Sudsmaster, clearly you don't need my or anyone else's permission to post your opinions. BTW, an Amazon review does not make for having read the book (it's merely another opinion about the book), and if it's peer-reviewed papers you want, there are plenty in the bibliography. But you're welcome to believe whatever you like, for whatever reason you choose.
PeteK, the "collective unconcsious" is a term coined by Jung in the Western psychoanalytic tradition, to refer to psychodynamic themes that are universals among individuals within given cultures. It offers an interesting starting point for other ideas, some of which translate to modern terms.
As for lucid dreaming, the reason it's not more common is because most people aren't "lucid" (i.e. aware of the state they are in) when they are awake. This is a purely functional explanation that generates a testable hypothesis: that lucid dreaming can be increased by training oneself to be lucid (state-aware) while awake: the waking-state habit carries over into the dream state, and you get lucidity. However, based on Hameroff et. al. I would have to guess there is a physiological explanation as to why some people are more predisposed toward lucid dreaming than others are, regardless of their degree of lucidity in the waking state. That is, lucid dreamers who are not habitually lucid in the waking state are an anomaly to my hypothesis, suggesting a more complete explanation is at least partially elsewhere, and neurophysiological traits are a good place to start.
MickeyD, interesting that you mention Keats' "negative capability." I know about that one and I agree. Rare these days to hear anyone mention it; and could be an entire topic in its own right.
Re. training for lucid dreaming: Just get in the habit of asking yourself, during the day, "what state am I in, and how do I know?" That habit should carry over into the dream state after a while, plus or minus neurophysiological differences that remain to be explored more thoroughly.
If anyone here wants to experiment with psi, here's a simple test you can run. Get a 10-sided die (typically found at game shops) and a small opaque box with removable lid (a cubical wooden jewelry box will do nicely). Put the die in the box. Shake the box a few times, then put it down on the table. Guess the number that's facing up: write down your guess, write down a note describing your mood as either "pleasant," "neutral," or "unpleasant." The lift the lid and look at the die, and write down the actual number that's showing.
Do this ten times in a row for each test run. Do a test run any time you feel like it. Keep track of results; sort them into categories by mood. Statistically you should score one correct call out of every ten rolls of the die. Overall statistical significance depends on the total number of calls in each mood category. Evidence for psi activity (e.g. remote viewing of the die inside the box) depends on statistically significant deviations from the chance expectation of 10% correct. I can say more about statistical methods later, if anyone wants to try this and starts collecting results. BTW a good negative is as useful as a good positive, i.e. if you do this and end up with chance scores, report that also because it's useful data.
Matty, it sounds like you're making major progress there. The shadowy figures didn't scare you this time, you dealt with them in a deliberate manner. I think the reason they didn't approach you wasn't because you were surrounded by other people, but because at some level you're feeling more confident in dealing with them. Being surrounded by friends could increase your sense of confidence, but I think the credit for this is primarily your own. It may happen that from time to time you do get scared by the figures, but those cases will be exceptions, and the general trend will be increasing confidence in dealing with them: getting scared less and less often until you've dealt with them altogether in a satisfactory manner. Do keep us posted.
