What follows below began as a response to a friend who asked me to read the piece in question and probe it for the Deeper Meaning that she felt sure was there. It is a lengthy article so I hesitate to post it here…but my response is given as a sort of review of the article. The article is called:
“The Universe is Dreaming Itself Awake”
It was written by another of these neo-freaks called Paul Levy who labors under serious delusions regarding the nature of reality. You can find his other idiotic ranting at the website below:
Well, you asked me in your last message to read this piece carefully to ascertain the entire meaning. I must once again view these sentiments as the sort of new-age codswallop that misleads so many people about the nature of reality.
I might suggest that you try reading “The Holographic Universe” by Michael Talbot. He offers far more comprehensive views of how and why the Universe functions the way it does. His book gives great credence to the world of the Supernatural and even to Spirituality -almost to an apologetic fault- but it’s a fascinating book. And while the late Mr. Talbot deals searchingly with the very nature of the questions (and supposed answers) with which this piece deals, he offers real empirical data for his conclusions.
Suggesting that the very nature of reality can be changed by our own consciousness of it is no new concept and has only recently been adopted by the New Age hucksters as a way to shuck innocent and under-informed “seekers” of their hard-earned answers as well as dollars. (The latest developments in quantum physics suggest that the Universe may be far different than we imagined and that, indeed, our interaction with and observation of it may well shape it as we see it and experience it. [See String Theory especially.]) But to suggest that “dreaming” is the key to this mystery is to ignore the true profundity of what human existence really is. Merely stating that these things are possible is tantamount to traveling back in time and trying to tell the ancient Egyptians that helicopters exist in your time. You know they do exist but you will be unable to offer them the plans, materials or wherewithal to produce one so your claim is moot. Such is the case here.
The flagrantly preposterous claim that this idea of a somnambulist existence that needs only a certain “nudging” to be brought to the forefront of our lives, and, in turn, to change the nature of same, is absurd. Much less the wholly under-researched claim that this is somehow linked to Jungian Psychology which is distasteful at best. While Jung did propose a “Collective Unconscious” he in no way admitted that Synchronicity had any other link to the realm of Temporal Existence than in an extremely personal manner. He never suggested that this idea could be “externalized” and focused somehow for the betterment of our lives.
What we’re dealing with here is a sample of writing from an obviously dissatisfied person who failed to find the answers he wanted and, therefore, decided on the theory that best suited his particular desires, misgivings, shortcomings and worldview and is now attempting to pawn it off as something real and meaningful. Neurobiology is far too young a science, in both theory and practice, to ever assume that its nature can be so easily and readily dispatched. Dreams are, according to another imminent psychologist; namely: Freud, mere reflections of things in the Sub-Conscious mind and can only account for unrealized emotions that we harbor even without our own knowledge. To link this to the wholly unproven idea of “Lucid” dreaming is a treacherous row to hoe at best.
It is not my point to deride the concepts here; they are pretty and sound very good to any and all who may read them but, again, there is too much Real Science that addresses these selfsame issues, and in satisfactory ways, to dash about from one kook to another in some vain attempt to explain it all neatly in one package that is soaked with hokey semantics and archaic Mythology. The concepts offered here are purely anecdotal and, therefore, totally internal, personal and wholly useless because no empirical data can prove or refute the claims.
(I will point you again to quantum physics, where the “Theory of Everything” is now the major endeavor of all the serious scientists working in this field.)
After all, the Archetypal Myth that we all so abundantly share was explained in similar, if far more poetic, terms in “The Allegory of The Cave.”
In order to get at the “Hard Nut” of what human consciousness is really all about, I will advise you to find a book called “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” by Dr. Julian Jaynes. It will offer far more exact and rewarding results than this type of low-brow hotchpotch.
You are obviously concerned with ideas and concepts of the highest import and I hate to see you sell yourself short for a lot of "Quick Fix" answers to questions that man has been trying to address for centuries. There are Real Answers out there but they won't be found in the rank musings of "Mystics" and "Shamans."