponent calmly started setting up a new game, and I remember wanting to talk it through but just sitting there as he did so. That's when I realized this definitely was not reality. Then the dream cut to seemingly random household images. These images weren't from my household or any I remember, mind you, but telephones I don't remember seeing, nightstands which seemed vintage but unfamiliar, a recurring fence-like structure I couldn't make out.

As these images faded in and out and played onto my mind's eye, I thought, "I don't know these images. These are rooms I haven't been in before. This is like watching a filmstrip or projected movie. Some of these items are kinda cool, though. If I can remember them, I could design them." I faintly heard something like the steady, rapid ticking of a movie projector as the images shifted to scenes of a garden, a hedge wall with a beautiful gate, mountains in light fog, a beach-like scene with large rocks jutting up and the foggy mountains as a backdrop...

As these new images came, I thought, "This is so cool. It's like I have my own internal movie screen I'm watching, but I'm pretty sure I'm awake...at least mostly. If I open my eyes, I'll just see my dark room, so I don't want to open them. I want to see how long this can last. My mind must be creating these images, but it's almost like they're being projected by someone else. What if this is what 'visions' are like? What if I someday see these scenes in real life? Would it be 'prophecy' or 'prescience'? Or could I just one day see something similar and think I'm seeing these dream images in real life because what I see looks close enough to these that I'll match reality with my by-then-vague memory of this dream?" Yes, I thought all of this while seeing these scenes play out in my mind. I continued, "I wonder if I can manipulate it. I want to see the Oregon Coast because that foggy beach-like scene reminds me of it." The rocky beach reappeared but started going fuzzy. I thought, "OK, maybe it's better to just let it be created and not try to make it something literal or specific. If I get too conscious about it, I might lose this sort of dream state, and I want to see what scenes are created if I just let it flow." So I stopped trying to see anything specific. I then saw someone in a white, short-sleeved shirt up close. It was a happy, sunny scene, the white linen waving in the breeze and happy gestures from his or her arms.

I thought, "OK, this is really cool, but I have to know...I have to find out how awake I am...I'm going to open my eyes and see what it's like and if I can get it back after opening them."

I slowly, deliberately opened my eyes. As I did, the sunny, white scene was gradually replaced by my clothes hanging in the dark closet. I closed my eyes to try to get the images back, but all I could muster was recreating the memories of the images. This time, it felt very much like me doing it, trying to remember, not like the projector in my mind. I laid there for a moment, reflecting on how strange that had been, like the transition from sleep to wakefulness hit a glitch, and I was awake inside my sleeping body but without the sleep paralysis I've heard of (something I'm pretty sure I've still never experienced) because I knew I could just...open my eyes if I wanted, and when I did want, they opened...

I really want to experience this again, but I wanted to write it down first while it's still fresh to record it as accurately as I can without the gap-filling tendency of memory.

As I thought about it, I wondered if this was anything like a phenomenon I've seen speculated about on film and in some writing, called "lucid dreams", most notably the following clip in the fascinating philosophical flick, Waking Life (which I definitely recommend to anyone who is into philosophy or who appreciates paradigm-challenging thoughts):




Admittedly, I've thought this concept of controlling your dreams was pretty "out there". I found it fascinating, but I thought, "Meh, who knows, but it's an interesting concept if it were true." I had no way to relate. I'm not presuming to say I now "get it" on any level, let alone having truly experienced a lucid dream. I'm not sure if you're supposed to be quite so...awake and able to just open your eyes whenever you're ready. But...I think I can now at least relate to the concept on some level.

Consequently, I went to YouTube to see if there were any clips from semi-credible sources regarding "lucid dreams" I could share, and I found the following clip from a Discover Channel show:



On a related note, I've become increasingly fascinated by the human brain and researching how it works, and how it relates to memory, cognition, dreaming, etc. I don't buy into "mystical" explanations or the more froofy metaphysical ideas, but I certainly believe there's so much about its workings we have yet to understand, with levels of consciousness and energy in intense complexity, and having this experience adds to my excitement around that possible area of study.

So...either I just experienced something really cool, or I'm starting to go a bit bonkers. And whatever "lucid dreaming" really is, I think I'm a fan. Don't be terribly surprised if you find me depriving myself of sleep and then trying to sleep during the day to duplicate this experience. :-)

Myopic Perceptions of Success

I suspect there're facets of intelligence (maybe factual, theoretical, creative, artistic, emotional...), and few if any people excel in all. I prefer to surround myself w/people who don't compare based primarily on factual recall or traditional "success" but who see every one as differently intelligent, seeking opportunities to learn, not for excellence but for progress, both personal and universal.

This in no way denies that some people excel in certain aspects, nor does it ignore the primal motivation of competition in human accomplishment. I think it just brings back to a more natural level the grandiose, clownish magnification of the role of competition to which we've grown so attached in our culture and recognizes that there are many ways to measure intelligence and accomplishment other than society's favored, generalized measures of superiority which mask more subtle, less economically advantageous potential, abilities, and contributions offered by each one of us.

I have trouble stomaching the rhetoric of people who measure personal success or even happiness in position, office, wealth, comfort, certificates, or the esteem of others in a community of the like-minded. Maybe this disinterest in traditional success or the opinions of others partially explains why I don't have a very impressive resume. :-)

Monogamy Schmonogamy?

I've thought quite a bit, over the past year, about relationships, monogamy, open relationships, arranged marriage, plural marriage, group marriage, etc. I've had a tough time wrapping my mind around ideas like open relationships and group marriages, including the one-sided (many women to one man) plural marriage (polygyny) practiced by early members of the LDS Church. While I can understand the possible, theoretical benefits of arrangements like open relationships and plural marriages, I always come back to the fact that I just want one special someone. People are so complex that I want to understand someone as fully as possible, not a bunch of someones "pretty well". I want to share memories with someone that are special and unique between us. I want to come home to the same person every day. I know there are no guarantees. Relationship strains, death, or other unpredictable circumstances necessitating geographic or emotional distance may wedge their way in. I understand that no one person can ever be everything to me and that I need many people in my life who understand the different facets of me or share my hobbies, interests, or goals. I hope to always have close friendships which access and support and enrich all aspects of me. But though I understand those things and realize I might lose that someone and start from scratch later, I want someone special, just one companion for life.

I think most people in the U.S. today "believe" monogamy is best, whether or not they're very good at it. I think many men (and some women), religious principles aside, would tend to want sexually open relationships, but when they believe they'll lose the emotionally intimate relationship they may have with a partner or spouse, they are compelled to rein in their appetites, and they make trade-offs. Monogamy is spoken of as the ultimate in companionship: it takes work, dedication, self-discipline, and commitment. It requires sacrifice and a beautiful dedication of one's self to one person. We quote scripture, that man is not to be alone, that a man and a woman are to be forged into one flesh, leaving all else to dedicate themselves to each other. There's something powerful in the psychology of knowingly giving up future lust or love for the one love you most want and are dedicating yourself to. Assuming it doesn't turn to resentment, there's an investment that encourages fidelity and is made the more sacred by the singular dedication. Among most Christians, monogamy is laudable while any form of open or plural marriage is condemnable as licentious and a mockery of a sacred institution.

You might think that LDS people, coming from a culture in which plural marriage was practiced in their history, would be more open to the idea of group marriages, at the very least polygyny. But most LDS people I know abhor the idea of plural marriage. Most find it repulsive and believe it would truly be a test of their faith if they were asked to practice it. Most I know also say they'd pray about it and at least consider complying if the prophet were to reinstate "the principle", but they admit they don't know if they could do it and hope and pray to never be asked to.

Cultural and societal ideas about relationships seem to be thoroughly convoluted, and perspectives from various groups seem contradictory of each other, sometimes even somewhat self-contradictory (such as those who insist marriage isn't about love but is about raising children, and then they say it's abhorrent that some cultures practice "arranged" marriages). It's no wonder there's so much debate about what "marriage" is, what it's for, and whether westerners have severely overly-romanticized notions about committed relationships and unions.

I've wondered why polygamy was ever outlawed in the first place. Because it was immoral? Because it was harmful to society? Because government and insurance companies didn't want the hassle of providing tax benefits and coverage to 8 wives and 53 children? Was it easier to just outlaw the practice than to deal with its ramifications? Is plural marriage bad for children? Can anyone prove that beyond occasional studies? Was it because polygyny treated women unequally? If so, why not open up polyandry instead of banning all forms of polygamy? Why is having more than one spouse illegal? What about it is against the Constitution or stomps on anyone else's rights? What about it damages society? We all know it can be practiced badly--forced marriages, young girls persuaded or compelled to marry older men, incestuous society in which nobody dares speak up against abuses and wrong-doing--but those are problems of execution and results of religious beliefs in practice, not evils of the practice of polygamy itself. But societies are fond of making things illegal rather than addressing the issues around them. It's much easier to just slap criminality on an unpopular practice than to deal with the consequences, nevermind whether the practice itself is actually a problem. That's understandable (though I'm not sure I can say it's "right") in emergency situations, but shouldn't the consequences be dealt with, then irrational laws repealed? How much time can go by before the people forget that it wasn't always that way, and possibly irrational laws are assumed to be "how things have always been"?

In exploring some of the questions around marriage in all its forms, I came across a couple of web sites and LDS scholarly forums which referenced quotes from early LDS Church leaders regarding the practice of plural marriage and the "system" of monogamy. I think such statements would give most members of the church pause (though bear in mind I haven't personally verified more than a couple of these by looking up the reference):

“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome…was a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.”
- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 202

“The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious.”
- The Prophet Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 128

“…the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people.”
- Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227

“Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire….Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers…. Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord’s servants have always practiced it. ‘And is that religion popular in heaven?’ it is the only popular religion there,…”
- The Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862

“This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans,…”
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, page 195

“We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they (Non-Mormons) envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who so much better understand the social relations.”
- Apostle George A Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 291

“I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business. I do not know what we would do if we had only one wife apiece.”
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses Vol 5, page 22

“Just ask yourselves, historians, when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth? When those buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a man should have but one woman. And this started monogamy and the downfall of the plurality system. In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less. This was the rise, start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have but one wife. ”
- The Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vol. 12, page 262

A couple of these statements are not, in fact, declarations over the pulpit, but writings or speeches given in other contexts. It's easy, today, to take a fairly black-and-white approach to these statements, such as, "It was correct to practice it then because the Lord said so, but circumstances changed, and the practice is forbidden now," or, "that was clearly a matter of policy, not doctrine, and the brethren did their best to explain the principle with what had been revealed to them."

I believe many LDS scholars still insist those prophetic statements still stand, within their own context, and are maybe even doctrinal, and that we all must be willing, even today, to engage in plural marriage if the law of the land and church were changed, and we were asked to, or we would be defying God's will. As far as I can tell, some believe it's true that monogamy is only a shade of the true order of heaven, but that we're compelled into it by the laws of the land, and the true order of heaven includes polygyny. Assuming there is a God who creates numberless spirit children who will exist in their current relationships into eternity, I wonder: what don't we know about that yet? Does God create more "female" spirits than "male" to preserve the practice of polygyny? Do fewer males achieve exaltation, leaving more females to be partnered? What if there are more Celestial males than females at some point? Will there be polyandry, too, and we're just not ready to face that? Of course, there are so many assumptions underlying all of this...

To those of you who cherish your monogamous marriages and disdain the idea of a plural marriage, imagine yourself in the days of Brigham Young or John Taylor: how do you respond to the prophetic declarations that your perspective on marriage is small-minded, damning, and associated with whoredom and the downfall of society? How do you distinguish doctrine from policy without your current hindsight? How do you defend your current notion that monogamy is best? Do you insist you're right for yourself, and they were just speaking the best they knew how from their cultural perspective? Do you shrug and say it's your own weakness that makes you too jealous to share your spouse with someone else or too frail to invest energy sufficient for more than one spouse? Do you bow to the notion that monogamy is a sign that we live in a fallen society? Do you praise certain Muslim or LDS-offshoot communities for their willingness and self-discipline to practice plural marriages and acknowledge your inferiority next to them in at least that respect? Do you believe you should be willing to practice plural marriage if asked but hope never to be asked?

I'm just not convinced I'm a selfish, fallen, small-minded, downfall-of-society-promoting guy for wanting a monogamous relationship, nor am I convinced that cultures which accept and embrace monogamy are engaging in a "system" which will lead to the fall of empires. Call me a heathen. I can take it.

Brideshead illustrates my fear

I finally finished watching the BBC version of Brideshead Revisited, all 11 episodes. I still also like the more recent version with Matthew Goode, Emma Thompson, and others, but this one brought out so much more complexity and nuance in the story. Something that stood out to me is the power of religious faith in people's lives and the unlikelihood that most people will ever fully let go of it or escape the voices of their past, telling them of sin and grace.

SPOILER ALERT: Most poignant, to me, was the crisis of the relationship between Charles and Julia, Charles being an atheist-leaning agnostic, and rather staunch and even arrogant about it, and Julia being a free-spirited and wayward Catholic woman who nonetheless retains a notion that she is, in the end, a sinner and will have to repent or pay at some point. This difference seems a side note in their relationship, a point of some mild friction but nothing to end the relationship over. In fact, they each turn away from other relationships and lives to come together, against the criticism and dismay of her family, who insist it is a relationship begotten in sin and incapable of being blessed by God, since they can't be married by a priest.

There's a reflective and poignant conversation between Charles and Julia's brother and sister, Bridey and Cordelia, in which Charles challenges their notion that their dying father must receive last rites from a priest in order to be saved from his life of faithless abandon. They insist he must show an act of will and contrition before he dies, and he illustrates that if their father has the will, the priest is secondary and not the crux, and they end in a bit of a stalemate. But in the end, the "just in case" wins out over doubts of faith, and their father participates in the rites before passing away, which challenges Charles' confident assertion that it's all hogwash, and he, too, joins in a prayer of mercy from God, in case God exists, and in case mercy is needed. He realizes he, too, has doubts about whether it's all truly "bosh" as he has claimed so often.

With his deep realization of what this family's religion means to them, of how pervasive it is in their being, and of the probability that he's been too dismissive, this experience hammers home the suspicion he's been fighting all along: that he is asking Julia to choose between him and something that is equally or more interwoven into her. They have the following conversation--their last--on the steps of Brideshead, the family home where it all began and ended:


---------------------------------------------------------
Julia: ...We have on the stairs a minute to say goodbye

Charles: So long to say so little.

Julia: You knew?

Charles: Since this morning. Since before this morning, all this year.

Julia: I didn't know 'til today. ...Oh my dear, if you could only understand, then I could bear to part, or bear it better. I'd say my heart were breaking if I believed in broken hearts. I can't marry you, Charles. I can't be with you ever again.

Charles: I know.

Julia: How can you know?

Charles: ...What'll you do?

Julia: Just go on. Alone. How can I tell what I shall do? You know the whole of me. You know I'm not one for a life of mourning. I've always been bad. Probably I shall be bad again. Punished again. But the worse I am, the more I need God. I can't shut myself out from his mercy. That is what it would mean, starting a life with you: without Him. ...One can only see one step ahead, but I saw today there's one thing unforgivable--like things in the schoolroom so bad they're unpunishable, that only Mummy could deal with--the bad thing I was on the point of doing that I'm not quite bad enough to do: to set up a rival good to God's. It may be because of Mummy, Nanny, Sebastian, Cordelia, ...perhaps Bridey and Mrs. Muspratt, keeping my name in their prayers. Or it may be a private bargain between me and God that if I give up this one thing I want so much, however bad I am, he won't quite despair of me in the end. ...Now we shall both be alone. And I shall have no way of making you understand.

Charles: I don't want to make it easy for you. I hope your heart may break. But I do understand.
---------------------------------------------------------

I fear having that same conversation. It seems an all-too-likely scene in which to find myself years from now, and it's hard to imagine taking a risk that I may be sitting on the steps, knowing that I understand so very well that I can't say anything in rebuttal because even if I have worked it out and reconciled for myself, I know that no amount of explanation, or prodding, or pleading from anyone could have brought me here before I was ready. And I can't promise with 100% confidence that I will never make the same turn back and be the one saying, "I'm not quite bad enough to...set up a rival good to God's," nor can anyone else honestly. So the only option in such a case would be to let go, to love someone enough to not demand they choose damnation, even only in their own mind, for me. I wouldn't cling to someone at their detriment, but I'm afraid of being someone's sacrifice to prove their will to a God whom they believe demands such of them. I don't want to be laid on the altar and left as a holy offering by those I've grown to love and into whom I've invested everything. In those moments, the idea that we have eternity to develop relationships and this life to prove our will can become a comforting balm, even with its often accompanying rejections and reprimands, so it's not hard to understand why someone would choose as Julia did.

There are no guarantees, though. So I guess it's one step at a time, knowing the risks, learning from experience to refine and strengthen me, trusting in what I believe and/or hope is possible, doing the best I can with what I do know, and trying not to let my fear keep me "safely" locked up.